HISTORY OF THE SPORT IN NEW ZEALAND

By ERIC WARNER of Hamilton

(Continued from previous issues of the NZ Axemen’s News)

HANDICAPPING – PART 1

 

The whole history of the sport in New Zealand has revolved around the staging of handicap events. Handicapping has been an intricate part of our sport, yet over the years, no one subject has caused more controversy, arguments, discussions, debates, or tribulations than handicapping has. 

 

The very earliest handicappers back in the 1800s are thought to have been committee members of the organisation promoting the sport who would have been competent in the use of an axe themselves. They would have been a person that was confident, able to demonstrate authority, but fair and honest in awarding a handicap mark. It is known that some of these handicappers had already had experience in handicapping cash running events. It was the sole prerogative of the handicapper on how he awarded marks to competitors. There was no set system to follow. He judged the situation and made his decision solely on the knowledge known to him. It was a standard practice though, that there be a limit on the start that a slower competitor could expect to have on the best competitor. These limits did vary between handicapper and handicapper. The first form of handicapping was the cutting of various diameter sizes of logs in a contest but quite early on size was replaced with handicapping on time.

 

In the early years of chopping there was one influence of handicap running that flowed on over into that of chopping. This was that the best competitor was placed on scratch (back-mark) and other competitors given so many yards start depending on their ability. With bushcraft, a handicapper in declaring handicaps for an event would have the best competitor on scratch with other competitors given so many seconds start out to a predetermined limit. A competitor’s declared handicap was the number of second’s start he was given on the best competitor who would be given the back mark of zero seconds. As an example, the poorest competitor may be given a handicap of 30 seconds compared to the champion placed on scratch. Prior to an event starting, it was the duty of the starter to convert a competitor’s handicap mark to a starting mark. Occasionally mistakes were made which would set off a good argument and a possible protest especially if the mistake was discovered after the event had been held. Taking the previous example the competitor with a 30 second handicap would have a starting mark of “go” and the scratch competitor a starting mark of 30 seconds. Surprisingly this state of affairs lasted for years right up into the 1950s before the handicap mark became the same as the starting mark.

 

Up to the 1950s, newspapers reporting results of bushcraft events regularly included the place getter’s handicap mark in brackets. Today, people researching old newspaper results or meeting programmes often mistakenly take the handicap marks to be the same as a present day handicap/starting mark, erroneously thinking those with a high numbered mark were the champion competitors and those with a lower mark the slower competitor instead of the other way around.

 

In the earlier years of the sport, with probably less than eight in an event, the chances of competitors getting into the prize list were relatively high. Many of the competitors only competed at maybe one or two sports meetings a year purely on a fun basis. They expected a fair handicap mark but were not overly worried if they missed out on prize-money. They were not serious competitors and it is therefore believed that there would have been little dissatisfaction of marks awarded. Rarely was a handicapper’s decision questioned. There were even a few handicappers who developed quite a reputation of being very successful in their duties. With only the odd exception, the handicapping of bushcraft events throughout New Zealand remained in the hands of local individual handicappers right through to about 1940

 

It was not until the serious minded bushcraft competitors started to compete at several sports meetings and competing against each other more regularly, that they started to develop their own feeling of what a fair handicap mark should be. Like the cash runners of the day, they enjoyed the sport and started to chase the small prize-money that was being offered. After all, a placing could cover the costs of attending an enjoyable sports day.

 

 Prior to 1950, the main gripe about the methods of handicapping by the continually unplaced competitors, was that they were not sharing in the prize list in proportion to competition expenses or the other competitors. Technically the handicapping method was expected to rectify this to give satisfaction. The complaint came to the fore especially after a major event where big entries had been paid. Then there always seemed to be someone who thought that many of the place getters received favourable marks because there was little uniformity between the methods used by different handicappers.

