as the waterloo festival comes closer what teams will come on top?

It is in the Mighty Riptide's destiny to come out on top.

Shockwave #1
Piranhas
New Dragons
UC
Hydrophobic Dragons
Riptide

no particular order

gotta think either piranhas or shockwave will take it

Riptide will RIP IT UP AGAIN!

I'm guessing you're just using the true rankings as a benchmark? Waterloo's uncertain waters and uneven lanes will prove you all wrong.

Anyone know what the "bad" lanes at Waterloo are?

riptide will rip nothing but their back muscles trying to keep up with the other teams...

Lanes 1 - 5 suck

If Riptide gets the fast (shorter) lane and the festival gets cancelled after the first heat, they just might take it again this year.

Look for this team to surprise everyone on Saturday by making it to the final. These kids have stamina, technique and paddle like seasoned veterans.

1. Piranhas
2. Hydrophobic
3. UC
4. New College
5. Shockwave
6. Stratford Juniors

First off let me say Power Demon's rankings are amazing. Absolutely great stuff!
Second off le me say I am not a Piranha, Shockwave, Hydrophobic or any other team going to Waterloo. I'm going to the more competitive race in Sudbury.

But here is a great example of how a numeric system breaks down. I haven't heard of Shockwave until I saw someone on this thread say they could win this race over the Piranhas. Now the Piranhas, I have heard of them and they're pretty fast. So that was weird to me. I look at Power Demon's site and it shows this

13 Piranhas - Beach Mixed 4 02:09.8 +2.0s +2.2s ii
15 Shockwave DBC Mixed 3 02:10.1 -4.9s

Piranhas, 4 races with a regression time of 2:09.8 whereas Shockwave did 3 races and got a time of 2:10.1. Close right? Well let's see. I will guess everyone will agree with me in thinking the Piranhas are fast (part canoe club and such). So I won't go into proving that here. But Shockwave being only a few tenths of a second off? Let's look at their race.

Musselman's (their only race)
200m Heat - 47.82 (not sure PD included it)
500m Heat - 2:16.25
B Final - 2:11.92 (Coincidentally Hydrophobic beat them by nearly 2 seconds here)

So what gives? Ahhhh....their regression was pulled down by these guys:

500m - A final
Scotia Rouge 02:07.88 2
Big Fish 02:08.11 3
Hanalei & the family Paull 02:07.31 1

Because these 3 teams had "slow" races (early in the season, not full crews, etc) the gap between these 3 and Shockwave had to be maintained in PD's regression so Shockwave gets "pulled" down. For reference:

5 Scotia Rouge Mixed 10 02:04.9
6 Hanalei Mixed 6 02:05.0 -1.9s -0.8s n
7 Big Fish Mixed 3 02:05.0

Now what is right? Based on what PD says, the teams with more races are really at that speed while those who have raced in less than 6 races might really not be that fast/slow.

FLAME ON!

That's the point of performing a regression analysis. There are a myriad of unknown factors causing speeds to increase/decrease, eg, shallow waters, weeds, wind, currents, etc. Now you are assuming that Hanalei and Scotia Rouge were extra slow that day. What are the odds of two teams being equally slower than normal? Lower than just one team being slower. That being said, it still does not answer the question if Shockwave really is that fast. Regression analysis is both an art as well as a science. The teams paddling will have to prove they deserve to be in their spot. To be continued... on sunday!

No offense to the folks on Shockwave. But I think the answer is slower. Look at Hydrophobic:

16 Hydrophobic Dragons Mixed 7 02:10.3

They have had 7 races to Shockwave's 3. They also beat Shockwave head-to-head by nearly 2 seconds in Musselmans. The only reason why I see Shockwave higher is because they raced only 3 races while Hydrophobic got an additional 4 at the island and were shown to be much slower than Rouge. Hence the regression learns from two races and pulls Hydrophobic further away from Rouge and keeps Shockwave closer because they didn't race any more. Either way, we'll see how it all pans out after the weekend is over.

Rankings can never be perfect. PD's method is by far the most accurate. But there's no way in hell a ranking system can take account into small details as 'not racing with a full crew', 'bad lanes', 'ringers', etc.

Keep up the good work PD!

1. Piranhas - By a country mile.
2 - XX. Everyone else.

I made the exact same observation and agree with the above comments regarding Shockwave's ranking being skewed. But as was also mentioned above, the accuracy of the rankings will improve as the season progresses. It will be interesting to see the final ranking at the end of the season.

Interesting anaylsis. I recommend including this festival in Power Demon's rankings to fix the anomaly (or to prove it is correct).

Dammit 11:44.. have you even read PD's methodology??

Look, Waterloo will only be added if there is enough statistical data to make a valid comparison to the existing data from previous festivals. (Which there should be).

That is the brilliance of PD's rankings, they are based on statiscal evidence, not on subjective analysis.

It is not a perfect predictor of results, but it is more accurate then most other form of rankings seen on this forum. As the year progresses on more statistical information is provided the more accurate they will be.

So your "recommendation" that Waterloo be included is completely meaningless.

Please people before you go and try to poke holes in PD's work, read the poor guys methodology.

The true rankings are built on the general idea that festivals times can be adjusted based on average team performance over a large sample size. Festivals times are adjusted to a master festival and teams are ranked based on their average performance over all races. The ranking tries to capture which teams, given any average race and identical conditions, will be fastest.

How it works:
Let’s suppose we wanted to adjust the Pickering festival results in order to be in line with Toronto Island. We first calculate the average time per team in both festivals. The next step is identifying teams that competed in both festivals. These teams will be used in our regression. As can be seen there is a clear relation in terms of team performance.

Unlike scientific regressions, we can’t expect a very very high R2 value as some teams will likely perform better or worse in one festival when compared to the other. However, 93% of the Pickering times can be explained by the times of the same crews in Toronto. The line in this regression represents how much slower or festival a festival might be. If the slope of the line is 45 degrees and the intercept zero then the two festivals are identical in terms of average conditions.

