That is called differences in sailing skill and that is not something that a rating system should correct.

And yes even old boardless boats can make quick tacks with the right handling. And doing a gibe on a spinnaker boat is not quicker then a gibe and a spinnakerless boat. Stuff like that make it all come out in the end anyway.

Wouter

But many sailors Wouter, seem to "think" that any "anomalies" in corrected time results are always somehow down to "the conditions" or "the rating/handicap", when in the vast majority of cases it all boils down to "the little things" such as difference in times taken tacking, Jibing, setting the sails to their optimum after any boat adjustment etc, etc. If they would only take the time to see just how much difference a small amount of time taken for each tack and jibe (together with the other more obvious factors) actually makes to their overall time around a course, then they may be a little more “tolerant” towards the ratings and conditions and not quite so ready to “blame” things other than their sailing skills reality?

I think so too.

Wouter

The major problem with all handicapping processes is, that none of them make allowance for sailing ability.

So you are saying that those with less skill should win? So If you use numbers to remove the differences in the physical properties of the boats and then use numbers to remove the difference in skill of the sailors, is it really racing or can it now be classified gambling? (since it's all up to chance)

Because we depend on the wind, I think "luck" plays an enormous part in sailing. Possibly the best part.

The very best sailors have an uncanny knack of maximizing their good fortune and minimizing, even avoiding, bad fortune.

For instance, how often do top sailors get caught in "holes" compared to the rest of us?

"Luck" is created by a lack of skill or knowledge of the situation. Contrary to the popular saying, I would rather be good than lucky because I can reproduce "good" sailing.

Jake

No quite the opposite although most human activity is a gamble to some extent. You pays your money and you takes your chances.

No, any rating system (handicap) can only be based on past performances as its primary indicator (that's all there is). In my case, I race an F14 against a fleet of different class boats. Because I win regularly my handicap continues to be adjusted, as it should, to compensate for the boat's ability. At some stage in the future though, the boat will be rating evenly against the rest of the fleet and will probably not win more than it's even share of races and I'm OK with that though the problem is, when I raced on those other class boats I was almost unbeatable but now it's the boat which is seen to be winning and not the skipper. As a result, eventually the boat will probably be handicapped out of contention.

I guess that over time, with the diversity of ability amongst sailors racing in any one class, the results would even out but in the meanwhile anyone contemplating racing an F14 for example, would find it hard to win in a mixed fleet and the same goes for a lot of classes. Once the top sailors have set the benchmark, it's difficult for that class to win in mixed fleet racing.

Maybe, if the results of the top sailors in any given class were not included in historic data it would be more equitable.

Berny, I'm not entirely certain that I follow your line of thinking...but I think we're reduced to a debate about "golf" handicaping a fleet. I use the term "golf" because it's how lower level golf competitions are run - with handicaps that reflect a users actualy ability. This system is much more inviting to new inducties because someone that shoots in the 120s can compete with someone in the 90s. Weekend league bowling uses the same type of system. Because of the neature of the system, it favors those that are improving - which is nice for bringing new folks into the sport. However, racing under such a system is a poor test of skill. I re-read your post again and I think we may not be talking about the same thing.

Obviously you have not much experience with measurement based systems like Texel Handicap.

Wouter

Yes, that's true. They are little used if at all here in Oz.

These are not perfect but they do solve alot of the issues thaat you just named.

Wouter

Or SCHRS

Berny

When you sailed in those other classes... (and according to your report... did quite well) YOU set the benchmark for that class of boat! Your winning on time against all of the other top sailors racing established the benchmarks.

So... unless you see the rating drifting slower... for these other older classes... you can't complain.

Now for a new design... the rating gets faster over time. If you are the only one racing the boat... you are essentially setting a personal handicap. But when others contribute to the data set the system will approximate the boats ability versus the other boats.

If you compare your portsmouth rating to the texel or schrs measurement rating and find that you are significantly faster then under those system... you may have a complaint. (the measurement systems have their own blind spots... see schrs debate so the bottom line is that no system is infallible or perfect)

In comparing boats that I know sailed by the nut on the tiller that I know... I don't see real differences between rating systems (The F16 has been slow to drop to the Texel or SCHR rating though. The means to get a rating are very different but the end results have seemed to work out (with a few exceptions... )

Take a look at the Statue of liberty race or texel race.

The top of the fleet go racing a lot and finish in the top 1o in the national events. The boat classes are very different. Nacra 20's, Hobie 16's and HF18's.

That sums it up perfectly.