2016 events?

While I recognise the need to make our sport attractive, lets be careful not to let the pendulum swing to far towards crash and burn and against good for the atheletes.   We do not see Rowing having debates as to whether to place a few mines on the course as that would make it more exciting to watch or perhaps put razor blades on top of the hurdles ......  or make the sprinters wear clown shoes .....  it would certainly make it more entertaining to watch   This is suppossed to be Olympics = sporting prowess, not competing against total wipeout!!

Mixed cat, mixed keelboat, mixed 49er, mixed 470, laser, laser radial.... that would be interesting. Going completely for 50/50 sex equallity. Not mentioned windsurfer as I don't know about that one but you've shaved a lot off the sides from the number of classes there and you could target tv time slightly better. Might not be the best idea in the world, but hey the cats are going down that route and I personally think it's positive.

I thought numbers were capped for each fleet, Jon?

OK, that makes sense. I'd assumed that while the Stars and the Finns were smaller numbers, the Laser &Radial would have been the same. Are the 470 fleets different sizes too?

Originally posted by tgruitt Originally posted by Peaky   Out of interest, how do they define "skiff"?  Its been debated long and hard on forums with no definitive answer.  Whilst clearly it isn't one, if the 470 class put themselves forward for the Women's Skiff, there is no means of saying its not eligable.  Without a definition, any boat could claim to be a skiff - even a Star! I suppose it's leaning toward an overpowered lightweight (for it's size) planing hull with twin trapeze, powered downhill by a large masthead asymmetric spinnaker. But the I suppose the 49er fits all of those apart from the weight, at 120kg you can't say they are light!

Actually, there is very clear historical authority to say that "skiff", in the way it has been used in small sailboat racing for 50-100 yeard (depending on where you are) DOES have a fairly clear definition.

That definition, like any word, has developed over time.  Personally, I hate seeing it used too widely because that turns a word that actually means something into a useless piece of marketing rubbish.

But in this context, "skiffs" DOES has a historical meaning that is reflected in its current use. The mere fact that you have to actually do some research (blowing the dust of old mags, newsletters and books, etc) to find out its definition and development doesn't mean that there is no way that it can be defined.

I do find the controversy a bit odd, because it's strange that people can get so indignant when they've got no factual basis for their beliefs because they've done no homework.  Imagine if there was a controversy over "silly mid on" or a similar term.  Why would anyone expect to be able to weigh into the discussion unless they'd actually done some research on what the term meant?


Edited by Chris 249 - 14 Nov 10 at 11:38am