Now to calculate the adjustment. We now perform the regression of Toronto times, vs. the percentage of pickering times divided by Toronto times. For example, if the Mofos post an average time of 2:10.0 in Toronto and 2:12.0 in Pickering, then the percentage adjustment is calculated as 101.6% (ie. Pickering was 1.6% slower for the Mofos). This regression looks like this:



The equation of this line can now be used to calculate the adjustment for either festival. To adjust to Toronto times to Pickering, we simply multiply pickering times by this multiplicative adjustment (-10.8393698884 * (pickering time)+1.0283629568). If we wanted to adjust Pickering times to Toronto, we multiply by 1 over this multiplicative adjustment.

So, using are above example: Mofos post an average time of 2:10.0 in Toronto and 2:12.0 in Pickering. Now let’s make both times adjusted to Toronto. The pickering time becomes 2:12.0 * (1/(-10.8393698884 * (2:12.0)+1.0283629568))=2:10.5. As a result, the true ranking system suggests that the Mofos Pickering performance would have been half a second slower if they had run their Pickering race in Toronto.

There’s the basics. In the actual ranking however, the adjustment is applied to each individual Pickering race (not the average).

Special Adjustments:

Cross Division Adjustment- Because it is easier to adjust times to the bigger festivals (larger sample size). It made sense to adjust the data in two divisions. The West division, Toronto, Pickering, Sudbury, Welland, were all adjusted to Toronto times. The East division, Montreal, Ottawa, and Lachine, were all adjusted to Montreal times. This was done using the process outlined above. A cross division adjustment was then applied in order to adjust the East Division to the West, once this adjustment is applied, then all times become based on Toronto. This was done in the same manor as all other adjustments.

Boat Adjustment Montreal- Because of the large (admitted) discrepancy in boat times between the two sets of boats used in this years Montreal festival, an adjustment was made in order to make all times based on the slower boats. The same basic process was used comparing the average team times in the fast boat versus the average team times in the slow boat. The fast/slow boats were identified using actual pictures from the festival.

Race Adjustment Welland- Because races were different lengths in Welland, the 200m and 1000m races were adjusted to 500m times. This was done by adjusting to the teams 500m times using basic regression technique.

Dropped Lachine Races- Because 200m races go fast, teams logged more races in Montreal. In order for the final results not to be skewed by a higher proportion of 200m Lachine races, not all races were counted fully. The races were weighted by the following:

1-2 actual races = 1-2 true ranking races
3 actual races = 2 true ranking races
4-5 actual races = 3 true ranking races
6 actual races = 4 true ranking races

For example, Isshin races 6 races:
ISSHIN 00:53.4
ISSHIN 00:52.7
ISSHIN 00:53.5
ISSHIN 00:52.8
ISSHIN 00:53.6
ISSHIN 00:53.7

Their average time is calculated 53.3. This time is then adjusted to Montreal (and then later Toronto). However, only 4 races count towards the true ranking. It would be as if Isshin actually raced.
ISSHIN 00:53.3
ISSHIN 00:53.3
ISSHIN 00:53.3
ISSHIN 00:53.3

Dropped Sudbury Races- I dropped the 200m race off races from Sudbury just to save time in building the rankings. Only the 500m times from this festival were included. Sorry.

Dropped Team Races- It was established that teams with times that exceeded 3 standard deviations of the average standard deviations for teams could be reviewed for possible exclusion if it was believed that these times did not accurately reflect the team. Only three cases have arisen:

1) Sudbury results posted times by PDBC B as times by PDBC A. These were identified because of the three standard deviation rules and later properly assigned to the right teams.

2) Driving Force dragon boat crew raced in Montreal with times that were more than 3 standard deviations off. It is believed that only half the team actually attended the event. As a result, these times were dropped.

3) Montreal thunder posted Ottawa times that were three standard deviations off of their Montreal times. Because it was suggested that the Montreal times were supplemented with members for Wong’s Dragon Slayers all times were kept.

Issues:

Sample Size- The largest weakness of the true rankings is sample size. Festivals should have at least 10 teams that have competed in another ranked festival. Work is underway to determine what statistic properties should be required for a festival to be added to the true rankings.

Conditions- Conditions should be captured to the extent that teams race and conditions are similar in similar time slots (ie. Morning) and that conditions wash out over a number of races (ie. Since all races count, you may have better conditions some races but likely poor conditions others). These are captured by the adjustment regressions. Conditions may have an impact a team only does a few races and happens to be very luck by getting the good conditions in all races.

Boats- Different boat speeds and resulting spreads should be captured in the adjustment regressions.

Lanes- Because all races are included in the true rankings, it is very unlikely that teams will significantly benefit from lane bias. This is particularly true for teams that have competed a lot.

General Team Improvement- No bias is introduced to the ranking if in general teams improve throughout the season at a roughly similar rate. However, if for example, teams in the East improve faster than the teams in the West or vice-versa, then the adjustments will be slightly skewed since they are based on cross festival team performance. It is unlikely that this is a significant issue.

Wash Riding and Stacking- Teams that wash ride or stack will be ranked faster. However, if the crew is identifiably “very different” and over three standard deviations of their other times than races may be dropped.

Dogging it- Teams that dog it in standard races and then ramp it up for the final will be ranked lower as all races are included in the ranking.

Timing:
Currently the ranking captures average annual performance for teams, adjusted to the time, boats, average lanes, and conditions of the Toronto Island Festival. Options for producing a more current ranking system are being looked at.

Who is Shockwave anyhow? I've been doing this for awhile and I've never noticed them before. Regardless of how many seconds they improved, it looks like they've kind of climbed up. I highly doubt that they have flatties on their team.

There was a team called Shockwave that I remember racing against 4 or 5 years ago, but they were a lower tier team. The current incarnation have been around for only a couple of years I think. They've been improving steadily. It will be interesting to see how they stack up against the Pirahnas, Hydrophobic, New Dragons and Water Dragons.

Bet you it was because of the ringers. Rumours are that they had several A-level paddlers on their team at Stouffville. That's probably the only reason why they were uncharacterically good for that regatta. Compare their times to other teams for other regattas. 'Nuff said.

