Front page screed

Curious2

Anarchist
672
247
Agreed. Especially at the youth level, there is an emphasis at junior sailing programs in the US on teaching very young sailors to race before teaching them to love sailing. There are 3 outcomes. 1) Young sailors deem themselves incompetent and drop out to participate in more "social" sports. 2) Young sailors do well in the junior racing environment and then drop out of the sport when that narrow specific environment disappears after college 3) A small number survive, love the wider sport of sailing and go on to participate as adult sailors.

Hence my love-hate relationship with the optimist and club 420s. It worked for my son. It failed many of his friends and his brother. I still volunteer as RC and judge at major events but I shake my head at the many pathways it creates to leave sailing.

There is interesting but statistically insignificant data that raises many questions that should be followed up that suggests non-competitive sailing programs produce a higher percentage of graduates from the programs competing at 35 years old than expensive intense competitive programs seeking to produce competitive sailors.



Agreed. It is astonishing that the MNAs do not plug into the class associations more than they do. The class associations and clubs are much closer to their sailors than the MNA or their RSAs. (I am sorry to limit my points to the USA but that is where I sail and what I know about.) The classes and the clubs have the hard data and the first hand anecdotal insights.

US Sailing went in the opposite direction a few years ago. US sailing used to represent their One Design classes. There was a One Design Council consisting of the presidents or administrators of all OD classes. The executive committee of the OD council had influence that extended to participating in the panel that selected nominees for the President and Board members of US Sailing. The OD classes were able to grill prospective nominees on their positions on policy and outlook , and provide feedback to their class members. The OD class presidents were democratically elected by sailors who usually knew them and sailed against them. The class presidents in council would elect an executive committee which would always include growing successful classes because we all wanted to learn from them. IMHO, that was a good group to influence policy and quiz prospective candidates for the Board.
Nobody likes being quizzed and challenged about the direction of the sport. So about 10 years ago, the OD council was disbanded and replaced by a OD committee that is appointed by the Board.
This represented a complete reversal. At a stroke, US sailing went from being a bottom up organization to a top-down organization.

A few years later, the OD Committee had expired altogether. It has been resuscitated in 2020 with a cttee chaired by a very nice professional sailor appointed by US sailing. The OD classes look forward to hearing from him. :) I am curious if your class has heard from them? I imagine you have lots of data.





Agreed there is a lot of tech and insight that can be used to make the sport more accessible.modern construction can create light, easy and affordable options. I really strongly agree with this.

One slight area of disagreement. Sailing fast is fun. Fun is important. Several high performance classes have failed because they were designed by high performance sailors for highly competent sailors. However, I truly admire the small group of classes that believe that higher performance sailing can be made accessible. They appear to be successful. Going fast does not have to be difficult. In its day, the Laser was living proof of that. The Melges 15, Viper 640, VX One, UFO etc are examples that are working today.

Of course there is a huge space for low performance boats......but do not underestimate the joy of going fast. After all, there is a reason the windsurfer is having a revival.....young people and the young at heart old people like going fast.




Agree completely about the importance of accessible.

You occasionally seem to use "extreme" and "high performance" interchangeably. I hope and think this is a misunderstanding in communicating your views. Extreme by its very definition means it is limited to a small number of highly talented people. It is at the extreme end of the sport , so of course it is not mainstream.

We can continue to agree to disagree whether the extreme end of any sport (whether it be movies about extreme skiing, Formula 1 racing or AC sailing ) negatively impacts the rest of the sport. It sure is more fun to watch than the mainstream, and media will always pursue the viewer rather than the participant.

Thanks for the compliments, thank you for your work, and yep I can only agree 100% about the problems of trying to make youth sailing too competitive. I'm working on our youth pathway and it has an Opti/Laser core but encourages kids to sail windsurfers, cats, yachts and other craft. Guys like Tom Slingsby, Spithill, Glen Ashby and Adam Beashel have all sailed lots of different sorts of craft (boards, cats, etc), and Tom Burton only got into serious sailing after leaving school but it didn't stop him from getting gold.