 

One of the earliest records of official involvement for uniformity was when a remit was presented at the 1937 annual meeting of the New Zealand Athletic, Cycling and Axemen’s Union “That consideration be given to improving the system of handicapping”. The word ‘system’ probably meant the lack of uniformity between handicappers. There is no record of any action being taken. There has been suggestions of a general feeling that in the best interests of the sport, handicapping should be left to individual handicappers who knew the competitors and were experienced experts in the field.

 

At the Northern Athletic Union’s annual meeting of 1938 it was resolved “That a committee be formed to draw up a comprehensive system of handicapping for all branches of the sport”. Again there appears to have been no follow up, possibly because of World War II. It was not until November 1948 that the NAU Executive instructed their handicappers to draw up a system. A system schedule was presented the following year. At the time there were two complete separate organisations controlling the sport in New Zealand, the NZAC&AU and the NAU (Auckland Province).

 

In the late 1930s, one person who started to develop an interest in the subject was Walter Warner of Raetihi. He was concerned about competitor dissatisfaction with current handicapping methods, especially when he felt that handicappers were very conscientious in their duties and always tried to be fair in every way possible. He studied handicapping methods that operated in other sports and discussed ideas extensively with professional mathematicians. Not only did he try to identify handicapping problems but also delved into the cause of the problems. He tried to formulate reasons why there always seemed to be this dissatisfaction among competitors. He soon came to the conclusion that the success or failure of systems were purely mathematical complicated by a very wide range of variables and it was the changing variables that caused the problems. The main variable was the continually changing ratios of competitor numbers to the number of prizes being competed for. This had a huge influence over a period of time. Low numbers of competitors see them gradually move towards the scratch mark. Larger numbers and competitors generally move towards the limit mark.  .

 

Warner was under the impression that dissatisfaction was brought about simply because there were not enough prizes being awarded in comparison with the total number of competitors. In researching, he discovered that there was no available statistics at all on the number of events held, the number of prizes, total prize money paid out, number of entries per event or the total amount of entry fees paid in. It was not until 1957 that he was able to prove his point. At considerable expense to himself, Warner procured the advertised bushcraft programmes of over 80% of all the affiliated bodies throughout New Zealand for the 1957/58 season and with the cooperation of various handicappers arrived at a very approximate number of competitors that took part in each event. Evaluating the information did not make good reading for the future success of any handicapping system on a national basis.

 

In very round figures, the survey showed that 150 sports meetings were held at which were staged 800 events for a total prize money list of $30 000. This was shared by 1000 competitors who it is conservatively estimated to have paid in a minimum of $22 000 in entry fees. Over 400 events (more than half) had less than $20 as a first prize. With a little over 2400 separate prizes, this only gave competitors an average chance of less than 2.5 prizes over the season. Can one wonder why there was dissatisfaction? Under these conditions, no way could competitor satisfaction be fully expected. Even today these vital statistics are not readily available.

 

Warner developed “The Group Handicapping System” that was based solely on competitor ability. It classified all competitors into four different grades according to their chopping or sawing ability. This also provided for future growth in competitor numbers. It created the environment for holding divisional events for the different grades of competitors and saw more contests between competitors of similar ability. This did bring about certain restrictions on what events a competitor could compete in at a meeting but generally it increased the chances of competitors gaining prizes. In reality, competitors in general opposed this limitation as it went against fifty years of the “open event” tradition. However certain group combinations were allowed in making up a sports programme. To encourage the holding of events by small picnic type sports meetings where only a few competitors took part, a full range in a handicap limit could be used but there was quite a limit on the amount of prize money that could be awarded for such events.

 

Penalties for placings were on a graduated scale of seconds depending on what the event limits were. On the other hand being continually unplaced, a competitor was given allowances of so many seconds. However depending on where he was in his grade, there were restrictions on how far a competitor could move towards the limit mark. In general, richer prizes were awarded for events for the better class of competitor. This encouraged the lower handicapped competitor to improve to qualify for higher prize money events instead of just relying on a good handicap mark. It prevented beginners coming into the sport and taking away unearned prize money.