Shockwave has been around for many years now...it's a shame that no one knows of us. We started as Asian Focus Shockwave. Asian Focus is a non-profit student charity group. We are no longer affiliated with Asian Focus. We have improved steadily since, driven by the desire to be recognized as a competitive crew. We now have two strong teams and as can be seen in our rankings, we're out kick some butt this year.

That ain't lightning...it's Shockwave!

See you on the water.

Who gives a shit about subjective rankings? It appears we will argue about even objective ones.

One example that many have not considered:

The Imps beat the Hammerheads twice head to head at the Island and also beat their qualifying time at Pickering. But they ranked below them and DESERVEDLY SO. Why? Because the Hammerheads on average are the faster team on an absolute level.

No matter what correction you want to make using your regression, there is an Ottawa "time discount" that I believe exists. If all you have in your data set is say, Stoufville and Ottawa, I believe Toronto and Pickering teams still operate at a disadvantage..and even the regression won't totally correct that.

As for the Piranhas, they can shut up and paddle and just win the goddamned title back for goodness sake. I'm sick of this Riptide bullshit..especially as they are registered as "Riptide - 2005 Champions" or something to that effect.

Do it for ALL OF US PLEASE

"Riptide - 2005 Champions"

I'm really hoping the event organizers tacked that last bit on and not Riptide. Otherwise.......

Hmmm, I was just hunting past threads for the one that pulled the supposedly private posting from the Riptide forum, and I can't seem to find any record of it. Has it really been deleted?

Wow! That is great stuff. I am really impressed that people are beginning to understand how the system works as well as the weaknesses of regression based ranking. Here are a few comments.

1. I fully agree that there is the potential that the top three teams racing in Stouffeville were sub par (though this is speculation on our part). In addition, the sample size for this festival was not huge. I feel that these two factors make adding local or less competitive festivals more risky. In the past I believed that the more races the better, but I now believe that the “quality” in terms of pressure for performance and number of boats do play a role. I will be careful in the future to strike a balance between the two objectives, lots of races, good “quality” races.

Note that this year I switched the type of regression from linear (straight line) to polynomial (allow for curve if the data suggests it). I feel this is a better approach as the underlying relationships do not always seem to be linear and this allows for some flexibility. If the above regression skewing is occurring, the polynomial regression will help to mitigate this effect as the rest of the polynomial regression line does not get dragged down to the same extent that a liner line would.

2. The problem with your arguement however is that you have made up data. Please, if you are going to post some argument don't make up numbers, look them up. It should be noted that HEAD TO HEAD Shockwave was ONLY 1.1 seconds off of Hydrophobic but did better time wise in the earlier 500m heat. As a result the average true rank Stouffville time for Hydrophobic was 2:09.8 and Shockwave was 2:10.1.

Note that head-to-head races have their own problems, where lane bias or conditions are more likely to play a larger role when compared to a ranking that includes many races. In addition, I feel that on any given day, teams times can vary by as much as .5-2 seconds between a good and bad race. This would clearly be closer to .5 for top teams and closer to 2 for weaker ones. A one-time head to head loss may suggest a skew in the data but is in no way clear cut evidence that the same race run again in different lanes or even the same lanes would necessarily produce the same outcome in terms of times. I’m not advocating that this actually did or did not occur, but recommend that you keep perspective on head to head racing when considering a ranking (ie. I beat that team once so it's impossible they ranked ahead of me).


3. If there is not strong evidence of lane bias and there are enough teams Waterloo will be added.

4. "3:21 -No matter what correction you want to make using your regression, there is an Ottawa "time discount" that I believe exists. If all you have in your data set is say, Stoufville and Ottawa, I believe Toronto and Pickering teams still operate at a disadvantage..and even the regression won't totally correct that."

This makes not sense at all. "time discount"??? The regressions adjust to average boat speed of the competing teams. It is impossible that there is bias towards one festival as teams determine the adjustment (ok, yes if teams all travel to one festival to dog it there will be a skew). You can have a weak sample size, but this could mean the adjustent could be biased both upwards or down. I'm afraid you are out to lunch on this one.

Wow, can I say again how cool your rankings are! Great Work!

"...and there are enough teams Waterloo will be added."

By my count, there are 21 teams that currently reside in your top 100 attending Waterloo. Is that enough?

It may also help to settle the Shockwave argument as they will be there along with Hydrophobic and Piranhas.

Hey PD,

The data wasn't made up. It was lifted from the paddlesport results.

"We now have two strong teams and as can be seen in our rankings, we're out kick some butt this year."

Don't be so cocky Shockwave. Let's see how you do in Waterloo.

Country mile? It's -damn- hard to pull away at Waterloo if you're amongst reasonably good crews. That's just the way of it.

Tell Hanalei that. People thought it was impossible to break teams off the start / pull away in Stratford. Hanalei not only did that, they opened a massive can of whoop ass.

Yes, that's just it. Out of all these Waterloo and Stratford races, Hanalei's performance was the notable exception. I believe that reinforces the notion of it being damn hard. And they were able to open said can in part because everyone else was still mired in the muck.

"(ok, yes if teams all travel to one festival to dog it there will be a skew)"

You mean like if there was a race that lots of toronto teams went to because it was in a fun city and there were plenty of strip--uh, bars to go to and teams liked to stay up drinking until 5am before race day...

(*cough* montreal! *cough*)

PD, in all seriousness, how do the rankings reflect the home vs. away factor? Most teams treat out of town races as more "fun" than local ones, so have you found that (for example) ontario teams do worse (relatively) when they race in quebec, and quebec teams do worse in ontario? Would it average out over the course of a season?

I think Ontarians treat Montreal as a fun race because of the city. But Quebeckers treat Ontario races seriously because of the competition (Pickering/Welland/Sudbury). Neither of the three Ontario sites are known for their parties.

More support to this idea:

Who goes to Montreal now?

Who comes to Pickering/Sudbury?

