The history of SUP according to the ICF

[Bean]

Jim Terrell and others were very vocal a few years ago about the evolution of SUP racing edging too close to canoe.  Interestingly, this helps support the argument that SUP has not evolved from canoe.

Jimmy's (plus other articles by Steve West, Larry Cain and my own) articles on SUPracer were really to warn against the problems that sports like canoeing, windsurfing and others had when you upskill the technology. All they really did was that recognise that SUP has its own identity and share concerns where it was going (rather than suggest where it had come from). I don't believe it supports the argument other than to suggest SUP is its own thing.

I beleive we agree UK (Dr. BD?). 

In part, JT's argumet was that if unchecked, racing SUP's would quickly evolve into canoes. So, with respect to the origins of SUP, is it possible for us to be evolving into canoe and evolving from canoe at the same time?   

[Area 10]

The majority view here seems to be that it wouldn’t be inappropriate for the ICF to run SUP races, especially inland ones. But it would be less appropriate for them to run SUP surf contests, which are clearly the purview of the ISA.

But this thread isn’t about that. It’s just about the ICF reporting the history of SUP inaccurately. This is either because of frank ignorance or wilful misdirection. But either way it reflects badly on them, whether they have a legitimate place in the future of the sport or not.

The stereotype of the ICF that many SUPers hold is that the ICF are a bunch of money-grabbing boring authoritarian soulless gits who know nothing about SUP and care even less about it. This re-writing of the history of SUP plays right into the hands of that stereotype so someone should advise them to change their website to be a bit more accurate and appreciative of the sport’s history. Just because they had nothing to do with SUP’s origins does not necessarily mean they can’t be a part of the future. But to be part of the future they need to be trustworthy, and respectful of the proponents of the sport. And that means not trying to mislead people, or minimise the cultural contributions of important individuals. A little bit of honesty, accuracy, and respect, please ICF!

[pdxmike]

The stereotype of the ICF that many SUPers hold is that the ICF are a bunch of money-grabbing boring authoritarian soulless gits who know nothing about SUP and care even less about it. This re-writing of the history of SUP plays right into the hands of that stereotype so someone should advise them to change their website to be a bit more accurate and appreciative of the sport’s history. Just because they had nothing to do with SUP’s origins does not necessarily mean they can’t be a part of the future. But to be part of the future they need to be trustworthy, and respectful of the proponents of the sport. And that means not trying to mislead people, or minimise the cultural contributions of important individuals. A little bit of honesty, accuracy, and respect, please ICF!

Yes, and their skewed history that distances SUP about as far as possible from surfing certainly shows what you're saying.  But the one that stood out to me was using "stand up paddling" in their info for the public, then when you go to the rule book they've come out from their curtain and  to "SUP Canoe Racing".   It reminds me of clicking on say, an article about health advice by some group like "American Nutrition Council" only to find it's a front for a diet pill company as soon as you click on the first link.

[stoneaxe]

Well summarized A10

[ukgm]

Jim Terrell and others were very vocal a few years ago about the evolution of SUP racing edging too close to canoe.  Interestingly, this helps support the argument that SUP has not evolved from canoe.

Jimmy's (plus other articles by Steve West, Larry Cain and my own) articles on SUPracer were really to warn against the problems that sports like canoeing, windsurfing and others had when you upskill the technology. All they really did was that recognise that SUP has its own identity and share concerns where it was going (rather than suggest where it had come from). I don't believe it supports the argument other than to suggest SUP is its own thing.

I beleive we agree UK (Dr. BD?). 

In part, JT's argumet was that if unchecked, racing SUP's would quickly evolve into canoes. So, with respect to the origins of SUP, is it possible for us to be evolving into canoe and evolving from canoe at the same time?

Yep, (and yep) its possible (and that's a really interesting way you put it). Although the way I'd probably be more inclined to look at it would be to see it as equipment evolving towards best possible performance based on the needs of its most popular events and the onset of natural selection. In other words, if beach technical racing or downwinding was the main drive, its quite likely boards wouldn't end up being mega narrow toothpicks that Jimmy warned about but instead would be something else.

Either way, the situation Jimmy warned us about (and I'd discussed under the description of a sports potential 'reskilling') is actually already here. Despite Chase Kosterlitz attempting to fill the void of inaction the ISA had allowed to happen (by coming up with a series of board design rules and establishing a working philosophy for SUP) with his SUPAA association, it was ignored. We now already face boards that are 21.5 inches wide and unrideable by most. I felt the ICF would only make this worse so I was surprised as anyone to see their proposed format for this year worlds.

[ukgm]

The stereotype of the ICF that many SUPers hold is that the ICF are a bunch of money-grabbing boring authoritarian soulless gits who know nothing about SUP and care even less about it. This re-writing of the history of SUP plays right into the hands of that stereotype so someone should advise them to change their website to be a bit more accurate and appreciative of the sport’s history. Just because they had nothing to do with SUP’s origins does not necessarily mean they can’t be a part of the future. But to be part of the future they need to be trustworthy, and respectful of the proponents of the sport. And that means not trying to mislead people, or minimise the cultural contributions of important individuals. A little bit of honesty, accuracy, and respect, please ICF!

I also agree a more honest and accurate approach would garner more fans and support at this critical time than a bad attempt at playing politics and currying favour at the CAS (and later the IOC) table. As for the claim, well, I think we've managed to highlight the varying ways people could look at it.