The history of SUP according to the ICF

[PonoBill]

I can't imagine a circumstance where I would care about any of this.

Left to their own devices the organizers, would be rule-making bodies, manufacturers and racers have sucked all the fun and creativity out of SUP racing. Every set of "rules" I've read have been created to address narrow interests, from making sure pros get paid to making sure women can't draft men, to ensuring the boards you make don't get smoked by the competition.

I've never seen a ruleset or an organization that wasn't painfully obvious in the ox that they didn't want to be gored. I won't belabor the stupidity of creating rules that cut the potential market in half, I'll just say that immaturity and self-interest have conspired to make SUP racing unattractive to a large part of the potential audience, and therefore the ICF's myopic self-interest is just another chapter in an increasingly uninteresting and pointless story.

[stoneaxe]

Yup.

[pdxmike]

I'm going back to thinking of Insulated Concrete Forms when I see "ICF".  On the positive side, at least the canoe group isn't trying to tell manufacturers how light or narrow or deep the boards they sell can be, a la a certain organization from a few years ago whose focus has since shifted to creating inspirational memes for facebook.


I appreciate all of Area 10's and ukgm's comments (among many others, too) esp. ukgm's about the perils of fast-tracking a sport into the Olympics.

[burchas]

I wouldn’t go there if I were you burchas. It won’t enrich your life...

Thank you for that! Even that summary is borderline TL;DR

[photofr]

Perhaps, the sport of SUP could be clearly laid out as 5 distinct activities.
Perhaps we should realise that each of these activity is just DIFFERENT from the next.
- SUP Paddling (usually Long Distance, and/or touring and/or camping)
- SUP Surfing
- SUP Downwind
- SUP Technical Racing
- SUP Sprints

Comparing SUP & BIKING
- SUP Paddling (Road Biking)
- SUP Surfing (Mountain Biking)
- SUP Downwind (Downhill Biking)
- SUP Technical Racing (Cyclocross)
- SUP Sprints (Track Racing)

The two sports have more in common than you think:
- the majority of people doing either or both of those sports DO NOT RACE
- most average paddlers and / or bikers have huge respect to pros
- most people are just tired of Rules brought by ICF (for paddling) and/or UCI (for biking)
- rules restrict - and usually satisfy the needs of 1 to 5% of the intended population
- we need some rules, because we suck as humans

However, UCI doesn't impose a wheel size, so why in the World does ICF or ISA impose so many rules to us, and a freaky board size to go with it all?

[PT Woody]

Don't forget SUP white water.

Also, I am not so certain that most average paddlers have huge respect for pros.

[photofr]

SUP White water - for sure.

Perhaps "huge respect" for Pros was out of place, but I believe that most people are very impressed with top athletes, and/or look up to them the same way beginner skiers look at pro skiers.

Bottom line:
99% (my own estimate) of people will never ski like pro skiers.
Why should 99% of skiers be made to ski on heavy downhill skis?
Why should 99% of paddlers be made to paddle on expensive, heavy and short SUP boards (that don't even last)?
Must there always be rules that goes against 99% of the people's needs?

[Area 10]

I agree, broadly. There’s merit in Dave Kalama’s suggestion/provocation that all racing - or at least pro racing - be conducted on short inflatables. Then it will be very easy and cheap for racers to travel to races, and the equipment will be cheaper and more robust. Racing isn’t about the enjoyment of paddling. It is about who can take the most pain (and other psychological and physiological factors of course). So why should those who paddle for the sheer enjoyment of SUPing be hobbled by what is largely a marketing tool for the brands?

Getting an UL class custom board has really brought home to me how expensive, badly-made, and restricting-of-enjoyment the current production race boards are. Racers might as well race on cheap durable equipment to increase participation, and then the brands can provide the rest of us with equipment that makes doing what we want to do easier and more enjoyable. The strain on the body of trying to make a short board go faster than the laws of physics want it to, is grim. With 14ft boards you are constantly having to “bully” your board to do what it doesn’t want to do. Plus, big guys have no chance at all.

