Icon Class Association

Chrisg

Fully understand the 'standard' arguments already for the traditional approach.  The point being made is that the system has real limitations that the GL adjustments tackle.   The classical defence is that "We can't measure this or that .. so we will not attempt to ... and btw it is still fair for all"  is what caused the GL approach to grow so quickly in the first place.  If all was really that 'fine' out there why did some look to change things ... and why has it spread so quickly and so far ? 

I do not know of a single individual, to date at least,  who seriously argues that their approach is inferior and is not resulting in better 'level' racing at the Sailjuice (and increasingly other) events.  The rising popularity of these events is in part due to the approach taken and the proactive treatment of handicaps in this 'awkward' area.  The conclusion must be that there was something lacking previously.

The un-amended 'traditional' approach may well have a role out there but it now looks as if it is increasingly following the curve and events rather than leading them.    

Nobody is arguing for single class or partisan issues here - the GL PN amendments would never have been accepted if that was true.  But "you would argue that way" as a responce, or worse still no reply at all to reasonable enquiry, seeks to ignore rather than engaging with the real concerns out there.  Inertia or complacency  ?  I hope not.

Mike L.

PS -  Craiggo – contact the CA direct and we will sort out a boat for you … August dates make  your request  very possible !

This is very much in contrast to what PY is aiming to be, which is a numbers based approach with personal opinions minimised ....

Again I do understand the arguments ... the 'aims' of the ‘status quo’ supported are all very laudable but ‘aims’ alone however well intentioned cannot vindicate completely  a limited approach that simply ignores all factors that cannot easily be expressed easily in numbers.  It does not matter what the original aim was if you are deliberately blind yourself to the reality on the water. 

Get along to these events yourselves - see for yourself.  The 'official' system struggles to compare many classes effectively for much of the time because it is so simplistic - big sample sizes do not solve all fundamental issues if the 'causal effect' assumptions are limited or less than 100%.   Correlation was never necessarily indicative of causation. 

The Sailjuice/GL approach does compare results …. just like the ‘official’ approach.  The sample is different as is the methodology but that does not reduce its efficacy.  In fact because so many classes are now fielding their ‘best’ at these events at the same time and on the same courses and in the same conditions there is a very compelling case to suggest it is in fact superior.    The approach nets out much of these ‘other’ factors that are ignored by the ‘official’ approach.   I’ll stick my neck out and say the GL system is already getting closer to measuring the actual true potential of the boats considered than the ‘official’ un-adapted system.     The useful data all seek is too often lost in the background ‘noise’ imo.      

The ‘official’ system is by tradition and practice a very broad but simple system …  but it can only go so  far if it does not develop a higher rigor that attempts to consider critical factors currently ignored .   The current ‘escape clause’ – that of encouraging local adjustments – is part admission surely that the current model / basis is so limited.    Recently the ‘quicker’ (or coarser) adjustments to each annual data set might also be seen as reaction to these sort of concerns ... and the adoption of the GL numbers by so many events.

So we agree with you  .. in part.  Numerical approaches should be ‘better’, personal opinions minimized etc.  Maybe the difference is we think a different data set and method could and should be used .  Club returns are maybe not the only data source for handicap considerations.   Might be that club returns when considered in isolation are the problem.

Global warming is not fully proven yet either.  Difficult to measure, politically sensitive, statisticians all over the place winding up the rest of us  … sounds familiar ? But I’d personally not wait until the water was lapping on my doorstep.     

Mike L.