 

As the system gained ground in the Rangitikei Centre in the early 1950s, so did affiliations and registrations increase. For about fourteen years following the Second World War, Union Centres were ranked on a points system awarded for the number of club affiliations and competitor registrations. Southland was top in 1947 with 310 points. West Coast took over for the next two years with an average of 310 points. Nelson/Marlborough was top for 1950 – 51 averaging 391 points. Rangitikei grew from 194 points in 1946 (third) to an all-time national peak of 460 points in 1953. The Centre still ranked ahead of West Coast and Nelson/Marlborough as New Zealand’s top Centre through to 1959 when rankings were discontinued. Yet it was in these three top Centres where the sport was booming, that saw the most disharmony over handicapping and during the period the proposal of three different types of handicapping systems.

 

On the other hand in some of the NZAC&AU less active Centres such as Poverty Bay, Hawkes Bay and at one stage Taranaki, the systems used by local handicappers gave good satisfaction and were looked on with envy by competitors from areas of dissatisfaction. Why weren’t these handicapping ideas or systems being promoted? It now appears that the success in the main was due to the good ratio of competitor numbers to that of prizes available in the particular areas. No doubt this helped add fuel to the many unproven theories and gut feelings on how handicapping should be carried out. What the problems were and how they should be solved.

 

In the early 1950s there was a lot of debating, sub-committees and lobbying for a universal system but the NZAC&AU would not commit itself to the task of one system. There was a reluctance to tell handicappers how to carry out their duties. Finally under pressure the Union at their 1955 annual conference adopted the “Group System” to be used throughout its jurisdiction as from 29/01/1955. However there was reluctance in some Centres to either understand the system’s philosophy or implement it in full. The following year Southland and West Coast Centres were given permission not to operate the system. A year later a resolution put forward and carried was “That the present group system of handicapping be not continued during the coming season and that each Centre use the local system at present in use and that the NAU system dated October 1956 be studied and that a meeting be arranged with the NAU handicappers during the year with a view to working out a system that will be acceptable to all Centres in New Zealand”. It was the death-knell of the “Group System”. Critics argued that the system had been too revolutionary involving too many restrictions and changes against traditions of the sport. Perhaps it may have been accepted if it had been gradually brought in piecemeal over a period of time. However Warner contended that for the system to work, all aspects had to be involved or it would self destruct. Although bitterly disappointed, Warner was philosophical over the matter. He felt that the wide complexities of handicapping were not fully understood by those seeking improvement. And with the sport not prepared for radical changes in the way it was organised, it would stagnate. Fifty years on, his prophecies appears to have had more than just a ring of truth.

 

The NAU Handicapper’s 1948 proposed handicapping system was inaugurated in September 1949 with performance books being printed and the adopted handicapping system for both chopping and sawing printed on the inside cover. Behind the scenes, the NAU urgently pushed ahead to establish the system. They knew the Warner handicapping ideas in the neighbouring Rangitikei Centre were gaining ground and that the NZAC&AU were being pressurised for a universal system acceptable throughout the country. NAU wanted dominance with what was proving best for them.

 

The handicapping system is the first known record of a printed system to appear in New Zealand. Lists of various woods used in competitions were divided into three classes of hardness with various limits for each. For example in a 12inch standing the limit was 7 seconds for soft wood, 10 seconds for medium wood and 20 seconds for hard wood. For a 16inch standing the limits were 18 seconds, 20 seconds, and 33 seconds respectively. Penalties were on prize money won. Up to $21, 1 second, $22 - $80, 2 seconds and 1 second on a second placing. Over $82, 3 seconds, 2 seconds and 1 second for third. These penalties applied to all size blocks cut. Allowances - Competitors competing from the same handicap, in the same class of event, without success, or placings in three consecutive starts were moved forward 1 second. A similar system applied for sawing events. The NAU system continued for a few years with only slight adjustments made. In hindsight, the chopping system seemed to favour the better class axemen and the continually improving axemen. Quite good axemen started to get low marks, resulting in the poorer class axemen continually being unplaced, even when on limit marks. These limit axemen turned to competing over the border south where they appeared to have greater success under different systems.