Weather Forecast Courtesy of Environment Canada:
A mix of sun and cloud. Risk of a thunderstorm late in the morning and early in the afternoon. High 30.

A rained out Waterloo encore?

If Big Fish raced in Toronto instead..you could come up with a pretty plausible scenario arguing why their ranking was aided by the fact they raced in Ottawa.

was not included in the rankings as they have not posted all the race results.

Sorry I meant Stouffville.

Any results?

Don't know the results of the final but the final was

Stratford Juniors
Hydrophobic Dragons
Piranhas
Riptide
Shockwave

Sorry if I accused of using made up data when someone has posted inaccurate data on a site.

It is true that the most challenging adjustment for the true rankings is lining up the Montreal teams with the GTA teams. Fortunately, the number of crews willing to travel and compete seems to have increased in the past few years making this much more viable than it would have been in the past.

Home vs. Away. There may be some difference when teams race at local festivals and when they travel. Of note, it may be harder to get a full crew to commit to out of town races or you may take the competition less seriously, but by the same token it may be easier to stack from other local crews. In all honesty I really don't feel that this is a serious problem and when crews travel they do try to represent. Everyone knows the Montreal jokes of crews going slower on day 2 because of hangovers but I really think this is more exaggeration than actual fact (not the hangovers, those are real, but teams don't slow down much).

Let's examine in some detail the adjustment for this year (off the top of my head). Here are some cross teams I have flagged so far:

If these crews go as fast as normal.
Adrenaline in Pickering
ETS in Pickering
Bytown in Pickering and Sudbury
SCC in Pickering
Wongs in Sudbury

But these teams don't really show up and go slower than normal.
Senior National Team
Big Fish in Ottawa
Chiro in Ottawa
Collingwood in Ottawa
Team Chaos in Ottawa

Then there could potentially be a skew that slightly improves Montreal teams times (or for the counter example vice versa).

However, I think it is safe to say that anyone familiar with these teams would agree there is no reason to believe that the second list of teams competed sub par while the first list went all out. In addition we should pick up teams from the states that race in both GTA and Montreal (both away races for them). As well the GTA teams that race in Montreal and the Montreal crews that race in GWN.

Long story short, for this season the cross division adjustment should be very accurate and easy to do.

Power Demon

P.S. I'm away on vacation for the next week.

Why no word on what happened?

At least it was nice out eh?

Uni final
1. UC
2. New
3. Banana Boat

OPen final
1. Piranhas
2. hydrophobic
3. shockwave

grand final (uni final, open final, plus next 4 fastest times in ANY team's third race)
1. ruckus
2. piranhas
3. hydrophobic

ruckus won the university consolation but due to time was given a slot in the final. they won out of lane 6. only festival which gives you a chance to redeem yourself after not making your final. congrats to ruckus for stepping up!!

Hey! Its nice to see who won the Waterloo festival. I bet it would have been an awesome grand final. Oh, how I miss dragon boating.... Anyways, Congrats to all!

"Don't be so cocky Shockwave. Let's see how you do in Waterloo."

I think they did pretty well compared to last year. They raced A final, but they didn't win. How well did your team do?

how come i dont' see riptide anywhere?

i thought riptide was supppsed to rip it up?

Riptide didn't do too bad, they made it to A final. I'll give it to them (I'm not the biggest Riptide fan), but they gave a great attempt at keeping the title. Props to them.

"only festival which gives you a chance to redeem yourself after not making your final. "

They let them do what? So are you saying a team can tank their races and go hard for their last race, make the final and get a shot at the title? Doesn't sound fair to the other teams to me.

So if they didn't deserve to be in the final, exactly who did? Please explain that to me.

Fair is giving a grand championship shot to teams who made the finals. How can an event justify a champion who could potentially making the grand championship final out of the lowest division? What is the point of doing all the other races to get into divisions? If a crew had a bad race, that's tough. I crew can equally have a race that is too good for them too (wind picks up, whatever). My point is, a grand champion contestant should be one who has qualified through to the top division of the entire event. That involves two good races for most events (heat and semi-final performance). Under the system people are talking about here, it is possible (and potentially did happen) for a team to have two crappy races and make it into the final because of an act of god, timing error, or whatever.

It is actually advantageous to qualify from a lower division because you get a long rest. The grand championship comes immediately after the community final, and university final.

The only way RUCUS stood even the slightest chance of winning was in lane 6, and thats what happened. Didnt matter how hard any of us other teams paddled, there was no way we could catch them after hitting the sand bar at the 250 mark. Convieniently for the organisers there is a big patch of trees and shrubs at this point so no one can see lane 6 taking off, and the rest of the teams dropping in.... if it werent for the terrible lane bias, and terrible starter we'd be back because its an enjoyable event. As it stands we'll be off to sudbury next yr in search of a more level playing ground.
My congrats to pirahnas, as hard as we damn well tried you held us off! Twice!

Too bad the last poster won't be fast enough for the competitive division in Sudbury. Keep crying

At least now that Waterloo 2006 is in the books everyone can stop ragging on Riptide about Waterloo 2005

I think the previous message meant to say:

"At least now that Waterloo 2006 is in the books Riptide can stop bragging about Waterloo 2005"

How did the event run this year? Last year, things seemed very slow with too much time between races. The rain saved their butts last year or we would have been there all night.

Was it better this year?

Went late. Starter did the best he could. I don't know who's idea it was, but it is stupid to have the starter yell "attention please" into a walkie-talkie and have the start gun fired from somewhere else. Event finished at 7pm with no rain.

This is my first year at Waterloo and I think it matches Stratford in terms of difficulty in breaking free from the pack. I was in the final and the Piranhas took what was almost a full boat lead off the start. I thought the race was over but they were sucked right back into the pack shortly after. Lane 6 was free of all the wash and was deeper so those guys took the express lane home for a miracle win.