Regarding "extreme" and fast sailing. Yep, I do tend to throw those terms around a bit without defining them. Mea culpa. All this stuff is probably related to our own background and personally I put craft like big foilers, big canters and offshore multis, oceanic singlehanders and perhaps some skiffs and small foilers into the “extreme” category. Where the latter fit seems to be complicated.

To me, boats like the Melges 15 and VX One seem to be examples of what we should be promoting far more; they are quite quick but use modern technology to remain accessible. The RS200, which is shorter than the Melges but about the same speed for length, is another great example. And boats like these seem to be doing the job, in terms of participation, much better than the "extreme" classes WS and others are promoting. The simple fact (as you know) is that they are getting more people onto the water, and surely that is what we need.

As Mozzy says, it’s great good-news stories like the RS200 nationals that the sailing media (and WS) should be promoting big time; instead we get more elitist extreme stuff.

The Laser wasn’t really proof that speed counts. When it came out the most popular singlehanders were probably the Contender, Finn, OK, Europe and Moth, and the Laser sat in the middle of them, only about 1.5% quicker than the OK. The Hobies were similar - little if at all faster than cats of comparable age and length (Condor, Mosquito, etc) while the early windsurfers were slower than Moths, OKs etc. But what the Laser, Hobie and Windsurfer did was provide a much more accessible, simpler experience, not a faster one.

As far as the impact of extreme sailing goes, the two biggest surveys of the public perception of sailing (the old North/Sunfish/Laser one and the 2012 Gemba report for Australian Sailng) both came up with the same findings; the public don't think sailing is boring, but they do believe that it is innaccessible - too expensive and too hard to do and get into. When those factors (and perceived exclusivity) are the problems, reducing cost and increasing accessibility (ie access to cheap gear that works on a wide range of waterways) are obviously the best way to break them down. Promoting "extreme" gear is the way to increase the perception of the problematic factors.

Personally it also seems utterly unethical for WS to be promoting one end of the sport so hard, at the expense of the vast majority. The number of people turning up for the Olympic kitefoiling and foiling cat events is far, far smaller than those who turn up for Lasers, for example, as is the grass roots participation. Surely if WS is supposed to represent its members equally it should ensure that they have roughly equal access to the top levels of the sport.

When I was a kid, I'm sure we watched broadcasts of the Sydney-Hobart, 18 Foot Skiffs and Admiral's Cup as intently as people watch Sail GP. We were lucky because we could, with a bit of effort, sail alongside (or with) those we saw on the screen, on the same sort of boats. The size of the fleets and the crews meant that far more of us could get involved than is the case with today's boats.

I suppose it's a personal thing and very dependent on your approach, situation and personality, but I'd hate being a kid and being told that the first-class citizens are sailing a type of boat I will almost certainly never sail, and very likely never see. And judging from the information from many sources, including general sports participation studies, Formula One (referred to above) and NZ sailing participation stats, it is likely to do nothing to turn more people onto sailing, and may well put many off.
 
Last edited:

dogwatch

Super Anarchist
17,180
1,770
South Coast, UK
I personally like Matt Sheahan, Andy Rice, Richard Gladwell, Tom Cunliffe, James Boyd amongst others because, although I don't always agree with any opinion pieces that they write, at the very least they do know what they are talking about. Them and of course most of the writing in Seahorse.

