|
|
|
By JOHN A. GILBERT So many of you have written to request my comments on the 2002 ASCE/MBT National Concrete Canoe Competition that I decided to write a short commentary for ConcreteCanoe.org. But, let me begin by saying that the opinions expressed here are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of Team UAH, ASCE, concretecanoe.org, and/or Master Builders. O.K. - Let's get started. As we all know by now, Clemson’s 3CT walked away from the competition with their third national title. But this was certainly no "cake walk" for this veteran team. Design Reports: Going into Wisconsin, for example, four time national champion University of California-Berkeley had accumulated a 4.0 point lead over 3CT by winning the design report category (historically, the only category that Clemson has never won). This may seem like a small margin. But, when you consider that placements two through five in the overall standings were separated by only 4.2 points, it is very significant. It is essential to finish high in the design report category in order to win the overall title and all of the other top overall finishers in 2002 were in the hunt. Clemson's second place finish was not unexpected. But the biggest surprises for me were the third, fourth, and fifth place finishes by the University of Wisconsin-Madison, the University of Oklahoma, and Laval, respectively. Quite frankly, I thought that the Badgers would not be competitive considering that they had their hands full as the host of the competition. As mentioned by Clemson’s Doug Simpson in his commentary, Oklahoma’s performance as the second place qualifier from the Mid-Continent Region, indicates that the regional competitions are becoming much more competitive. Considering that English was not Laval’s native language, their strong finish in the design report category speaks very highly of their team. Presentations: I had the pleasure of sitting through all of the presentations and thought that the judges did an excellent job selecting the top five finishers. Clemson needed to fair well here and they did. Led by team captain Brad Putman, 3CT powered their way to the top in this category logging their second presentation win in the history of the national competitions. Clemson’s script was very well rehearsed and their delivery was reminiscent of some of the best plays that I’ve seen in New York on Broadway... Yes, it was really that good! Western Kentucky’s second place presentation was very well orchestrated with a lot of new ideas and a fresh approach. The team was very confident during the question and answer session and seemed to take control of this effort. Considering the impediment posed by the language barrier and the increased pressure associated with the media coverage, Laval’s third place presentation was definitely one of the strongest of the day. Again, UW Madison surprised me here with a very strong presentation. Their team performed well under fire and they placed a well-deserved fourth in this category. But the biggest surprise was Texas A&M. They were in charge during the question and answer session and, judging by the audience's response, generated a great deal of interest. The variety of the costumes worn added to the team's presentation and ensured that everyone in attendance saw something that they liked. The judges certainly must have thought so when they placed this newcomer fifth. Great job guys! Additional comments and questions asked by the judges to all teams during the oral presentations are included as part of our comprehensive coverage of the event. Displays: In my opinion, the display category is the second most subjective at the competition primarily because the judges have only a limited time to spend looking at the displays. But with their "evolution" theme and the introduction of shape memory alloys, I thought that Western Kentucky deserved to win this category. They did, giving the school their first win in any category at the national level. As usual, Oklahoma State’s display was outstanding. Had this been the first year that the team had used injection molding, OSU may have been able to edge WKU out. But, as is sat, OSU finished a well-deserved second. The biggest surprise in the display category was North Carolina’s third place finish, one placement ahead of sister school Clemson. Again, as mentioned by Doug, NC State’s performance as the second place qualifier from the Carolina’s Conference reinforced the fact that the regional competitions have become much more competitive. True to form, Clemson’s fourth place display was very interesting and informative. The fact that last year's display was so good may have lowered their score here. Laval’s fifth place finish in the display category was enough to give their team the prestige of being the only one to finish top five in all categories at this year’s nationals. Products: The product category is as important as the design paper and it is very important to score high here. Usually a few boats stand out from the pack. But, this year, there were several to choose from. In my opinion, this category is the most subjective and it is sometimes difficult to predict what the judges are really looking for. It always amazes me, for example, that canoe weight is taken for granted and never quantified. It seems that everything else is measured time and time again. But I never see the judges bring their scales with them to the final product judging. In any case, every team knows that weight is critical and that it takes a major effort to produce a product weighing in at less than 100 lb. There is no discounting the fact that every extra pound is one more that must be moved through the water by the paddling team. Other important aspects of the product include hydrodynamics and performance, construction technology and durability, workmanship, the canoe’s name, its relation to the school’s theme, and the boat’s aesthetics. Keeping these factors in mind, the first place product fielded by South Dakota Tech weighed 81 lb, one of the lightest canoes in the competition. This was the third time that the Tech