Americas Cup - and Alinghi drops out

[Chris 249]

On the subject of willy waving....

In no way was I saying that willy waving is absent from the sport other than the cup. The difference of course is that all the names you mention have so much history with the sport. Ratcliffe, as the prime example, does not. Anyone who stared their sailing in smaller modest boats and worked their way up as their business boomed and they could afford more, to be honest that's different. They're sailors first. If they're too busy to be on the boat for every event, but still let it compete without them, whilst still paying the bills, then that's the opposite of willy waving. That's generosity to the crew and also to the competitors who want decent fleets.

But just answer this question... Ratcliffe, the rumoured middle eastern backers... They're not sailors, wouldn't know the history of the cup before they became involved. What's the attraction? Why have they suddenly decided to get involved? If you cannot see the difference between them and the likes of lifelong sailors like Bertarelli, and why that is completely changing the direction that the cup is going.....

The difference with other sports is that the owners of a football club, or an F1 team etc can reasonably expect to actually profit from their ownership. For sure there is going to be an element of willy waving, of ego boosting, but ownership of a Premier league team is a good investment. The going rate for an F1 team is in the hundreds of millions.
Cup teams have no value, generate no income from ticket sales, almost none from TV rights, don't sell replica kits by the thousand etc... They're simply money pits. All the Billionaires putting their cash into the cup know it's just spent money, it's not an investment that could possibly generate returns in cash terms. So why do those who have no sailing history do it?

Yes, for SOME backers the Cup is a willy-waving contest. But your earlier statement was a blanket one that didn't allow for owners like Bertarelli.

However, the fact that SOME Cup backers can reasonably be seen as willy waving wankers is far from new. The very first challenger, Ashbury, as an active sailor but his challenges and other sailing were often said to be at least partly driven by his climbing of the social ladder. The second challenge, Cuthbert, was said by some to be in the Cup largely to advertise his professional boatbuilding and design skills. Although one of Lipton's biographers said that a model yacht was his dearest possession as a kid, Lipton had no real sailing background when he first challenged and he barely touched any of his Cup challengers (although later he became keen on racing his 23 Metre on the Uk circuit). Emil Christensen, the main backer of Australia's second challenge, was basically a non-sailor/WWW who did the Cup for social and business reasons. "Pretty Unsavoury" (Peter de Savary) of the '83 British challenge was generally said to be someone without a significant sailing background who was there for the hell of it or, for PR, as a WWW. Pratt, backer of the second Australian challenge in '83, hasn't been seen near a yacht before or since AFAIK. Nor has the Kevin Parry who spent a fortune on the '87 Kooka defence. A quick Google seems to indicate that the heads of the Golden Gate Challenge '87 and French challenge '87 were basically non-sailors and there were probably others among the defenders. Fay, who kicked off the Kiwi involvement in the Cup in '87 and the DoG challenge, doesn't seem to have done much actual sailing but got a lot of publicity for his firm.

So from the very first challenge, through the giant single-sticker period, into the 12 Metre era and doubtless beyond, there's been people who backed the Cup although they weren't sailors and probably didn't know much about its history. Since I know that using the Cup for willy-waving is about as old as the Cup is, it's not correct to say that I'm conflating the history of the Cup with the modern day because "the motivations of the people putting up the money are completely different now". That's not true - there have always been some people motivated to put up money for the Cup for reasons other than passion for sailing, and some people who have put up the cash because they love the sport.

I can actually see some of the attraction of the Cup for those who have the money to waste - regattas are often held in nice places, you get to sit around in a superyacht watching people burn your money rather than in an enclosed box, the event venue looks much nicer than an inner-city football stadium or a racecourse, you may prefer to be associated with marketing Rolex and Louis Vuitton than with marketing mass-market product for "hoi polloi", etc.

 

[Hermit]

With this just in the news:

Two Hollywood A-listers now co-own Australian SailGP team in bonding experience

I am just trying to think which film star could be Sir Ben's investor...

