Pointless PY Pondering

So why, if all is so near enough 'perfect' in the minds of some,  has application of  the Great Lakes numbers  prospered ?  And before it is suggested that they might only prove useful on 'great lakes'  as they are used well beyond that already.(... a bit like suggesting 'Portsmouth' numbers are only applied on the sea or even just near the town of Portsmouth).   It is obvious  that  a different group of handicappers are involved and their model is naturally different and very possibly better  .... so just maybe the sample 'engineering' applied or lack of it in the PY method is at best  just flawed (or could do with a real improvements / refinements if you want a more diplomatic interpretation)

Have these different groups ever formally met and discussed the subject ?   Naive it may be but Joe Public may at least hope for some cross flow of ideas ... Or is it the case of ‘not invented here’ and inevitably interpreting all possible changes or alternatives as challenges or threats rather than as opportunities to learn / improve ?

Handicap racing is significantly more important today than 40 or 50 years ago.   IMO these groups should formally meet and discuss.   It does and should matter.

Edited by Cirrus - 22 Nov 20 at 12:40pm

However you look at it handicapping is, and always was, about number crunching. If there was the will it would be easy enough (if hugely time consuming, any statistics undergrads out there looking for a project?) to take historic GL results and apply PY numbers to the elapsed times and vice versa and analyse the differences. I suspect it would reflect the choices made by the handicappers, the GL system trying to handicap the boats potential by prioritising the best sailors results and PY committee the performance of average sailor.

Edited by Sam.Spoons - 22 Nov 20 at 1:23pm

Originally posted by Sam.Spoons However you look at it handicapping is, and always was, about number crunching. If there was the will it would be easy enough (if hugely time consuming, any statistics undergrads out there looking for a project?) to take historic GL results and apply PY numbers to the elapsed times and vice versa and analyse the differences. I suspect it would reflect the choices made by the handicappers, the GL system trying to handicap the boats potential by prioritising the best sailors results and PY committee the performance of average sailor. WRT adjustments, maybe it would be more acceptable to the 'guy on the pond' if the RYA published three different sets of numbers, say "Small Lake", "Great Lake" and "Tidal". The break points would have to be arbitrary to a degree but the decision as to which set were most appropriate could be left to the clubs (have a vote at an AGM if it is not obvious). That would help average out the CSF as some classes at my club have surprising adjustments (Solo +10, Laser and Radial -11, the Laser sailors are pretty good and sail in the handicap fleet on Wednesdays and Saturdays).

"Small Lake", "Great Lake" and "Tidal".....this would be an improvement on the existing system IMO. When suggested before some folk asked what about estuary/river clubs that sail on the tide? I guess it would be difficult to satisfy everyone.

It's tempting, when thinking of new ways to to do things to try and make the perfect  system that takes all things into consideration and then, when realising it can't be done, to give up. It would seem to me that dealing with one aspect at a time would be more realistic.

When 3-4 seperate lists were suggested before the conclusion seemed to be that the PY Com did not have enough data to produce sensible figures for different types of venue.

Which brings me back to my earlier point. Whatever system is in place (including the existing one) it will require sufficient data from a broad range of venues......It's not happening now and as it stands it won't happen in the future either. The part of the system that all else relies on is broken for many venues.  The PY Com have made great moves to make it as easy as possible with electronic returns, it couldn't be simpler and yet there is still insufficient data..........

Could this problem be solved using punitive measures? Financial Measures? Supportive measures? Contractual Measures?

Edited by Sussex Lad - 22 Nov 20 at 3:29pm

It is simple, but as shown on here, that isn't the perception - parts of the system are quite opaque, mainly because the RYA website isn't the easiest to navigate.

So, would better communication between the rya and clubs about the system help? I know the rya have everything there for the asking. How do you get clubs to ask? Must be pushed by members who are using the system, surely?

Originally posted by Sussex Lad "Small Lake", "Great Lake" and "Tidal".....this would be an improvement on the existing system IMO. When suggested before some folk asked what about estuary/river clubs that sail on the tide? I guess it would be difficult to satisfy everyone.