 

Up to the 1940s all handicappers handicapped competitors solely on performance ability. The fastest cutters in the scratch bracket, the slower cutters around the limit mark. The first sign to the contrary was when a competitor may be penalised 1 second for winning $20 but 3 seconds for winning $100 in the same type of event. The NAU brought the first ruling in where allowances were given on the amount of entry fees paid and not necessarily on the number of unplacings since receiving a penalty. This caused great consternation among the “handicapping on ability” purists. But it was the direction that future handicapping systems would take.

 

(To be continued in future issues)

CORRECTION   In my article last year, I suggested that Nicki Hocquard’s 1990 world championship win may have been the first by a New Zealand woman overseas. It has been pointed out that Merle Jensen with her husband Merv won the world Jack and Jill title in 1977 in Oregon. Sorry about my lack of research.

 

The following excerpt was taken from a letter written by Tom Jackson (Woodchopper of old) supplied by the Lamberton family. Re the International Relay between Australia and New Zealand at Victoria Park at St Pats Centennial March 15^th 1969.

NZ fielded the team as selected at earlier trials, with the exception of Bill Liddell replacing Les Bolstad as a standing cutter This Australian Team was a selected Team, not the usual team selected by brief trials at Sydney Show, it looked to be the strongest ever fielded by Australia, even so NZ was slightly favoured by recent performances.

                As the two teams marched out on led by Managers Harry Reece and John Halstrom many of the three thousand spectators crowding every vantage point of the chopping arena began to have some misgivings, as the home team weighed in much lighter and the visitors had been showing some good form in the handicap events.

                Geoff Hocquard and Les Caldwell on the first UH, a keen contest was expected between these two axemen, this did not eventuate however and Geoff finished 8 or 9 seconds behind Les, the first Std cutters were away Les Gilsenan chasing the promising young Gary Hewitt, things looked desperate for NZ, although many inches shorter and three stone lighter Les showed that experience will overcome most handicaps. It was in his favour both he and the less experienced Hewitt were both cutting fairly firm pine logs and he pulled NZ within three blows of the lead.

                Then we saw two magnificent cuts from Bill Curtain for NZ and Jock O’Toole of Australia, by this time the crowd was seething with excitement urging their respective favourites on and both responded in wonderful style O’Toole possibly cut his best race for Aust, his time 38.6 sec was quite the fastest recorded by any member of the Aust team. But well as he cut he could not hold a very much in form Curtain who not unexpectedly bought of NZ fastest cut at 36.4 sec. As Bill Liddell went away on the fourth block within a fraction of a second of Merv Youd the crowd was at fever pitch, it was thought that Youd with all his experience and brilliance would give his team a handy lead once again.  Liddell had different ideas though, determined to show that his elevation from seventh man was not going to weaken the team he proved his point a practical way by chopping powerfully through his block to keep the two teams on level terms.

                It was with a look of worry and disappointment that captain Doug Youd ran to send Garry Smith away against Southlands Mike Carran. For a moment in the front this looked to be a turning point for the visitors but Carran chopped brilliantly in the back to fist draw level then drew away to a  4 or 5 blow lead over the powerful Smith. It was a cut Carran could be proud of and for the first time NZ supporters could begin to breathe more easily here was Dave Lamberton with a lead over Doug Youd on the last block and bravely as Youd tried barring accidents the race was as good as over. There isn’t an axeman alive today or any other day for that matter who could give Dave a start and a beating over a 13inch Radiata standing block. Dave put up a wonderful performance not only did he win for New Zealand but increased the lead by five seconds to nine seconds, what a margin, after New Zealand being down by nine seconds on the first log, perhaps it was fitting that New Zealand should win the first ever test chopped in this country.

         Chopping enthusiasts will ever be grateful to those who made this race such a memorable one.