An open letter to SUP Athletes – Federations and Race Organizers:
After the ISA SUP Worlds, the topic of race courses resurfaced, particularly the question of whether a sprint race needs to include a buoy turn or not. This also reignited the debate that arose after the questionable ECF long-distance race: Should a long-distance course feature technical elements, and if so, what should they be?
Looking at the technical and sprint races across various events, there’s quite a range. The ISA Tech Race spans 3km, while the ICF’s version is 800m with 5 buoys (3 right, 2 left) and one beach chicane. Meanwhile, the Busan Open by the KAPP features a 300m sprint course with 3 buoy turns and a 1km tech race with four buoy turns.
Regardless of your personal preferences, each course type has its pros and cons, with some favoring specific skill sets or even stance (goofy vs. regular footers). One would assume that, after roughly 16 years of SUP racing, athletes would have begun to voice their opinions on what constitutes the ideal and fairest race course. After an entire season racing on varied courses, we might expect a robust discussion about what works best. Yet, unless we’re completely deaf to the sport, no such conversation seems to be happening.
Don’t like to read? Watch the video.
Mit dem Laden des Videos akzeptieren Sie die Datenschutzerklärung von YouTube.
Mehr erfahren
When SUP racing first emerged, the gold standard was the open ocean – iconic events like the Maliko Run or the 36-mile crossing between Molokai and Oahu. The beach race at Doheny Beach Park was the “Formula 1” of SUP racing, and there was general consensus on how races should be held (or mostly, at least).
But as SUP shifted to flat water, beach and open-ocean races started to fade. You’d think that with this shift toward more controlled environments, a new standard for race courses would emerge. Yet, it hasn’t.
At Stand Up Magazin, we appreciate the variety of courses, but we can’t help but notice that no one seems to be taking the lead in standardizing race formats. Maybe that’s intentional? Maybe it’s part of the sport’s evolving identity?
So, should there be a clear standard for race courses?
It’s a valid question. In most professional sports, there are clear rules and regulations, often established by athlete associations in collaboration with manufacturers and industry leaders. The ISA has a rulebook outlining buoy turns, beach starts, and other race elements. The ICF probably has its own set of guidelines, and perhaps the APP shares some of these with the ISA.
However, when it comes to race courses, it seems like a free-for-all. A prime example was the ISA sprint course with makeshift lanes, false starts, and buoy turns so sharp that some paddlers felt like they were paddling into a wall. We’re sure there were discussions and complaints at the time, but it seems like everyone just goes home until the next race, and the issue is forgotten.
We’re not saying it’s our job to determine whether there should be a standard or what it should look like. What we don’t understand is why there’s no athlete-led group stepping up to drive this conversation. It’s a shame for a sport that has fought in court over who controls it and who will take it to the Olympics to have come this far without resolving such a fundamental issue.
We’d love to see athletes take the reins and publicly voice what they want for the future of their sport. Unless we are completely wrong here and the general consensus is that there should be non. If this is the case we shall shut up and wish everybody good luck with Olympic inclusion.