Your Feedback

Each contribution may be subjected to a rigorous process of editing for language, taste and imparted wisdom. The opinions expressed in From the Feedback do not necessarily reflect those of the management, staff or investors of madfor sport.com. Instead, and much more importantly, they reflect your views.

Editor's plea. If you write to us and you want to see your thoughts in print, then please include your full name and where you come from on your e-mail. Anonymous contributions will not be published.

From Dave Pasley
So what do you think - should more open communications be allowed during the racing? No! I think this will remove some of the extra drama from the racing. No more people up the mast to determine the wind shifts, no benefit from local knowledge, no splitting on the course to determine who has the best information. I think that the technologies should be used in the boat and boat design and not for additional information during the race.

Being a sailor means knowing how to get the most out of your equipment and how to read and interpret the weather conditions and apply them to your situation. If you get too many computers on the boat you will lose this. Next the race will be done on simulators to see who is the best 'sailor'. I can see that having up-to-date weather routing information is very important in long distance races, but on short inshore courses it is the weather that adds some extra dimension to the racing. Each team should have to use their abilities to determine how that will affect them.

From Mike Moore
So what do you think - should more open communications be allowed during the racing? Where does it stop? The statement was that the weather men already "call the first shift". And now someone wants further involvement? Are we now going to see the strategist sitting in an office ashore, analyzing all the incoming wind and water data, tracking his boat via virtual spectator, and telling the crew on the boat that the next shift will be to the left 7.5 degrees, will bring .45 knots less pressure, and will arrive in 2.4 minutes, so they should tack in two minutes? Does this sound like the sailboat racing we want to promote?

From Ken Lewis
So what do you think - should more open communications be allowed during the racing? Hell, NO. Why don't we put a shore-controlled computer on board each boat with auto pilot then we don't need extraneous things - like crew. What was more fun than listening to Kosteki tell Cayard that the right was definitely faster, then lose two boat lengths?

From Andrew Banks
So what do you think - should more open communications be allowed during the racing? I seriously wonder whether Mark Chisnell is actually serious with his proposal for outside assistance on the racecourse in the next America's Cup, or is he just setting out to be deliberately controversial? I fail to see how this would make the racing any more exciting, although I think his F1 analogy is apt. In F1 if you lead off the start line and into the first corner, it is very hard for anyone to get past you - similar to match racing, in fact.

Like match racing, often the only opportunity to pass comes when the person in the lead makes a mistake, although with match racing, there is at least the chance to take a flyer, hope for an increase in pressure or a shift, and possibly come out ahead. In F1 often the only chance for a change of lead is dependent on pit stop strategy; nothing wrong with that, but it hardly beats the thrill of watching two cars go wheel to wheel around Rivage or 130R.

The whole reason that broadcasters increased the amount of reporters in the pit lane and focused on strategy was in an attempt to inject some interest into what had become a dull afternoon procession. But as anyone who saw the British Grand Prix will tell you, processions are dull, whatever the strategy, and whether the guy behind the leader remains one second or one lap behind. To me, Mark's proposals smack of 'dumbing down'. Closing up the boats, eliminating tactical risk, and bringing in outside assistance (sail trim spotters?) will not make the America's Cup any more exciting for spectators. More than likely it'll just turn it into an aquatic version of Indy car racing, where the ''pace car' is brought out at the drop of a hat to close the field up, and the leader's advantage is eliminated.

It's also worth noting some decidedly mediocre F1 drivers have done rather well in Indy car, but one wouldn't say it is any more exciting for the spectator than F1. It's also worth considering where we would be now if the innovations suggested by Mark had been in place during the seventh race of the 1983 match. Anyone who has read detailed accounts of that race (in particular John Bertrand's in Born to Win) would surely be left thinking that the 'Auld Mug' would never have made the trip Down Under.

From R. Geoffrey
So what do you think - should more open communications be allowed during the racing?I do not think that the sailors actually need 'hard data' from the other boat: they can see (and measure with laserguns) how their opponent is doing. But providing a real time stream of weather info from a 'neutral' source would allow the better sailors to react to that information, thus putting a premium on having 'better sailors'. But if spectacle is the requirement, then more laps, more corners, more chance of screw-up is what is needed. And the answer could well be to have each 'day' consist of three short races, as a 'best of three' possibly with the proviso that you must sail all three races. This would provide more chances for recovery. One mistake in the pre-start would not be fatal to the end score, etc. And the shorter race length would guarantee closer spacings and more exciting, closer racing, and raise the teamwork factor to a higher priority.