Well, Waterloo 2006 is over and it was at least sunny this year. All of my teams had a good time and did personal bests, so that's what's important. One comment on the lanes: having steered for several teams and in every lane but 1, I can say that the outside lanes (4, 5 and 6) were running faster (deeper? lack of weeds?). One of my novice crews shaved a whopping 10sec off their time between race 1 and 2, and I know it was going from lane 2 to lane 5 that did it. In talking to Bill L. he said the organizers decided to move the course closer to shore to try and even out the lanes. I think it would have been better to leave it out in the middle of the lake. Having said that, in the end I think the best teams still rose to the top (congrats UC, Piranhas and Ruckus) regardless of lane position. It was a great day of racing!

A few Insane Membranes just wanted to say a special thanks to the Ryerson Crew for letting the four of us join your practice on Friday night. It was much appreciated by us novices.

"Having said that, in the end I think the best teams still rose to the top (congrats UC, Piranhas and Ruckus) regardless of lane position."

I'd disagree with that. No offense to Ruckus but clearly not in the class of these two crews nor are they in the class of Hydrophobic, New Dragons, Riptide or anyone else in the Platinum Final or University final. They shouldn't have been there and a weird Waterloo festival advancement system gave cinderella her dress, shoes, carriage and prince. The lane provided the horses.

^^^Completely agree. Ruckus is good, but the lanes definitely decided most of the races all day long. And if you were unlucky enough to get lane 1, you were toast. Only one team won out of lane 1 all day and it was the Hydrophobics against a field of 2:20 something boats. Their time for that race was also much slower than they are capable of. Lane 2 was not much better.

"They shouldn't have been there and a weird Waterloo festival advancement system gave cinderella her dress, shoes, carriage and prince. The lane provided the horses."

I nominate this metaphor for best of 2006. Hilarious and accurate.

The festival ran late, but give the race official credit for trying to have the starts as fair as possible especially in the finals. I would rather Lively Dragon get it right.

Everyone who has been to Waterloo before should have been aware of Lane 6 - Ruckus was able to pull off the near upset Cajunblue's Dilligaff Crew couldn't manage to do in 2003. They almost pulled off a huge upset in the Grand Championship in 2002 (or 3?) out of lane 3. To one of the posters above, it was Banana Boat that was the 6th seed by time out of the Grand Final - and fyi, they beat Ruckus head to head by a couple seconds in their qualifying heat.

Waterloo should change should change to only take the 6 fastest teams from the CHAMPIONSHIP round. As the coach of the 6th fastest team in the festival, I do have a bias, but from the reaction of the forum, it appears I am not alone in my opinion.

Nonetheless, if this route to victory could have happened to any crew, I do think it's nice that Ruckus was the crew to do it. I've personally been to Waterloo every year since 2000 and this is their 7th season together. They won Welland's community draw, and now have won Waterloo. They're a resilient bunch and always seem to race their hearts out so congrats from another Waterloo alum.

*Dilligaff almost pulled the same upset out in lane 6, not lane 3.

If you play within the rules and win by the rules, then it is a victory indeed. Congrats Ruckus, Lil'Fishes, and UC, and all the other teams for a great day of racing.

I just can’t stop thing about how different the outcome might have been if the Platinum teams had even 20 min to regroup. Those teams had to race back to back for the cup. I tip my hat to those teams especially the Piranhas and Hydrophobic Dragons finishing second and third.

I just read the Stratford paper and it reports that the Stratford Juniors were 3rd overall in Waterloo. How come that hasn't been acknowledged on The Forum? Who's right here.

"I just read the Stratford paper and it reports that the Stratford Juniors were 3rd overall in Waterloo. How come that hasn't been acknowledged on The Forum? Who's right here."

cause its WRONG they didn't get third over all

there was a photographer taking photos throughout the day i was wondering how can we see those pictures

1:Rucus
2:Pirahnas
3:Hydrophobic
?
?
?

1:Ruckus
2:Pirahnas - Beach
3:Hydrophobic Dragons
4:University College Water Dragons
5:Stratford Juniors
6: New College

Quote:
"I think the previous message meant to say:

"At least now that Waterloo 2006 is in the books Riptide can stop bragging about Waterloo 2005""


From what I hear the funny thing is Riptide just missed out making the Grand Championship final, their final time just slower than Ruckus by a hair. Could you have imagined if they had gotten Lane 6?! Maybe they would've actually have taken it instead of Ruckus, so it probably is a good thing Waterloo gives the other 4 spots by time...no more Riptide bragging

But I still have to give them props, kept close to the Piranhas in one race, and managed a respectable finish out of Lane1 in the final, and I will admit that the Men of Rip the Fondue really did rip up the rest of the field in the 250 sprint.

Anyone who has been to Waterloo knows it is a wash riders dream course. You don't even have to look for wash, its there whether you like it (Platinum division) or not (Piranhas)

Move the course out! So that it is even!

I wrote to the organizers and in the future, lane assignments and grand championship qualification will be posted on the race schedule and the website to ensure that all the rules are understood in the future.

As for consolation teams being able to make it to the Grand Championship based on a faster time than the championship final teams..that's still going to stay and there are no plans to change that rule.

And FYI - I think Riptide's time was 7th fastest. I'm going to have to see if I'm wrong when the results (which were promised to come out last night) are posted.

I just wanted to post public support for a change in the rules along with my private email to the organizers.

I believe it is a disservice to all other crews to allow a team outside of the top tier a chance to win the overall title at any event. By doing so it de-legitimizes the need for preliminary and semi-final races. It also robs athletes and spectators of the ability to see the best team win.

Now I understand that the definition of the “best team” may be debatable so I humbly offer my view. Pretty much all regatta race structures are designed to separate and compartmentalize the participants into quality “buckets”. A preliminary race allows for a first rough cut while a semi-final race allows for further segmentation. In order to stay in contention, a crew must have a relatively consistent and repeatable level of performance to advance appropriately through the rounds and remain in contention for the overall title. As such, my definition of “best team” is one that is able to stay in contention through the preceding rounds and is first across the line in the final.