 

[flaming]

Yes, for SOME backers the Cup is a willy-waving contest. But your earlier statement was a blanket one that didn't allow for owners like Bertarelli.

Oh it is still a willy waving exercise for Bertaletti. Just he has a little more justification...

But the point stands... Take the Billionaires away, and what we have is really not a viable competition. It costs far too much, generates far too little in terms of ticket sales and advertising revenue, and doesn't generate an audience away from hardcore sailors.

But you're still only looking at it through the lense of the history. Not considering why such an event should still exist now, and who pays for it.

Compare and contrast with sail GP. Now I would freely admit that I originally saw Sail GP as sour grapes from Ellison. Couldn't turn the cup into his vision, so did it anyway.... But have you watched any of the events recently? They're spectacular. There are actually large, paying, crowds. A day ticket to the Portsmouth grandstands is £66! And I'm assured by someone who should know that they expect it to sell out. York this weekend. Though the wind doesn't look to have gotten the memo....
The teams are now starting to be sold (or part sold) for real cash....

And what is the difference? Put simply, it's because it's fleet racing on a tight course. It's just so, so much more exciting. Even that silly reaching start has a level of drama that I didn't expect. My kids are obsessed with it.

But that's not the America's cup. The America's cup is match racing. So stop trying to make it generally popular with the public. It never will be. Pretending that the money can ever really be found through genuine commercial means for multiple challengers in 75 foot foiling monos is just a non starter. The ROI simply isn't there.

So 2 choices. Accept that it's a battle between Billionaires, or scale it right back.

 

[Puffin10032]

And what is the difference? Put simply, it's because it's fleet racing on a tight course. It's just so, so much more exciting. Even that silly reaching start has a level of drama that I didn't expect. My kids are obsessed with it.

But that's not the America's cup. The America's cup is match racing.

That's an interesting point. I wonder how F1 would fare as a spectator sport if there were only two cars on the track?

 

[Chris 249]

Oh it is still a willy waving exercise for Bertaletti. Just he has a little more justification...

But the point stands... Take the Billionaires away, and what we have is really not a viable competition. It costs far too much, generates far too little in terms of ticket sales and advertising revenue, and doesn't generate an audience away from hardcore sailors.

But you're still only looking at it through the lense of the history. Not considering why such an event should still exist now, and who pays for it.

Compare and contrast with sail GP. Now I would freely admit that I originally saw Sail GP as sour grapes from Ellison. Couldn't turn the cup into his vision, so did it anyway.... But have you watched any of the events recently? They're spectacular. There are actually large, paying, crowds. A day ticket to the Portsmouth grandstands is £66! And I'm assured by someone who should know that they expect it to sell out. York this weekend. Though the wind doesn't look to have gotten the memo....
The teams are now starting to be sold (or part sold) for real cash....

And what is the difference? Put simply, it's because it's fleet racing on a tight course. It's just so, so much more exciting. Even that silly reaching start has a level of drama that I didn't expect. My kids are obsessed with it.

But that's not the America's cup. The America's cup is match racing. So stop trying to make it generally popular with the public. It never will be. Pretending that the money can ever really be found through genuine commercial means for multiple challengers in 75 foot foiling monos is just a non starter. The ROI simply isn't there.

So 2 choices. Accept that it's a battle between Billionaires, or scale it right back.

Please give up this “you are only looking through the lense of history” stuff. It’s insulting, completely and utterly untrue and not only have you produced zero evidence for it, but some of your supposed “evidence” has been proven to be utterly wrong. Nothing I have ever said denied, for example, that the AC was and could be just a battle between billionaires, that it could be scaled back, or that previous, past nd future AC challengers may be WWW.