has won this category at the national level. Tech's boat had sleek lines, included monolithic ribs, great ascetics, and was named well in accordance with the theme that the team had selected. But there seemed to be some question related to the legality of the exposed strip, the canoe capsized during the co-ed sprint race, and the team scored only two points in the water - one point for finishing tenth in the men’s endurance race and one point for finishing tenth in the women’s sprint. I would have scored the team very highly for construction technology, durability, and workmanship. But I would have had some reservations related to hydrodynamics and performance. And, considering that the top score for the product was only 87.58 points out of a possible 100 points, I think that the judges probably took these factors into account during their deliberations. The same basic argument holds true for the second place entry fielded by WKU with the exception that there were no apparent problems with compliance and stability. On the other hand, at 95 lb, WKU’s boat was slightly heavier than Tech’s entry. WKU's score of 87.50/100 points and the slim margin of 0.08 points between them and the first place competitor in this category, demonstrate the need to pay close attention to details. OSU, Laval, and Florida rounded out the top five in this category and, along with Clemson, had boats that were very well suited for the competition. I would have purchased any one of them if I were sponsoring a team to compete for a national title. Races: By the time that the teams got to the water, with 77.0 design points, WKU had a significant 3.5 point lead over Clemson (73.5 design points). Had WKU matched 3CT’s performance in the water, WKU would have been in victory lane. With 59 and 54 design points, respectively, Laval and OSU were well behind Clemson and, for these teams to take the national title, 3CT would need to make some major mistakes. But, there was little chance of that and, to their credit, Clemson remained focused and swept the races. By the end of the day, 3CT had earned 45.0 race points for a total of 118.5 points overall. With 36.5 race points, the University of Wisconsin - Madison was second best in the water and, with a combined total of 78.8 points, the team finished fifth overall - their highest placement to date. The University of Florida finished third (35.8 race points) in the water. But their combined total of 62.3 points was only enough to earn the Gators a sixth place finish in the competition. OSU placed fourth in the water (28.0 race points) placing them third overall (82.0 points overall). Laval rounded out the top five in the water (24.5 race points) giving them 83.5 points overall and an impressive second place finish at nationals. WKU scored only 3.0 points. But when combined with their design points, scored an impressive 80.0 points in the competition. This placed them fourth overall. Summary: In summary, I thought that this was the toughest competition to date. And, Clemson was very fortunate to have had the leadership, talent, and fortitude that it took to win. They were the best of the best... What more can I say. But Laval’s performance was outstanding. Despite the requirement to present in English, they managed to close the gap in the technical events over last year. The team also strengthened their performance in the water. Laval has what it takes to win and it is only a matter of time before they do. OSU remained strong. But they will have to work even harder next year to win that elusive first national title. As mentioned earlier, WKU was the only real threat to 3CT late in the game and my hat goes off to them for finishing fourth. Their first entry into the top five is indicative of this team's talent and the very dedicated commitment made by their faculty advisor. With an early start and long hours on the lake, we may see them in the winner's circle next year. Considering that UW Madison hosted the competition, their fifth place finish was nothing short of staggering. I underestimated this team’s prowess and apologize profusely for not picking them prior to the competition in "The Front Line" as a top five candidate. Needless to say, I won’t be making that mistake again. As you may already know, I picked eight schools as candidates for the top five. Although my top pick, the University of Florida, ended up sixth overall, I did peg four of the top five finishers and they actually finished in the order that I listed them. One of my other picks was South Dakota Tech who ended up seventh. I noted the University of Wisconsin-Madison and the University of California-Berkeley as fierce competitors, and these schools finished fifth and ninth, respectively. Schools that I did not select were the University of Oklahoma and North Carolina State who rounded out the top ten in eighth place and tenth place, respectively. But these placements are perhaps the most significant at nationals. The ability of these second place qualifiers to finish in the top ten speaks very well of the Mid-Continent Region and Carolina's Conference. It won't be long before Clemson and OSU experience the fierce rivalry that exists in the Southeast between schools like UF, FIT, and UAH who have managed to place top ten in all nineteen of their national appearances. Conclusion: My hat goes off to the other competitors and I thoroughly enjoyed seeing all of you in Madison. It was a pleasure to see a Mexican representative there and, judging by conversations that I have had with other teams across the world on behalf of ConcreteCanoe.org, we should expect to see an even larger international contingent next year. Hopefully, Team UAH and I will be there - this time as a competitor. We were very proud to see the University of Florida do so well at the competition. But, needless to say, we would have felt much better going into next year's regional competition in Miami had they finished at least one spot higher. Good luck to all in 2003 and I hope to see you in Phil... (Whoops, I'm not sure about that yet and probably shouldn't say anything more). So, I won't. |