any ideas?

[spike]

anyone have any ideas or thoughts? this is a very big issue, any help would be great.

Fellow Canoe Polo Players and Interested Persons:

There are less than 3 months until the registration closes for the World
Masters Games where Canoe Polo is making its first appearance in the
Master's which is the world's largest multi-sport games. Canada's closest
neighbour, the USA, who is the largest international participating canoe
polo contingent in our tournaments, has not been able to register due to a
pending decision regarding the location of the America's Cup.

The America's Cup is to decide who from North, South and Central America
qualify for the World's 2006. The ranking at the last World's is also part
of the equation.

I want to generate discussion from a broader community regarding our
dilemma of WHERE TO HOLD THE AMERICA'S CUP. The following three
alternatives are my personal opinion of the situation and hopefully someone
has better ideas. I think Alternative 3 is the best option for both
continents.

The only North American team that has not yet qualified for 2006 World's is
the USA men's team. The other 3 teams have qualified but must participate
in the America's Cup to maintain their qualifying positions. For the North
American teams to all travel to Brazil would cost a lot of money and the
World Master's will suffer financial loss. For Brazil to travel to Edmonton
would also cause them hardship.

ALTERNATIVE 1: Host it in Edmonton. Canada and USA want to have the
America's Cup 2005 in conjunction with the World Masters this summer in
Edmonton, Canada -- one trip (2500 km USA/Edmonton) three big tournaments:
Nationals, Master's, America's Cup. The plan was to use the World Master's
as a large Canoe Polo event in preparation for Edmonton hosting the World's
2008. The World Master's also provides funding in proportion to the
participation so that equipment can be acquired now and reused in 2008. If
the Cup is held in Edmonton, Brazil has to travel 8500 km and this is a
financial burden on Brazil.

ALTERNATIVE 2: Host it in Brazil. Brazil wants to qualify for 2006 and has
not attended the previous tournaments held in North America or the 2004
World's in Japan -- my guess is the costs. So they have requested holding
the America's Cup in Brazil one month after the World Master's. Canada's
Men/Women teams and the USA Women qualified at the 2004 World's but have
been informed they must attend the American's Cup to maintain their
qualification. The USA men must qualify for 2006 and are worried that they
may have to travel to Brazil and cannot afford two major financial
commitments. The Americans have not registered for the World Masters
because the USA National team tryouts are in June. Those who make the team
may have to go to Brazil. Those who don't will have missed the World
Masters entry deadline.

Going to Brazil is difficult and costly for the USA and Canadian players
since they must personally finance their own travel costs. They have
regularly attended each others tournaments (2500 km) over the years.
Canadian teams have driven the distance to the USA tournaments to keep
costs down. The Canadian team has many students and some are still in debt
from Japan (5500 km Japan/Edmonton). Others are of Master's age and are
committed to supporting the Master's with their limited vacation and
finances.

ALTERNATIVE 3 IS A SOLUTION TO THIS COMPLICATED PROBLEM!

ALTERNATIVE 3: Host TWO America's Cup - one for the North American
continent and one for the South American continent. Host the America's Cup
I in Edmonton at the same time as the World Master's. The top two teams go
to 2006 - the USA and Canada (note: together these two countries have a
population of 320 million). Host the American's Cup II in Brazil where the
top one team from the South American teams participating would go to the
2006 World's (population of South America is 315 million). If two America's
Cups is not a feasible long term option the ICF could use a Wild Card to
admit the top South American team to 2006. This alternative has the benefit
of helping the World Master's which in turn helps the World's 2008.

The International Canoe Federation has the power to resolve this situation
quickly before the first casualty falls - the World Master's. I sincerely
hope that the international community suggests a solution to our desperate
situation - a solution that does not hurt the World Master's, create more
personal debt, adversely affect the 2008 Worlds preparation or dash our
hopes and dreams of attending the World's in 2006!

Thank you very much for reading this commentary and I appreciate any
suggestions.

Respectfully Yours,
Carolyn Karasiuk
"A Concerned Canoe Polo Player"
Edmonton, Canada

[Patrick]

Carolyn,

As an interested party, I believe option 3 is the best. But, as you said, it's really in the ICF's hands.

See the thread:

http://www.canoepolo.com/forum/showthread.php?t=5545

I'm wondering if there was any discussion of this at the last ICF meeting.

Actually, the population of BOTH continents is close to 1 BILLION people and the land mass spans a good portion of the globe, nearly pole to pole.