I wasn't as clear as I might have been, there are still some good journalists around, what is fading away are magazines to pay them a living and cover their travel. One might hope that advertising or subscription-based websites models might replace that but really, neither model very much works. The best attempt IMO was The Daily Sail which, I think, James Boyd co-owned. I guess it didn't pay. There are others but the odd piece aside, I can't say I find any of them essential reading.
 

shanghaisailor

Super Anarchist
3,140
1,282
Shanghai, China
I wasn't as clear as I might have been, there are still some good journalists around, what is fading away are magazines to pay them a living and cover their travel. One might hope that advertising or subscription-based websites models might replace that but really, neither model very much works. The best attempt IMO was The Daily Sail which, I think, James Boyd co-owned. I guess it didn't pay. There are others but the odd piece aside, I can't say I find any of them essential reading.
I understand now what you mean. Even on Zinio.com there are surprisingly few digital editions available. There are no websites that go into the depth of the magazines. I take a few and they cover things in way more detail. I agree with you about James Boyd, The Daily Sail was a good site, I wrote a few times for James. He is still around, I have seen some of his pieces recently and the quality is still there. My favourite mag is Seahorse and many people forget it is essentially a club magazine (RORC) but in the last couple of months it hasn't been available in China for some reason. Some sites appear to be after click bait at any cost, others are just cut & paste merchants for releases. I haven't found any other with extensive forums like SA. I do stand by my choices of writers though but I still miss Bob Fisher, not just as a writer but as a friend. Maybe now he is no longer on the nominations committee he will be elected to the America's Cup Hall of Fame which is long overdue, he certainly kindled my passion for the Auld Mug.
 

The Main Man

Super Anarchist
1,492
310
Blighty
I wasn't as clear as I might have been, there are still some good journalists around, what is fading away are magazines to pay them a living and cover their travel. One might hope that advertising or subscription-based websites models might replace that but really, neither model very much works. The best attempt IMO was The Daily Sail which, I think, James Boyd co-owned. I guess it didn't pay. There are others but the odd piece aside, I can't say I find any of them essential reading.
It was a shame The Daily Sail shut up shop. It was worth reading and I was happy to subscribe.
 

EYESAILOR

Super Anarchist
3,642
2,108
Thanks for the compliments, thank you for your work, and yep I can only agree 100% about the problems of trying to make youth sailing too competitive. I'm working on our youth pathway and it has an Opti/Laser core but encourages kids to sail windsurfers, cats, yachts and other craft. Guys like Tom Slingsby, Spithill, Glen Ashby and Adam Beashel have all sailed lots of different sorts of craft (boards, cats, etc), and Tom Burton only got into serious sailing after leaving school but it didn't stop him from getting gold.

Regarding "extreme" and fast sailing. Yep, I do tend to throw those terms around a bit without defining them. Mea culpa. All this stuff is probably related to our own background and personally I put craft like big foilers, big canters and offshore multis, oceanic singlehanders and perhaps some skiffs and small foilers into the “extreme” category. Where the latter fit seems to be complicated.

To me, boats like the Melges 15 and VX One seem to be examples of what we should be promoting far more; they are quite quick but use modern technology to remain accessible. The RS200, which is shorter than the Melges but about the same speed for length, is another great example. And boats like these seem to be doing the job, in terms of participation, much better than the "extreme" classes WS and others are promoting. The simple fact (as you know) is that they are getting more people onto the water, and surely that is what we need.

As Mozzy says, it’s great good-news stories like the RS200 nationals that the sailing media (and WS) should be promoting big time; instead we get more elitist extreme stuff.

The Laser wasn’t really proof that speed counts. When it came out the most popular singlehanders were probably the Contender, Finn, OK, Europe and Moth, and the Laser sat in the middle of them, only about 1.5% quicker than the OK. The Hobies were similar - little if at all faster than cats of comparable age and length (Condor, Mosquito, etc) while the early windsurfers were slower than Moths, OKs etc. But what the Laser, Hobie and Windsurfer did was provide a much more accessible, simpler experience, not a faster one.

As far as the impact of extreme sailing goes, the two biggest surveys of the public perception of sailing (the old North/Sunfish/Laser one and the 2012 Gemba report for Australian Sailng) both came up with the same findings; the public don't think sailing is boring, but they do believe that it is innaccessible - too expensive and too hard to do and get into. When those factors (and perceived exclusivity) are the problems, reducing cost and increasing accessibility (ie access to cheap gear that works on a wide range of waterways) are obviously the best way to break them down. Promoting "extreme" gear is the way to increase the perception of the problematic factors.

