Change the PY System?

Well it's been good to see the forum a bit busier than it has been of late even if it's still only thirty odd participants, nothing like a good old PY debate to raise passions, a shame the powers that be aint equally passionate about grassroots stuff like this.

And for the Frensham pond thrasher, personally I don't care about 'winning' per se, precisely because I do know exactly what it takes to be that way. I just want a system that makes the losing fairer for all and one thing you 'winners' need are a large selection of happy losers and you aint getting that, not by a long chalk.

Edited by iGRF - 27 Jul 17 at 8:46pm

But the results from two different open sea clubs, say one in the Solent and one in North Wales should be broadly similar and, likewise the results from a 60 acre lake in Yorkshire and another in Kent would favour the same classes so something could be done that would make the numbers at those respective venues fairer....... Not perfect but you know that assy trapeze boats will be at a disadvantage in Yorkshire and Kent but have an advantage over non-assy hiking boats in the Solent and North Wales.....

Edited by Sam.Spoons - 27 Jul 17 at 7:02pm

But there are no nationally based rules, so the local adjustment can't be fairly done.

Originally posted by Oli A2Z, py adjusted when reached cf 0.3 (you could do variations of this with % of handicap as cf goes up) we did have classes max out cf. 3 races won back to back by class meant early adjustment but kept under review and decided by committee if it should revert back.  perhaps i would change it to % change if doing it again and no committee review, as people can be lobbied by interested parties. we only had one class that was on its own and it did reach high enough cf within our rules, it didnt stop them winning by any stretch.  we now have a few of those boats sailing. my experience of adjusting locally never led me to believe we were penalising one boat or another, never stopped the good sailors from winning, and brought the back of the fleet up to make it feel like they achieved and the middle fleet had great racing with positions swapping.  we introduced more all in racing to get extra data, a specific personal handicap series for some fun (the best guys still won). it was the mid fleet sailors most upset actually due to delusions of grandeur from what i could tell.

Cirrus, instead of being all mysterious, why not just make your point and rest of Forum can tell you why it won't work.,...

Sorry I'm finding your own point beyond me now !  It must be catching.   The point I'm making is that the GL numbers are a derivative of the PN system.  'They' are doing more or less what the RYA suggests all the time - modifying 'raw' numbers in the light of their direct experience and recorded results.  OK their approach also emphasises the importance of  'front of class' performance as well etc and this might rile a few as it does not follow to the letter what is written on the tablets of stone .... (and so few round the clubs ever dare use !)

Nothing mysterious to the increasingly large numbers of entrants who race under the system and it does produce great racing and events.  Now I'm sure many here will have raced at the SJ winter series and/or at  the growing number of other events using these revisionist numbers.  Ultimately nobody forces anyone to race under 'raw' PN or these adjusted GL numbers.   You could do either or both.... most will still do both but GL numbers use is spreading for a reason.   

Just perhaps the RYA could learn a bit from seeing how others do adjust the numbers and sample structure.   A bit more openness to alternatives that possibly does look beyond an apparent  'not invented here'  stance could help. 

And that's me done - next stop a sailing week that switched to using GL numbers about 3 years ago and it was very well received btw ..... and if they had not I'd still race in it !   

Edited by Cirrus - 27 Jul 17 at 3:43pm