Thanks,

[Albert]

:wavey:
I posted my thoughts here:
http://www.canoepolo.com/forum/showthread.php?t=5871

Some interesting facts:

-Amsterdam is closer to Edmonton than Edmonton is Sao Paulo!
-Amsterdam is closer to Nagoya than Edmonton is to Sao Paulo!!
-Amsterdam is closer to Sao Paulo than Edmonton is to Sao Paulo!!!


albert

[JW Lester]

Has anyone from the ICF ever responded to any of these types of posts?

I've never seen any form of response from any of the people with ICF connections (or anyone from the US or Canadian organizations for that matter).

Realistically, we should adopt continental champs based on the Football regions - with Central America and the Carribean joining with N. America and S. America going it alone, but I can't see that happening.

[mrkeeg]

Hi all
JW...
I suppose I can respond to your question, as I am involved in the Canada Canoe Polo Comittee, though I have not been as actively involved in this situation as others have been.

First, Greg Smale (UK) and Duncan Cochrane (AUS) of the ICF have contributed a bit to this topic, here: http://www.canoepolo.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1169

From the Canadian organizers perspective, briefly:

- In the summer in Japan we have verbal discussions with regards to the Pan America Champs and the qualification system, under the belief that Canada would host the Pan America Champs based on our anticipated highest placing of Americas countries at the worlds.

- While we in the process of planning the Pan Americas, we heard rumour (about 2 months ago) that Brazil was planning on hosting the 2005 Americas Cup.

- Almost immediately after we got an email from COPAC (pan am federation) announcing this.

- We send a letter to COPAC and the ICF objecting to this.

- COPAC opened a bidding process in which I believe that only Canada and Brazil were invited to respond.

- We are awaiting clarification (from the ICF) of wild cards and if it will be mandatory that Canada be at the 2005 Pan Americas (we pre-qualified for 2006 in 2004, but the rules read that to realize this qualification, we must still participate in the "continental" champs.

-COPAC said they twice tried to contact us before making the announcement to Brazil. The Canadian Canoe Association (always has been very efficient and reliable for us) office and Rob K (president of C CP Comittee) have no record of this.

- The word now seems official that Brazil will in fact host the "continental" qualifiers

Keegan

[JW Lester]

Keegan, I meant has anyone from ICF Canoe Polo ever taken on board the concerns of Canada, Brazil, Argentina and USA regarding the untenable situation of the Canoe Polo qualifiers being held in different hemispheres? I know lots of ICF people have spoken as much as they can regarding qualification in general...

We've been windbagging long enough here on the forum (which really is the only place to do it it would seem) - but it doesn't seem as if anyone is listening.

Your being sandbagged by Brazil with no discussion really sucks - but then again, they've not had a chance to host the comp before AFAIK. Fair enough, I suppose but you could also say they don't deserve to host since they didn't choose to attend the World's in Japan either.

Later,
John

[mrkeeg]

I haven't seen an ICF representative take on this question specifically on canoepolo.com, but to be fair we have only been "wind-bagging" in earnest for a short time. Untill now, we've only been mildly "breeze-bagging" on the selection process as a whole, though the "continental" divisions HAVE been included in other discussions. There has been some communication between ICF and the Canadian Comittee (CCPC), I am not in a position to comment on the extent or quality of it.

Speaking from my individual opinion (not on behalf of CCPC or any other org), it did initially seem like we were being "sandbagged" by Brasil and COPAC. To be fair though, Brasil is also a victem in the long run, and I personally believe that the fault of this debacle rests squarely with the ICF. The new system was pushed in too quickly and without resonable consultation, thought, or definition of practical details.

It is interesting that, from my understanding, COPAC has in the past been unwilling / uninterested in sanctioning our america's cup event, and now is dictating how and where it will be.

Sorry I don't have more complete information. If somebody who does would like to comment on or correct my statements, that would be welcome.

Keegan

[Patrick]

To be fair though, Brasil is also a victem in the long run

Hey there Keegan,

How do this think Brasil has been victimized?

Just curious. :confused:

Thanks,

[mrkeeg]

Patrick,
While Brasil got a favorable outcome this time, the fact remains that in the long run, they will be as hurt as we are by the aweful "continental" grouping system.

Next time THEY will have to fly almost halfway around the world to qualify, and then the very next year they will have to do it again for worlds.

Rather than make enemies of Brasil and COPAC, we should seek unity with them in petitioning the ICF for change.

[Patrick]

the fact remains that in the long run, they will be as hurt as we are by the aweful "continental" grouping system.