Personally it also seems utterly unethical for WS to be promoting one end of the sport so hard, at the expense of the vast majority. The number of people turning up for the Olympic kitefoiling and foiling cat events is far, far smaller than those who turn up for Lasers, for example, as is the grass roots participation. Surely if WS is supposed to represent its members equally it should ensure that they have roughly equal access to the top levels of the sport.

When I was a kid, I'm sure we watched broadcasts of the Sydney-Hobart, 18 Foot Skiffs and Admiral's Cup as intently as people watch Sail GP. We were lucky because we could, with a bit of effort, sail alongside (or with) those we saw on the screen, on the same sort of boats. The size of the fleets and the crews meant that far more of us could get involved than is the case with today's boats.

I suppose it's a personal thing and very dependent on your approach, situation and personality, but I'd hate being a kid and being told that the first-class citizens are sailing a type of boat I will almost certainly never sail, and very likely never see. And judging from the information from many sources, including general sports participation studies, Formula One (referred to above) and NZ sailing participation stats, it is likely to do nothing to turn more people onto sailing, and may well put many off.
First of all, I want to emphasize that my scathing criticism of Anarchist Doofus (aka AD) is not directed at you. You write thoughtfully and occasionally intelligently. I just happen to disagree with one of your key premises. Archaic Dave's gibberrish does not deserve to be on the back page, let alone the front page of SA. He wisely chooses not to contribute on the forums.
I criticize @shanghaisailor from time to time, but he knows it is blunt and affectionate, and to his credit he responds on the forums .

Back on topic of the effect of the AC. Nobody is going to persuade you otherwise and that is okay.
You believe that the present day America's cup and it's media presence and promotion, and other forms of "extreme" or "performance" sailing somehow negatively impacts grass roots sailing. Data that reinforces your perception (I would argue misperception) sticks in your mind. Data points that contradicts that perception is hard to absorb. In diagnosis we call it climbing the ladder of inference. Its hard to let go.

Im going to push back on a couple of your points. I am not known for my tact so please forgive me and try to remain open minded.

  • Can we ditch the relevance of the Sunfish survey and the 2012 Australian survey as regards the present day AC? Both of them pre-date the first time that America's cup boats got on foils. The broad conclusion that sailing needs to be more accessible is undeniable common sense but provides zero evidence that the AC negatively impacts the sport.
  • I think you are acknowledging a personal bias, (and I agree we all have one). Another sign of this is that for you... 18 foot skiffs are boats "we could sail alongside on the same sort of boats" but that "I put craft like oceanic singlehanders into the extreme category".
  • You frequently mention WS in your criticism. But WS doesnt promote the AC . The last time WS even mentioned the AC in a press release or on their website was over 18 months ago when they reported the results. WS role in the AC is very limited. They charge a fee for the AC to use the title Worlds. They like to think they provide advice on the rules and judging (and that is a whole another can of worms) but as far as "promotion" is concerned WS's contribution is de minimus.
  • So why the ire at WS? Here I am going to speculate that there may be a personal bias. You have devoted a huge amount of your volunteer time to supporting the category of windsurfing. After the Windsurfing, Star and Multihull lobbies successfully kept kite boarding out of the Olympics in 2012 and 2016, WS finally overcame the political infighting and allowed kite boarding into the Olympics. More than that, WS switched to foiling windsurfers, and when a fourth slot became avaiable for Paris due to the offshore category getting nixed, WS chose a second foiling kite board category. Hey, I dont have a dog in that fight, nor does most of WS. The boarding community (mast, kite or handheld wing) needs to put their own house in order. You have four slots. It will go down. Put your best foot forward and prioritize a combination of events that will discover outstanding athletes and provide excitement for your sport. Personally I think you guys need to introduce freestyle.....thats what kids like to do and what I like to watch....but thats a personal bias!
  • World sailing spend more time promoting Laser events than any other class.
  • I think WS is a disaster but for completely different reasons.
At the end of the day, your contention has gradually watered down to this , that the present day AC
My belief is that the amount of promotion of such innaccessible types(The Americas's Cup), rather than accessible ones, is probably harming sailing and that at the very least, there is no evidence that it is helping.
Nobody has tried to submit evidence that AC is helping sailing but, in my eyes you have not provided evidence that the AC is "probably harming sailing" . You believe it does. I believe it does not.


