Huge ask – huge commitment
The Star Sailors League is making real inroads into creating the first ever – long overdue – international ranking system for sailors… of every type
Who is the best sailor in the world? This is something that can be determined subjectively, as happens annually in the Rolex World Sailor of the Year awards. But would it ever be possible to calculate this mathematically? Obviously there are inherent problems in a sport as diverse as sailing. How can you compare the
achievements of an Olympic gold medallist with the helm or one of the crew who won the America’s Cup, Volvo Ocean Race, Vendée Globe, Moth Worlds, 52 Super Series, Melges 32 Worlds or the Solitaire du Figaro? This is not just like trying to compare apples and pears, but apples with watermelons, grapefruit or gooseberries. Making the most concerted and
sophisticated effort to date towards this goal is the Star Sailors League. The pinnacle event in their often misunderstood circuit that aims to determine not the best Star sailor, but the best star of sailing, is the Star Sailors League Finals. For the past five years this event has been held in December in Nassau. Here there are indeed many veterans of the Star Class; however, they also happen to be among the best sailors in the world. Among last December’s line-up
74 SEAHORSE
were three Volvo Ocean Race- winning skippers: Paul Cayard and Torben Grael, both Star veterans, and Franck Cammas, who is not. In addition, there were five Olympic gold medallists and between the 25 skippers and 25 crew competing there were a total of 47 world championship titles in Olympic classes alone (the high score going to Robert Scheidt with 12 world titles to his name). The Star Sailors League has
been conceived with the aim of first determining, but also recognising and boosting the profile of the world’s best sailors. In addition to the finals, and the proposed four annual Grand Slam events, which in due course will feed into this, the backbone of the Star Sailors League is its Ranking. The Ranking goes back to the
very core concept of the Star Sailors League, which was set up based on the model of the Association of Tennis Professionals (ATP) Tour. In the early 1970s tennis was in
a state of chaos. National federations throughout the world were all-powerful, deciding which of their players competed in which event. The events too were in disarray, some allowing only pros, others only amateurs. It was tedious so in 1971-72
The latest Star Sailors League Finals in Nassau in November drew an extraordinary field covering the cream of the world’s best sailors from a range of disciplines stretching from round the world shorthanded record breakers to double foiler Moth World Champion – and eventual Sailors League Finals winner – Paul Goodison. The event lacked for nothing in immaculate organisation, along with continual competitor as well as spectator interest both when afloat and ashore… or sometimes both together (above)
they all got together for a discussion in Flushing Meadow. There they said, ‘Now we are together we will create the ATP, but to do that we need a ranking. We are all allowed to participate, it is open, but the ranking will decide who goes to Roland-Garros or to Wimbledon.’ That power now belonged to the
players, thanks to their new ‘union’, was fully demonstrated when the pro tennis players boycotted Wimbledon in 1973 –a watershed moment in the history of professional tennis. The Star Sailors League Ranking
helps establish which sailors should be invited to their events. But, in addition, a meaningful ranking that is fair, reflective and easy to understand has multiple other benefits – helping to establish genuinely who are the best sailors, in turn helping to further the careers of professional sailors. It is also good news fodder for journalists, in a tried and tested format long established by other sports. The Ranking established by the
Star Sailors League obviously includes its own events but, importantly, other events, both major or otherwise, outside the League. At present it is still in its infancy, featuring principally results
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110