The fact that I know history does not mean that I am unable to look to the current and the future - look at the fact that I’m sailing a foiler (among other craft) and not a heavy production IRC mono. I’ve done short-circuit pro sailing, seen the crowds, seen the barricades necessary to keep the fans back when the autograph sessions start - and incidentally saw the same pro circuit collapse like literally a couple of dozen others. The fact that SGP may succeed because it’s been kicked off at vast expense is utterly irrelevant to anything I said so I don’t know why you brought it up.

I don’t know why you mentioned “pretending that the money can ever really be found through genuine commercial means for multiple challengers in 75 foot foiling monos is just a non starter. The ROI simply isn't there" because that’s what I’ve been saying for over a month on this thread!

By the way, how well do you know Bertarelli? How many of the people you abuse so freely are people you have met?

 

[Seven Spades]

I would say that the old Americas cup was a better spectical and far more exciting that the AC75 catastrophe. Who can relate to an AC75? Whereas we can all relate to a mono hull.

This is what we are missing

 

[Chiara’s slave]

I would say that the old Americas cup was a better spectical and far more exciting that the AC75 catastrophe. Who can relate to an AC75? Whereas we can all relate to a mono hull.

This is what we are missing

You’re stuck in the past. And the mindset that what fascinates you must do the same for all. No, it’s boring as hell for most people. The AC75s are a bit of a spectacle themselves, but other than that, no better. I’d love Sir Ben to bring the cup home, but I don’t have the patience to sit and watch him do it, whether it’s a 50 kn foiler or a 10kn 12 metre boat. It’s the format, not the boat. And the unfortunate fact that you only have to watch the first race of the final. It’s all over, in fact, half way up the first beat.

 

[flaming]

Please give up this “you are only looking through the lense of history” stuff. It’s insulting, completely and utterly untrue and not only have you produced zero evidence for it, but some of your supposed “evidence” has been proven to be utterly wrong. Nothing I have ever said denied, for example, that the AC was and could be just a battle between billionaires, that it could be scaled back, or that previous, past nd future AC challengers may be WWW.

The fact that I know history does not mean that I am unable to look to the current and the future - look at the fact that I’m sailing a foiler (among other craft) and not a heavy production IRC mono. I’ve done short-circuit pro sailing, seen the crowds, seen the barricades necessary to keep the fans back when the autograph sessions start - and incidentally saw the same pro circuit collapse like literally a couple of dozen others. The fact that SGP may succeed because it’s been kicked off at vast expense is utterly irrelevant to anything I said so I don’t know why you brought it up.

I don’t know why you mentioned “pretending that the money can ever really be found through genuine commercial means for multiple challengers in 75 foot foiling monos is just a non starter. The ROI simply isn't there" because that’s what I’ve been saying for over a month on this thread!

By the way, how well do you know Bertarelli? How many of the people you abuse so freely are people you have met?

Chris, I have no interest in a row with you, I seriously respect your cup knowledge. It is however difficult to avoid that conclusion when almost every post in reply to me in this thread you've referenced people who competed for the cup before I was born...

The point I was making with Sail GP was a contrast between what the cup has claimed to want to to do - i.e become commercially viable and able to stand on its own merit - and the lack of success that it has had in that regard, and what has been done with sail GP. And, my thesis is that this is because the product is significantly more attractive, and that it holds the attention far better.

I agree that you've been making the point about the boats etc and the ROI, so I really don't know why you've got so wound up about me making the same point?

My point / opinion is this. The cup has a fine history. But having that history is no guarantee that the interest will, or should, continue. I would suggest that it is only because it was the Americas cup that as many people watched the cup even in the IACC boats. The actual product isn't great viewing. Take away the fact that it's the Americas cup, and really how many people would be all that bothered about a match racing event with 6 entries? Take away the fact that it's the cup and would any of the backers have put up the amount of cash that they did?
Is there another "top level" sporting event that only gets the attention it does because of what it means historically rather than the actual joy of watching the sport?

Every America's cup event in my memory has always included some guff about "growing the sport" in their press releases etc as a justification for holding an insanely expensive regatta. But it's never stacked up, it's never cut through beyond sailing circles. I strongly suspect most sailing clubs "have a go" days get more people interested in the sport than the AC...