I couldn't agree more. Everyone in the Americas is disadvantaged right now.

Rather than make enemies of Brasil and COPAC, we should seek unity with them in petitioning the ICF for change.

I don't think pointing out the current real imbalance is the same as making enemies. Perhaps the Brazilians and COPAC could explain why it makes more sense to fly the three North American teams that have already qualified for the 2006 Worlds to South America than it does to fly the Brazilian team to North America for a chance to qualify that they could have addressed by attending the Worlds in Japan. It seems quite selfish to me and while I think unity is a good thing I certain wouldn't mind some clear and reasonable explanation as to why this course of action is being taken rather than another.

[mrkeeg]

I can certainly see what you are saying, and I am sure that others feel the same way.

Perhaps you could seek an ICF or COPAC member to give you the "clear and resonable explanation" you desire. (If you do, I would suggest that you contact them directly through email or other means, and not wait for answer on this forum. It would probably be most prudent to do this through your club or governing body rather than as an individual.) The USA has a member on the ICF BOD (Charles Yatman). I am not familiar with the structure of COPAC, but you may be able to find contact names by searching the web. Neither the Canadian or American national organizations even have a link to COPAC on their sites.

The official notice stated that while both Canada and Brasil would be suitable for hosting the event, the reason for the decision was that hosting in Brasil better serves the goal of "encouragning and prometing the discipline on the continent". (direct quote)

Take that as you will. I think it could encourrage and promote the discipline on the South American continent. Earlier communications listed possible participants as US, CAN, Brasil, Puerto Rico, Argentina, and Chile.

Um, eventually I will have to go do some homework today... good luck.

Keegan

[Sebi the Fin]

There is not much discussion when everyone agrees. Therefore some thoughts:

(1) Distance is not a good argument to define continents:
-The Swedish and Russian national teams have to travel 4000 km to compete in the EC this year.
-Although New-Zealand and Australia are close neighbours the airfare between both countries is comparable with the airfare between australia and Europe.
-Swedish, Russian and Finnish teams have to travel at least 22 hours to compete in a good-level international competition. In these countries development of teams is a real problem.

(2) Inhabitants is not a good argument to define continents:
-North America 300 million
-South America 300 million
-Europe (EU-25) 450 million
-China 1000 million
-India 500 million
The world has over 6 billion inhabitants. If ICF organises a continental cup for every 300 million inhabitants they end up with 20 continental cups!

(3) Number of teams could be a reasonable argument to define a continental cup. The ICF system as it stand favours American teams above European teams. Currently, at least one American team out of 4 will compete at the WC. The odds in Europe are 1 out of 17! (The fact that a lot of European teams qualified directly through the WC 2004 has nothing to do with the ICF system favouring one continent over the other but is a temporary effect of a longer polo tradition in Europe).

[Bryant]

I think the larger question that all of this is addressing is 'what is the purpose of the World Championships?'. If it's just to get the best teams to play and determine one winner then it doesn't much matter if North America competes right now. But if the sport is interested in growing and encouraging development in areas that have large populations but limited polo then the current system is unbalanced. As others have pointed out most sports have systems in place to help developing countries send participants to major international events like the Olympics. And if the Olympics is a goal for the sport the ICF needs to help address how to encourage the spread of the sport to even more countries.

I can understand grouping the Americas together based on the number of countries - some Olympic sports already do that. But right now, to require teams that qualified for WC 2006 by placing at WC2004 to compete in a tournament 5000km from home with a total of about 4 or 5 countries is a ridiculous financial burden. Sebi even admits that the large distance some European countries must travel is a limitation on development.

I believe the growth of the sport outside of Europe is essential to the ultimate success of kayak polo as an internationally recognized sport. If you agree then it makes sense to try to help areas like North and South America to develop and grow. One of the best ways to do that is to encourage more international play involving those countries and try to limit the financial burdens which are entirely placed on individuals. It's a long-term view and it may not get the 'best' 16 teams at the World Championships but it will ultimately make the sport better and stronger.

Here in the US we've gone to a regional training system to select and train the players for our national squad. It's more than doubled the amount of participation in such training events by drastically reducing costs. Even if it doesn't make our team any better immediately it will lead to an overall higher level of play in this country which will ultimately lead to better elite players. But only if we have some realistic hope of making it to a World Championship and competing at an international level. If not now in the near future.