Best

Eye.
 

EYESAILOR

Super Anarchist
3,642
2,108
And one final comment for the evening

Neither Prada, nor Larry Ellison, nor JP Morgan, nor Jim Ratclife is ever going to sponsor the RS 200 world championships for $200 million. It is their money and they will do what they want with it. I suppose we could tell them to piss off and sponsor Formula 1.

Sadly, they will probably get a better reception at Formula 1 because the fans dont wear blue blazers, shove sticks up their arse, and write blogs like Ancient Dave.
 

EYESAILOR

Super Anarchist
3,642
2,108
I don't know why Eyesailor finds cause to care so much about AD's absurd ramblings, they don't actually matter in the slightest. But to expect SA, and in particular the FP, to fill that void would be to howl at the moon.
1662079625349.png
 

Curious2

Anarchist
672
247
JFC, "occasionally intelligently"? There's a difference between being "not known for tact" and being, as we say, totally up yourself.

One side of this debate has produced a wide variety of evidence, including studies from other sports, studies from inside sailing, class growth figures, historical information and other quantitative data. It's not conclusive, but the evidence on the other side appears to be basically non-existent, and much of what they have claimed is total BS.

I'd have thought that in your job you wouldn't be trained to make a decision in favour of a side that had presented no data, when the other side had presented a considerable amount of data.

If the current course of promotion of the sport was working to promote participation, it should be easy to find evidence; for example sailing in New Zealand (winner of the three foiling ACs) should have become more popular. In fact, it has dropped markedly.

Yes, I am aware of cognitive bias, etc. However, there is no actual reason for me to be biased on the wider issue of the direction of promotion of our sport. Claiming bias, without actually showing any alleged reason for that bias, is not logical or reasonable.

Your comment on the 18 Footer versus shorthanded offshore multis is an example where you call bias for no reason. I've sailed both - have you? If I have any bias, it's towards the multi.

The point is that almost always buying, storing and sailing an 18 is easier and cheaper than buying, storing and sailing an oceanic shorthanded multihull of equal quality, etc. One is therefore generally more accessible than the other. Bias does not enter into it and you had no good reason to think it does.

The comments about WS were about its wide role in promoting less-accessible types of sailing excessively (ie far more than is proportionate to their popularity) compared to popular forms. Look at WS's Youtube show, for example - the August edition had about 15 1/2 minutes on foilers and about 6 minutes on "seahuggers" (ie non foilers). The July issue had pretty much equal amounts to foiling, kites and "seahuggers". In July it was about twice as much to "seahuggers" as to foilers, which is still enormously disproportionate to WS membership and competitive activity and probably to sales of new craft. The ratio on the current WS news site is even more slanted towards foilers. They do promote the AC a lot.

You have provided no evidence at all for your claim that WS "spends more time promoting the Laser than any other class". Look at the WS channel or at the news on its site, which currently has a bunch of pieces about televised extreme sailing before anything about Lasers. Arguably, it should promote the classes that best represent its members, but to the disadvantage of the Lasers (and many other classes) it doesn't.

I would be quite happy to see windsurfing dropped from the Olympics as I do not see its Olympic status as a benefit to the sport, so once again your claims of personal bias are without evidence or merit.