I'm glad the cup exists, I'm glad that there are designers, boatbuilders and sailors out pushing the limits. When it gets going I'll probably follow it reasonably closely, and will be cheering on any British team to bring it home, but I can't put it on the pedestal as the pinnacle of the sport that you seem to, certainly the modern cup. For 2 reasons. Firstly the spectator appeal isn't great. And then the fact that the modern cup has attracted backers who do not have the history in the sport, but have jumped straight into the cup as their first foray into sailing. To me that says that those people are not there because it's the pinnacle of their sport, and they want to push that on. But instead they're there to take reflected kudos from the cup.

And that's where sailing really has an overall problem. At its core even the most expensive "professional" campaigns in sailing are essentially amateur in nature. In that the person bankrolling them is not expecting a return, but is instead spending money for the fun of it. Think of the big Ocean races, Sydney Hobart etc. Huge amounts of money are spent, and some people make a good living from sailing in those events. But the money isn't coming into the sport from fans in the form of ticket sales, replica kit sales or even big money TV deals. It's coming into the sport from the businesses of the boat owners, spending the cash on their hobby.

The Admirals's cup starts in a couple of weeks on the Solent. Lots of very, very expensive hardware in town. More than a few professionals making good money I gather. But each boat still needs someone at the top to think it's a great idea to drop a huge wedge of cash to compete in the event.
And really, almost all sailing is like this. Including the cup. Someone has to be paying for it, and given the general lack of commercial ROI, this has to be on the basis of a hobby.

The only place where it's a little different is the Vendee, who have found a model that works. And it's not really surprising that costs for a 4 year, new boat, campaign are roughly 10% of what the cup teams are supposed to have spent last time out. It's also very interesting that the Ocean Race decided to piggy back on the Vendee in order to survive. The old model of issue a design rule and a start state and expect teams to be able to drum up enough corporate sponsorship to build a boat and recruit a crew for that one event are long gone. You have to be able to spread the cost over many events.
And now Sail GP have found a model that seems to have some legs, which is interesting.

 

[Chiara’s slave]

How about racing this one for the cup?

We could put up some old piece of rotting classic and re enact the original. With, of course, the same result.

 

[Chris 249]

Chris, I have no interest in a row with you, I seriously respect your cup knowledge. It is however difficult to avoid that conclusion when almost every post in reply to me in this thread you've referenced people who competed for the cup before I was born...

The point I was making with Sail GP was a contrast between what the cup has claimed to want to to do - i.e become commercially viable and able to stand on its own merit - and the lack of success that it has had in that regard, and what has been done with sail GP. And, my thesis is that this is because the product is significantly more attractive, and that it holds the attention far better.

I agree that you've been making the point about the boats etc and the ROI, so I really don't know why you've got so wound up about me making the same point?

My point / opinion is this. The cup has a fine history. But having that history is no guarantee that the interest will, or should, continue. I would suggest that it is only because it was the Americas cup that as many people watched the cup even in the IACC boats. The actual product isn't great viewing. Take away the fact that it's the Americas cup, and really how many people would be all that bothered about a match racing event with 6 entries? Take away the fact that it's the cup and would any of the backers have put up the amount of cash that they did?
Is there another "top level" sporting event that only gets the attention it does because of what it means historically rather than the actual joy of watching the sport?

Every America's cup event in my memory has always included some guff about "growing the sport" in their press releases etc as a justification for holding an insanely expensive regatta. But it's never stacked up, it's never cut through beyond sailing circles. I strongly suspect most sailing clubs "have a go" days get more people interested in the sport than the AC...