[ukgm]

Perhaps, the sport of SUP could be clearly laid out as 5 distinct activities.
Perhaps we should realise that each of these activity is just DIFFERENT from the next.
- SUP Paddling (usually Long Distance, and/or touring and/or camping)
- SUP Surfing
- SUP Downwind
- SUP Technical Racing
- SUP Sprints

Comparing SUP & BIKING
- SUP Paddling (Road Biking)
- SUP Surfing (Mountain Biking)
- SUP Downwind (Downhill Biking)
- SUP Technical Racing (Cyclocross)
- SUP Sprints (Track Racing)

The two sports have more in common than you think:
- the majority of people doing either or both of those sports DO NOT RACE
- most average paddlers and / or bikers have huge respect to pros
- most people are just tired of Rules brought by ICF (for paddling) and/or UCI (for biking)
- rules restrict - and usually satisfy the needs of 1 to 5% of the intended population
- we need some rules, because we suck as humans

However, UCI doesn't impose a wheel size, so why in the World does ICF or ISA impose so many rules to us, and a freaky board size to go with it all?

Don't get me started on the UCI. They have the worst rules and rule making process in any sport I've ever taken part with.

The reason we have constitutive rules is to ensure (or try) to govern how much influence technology should or should not have on a competitive sport. If you don't regulate it, guys like me look for advantages that the opposition are not aware of, can't afford or can't access it. Its the pursuit of the unicorn that is the 'level playing field'.

For those that don't race, just keep doing what you're doing. Yes there is a risk that a heavily regulated competitive sport will ruin recreational products (this certainly happened in triathlon due to cycling's road race rules) but in the main, you can keep going as they are. (note:I wonder how long it will be now that the 12'6 will be dropped from a brands product ranges now that the ISA have finally confirmed they are moving to 14ft from 2019).

Your analogy is a good one though - and this is why I feel my position has now shifted to being one of letting the ISA keep doing what they are doing, the ICF do what they propose and let us (the end user) enjoy the choice. The only downside will be that if one of these tries to take SUP to the Olympics, the format taken will be what is recognised by the wider community and this can stagnate (or even kill off) other formats (this happened in other sports). At this stage, that's not wise and not good for any of us.

[ukgm]

1) I agree, broadly. There’s merit in Dave Kalama’s suggestion/provocation that all racing - or at least pro racing - be conducted on short inflatables.

2) Plus, big guys have no chance at all.

1) Its certainly no coincidence that the three UK-based one design N1sco class are some of the most popular events in the UK and saw well over 100 paddlers in each event. The problem was that these people were not buying the boards after the race but either went back to what they normally use or continued to hire one.

2) That's definitely true. I've dropped a stone since last season (when I wasn't exactly fat before) to try and address the problem.

[Area 10]

1) I agree, broadly. There’s merit in Dave Kalama’s suggestion/provocation that all racing - or at least pro racing - be conducted on short inflatables.

2) Plus, big guys have no chance at all.

1) Its certainly no coincidence that the three UK-based one design N1sco class are some of the most popular events in the UK and saw well over 100 paddlers in each event. The problem was that these people were not buying the boards after the race but either went back to what they normally use or continued to hire one.

2) That's definitely true. I've dropped a stone since last season (when I wasn't exactly fat before) to try and address the problem.

1. Well it’s chicken and egg: why buy the board when you can only race it a few times and be competitive. If in all races everyone was on an inflatable then people would buy one. Plenty of people are buying inflatables, that’s for sure!

2. Yep that much will make a difference, assuming it’s not all muscle you’ve lost (which it won’t be, with someone with your level of knowledge). A stone is a lot at your level of fitness (for our US colleagues “a stone” is 14lbs). I hope the sacrifices prove worth it!

[pdxmike]

Any time I'm reading about a bureaucratic organization (which all large sports bodies seem to become) trying to control a sport and dictate its equipment, I can't help but think of what happened to hammers when they became a regulated piece of equipment in track and field:

[Califoilia]

I must be missing something with race rules/regulations, and how they somehow affect the recreational SUP enthusiast.

I used to race boats in the early 80s, and surprise surprise...I couldn't use any of them recreationally on any regulated waters, so why should I expect it to be any different with SUP racing of any type? Disclaimer: I don't, and never plan on racing or competing on a SUP of any type, and just SUS and distance paddle for the pure enjoyment of simply "competing" against myself to get better, faster, whatever.

Yes, the APBA governing body of the sport had numerous race classes that fit just about any budget, and level of perceived "safety" (as much as you can have when racing on water), but again, none of these boats were legal for recreational use, and really weren't applicable for it anyway...unless you liked boating all by yourself, and w/o any place to store your cooler of suds. 

So what's with all the hullabaloo with SUP manufacturers not making "race" boards that can masquerade as some sort of recreational board as well?

Heck, any of you watch a NASCAR or NHRA race, and then afterwards....think you're gonna go down to your local Ford, Dodge, or Chevy dealership and buy one of them cars you just saw out there for your recreational use?