Finally, given the findings of the Gemba/North/Laser surveys, the fact that they were pre-foiling seems to be of no relevance. People who thought then that the widely-publicised areas of sailing were not accessible enough are not going to think that they are accessible because of foiling AC boats, etc. There had been years of trying to promote high-performance sailing in Australia (ie the Grand Prix 18 Foot Skiff series) before the Gemba survey was done and there is no reason at all to think that the newer classes would achieve what the 18s did not.

However, it is apparent that anyone trying to have an evidence-based discussion on SA, rather than one where people basically say "I have no evidence at all but I will ignore your evidence and instead make baseless claims that you are biased" is basically baying at the moon. It's a lot like medical scientists talking to anti-vaxxers.
 
Last edited:

Sailbydate

Super Anarchist
11,816
3,401
Kohimarama
What actually did Anarchist David say in his opinion piece that a few here have got their panties all wadded up over?
Anyone ?
AS usual, Anarchist David had bugger all to say worth reading. He reckons the AC is ruined. See here: https://sailinganarchy.com/2022/08/16/their-cup-runneth-over/

The conversation has morphed into 'the future of yacht racing' and 'The AC's affect on yacht racing' and 'Promoting elite sailing is ruining our sport'. Quite a worthwhile discussion, IMO.

So, even a pile of 'journalism' shit has its uses, I guess.
 

shanghaisailor

Super Anarchist
3,140
1,282
Shanghai, China
And one final comment for the evening

Neither Prada, nor Larry Ellison, nor JP Morgan, nor Jim Ratclife is ever going to sponsor the RS 200 world championships for $200 million. It is their money and they will do what they want with it. I suppose we could tell them to piss off and sponsor Formula 1.

Sadly, they will probably get a better reception at Formula 1 because the fans dont wear blue blazers, shove sticks up their arse, and write blogs like Ancient Dave.
And to add to EYESAILOR's comment, if the America's Cup is either not relevant or harmful to sailing why would the "China Sports Industry Group" sponsor ETNZ in AC36? Couldn't miss their logo in the close up shots of Pete Burling during the 'Match'. They also sponsor sailing at the grass roots level with their sponsorship of the recently finished CCOR in Qingdao.

China is one part of the world where our sport is most certainly growing. When my boat arrived in 2003 I was told by the Head of Customs it was the "first privately owned racing yacht in China" yet now there is hardly a weekend in season where there is not a regatta happening somewhere. I have also been asked by several non-sailing Wechat friends what it is about sailing that is so good having seen some of the AC coverage.

CSIG also sponsor the China Club Challenge Match which is in its 17th year. It has grown from 2 beat up J24s to, for the last 4 years, the largest one design keelboat regatta in the whole of Asia.

Any coverage of our sport in the media is good for the sport whether it is AC75s or RS200s but which one do people think will get 30 seconds at the end of a sports news broadcast?

Anyway, the thread has drifted far enough from "Front Page Screed".

I will post my views on "Ancient Dave's" piece separately
 

Curious2

Anarchist
672
247
If the America's Cup is either not relevant or harmful to sailing why would the "China Sports Industry Group" sponsor ETNZ in AC36?

With much respect, if sponsoring an AC team is such a good decision, why do so few corporations do it?

There must be many millions of corporations in the world so the decision of a minute and shrinking number of them cannot be much of a measure. Not every corporate decision is ideal for the corporation or for the sponsored sport. Many decisions in pro sport are made largely to get the corporate heads into a hospitality box, according to information I have from pro sailors, sports management academics, and having done my first "extreme pro" contest in 1980.

If promoting the "extreme" end of a sport is sometimes either not relevant or harmful to a sport, why would motorsport heads promote the fact that it can be? Why would so many academic studies show that promoting elite sport does not promote grass roots participation?
 

MRS OCTOPUS

Anarchist
715
247
AUSTRALIA
His piece was as clear a case of "bullshit baffles brains" as been seen on the FP since his last piece.
Thanks shangas . I would love to be outraged like yourself, so I can pile on too. Which bit of his opinion piece is Bullshit.
Or is that just your opinion.
As an opinion piece I think a lot of us can relate to the days when the AC was sailed in 12’s and match racing skills were on display.