I'm glad the cup exists, I'm glad that there are designers, boatbuilders and sailors out pushing the limits. When it gets going I'll probably follow it reasonably closely, and will be cheering on any British team to bring it home, but I can't put it on the pedestal as the pinnacle of the sport that you seem to, certainly the modern cup. For 2 reasons. Firstly the spectator appeal isn't great. And then the fact that the modern cup has attracted backers who do not have the history in the sport, but have jumped straight into the cup as their first foray into sailing. To me that says that those people are not there because it's the pinnacle of their sport, and they want to push that on. But instead they're there to take reflected kudos from the cup.

And that's where sailing really has an overall problem. At its core even the most expensive "professional" campaigns in sailing are essentially amateur in nature. In that the person bankrolling them is not expecting a return, but is instead spending money for the fun of it. Think of the big Ocean races, Sydney Hobart etc. Huge amounts of money are spent, and some people make a good living from sailing in those events. But the money isn't coming into the sport from fans in the form of ticket sales, replica kit sales or even big money TV deals. It's coming into the sport from the businesses of the boat owners, spending the cash on their hobby.

The Admirals's cup starts in a couple of weeks on the Solent. Lots of very, very expensive hardware in town. More than a few professionals making good money I gather. But each boat still needs someone at the top to think it's a great idea to drop a huge wedge of cash to compete in the event.
And really, almost all sailing is like this. Including the cup. Someone has to be paying for it, and given the general lack of commercial ROI, this has to be on the basis of a hobby.

The only place where it's a little different is the Vendee, who have found a model that works. And it's not really surprising that costs for a 4 year, new boat, campaign are roughly 10% of what the cup teams are supposed to have spent last time out. It's also very interesting that the Ocean Race decided to piggy back on the Vendee in order to survive. The old model of issue a design rule and a start state and expect teams to be able to drum up enough corporate sponsorship to build a boat and recruit a crew for that one event are long gone. You have to be able to spread the cost over many events.
And now Sail GP have found a model that seems to have some legs, which is interesting.

Good to hear neither of us wants to argue - for one thing I want to keep on being able to açcess your IRC optimisation knowledge! As usual, I got into the history when the conversation started to drift that way after Chiara’s Slave mentioned the AC returning to displacement boats and the resulting posts about whether the Cup could move to slower craft. I try not to start historical discussions.

The good thing about history is that what has worked to increase the popularity of the sport (or reduce it) in the past is still amazingly relevant and provides very valuable lessons. It’s one of the reasons I stepped up to take over a class that was almost dead, kicked it back to life in one country in a way that inspired another to restart, and then watched as it boomed to become about the third top-selling class in the sport by using the same mantra of using technology to increase accessibility rather than to gain speed in an elitist way.

I certainly don’t put the modern Cup on a pedestal because it’s so remote from the rest of the sport, whereas in earlier times the AC class was chosen as the most popular extant big boat of the same class that did regular local regattas. It does seem that the Cup has some positive impact on the overall sport when it relates more closely to normal boats, even when it’s pretty much just the rig technology as in the 12s after Intrepid.

Completely agree that overwhelmingly sailing is a "hobby sport", and IMHO that’s what it’s best as. The bad effects of the pro model can run deep. One example is from windsurfing, which arguably led the way in pro sailing along with shorthanded ocean racing. At a recent worlds I was talking to a former wavesailing Pro world champ who has his own board brand. He said that the pro wavesailing event rules now only counted about the best three waves in a 15 or 30 minute head. That meant that the pros used slow, curvy boards that could only get the best waves but then could do really good turns and get high scores.

To avoid cost escalation, the pros must now use production boards. The typical sailor wants to buy the same board that won the World Cup. However, that means they buy these specialised boards designed to win the World Cup that get fewer waves (because they are slower on the plane) and have turning capacity that is beyond the average sailor. As the pro world champ said, that means he must now sell the mass market a board that is the wrong shape for them - they’d have more fun with a flatter board that gets every wave it goes for. The sport is therefore suffering because of what is happening to designs that cater for the pro sailing circuit.

That pro sailor’s brand is now promoting the accessible end of windsurfing, like the class I ran, because the head honcho knows that sailing grows when the accessible end is promoted and not just the extreme end.