Bryant

[Loic]

I know this is a bit late, but I have a bit of an idea. If the ICF wants to promote the sport, it needs to get it involved in larger venues such as the Pan American Games. Coincidentally, the 2007 games are being held in Rio, Brasil. This would be an awsome oportunity for the Americas cup to be held in NA this year and then join up with this more prestigious event, which would do much more for the publicity of the sport in South America. This could even spur other nations to start playing for the pure reason for participation in the Pan Am's. Another bonus, would be the possibility of funding for Nat teams in Canada if we were to be involved in such an event. It would be a great step in the path to the Olympics.

[JW Lester]

There is not much discussion when everyone agrees. Therefore some thoughts:

(1) Distance is not a good argument to define continents:
-The Swedish and Russian national teams have to travel 4000 km to compete in the EC this year.
-Although New-Zealand and Australia are close neighbours the airfare between both countries is comparable with the airfare between australia and Europe.
-Swedish, Russian and Finnish teams have to travel at least 22 hours to compete in a good-level international competition. In these countries development of teams is a real problem.


I think it is ***all*** about the distance & cost - and what we'd get for spending that kind of money. Your 4,000 KM journey is smaller than our trips were to training camps IN OUR OWN COUNTRY!!!! (the USA is over 4,500 KM across not including Alaska and Hawaii). We regularly fly that distance to National Champs and just about any competition on a REGULAR basis - and to get to a "good" competition as you put it (ie. like the ones you're driving 22 hr. for) we have to fly to Europe - with boats. These trips cost well over $2,000 when I went on development tours to Europe.

Take a Globe and turn it sideways - now look at the distance between Edmonton, Canada (where most top Canadian players are from) and Argentina or Brazil. The costs to get from Canada to Brasilia, Brazil with boats are GREATER than to fly from the UK to Australia or vice versa.

Forcing N. America and S. America - two seperate continents in different hemispheres to be part of the same qualification group is LUDICROUS. There is no way to put any spin on it to make it make more sense.

CONCACAF (North & Central America and the Carribean) - the federation for FOOTBALL has a similar number of countries as Europe (well it did before Yugoslavia became 7,634 different countries and started taking the Eurovision Song Contest by storm).

I guarantee if European players faced a similar distance/cost matrix things would be changed quickly. Price out a trip from Helsinki to Namibia... that's what we're facing.

What annoys me is that COPAC not only pulled this fast one without any consultation - they allowed the competition to be sited at a location (Brasilia) which is difficult and extremely expensive to get to. Will the Brazilian committee do more to help with the customs problems that plagued the poor Canadians the last time they came to Brazil???? Will the facilities be better than the poor conditions of the Brazil Worlds???

I wonder.

John

[mrkeeg]

Hey that's a pretty cool idea Loic. I like it for sure.

Sebi the fin: Thank you very much for adding some discussion. I think your points are very good.

I agree entirely that population ISN'T a good measure, and that number of teams IS (or, may be). The statistics DO favor american teams, (probably favor NZ as well), though, as you say, current rankings mean that the make-up will be a lot less than 1/17.

I think I can address the distance issue, as our main point of contention. You mention that northern and distant european teams also have to travel up to 4000km, and that this makes development a problem. From this, I see that we share a common challenge, and perhaps we can work together in some way to improve the situation for both of our regions.

However, when a team travels 4000 km to EC, they are rewarded with a high-quality competition, and the chance to play against many different teams, and against the very best teams in the world.

We now must travel 10, 000 km (almost 11 thousand) to play for one weekend against 2 other teams of moderate ability. Personally, I would rather take the cheaper, shorter flight to Europe and compete in EC, even if there was less chance of qualifying. The current system just doesn't make practical sense, and will exaggerate the cases where teams attending worlds are those that can afford it, not those most qualified.

Keegan

[Patrick]

Sebi,

Okay, let's say that distance is not the real issue for current argument's sake.

What IS important to the sport of Kayak Polo on a global level?

I would posit that the development of that sport WORLDWIDE is important.

Currently, the World Championships include Under 21 squads.

Why?

Is this to develop the sport in the youth? Most international sports DO NOT co-host Senior and Youth competitions simultaneously. It seems to me that if the purpose of having Under 21s at Worlds is to foster development, then it really only fosters it in countries where it's BEEN developed.

For those countries that may be allowed to send an Under 21 squad to Worlds, but have no Senior Team qualified, when the inevitable happens, the player turns 22, that player's international polo career hits a major road block. Does this service the global development of polo? I think not. More teams from more countries does.

Why not do away with the Under 21 category altogether and allow more participation globally for senior teams?

My :twocents:

[sp_edey]

Why not do away with the Under 21 category altogether and allow more participation globally for senior teams?