Watching Big Ben reach slowly across the course trying to build enough boat speed to foil is an acquired taste, that some of us are still struggling with. Surely AD is entitled to his opinion, plus it has produced 7 pages of posts.
Just say’n.
 

EYESAILOR

Super Anarchist
3,642
2,108
One side of this debate has produced a wide variety of evidence, including studies from other sports, studies from inside sailing, class growth figures, historical information and other quantitative data.
You have not produced a whit of evidence to support your claim that the present day America's Cup is probably harming the sport of sailing.

Yes my training is to ask for evidence, especially when the claim seems at first glance to be so unlikely.

Your argument sounds approximately like this.

"Sailing needs to be more accessible" We agree. You don't need to present any more decade old evidence. Enough already

"The America's Cup is inaccessible to the vast majority of people" Again, we agree with you. There is no need to try and convince us that the J Class was accessible to everyday folk like the Vanderbilts, the Iselins and John Pierpoint Morgan. You just sound silly. We agree with you that the AC is extreme and inaccessible to most of us.

Thus the America's Cup is harmful to sailing. What?????. Where is your evidence of any causal link? I know of no study that concludes that the reason that youth sailors and college sailors drop out of the sport is due to the AC being hosted on foiling monohulls.

When we ask for your evidence.......your response is to ask for us to produce evidence that the AC is good for sailing.

Here is an analogy:

You state that fresh air is demonstrably harmful to the kidneys.
I ask for evidence.
You respond that I have no evidence that fresh air is good for kidneys so you must be right.

That is not how it works. I know of plenty of studies that show other factors are harmful to the function of the kidney. I know of no study that shows that fresh air is harmful to kidneys. I am aware of plenty of studies that examine the factors that have contributed to the decline of sailing (cost, accessibility, reduced leisure time, alternative activities, flaws in our youth pathways etc. etc.) I know of no study that shows that the adoption of foiling in the AC is harmful to sailing.

It would not be hard to conduct such a study. Nobody has bothered . I am not surprised. The premise is so unlikely.

I'd have thought that in your job you wouldn't be trained to make a decision in favour of a side that had presented no data, when the other side had presented a considerable amount of data.
See above!

You have provided no evidence at all for your claim that WS "spends more time promoting the Laser than any other class".
Wow........do you really need me to support that statement?
 

EYESAILOR

Super Anarchist
3,642
2,108
As an opinion piece I think a lot of us can relate to the days when the AC was sailed in 12’s and match racing skills were on display.

Watching Big Ben reach slowly across the course trying to build enough boat speed to foil is an acquired taste, that some of us are still struggling with. Surely AD is entitled to his opinion, plus it has produced 7 pages of posts.
Just say’n.
My slimy, edible, 8 legged friend has a view that is easier to understand .

She prefers to watch 12 meters slog around the course than foiling monohulls. It is a matter of taste and I entirely get that. She is not arguing that bringing back the 12s will reignite sailing and turn match racing into a popular sport that will soon overtake League of Legends in participation. She is merely saying that she enjoyed watching it 35 years ago when it was in 12 meters more than she does now. Its a matter of taste .

If Ancient Dave merely acknowledged that he prefers watching 12 meters because it is slower and easier to understand that would be okay.......but the rest of his ramblings are inconsequential.
 

Curious2

Anarchist
672
247
You have not produced a whit of evidence to support your claim that the present day America's Cup is probably harming the sport of sailing.

Yes my training is to ask for evidence, especially when the claim seems at first glance to be so unlikely.

Your argument sounds approximately like this.

"Sailing needs to be more accessible" We agree. You don't need to present any more decade old evidence. Enough already

"The America's Cup is inaccessible to the vast majority of people" Again, we agree with you. There is no need to try and convince us that the J Class was accessible to everyday folk like the Vanderbilts, the Iselins and John Pierpoint Morgan. You just sound silly. We agree with you that the AC is extreme and inaccessible to most of us.