Academics are now waking up to this “competitive overshoot” in sailing, where it’s arguably a major factor in the decline of the sport. The modern AC seems to be a rather esoteric example of the same factor, and certainly some of the underlying thinking is a symptom of the malaise.

 

[Chiara’s slave]

Competitive overshoot is everywhere, not just sailing. It’s now rare to find a sailing class without it, even classics. Rule bending and pro crews are rife. I think it’s just modern life rather than the AC that’s driving it though. It’s this ‘cultural trend’ that is driving the AC in it’s current direction, in fact.

 

[Puffin10032]

Academics are now waking up to this “competitive overshoot” in sailing, where it’s arguably a major factor in the decline of the sport. The modern AC seems to be a rather esoteric example of the same factor, and certainly some of the underlying thinking is a symptom of the malaise.

That's very interesting. I can't see any evidence that events like the AC have had any positive effect at the grass roots level. Personally I think they just reinforce the public perception that sailing is elitist.

 

[flaming]

That's very interesting. I can't see any evidence that events like the AC have had any positive effect at the grass roots level. Personally I think they just reinforce the public perception that sailing is elitist.

I think that's a slightly separate thing. Impact in terms of bringing people into the sport, or impact in terms of developing the equipment that is used.

Over many years I don't think it's possible to argue that events such as the AC, the Vendee globe, the Admiral's cup etc have given rise to lots and lots of development in both boats and "kit" that in the fullness of time those of us at the lower echelons of the sport get to benefit from. Just looking around my boat, and things like self tailing winches, rope clutches, ball bearing blocks, low friction rings, rod rigging, carbon mast... All either started in, or got adapted for sailing use by, high end racing events.

 

[dunedin]

That's very interesting. I can't see any evidence that events like the AC have had any positive effect at the grass roots level. Personally I think they just reinforce the public perception that sailing is elitist.

But that has never been an objective for the Americas Cup. From the outset racing round the Isle.of Wight the AC has been a private race and betting opportunity for the very rich.
Who then set the rules for the AC, limited only by the Deed of Gift.

Other events run by ISAF (from Olympics down) are more likely to have objectives of promoting the sport and participation.- but even then tricky to do and unlikely to keep grumblie old non racers on YBW happy.

 

[RAI]

I thought the Americas Cup was different, in that the last winner dictates the rules for the next race. Not some governing body.
Hence all sorts of motivation can lead to the next AC design.

Oops! Dunedin beat me to it.

 

[Puffin10032]

But that has never been an objective for the Americas Cup. From the outset racing round the Isle.of Wight the AC has been a private race and betting opportunity for the very rich.
Who then set the rules for the AC, limited only by the Deed of Gift.

Other events run by ISAF (from Olympics down) are more likely to have objectives of promoting the sport and participation.- but even then tricky to do and unlikely to keep grumblie old non racers on YBW happy.

I'm not sure anything would keep the grumbley old non-racers on YBW happy As for the Olympics, I've not seen any evidence that that particular circus increases participation.

 

[Chris 249]

Competitive overshoot is everywhere, not just sailing. It’s now rare to find a sailing class without it, even classics. Rule bending and pro crews are rife. I think it’s just modern life rather than the AC that’s driving it though. It’s this ‘cultural trend’ that is driving the AC in it’s current direction, in fact.

I used the wrong term (in as much as this is a new area so everything’s fluid) since the closest academic piece refers to “innovation overshoot”. It’s a paper about how windsurfing almost killed itself by going from simple, cheap boards that everyone could use to promoting high-wind high-performance kit that doesn’t suit beginners, those who can’t get down to the beach when it’s windy, etc.

There’s always been pros and excess in racing - the original sailing canoes went down the same path. It took them little over 20 years to go from sit-in cruising types that made canoeing explode in popularity around the world (200 clubs in the USA alone) to extreme racing machines with planks and multiple rigs of 130ft2 or more perched on hulls made of 1/10” laminate and which fell over straight away unless kept upright by an expert. Not surprisingly the scene basically then collapsed. Even the cruising competitions became too complicated to be popular.