However, what is the point of all these rounds if all that matters to make the final is one good last race? (For those who do not know, Waterloo has a three race format : heat, semi-final and final and then crews get invited to a fourth “Grand Championship” race) Where is the screen for quality? As most racers know, course conditions can change from heat to heat so allowing qualification based solely on the results of one set of races and ignoring the results of two previous rounds is not a fair way of determining a finalist. A change in wind direction from tail wind in the earlier races to a head wind in the later races can easily be enough to make up the slim margin that bumped out more worthy teams in Waterloo this past weekend.

Further, as is often mentioned on this forum, time doesn’t really matter outside of initial seeding. Relative performance is much more important. Just because Crew A gets 2:05 and Crew B gets 2:08 doesn’t mean A > B. Conditions change, lanes are different, etc and anything can make up those differences. Especially in Waterloo where it is very well known that the outside lanes (6,5,4) are much faster than the inside ones. As someone posted on the forum, her crew improved by 10 seconds moving from an inside to an outside lane. The margin that bumped out Platinum division and University Final crews was mere milliseconds.

Also, an advancement policy such as the current one leaves a large incentive for teams to tank. With the potential for four races in one day (and 5 if a crew decides to participate in the 250m sprints), winning Waterloo is a battle of endurance/fitness as much as it is a sprint race. A crew with designs on the title can feasibly do poorly in their first two races, get lane 6 for a low division final, be clear of wash riding because the teams around them have poor starts, blast their way down the course to the fastest time of the day and qualify for the final racing hard only once and with lots of rest time between their J division final and the Grand Championship final. While the large majority of crews would not stoop to such blatent poor sportsmanship, it is not out of the realm of possibility as we hear of crews “shutting it down” in races to get better lanes in subsequent races. Another negative from this is that lower division crews will get upset for losing to a team that is obviously tanking, thereby robbing them with the enjoyment of competing for a hard fought division title. The recent uproar regarding the Recreational division in Sudbury is an example of how people can get upset over this perception.

Finally, from a pure fairness standpoint, it is unfair for teams in the Platinum/University Final divisions to battle it out for three races, get less than 20 minutes of rest between their hard fought division final and race against a team that has at least 40mins of rest racing in the fastest lane on the course. If they really deserved to be there, they would have been faster all day, not just in once race.

I would like to add that I am not taking away the fact that Ruckus indeed did win the Waterloo regatta within the rules. In the last race of the day, they were the first across the line. Good on them. However, I believe Banana Boat should have been in lane 6 in the final and they should have won the regatta out of Lane 6. I believe this because they were the fourth next fastest time out of the Open and University finals.

As a side, point I would really like to see events with obvious lane biases to follow Stratford’s lead and seed teams into the best lanes instead of the standard middle-out format. If a team worked its way into getting the top seed, reward them with the best lane. We live in a society where we reward performance, not handicap it.

Totally Agree with Rob here. Using the best time of the last race is probably the WORST way to pick teams for a final. Waterloo orgainzers CHANGE THIS INSANITY!!!!!!!!!

To be fair, what would have happened is that Banana Boat would have gotten lane 1 and New College would have gotten lane 6. New would have won.

For races with an obvious lane bias, why not let the teams pick the lanes in order of seeding? 1st picks 1st, 2nd picks second, etc. You can decline to pick if you like, but you can't change your pick once it's made.

So if you think you know the course, you have only yourself to blame for getting a bum lane.

That may be one of the most well thought out posts I have ever seen here. It's good to see the forum being used for intelligent thought for a change

Rob's a weenie and has too much time on his hands.

But I agree with everyhing he said.

I agree with everything, except the rest time. A crew that's a championship level crew should be able to produce two 100% efforts within minutes of each other. Try it in training, see how many 500s can you get at the same speed. Might get surprised how quickly people's bodies recover. Mind's a different thing.

How come Rob didn't write an open letter to the Waterloo organizers in previous years? The rule has been the same since the Piranhas competed in the University Division way back when.

Only this time, when Ruckus beats out both his teams?

I expected someone would try to pull this one.

The reason is because no one knew that all Finals were eligible for the Grand Championship. It didn't cross our minds (mine and the minds of many of the University and Platinum finalists) that a team outside of the Platinum and U&C divisions would even be considered. In a champion of champions race, do you expect to see someone from the C division show up?

Another reason is because this is the first time it has happened in all the years that I have been going to Waterloo.

Yet another reason is that there are no rules posted. The organizers are fixing that though.

And for those who may be interested, I spoke to the organizers and voiced my disagreement with their ruling before any of us got on the boat for finals. I believed that Bananaboat should be awarded the spot and not a team outside of the platinum final or U&C final

Also, as a person who supports dragon boat and believes in rewarding performance, I believe it is our collective duty to try to make things better by advocating change. Although I do not take credit for it, I lobbied another festival to change and it did - it is not considered among the best. I have also been in constant contact with the waterloo organizers since my first year competing with them and have provided feedback on numerous occassions.

Not everyone is self serving and petty. This is a sport and we all need to help out if it is to advance.

"Another reason is because this is the first time it has happened in all the years that I have been going to Waterloo."

Clarification - A team qualifying from outside the Platinum and U&C Finals

"Although I do not take credit for it, I lobbied another festival to change and it did - it is not considered among the best"

Correction - it is NOW considered among the best

Always a shit disturber in the mix.

The Waterloo organizers are a very proactive and receptive group - and more importantly, good people. What you haven't seen over the past seven years is the feedback that many of us have provided the organizers in person, on the phone and e-mail. Moreover, you're confusing a public display of opinion with calling out the organizers. Trust me, we've all been in touch with the organizers, forum posts notwithstanding.

You obviously don't know the history of the relationship between the Piranhas and Ruckus. There is a mutual respect as these two teams had some tight battles when they were the top teams in the university division back in 2000.

Finally, before the grand final, Rob spent most of his time giving his opinion to Bill LaRose about how Banana Boat should have been in the final..so I don't think this is a selfish tirade.

I just wanted to add to Rob and Jason's comments about providing organizers with feedback. I spent a bit of time talking to Bill after the race about what my teams liked, didn't like this year (generally all very positive) and I would encourage others to do so as well. You don't have to be a top level paddler/cox/coach to voice an opinion. Any constructive feedback is valuable and helps improve things the next year.