Thus the America's Cup is harmful to sailing. What?????. Where is your evidence of any causal link? I know of no study that concludes that the reason that youth sailors and college sailors drop out of the sport is due to the AC being hosted on foiling monohulls.

When we ask for your evidence.......your response is to ask for us to produce evidence that the AC is good for sailing.

Here is an analogy:

You state that fresh air is demonstrably harmful to the kidneys.
I ask for evidence.
You respond that I have no evidence that fresh air is good for kidneys so you must be right.

That is not how it works. I know of plenty of studies that show other factors are harmful to the function of the kidney. I know of no study that shows that fresh air is harmful to kidneys. I am aware of plenty of studies that examine the factors that have contributed to the decline of sailing (cost, accessibility, reduced leisure time, alternative activities, flaws in our youth pathways etc. etc.) I know of no study that shows that the adoption of foiling in the AC is harmful to sailing.

It would not be hard to conduct such a study. Nobody has bothered . I am not surprised. The premise is so unlikely.


See above!


Wow........do you really need me to support that statement?

When the case is clear that people perceive sailing as being too innaccessible, it is perfectly reasonable to propose that promotion of the least accessible part of sailing will exacerbate that problem and therefore affect the sport.

There is no reason for you to start from the position that the claim is so unlikely, ESPECIALLY when people like the heads of F1 and the CEO of British motorsport, for example, have said that their sport suffers from a similar problem; when information shows an enormous decline in the country where recent ACs have been held and where they have been most promoted; and when there is information about the comparative accessibility of earlier eras of the AC.

You are a liar (and there is no other word for it) when you infer I said "the J Class was accessible to everyday folk like the Vanderbilts, the Iselins and John Pierpoint Morgan." I did NOT say that. I did say that there was much more in common between mainstream sailing and earlier ACs than with modern ones. I specifically mentioned that the older boats were built to the same rating rules as hundreds of smaller ones; that they raced with dozens of smaller yachts in normal regattas; and that they had a lot in common with mainstream boats. I backed up those claims with evidence of AC boats racing in normal regattas, and there is plenty more evidence because it is true.

Those are facts and your claim that I inferred that Js themselves were accessible is a lie. Why does a person like you have to lie to try to win an internet argument? I know you don't know much sailing history but don't you just admit that? There is no reason why a busy professional should have bothered to research the UK "Big Class" regattas, or the old LIS scene, so why not admit it instead of stooping to lies?

No reasonable person would assume that they knew, for example, the relationship between the AC and mainstream sailing in 1890s England, unless they had actually studied it. Why the hell do you imply that you do?

Sadly I have realised that you are not a reasonable person, as shown by your unreasonable, unsustainable and false allegations of bias. A reasonable and honest person would not have made those allegations when there was no evidence for them. A person of simple decency would have withdrawn them when, for example, I noted that your claims that I was biased towards 18s was simply bullshit.

Your statement that it would not be hard to conduct a study on the perceptions of the AC and the effect on participation merely shows a surprising amount of ignorance about the funding and performing such a study. How the hell can anyone be so arrogant as to assume that they are across the 2022 grant programmes and requirements in all countries?

Your final pars are nothing but lies. I did NOT say the equivalent of "I have no evidence that fresh air is good for kidneys so you must be right." That is transparently dishonest. I provided evidence in the form of market surveys about the perception of the sport; studies from other sports; trends in nations and individual classes; and information about the different relationship between the AC and mainstream sailing in other eras.'

It is one thing to say, for example, that the surveys are old- a matter I addressed. It is a blatant lie to say they are not evidence. If anyone had been prepared to actually discuss the evidence, I could have provided more. Instead I got lies and stupid crap from you about bias, and completely wrong statements from Mambo.

Your statement that WS is not promoting the AC is utter bullshit, as any look at their news or YT channel can show.
.
 
Last edited:

Latest posts




Top