ISA, ICF, CIA, FBI, or IHOP...who really gives a crap who writes the rules other than the small minority of "racers" involved in that small demographic of the sport? Ain't gonna change the fact that the majority of folks are going to buy whatever's on the shelf or website to their favored SUP manufacturer, or that they can get their local shaper to make for them, and have fun out on the water with whatever regardless.

And for the "history" of the sport....again, who gives a damn...we trying to be SUPers enjoying the sport however it got here, or petty historians arguing over who "discovered" what first? 

So I'm again having to go with Pono when it comes to all of this nonsense, "I can't imagine a circumstance where I would care about any of this"...much beyond a day like today when it's just way too wind here to get out onto the water with the gear I've got, and I'm bored as hell as a result. 

[Area 10]

Well, some of us just get irritated when untruths are spoken. Some of us don’t.

But the issue I suppose is that keen racers, plus many occasional racers, and some people who are thinking that maybe they’d like to have a go, or who just enjoy the fact that SUP has developed so quick and in so many different directions, fear that when one body “owns” the competitive side of SUP, they will bring in so many regulations that they will do to SUP what they have done to some areas of their own discipline (e.g. Olympic Canoe), which is to turn it into a strikingly inaccessible and unpopular sport. So, if you care about widening participation or at least maintaining it, then it seems reasonable to discuss where the future of the sport we love should be headed, and exchange views about it. That is what this thread is about. So, if you don’t care about any of that then that’s fine. But some of us do, and that is also fine, surely?

[Califoilia]

Well, some of us just get irritated when untruths are spoken. Some of us don’t.

Not sure what "untruths" you're referring to, because all I've really read so far is a bunch of opinions wrt the sport, and no real 100% verifiable, or indisputable "truths" if you will. I remember someone mentioning "the chicken or the egg" here earlier, and IMO...that's really the crux of the SUP "history" argument. But if you're convinced there is, or must be a definitive answer to the question, I'm "surely" fine with you having whatever "truths" you (or anyone else) wish to have wrt the matter...no skin off my nose either way.

But the issue I suppose is that keen racers, plus many occasional racers, and some people who are thinking that maybe they’d like to have a go, or who just enjoy the fact that SUP has developed so quick and in so many different directions, fear that when one body “owns” the competitive side of SUP, they will bring in so many regulations that they will do to SUP what they have done to some areas of their own discipline (e.g. Olympic Canoe), which is to turn it into a strikingly inaccessible and unpopular sport.

Sure, if you believe that only one governing body "owns [or can exclusively own] the competitive side of SUP". I don't see it that way, or believe it has or will end up that way.

You yourself said, "The contrast is between ocean paddlers and inland waters ones, not between surfers and distance paddlers", so then why not have two different governing bodies writing the rules for each? "Ocean paddlers" rules are governed by the ISA, and the "inland water" paddlers by the ICF, and everybody's happy...no?

Those who want to try to crossover, and do both know the rules they'll be racing under given "ocean" or "inland" at any given race, and everyone coexists and is happy...so what's the problem?

So, if you care about widening participation or at least maintaining it, then it seems reasonable to discuss where the future of the sport we love should be headed, and exchange views about it. That is what this thread is about. So, if you don’t care about any of that then that’s fine. But some of us do, and that is also fine, surely?

Do you really care about "widening participation or at least maintaining it", or is this thread really about some pointless tug-of-war that actually divides the sport (ocean vs. inland) because everyone has to be right? Again, what's the problem with more than one governing body depending on type of race or locale?

So you really want to widen participation? Think of the possibilities two governing bodies, and having a "World Series" of the top point getters in ISA competition going up against the top ICF point getters...in an ocean/inland competition to become of the top overall SUPer(s) in the world (similar to the IROC series they did with Formula 1, Indy Car, NASCAR, Sprint, and Rally car drivers years past...all of whom btw, also raced under different individual governing bodies and rules (or subset of rules) during their respective seasons).

Guess what? Everyone wins. Inland racers get rules suited to their type of competition, ocean racers get their own unique rules, and the manufacturers are in hog heaven because they get to make "specialty" boards for both...and then maybe even an ISUPRS (International SUP Race Series) Board that's used as an "all-around" board for the "world series" event(s)...and the "weekend warriors" get to pick the board made "specifically" for their type of paddling (even if the boards are all pretty much the same with different paint jobs or "organizing body" compliance stickers on them).

But right now the thread sounds to be more like an other social media argument where it's an either/or thing, where compromise and/or coexistence of more than one thought process (or "organizing body") is completely out of the realm of possibility.

JMO from the outside looking in is all.