As for the lane bias, I learned two very interesting things in talking to Bill and a few others on Friday night during our practice session:
1) they moved the course in towards shore this year (as previously mentioned in this thread).
2) the organizers actually believe lanes 5 and 6 to be WORSE than 1 and 2, which is why they moved the course in to shore this year (at least this is what I was told). So seeding teams in those lanes wasn't viewed as an advantage by the organizers.

After the race on Saturday I mentioned to Bill that lanes 5 and 6 seemed to be running faster than 1 and 2, and they might want to consider moving the course back out. He said they'd be looking at that for next year.

And this gets back to my original point - having any team, even a lower division team - give feedback can be helpful to orgainzers to understand how participants view their event. I wouldn't even mind getting a survey from organizers on this type of thing - in the past both the Oakville and Mississauga race orgainzers have sent my teams surveys asking about anything from the course conditions to the parking available. I wish more organizers would do the same.

Not sure how they coulda thought that Lanes 5 & 6 would be worse when it's no secret that they are the fastest lanes for the longest of time. Lane 1 has always been bad, but by moving it closer to shore, it was like there was a giant venus dragon boat trap that sucks you in about halfway through. Well, at least they are willing to listen, more than can be said for a number of other festivals...

Just passing through the threads and noticed the LENGTHY post by Rob. The guy makes good points and I cant see how organizers can run the finals the way they do since no one else does it that way. Sounds like they are the types who will listen and I hope they do because Sudbury is becoming a "can't miss" event and it will draw all the remaining competitive teams soon.

Results are posted:

http://www.waterloodragonboat.org/text/WaterlooRaceResults2006.xls

PDF:

http://www.waterloodragonboat.org/text/WaterlooRaceResults2006.pdf

And figuring out the top times in the Open/University final:

1. 2:11.20 - Piranhas-Beach
2. 2:11.29 - Hydrophobic Dragons
3. 2:12.02 - Stratford Juniors
4. 2:12.18 - UC Waterdragons
5. 2:12.29 - UT New Dragons
6. 2:13.06 - Banana Boat
7. 2:13.11 - Riptide
8. 2:13.12 - Shockwave #1
9. 2:13.16 - Iron Dragons
10. 2:15.12 - U of T Scarlem

And Ruckus got in with a 2:12.23 in the Consolation Final.

So THAT's what happened..

And more proof showing the use of finals time only is stupid:

Rank Team Name Round 1 Round 2 Final Average
1 University College Water Dragons 02:07.29 02:12.17 02:12.18 Avg: 02:10.55
2 Piranhas - Beach 02:08.02 02:13.25 02:11.20 Avg: 02:10.82
3 UT New College New Dragons 02:07.00 02:15.01 02:12.29 Avg: 02:11.43
4 Stratford Juniors 02:10.12 02:14.28 02:12.02 Avg: 02:12.14
5 Hydrophobic Dragons 02:13.02 02:14.13 02:11.29 Avg: 02:12.81
6 TCBA Jr RIPTIDE - 2005 Champions 02:13.15 02:14.14 02:13.11 Avg: 02:13.47
7 Banana Boat 02:14.03 02:14.18 02:13.06 Avg: 02:13.76
8 Shockwave DBC #1 02:15.26 02:13.14 02:13.12 Avg: 02:13.84
9 Ruckus Dragon Boat Crew 02:16.14 02:17.07 02:12.23 Avg: 02:15.15
10 RBC Royal Dragons 02:16.29 02:15.03 02:16.03 02:15.78

So the NINTH fastest team by average time gets into the final based on one flukey(?) race. Or what if we looked at how each race among the top ten teams stack up against each other?

Rank Team Time
1 UT New College New Dragons 02:07.00
2 University College Water Dragons 02:07.29
3 Piranhas - Beach 02:08.02
4 Stratford Juniors 02:10.12
5 Piranhas - Beach 02:11.20
6 Hydrophobic Dragons 02:11.29
7 Stratford Juniors 02:12.02
8 University College Water Dragons 02:12.17
9 University College Water Dragons 02:12.18
10 Ruckus Dragon Boat Crew 02:12.23
11 UT New College New Dragons 02:12.29
12 Hydrophobic Dragons 02:13.02
13 Banana Boat 02:13.06
14 TCBA Jr RIPTIDE - 2005 Champions 02:13.11
15 Shockwave DBC #1 02:13.12
16 Shockwave DBC #1 02:13.14
17 TCBA Jr RIPTIDE - 2005 Champions 02:13.15
18 Piranhas - Beach 02:13.25
19 Banana Boat 02:14.03
20 Hydrophobic Dragons 02:14.13
21 TCBA Jr RIPTIDE - 2005 Champions 02:14.14
22 Banana Boat 02:14.18
23 Stratford Juniors 02:14.28
24 UT New College New Dragons 02:15.01
25 RBC Royal Dragons 02:15.03
26 Shockwave DBC #1 02:15.26
27 RBC Royal Dragons 02:16.03
28 Ruckus Dragon Boat Crew 02:16.14
29 RBC Royal Dragons 02:16.29
30 Ruckus Dragon Boat Crew 02:17.07

Of the 30 TOTAL races by the top ten crews (prior to the Grand Championship Final), Ruckus had the WORST and THIRD WORST performance among the top 10 teams (as well as the 10th best).

The way the organizers pick Finals contestants is wrong and these numbers is proof. From the numbers it looks like Riptide, Banana Boat and perhaps even Shockwave were ripped off.