My :twocents:

I like this proposal, considering that we all know the players that are playing U21 will undoubtedly play at the senoir level(some anyway, ones that plan to play for the senoir teams eventually) You'll get a greater level of competition. I don't follow any other sports that are played at a world Championship and what teams are there, but if there were to be 40 teams or so entered in our world championship, that would show ppl that this isn't some sport that 100 ppl around the world think this is the coolest sport. I KNOW this is coolest sport ever and I'm letting other ppl know this is sport rocks.

[Rich]

I'm sorry, but my response is a completely opposite reaction to this idea of riding the division for U21 teams. YOU are now shifting from talking about locations and division of continents to erasing the U21 division??? Why? It may seem like this response is biased but I can't help it, I am an aspiring Canoe Polo athlete and am Training just as hard as any other senior team player on the Canadian and American teams. One of my goals is to make the U21 team for 2006 worlds...But what you’re suggesting is that we take the youth of this wondrous sport and put them on the side burner, well the senior teams play. I think your getting the WRONG idea here!! U21 are the Future of this sport, no matter what continent you live in. Taking away our ability to play in large international events isn't the smartest thing to do, in my opinion. The more international events the U21's play in the more experienced they become, the higher they can set the bar once they are playing for the senior teams. BUT this is not the major issue right now...The issue is about the Continental Cups...Maybe boundaries are to large for everyone, or maybe some don't realize how much closer they actually have it compared to others. The point is that this sport WILL NOT GROW if prices continue to increase, we are no not just talking about traveling every OTHER year and spending 1000's of dollars, this sounds like it's about to become a yearly thing:eek:!! It really does suck to have to work when your not training or doing other activities, you tend to miss out on things, but to work your butt off and then have it all whipped away in one weekend is preposterous. I think WE really need to start talking with the ICF and sorts and make sure we DO something and no just talk about doing something.

[Patrick]

But what you’re suggesting is that we take the youth of this wondrous sport and put them on the side burner

Rich, I'm actually not suggesting that at all. What am I suggesting is that perhaps Seniors and Juniors should have their own separate burners for World Championships. As it currently stands, with World Championships for two age groups held simultaneously, the sport will not broaden across the globe, as many of us wish, but become even more eurocentric, since that is where most of the power already lies, due, in fact, to its long history there compared to the short life it's had in North America.

Answer this hypothetical question: You've made the Under 21 squad, went to Worlds for that squad, and for some reason, your country does not qualify for the Worlds in the Senior Division and you are now 22. You've been playing for a good long time, taking the sport quite seriously, but there is no venue for you on the world stage. How would you feel?

:(

[Eoin]

Hi



I’m not sure if I am out of line here, but it appears to me that the actual business of qualification is going to negatively affect the development of the sport. So the question must be asked, why is qualification now demanded?



It is my understanding that qualification is intended to relieve the stress upon the hosting nation. It is fair enough, as without a hosting nation there is no competition. So, it comes down to this: which is going to benefit the sport greater: making it easier for a country to host a championship, or making it easier to attend, remembering that that without the host there is no competition, and without the competitors there is no competition? Ultimately, I feel that having more nations competing is the most desirable outcome. As many people have already said, it is easier for European nations to develop then it is for the Americas etc as they are nearer to each other and to regular top class opposition. By the same token, as Sebi states, the qualification process basically removes the vast majority of the developing European nations from competing at the Worlds, as they will have to eliminate the strongest countries in order to get there: unlikely. What would a North American qualification group achieve anyway? Surely only 2 nations would compete, it would be a token gesture.



I don’t think hosting the U-21 at a separate event is necessarily the way to go either: as it stands U-21 players have exposure to top level canoe polo at national champs and the experience of watching these players will no doubt develop them and inspire them.



I don’t think it is too unreasonable to keep the structure as it was: everyone who wants to compete can compete, because, let’s face it: there aren’t that many people who want to compete anyway. I think every effort should be made to help the host nation and to help the nations who struggle to make it to these tournaments at immense personal expense.



How can this be achieved, is a more difficult question. Funding? Can the ICF not help? Can sponsorship etc cannot be found. In Britain, Sky Sports televise darts games!!! I mean come on: darts!!! What’s going on there? I’m not knocking darts, but if they can get sponsorship etc then there has to be a chance that canoe polo can.



Ultimately this isn’t an easy option: it’s the hard option, but it’s a brave one and I think the right one. It is on such decisions that this sport will live or die.



Thanks for your time