Sydney-Hobart: Has the Tattersalls Cup Become Devalued?
In 2005 the CYCA voted in favour of Canting Motor Boats being entitled to compete for the Tattersalls despite strong opposition. Photo David Salter.
Ed Psaltis, a Sydney-Hobart winning skipper and 42-time contestant, ponders what he believes are serious flaws in the way the event is currently conducted.
I have thought long and hard about making my concerns public on this issue. The risk is that it might just provoke a negative reaction within the racing community. But my father always said that if you believe in something strongly enough, hold your ground. The Sydney-Hobart is the pinnacle of offshore racing in Australia. In my view it is now organised in some ways that make it fundamentally unfair, especially to the smaller boats with amateur crews who have been the backbone of the event.
Twenty years ago, in 2005, there was a meeting at the Cruising Yacht Club of Australia to decide if the rules should be amended specifically to allow the boats that used motor power to cant their keels and grind their winches to contest the Tattersalls Cup, the prize for the overall winner of the Hobart race. Those against the change argued that the CMBs – the Canting Motor Boats – should have their chance for line honours glory, and even their own handicap division, but that they were not entitled to compete for the Tattersalls.
I went along that night and sat with Trygve Halvorsen, Syd Fischer and my father Bill, who’d twice been Commodore of the club. We were all opposed to allowing CMBs to race for the Tattersalls Cup. We lost. Our argument, which was also expressed by many others that night, was that CMBs had advantages that were too great to be equitably handicapped under IMS, IRC or any other system. There was a vote of hands. Such was the derision with which those opposite treated this challenge that many put up two hands, laughing, saying they were also voting for Joe Blow, their mate who couldn’t be there that night. That’s how the CMBs were allowed into Tattersalls. I can recall Mr Halvorsen’s reply on the night when asked by Bill if he was going to comment. “No Bill, the cards to this meeting were marked pre starting. No point”.
On reflection
Twenty years later, was our concern valid? Here are the hard statistical facts. Since 2005, the average percentage of CMBs in the IRC overall fleet (Tattersalls) has been 8%. During the same period, the number of times a CMB has won Tattersalls is 7 from 18 races (2020 was cancelled). That’s a winning percentage of 39%. Those numbers speak for themselves. Handicapping has failed to level the playing field. The most recent Hobart race saw a CMB win by the largest margin since Rani in 1945. This highlights the extent of the problem.
The same issue has enabled the exceptional performance of the TP52-type class as they continue to dominate in all Australian racing, as they have since 2013. Supporters of these yachts claim their results come because they have optimised their ratings so much. Yet, any good rating system should be proactive. Its computer programming (i.e. VPP technology) should recognise the increased speed or reduced rating such optimisation brings, and adjust the formula each year to keep the rating equation equitable. IRC has been woeful in this regard. The authorities in the UK who govern the system are reluctant to even admit the obvious anomaly, let alone do something about it.
Meanwhile, some might assert that these dominant wins for the TP52s over a decade are simply because they are sailed by top crew, so much better than the rest of us. I beg to differ. They are not as good as some might think they are, and the rest of us are not as bad as we might be made out to be. The frequency with which these boats have won Tattersalls, and come 2nd or 3rd in every Hobart race (and other offshore events), surely says more about their favourable rating than the abilities of the people who sail them.
Two-handers
There is a third class of yachts that, to my mind, enjoy unfair advantages and privileges: the two-handers. As a base line, let’s assume that the IRC correctly rates all yachts irrespective of whether they are racing two-up or with a full crew. But to comply with the mandatory Category 1 safety requirements the average fully-crewed boat below 40 feet LOA has to load on around half a tonne in deadweight – food, water, life-raft, compulsory safety gear, etc. The
double-handed boats racing in the same divisions carry proportionately much less of this weight but IRC makes no rating adjustment for that advantage – or for autohelm.
What is especially frustrating is that the two-handed entrants not only get their own IRC division for Hobart, and have full rights to win Tattersalls, but they also get to race in the divisions containing fully-crewed boats. That is not a like-for-like contest. If they deserve their own division which recognises their different performance profile to fully-crewed yachts, then why don’t the fully-crewed yachts also have their own division?
I understand that the CYCA sailing committee and Board both voted recently against excluding the double-handers from the fully crewed divisions but have retained the separate division for two-handed entrants. Is it too much to ask that the conventional yachts that have for decades been the traditional, long-term heart of the fleet should at least have a fair chance at victory in their own small division?
In summary, it is worth remembering that while the media have long been obsessed with the line honours contest, the yachting community has always had greater respect for the Tattersalls winner. Now, alas, apart from those who race CMBs, TP52s or two-handed boats, that prize is virtually unattainable. For the most part the Hobart results are a forgone conclusion for the favoured few, and irrelevant for the rest.