Waterloo:

1 University College Water Dragons Avg: 02:10.55
2 Piranhas - Beach Avg: 02:10.82
3 UT New College New Dragons Avg: 02:11.43
4 Stratford Juniors Avg: 02:12.14
5 Hydrophobic Dragons Avg: 02:12.81
6 TCBA Jr RIPTIDE - 2005 Champions Avg: 02:13.47
7 Banana Boat Avg: 02:13.76
8 Shockwave DBC #1 Avg: 02:13.84

True Rankings:

13 Piranhas - Beach Mixed 4 02:09.8
14 Phoenix ETS Mixed 4 02:09.9
15 Shockwave DBC Mixed 3 02:10.1
16 Hydrophobic Dragons Mixed 7 02:10.3
17 Shogun Warriors Mixed 7 02:11.1
18 Tail Gaters Mixed 3 02:11.2
19 Sir Oliver Mowat Mustangs Mixed 3 02:11.8
20 U of T New College New Dragons Mixed 8 02:12.5
21 Mofos Mixed 7 02:12.6
22 Sudbury Canoe Club Mixed 3 02:12.8
23 University College Water Dragons Mixed 11 02:13.2

From these results it's clear that Shockwave doesn't belong where they are in the rankings. On average, they were 2-3 seconds slower than teams below them in the rankings. UC should move upwards considerably.

I noticed that the Waterloo results conveniently left out the lanes used for any of the races. Cuz that would have explained alot about what happened.

Me too.

The problem I see here and all the time at most venues is that teams enter and expect to get a result that is a reflection of talent. This simply cannot happen at 95% of the race courses in Ontario. When Dragonboat Canada chooses to go to Welland or Sudbury year after year its because they recognize the need for a venue where the best team wins no ifs ands or buts. No one ever has this discussion after a regatta in Welland and not much discussion goes on after Sudbury or Milton. These are deep water venues with little or no lane bias. If DragonboatCanada gets their info up on the web site I recommend racing at the National Championships in September. I've raced that course at NACCC and at this years GWN sport race and its a gem. If you win there you deserve it.

The argument is not whether the right team won or lost. The argument is one team shouldn't have been there based on how all other festivals run races. It just happens (tragically) the team won the event as well.

"From these results it's clear that Shockwave doesn't belong where they are in the rankings. On average, they were 2-3 seconds slower than teams below them in the rankings. UC should move upwards considerably."

How is it so clear? What were the conditions? What lanes were involved? I didn't realize that you had a crystal ball. Piranhas posted times at 2:08, 2:13, 2:11, it must be clear based on those times exactly where they are at. I'm not knocking the Piranhas, they are a great team. But there needs to be more info. How well did your team do?

You need to do some reading. The True Rankings don't take such information into consideration, it only uses the times and the teams that they've competed against to create a regression. The Pirahna times (along with the other teams) will be adjusted and averaged with their other times to determine their revised ranking.

to the above poster (July 19 2006, 11:53 PM ) i am not a member of shockwave or am i a member of any of the teams that went to waterloo this year...but i can only assume ur dumbass has never been to waterloo because the water in waterloo is really heavy especially if you get stuck with lane 1 or lane 2...i believe shockwave posted the fastest time in the semis beating out piranhas by a boat head in the open challenge...true if you look at the rankings and the avg times it may seem like shockwave can't compare but the time you see is the finals time and we all know the water in the afternoon is slower than in the morning...so please find out all your facts before you start knocking the other teams...

Interesting how someone didn't go to Waterloo but had lots of details about it. Heavy water, semifinal information. But perhaps he/she wasn't really there. The Piranhas didn't lose all day until the final

The times posted in the comparison are not of the final race, but the AVERAGES of the 3 races (note the 'Avg'). True Rankings do not take lanes into consideration...live with it.

I'm just curious about all the people who are bitching and complaining about how accurate true rankings are, or who placed higher in the final race. Do you people even paddle for those top teams? I'm on one of those teams and we all have a mutual respect for all team who we paddle against. I (and many others) don't care if we are beat, it just gives us incentive to work harder. There's nothing better to see a brand new team rise through the ranks so that there is more competition. I think the whiners here wish they could even keep up with a team such as Shockwave/Riptide/Ruckas.

hey (July 20 2006, 8:36 AM) unlike you...i have friends who were on those teams...that is how i know...and don't forget about hydrophobics...give them some props also

I don't think anyone is saying any of the above teams are bad or anything. Yes some have said Ruckus got lucky getting the outside lane, and won mainly because of that, shaving about 4 sec off their semi.

I think whats most important, as Rob "weenie" and others have said is that the determination of finalists and lane placement in Waterloo is flawed. Hopefully, Waterloo organizers realize that and take the various write-ins, conversations into consideration.

"I think the whiners here wish they could even keep up with a team such as Shockwave/Riptide/Ruckas."

Lol.

Sure Shockwave/Riptide/Ruckus may not be top level A calibre teams but my thinking goes that your laughing is little disrespectful to those same teams.

I'm pretty sure the teams in the Waterloo B final or below aren't going to be logged into this forum complaining about unfair lanes

Way to assume what I'm laughing at!

alright then, please share.

or how would you interpret your previous post then?

As is the custom of our crew, we would like to publicly thank the help we received at this regatta. Albeit we (read: I) are a little tardy in doing so.

So THANKS to the girls from BMO, the paddlers from UofT Victoria College and a couple of retired Piranhas for helping us out in Waterloo this past weekend.

Are you implying that Shockwave/Riptide/Ruckas is a top level 'A' crew?

Jason's LOL would imply that they are not.

Other poster quote "Sure Shockwave/Riptide/Ruckus may not be top level A calibre teams" would imply that they are not as well.

So where are you getting the implication that they are "A" level?

Wow, you guys really beat things to death here. The festival has come and gone and I'm sure the teams have moved on (our team being one). That is, unless the only people posting on here are team members who feel like they need to justify or defend their "implied" greatness, or mockery thereof.

Sticks and stones people. Conserve your energy and concentrate it on your next regatta to prove all these haters wrong.

Otherwise, if you don't have anything constructive to share...

Where's Angry Dude when you need him? Maybe if I shine a search light up in the sky with a big middle finger, he will come.

nana nana nana nana... nana nana nana nana... ANGRY DUDE!
nana nana nana nana... nana nana nana nana... ANGRY DUDE! Angry Dude!

What??!! What the fuck do you want?? Go fuck yourself!! Angry Dude doesn't play on demand!