1.6: The raincoat boat bed and the shoe-shine missionary

Yes, the trend to overshoot is driving the current AC and the way of thinking is so ingrained that even after decades people refuse to see that it can be harmful and it can be cured.

 

[flaming]

the way of thinking is so ingrained that even after decades people refuse to see that it can be harmful and it can be cured.

I think that invoking the word "can" here is dangerously optimistic! As it involves people who are currently doing very well thank you driving the cup this way to accept that they need to do a little bit less well to drive the cup that way. And the nature of the cup is such that those people are setting the rules....

The entire history of racing is chock full of examples of a decent fleet of fun boats springing up, almost organically, and everyone having a lot of fun until the "wrong" people get involved and outspend everyone and spoil the fun.
Just in my time racing in the solent I can think of so many examples of that. A look at the number of boats entered this season compared to last, and the number for sale, suggests that the Cape 31s might be the latest example.

 

[Chiara’s slave]

I think that invoking the word "can" here is dangerously optimistic! As it involves people who are currently doing very well thank you driving the cup this way to accept that they need to do a little bit less well to drive the cup that way. And the nature of the cup is such that those people are setting the rules....

The entire history of racing is chock full of examples of a decent fleet of fun boats springing up, almost organically, and everyone having a lot of fun until the "wrong" people get involved and outspend everyone and spoil the fun.
Just in my time racing in the solent I can think of so many examples of that. A look at the number of boats entered this season compared to last, and the number for sale, suggests that the Cape 31s might be the latest example.

It’s happened in the XOD class time and again. There’s always a row brewing about someone taking the mickey out of the intent of the rules as something isn’t expressly forbidden. That, along with the number of paid crews, and in a class which appears to embody the spirit of amateur competition surprises lots of people. I guess the Capes weren’t really set up for pros, now there are few that aren’t. I suppose, say 25 years ago even, pro sailors were few and far between, we all had day jobs.

 

[Chris 249]

But that has never been an objective for the Americas Cup. From the outset racing round the Isle.of Wight the AC has been a private race and betting opportunity for the very rich.
Who then set the rules for the AC, limited only by the Deed of Gift.

Other events run by ISAF (from Olympics down) are more likely to have objectives of promoting the sport and participation.- but even then tricky to do and unlikely to keep grumblie old non racers on YBW happy.

1- There seems to be zero evidence that the AC is a inherently “a private race” - it was specifically open for a challenge from 'any recognised club', and it’s been challenged for by a dinghy club which didn’t even have a clubhouse. Nor did RHYC when it challenged. The second challenger, Cuthbert, represented the Bay of Quinte YC - a club where the champion at the time was a 27ft LOA cruiser/racer and not a hangout for the “very rich”. Bond’s second challenge was from the Sun City YC, a volunteer club mainly for dinghies. In the 1800s the Cup was defended for the NYYC by three boats from Boston because the NYYC specifically allowed boats from their rival city - hardly evidence of a “private race”.

Okay, these days the very high entry fees may rule out small clubs - but that was not always the case and there is zero evidence that an event that was specifically open to “any recognised club” was meant to be “a private race” in any use of the term.


2- There’s very little if any evidence that the AC was really “a betting opportunity for the very rich”. The owners of the first America tried to get some bets going but didn’t get much action. But private matches with bets were common all through sport and all through sailing at the time, from locals racing dinghy-size boats against each other to others racing giant schooners across the Atlantic. Yes, the public bet on early ACs, but which of the AC challengers and defenders do you claim “saw it as a betting opportunity”?

Are you claiming that Henn, Sutton, Comstock, Busk, Vanderbilt, JP Morgan, Sopwith, Packer, Bic, the Sovereign and Sceptre syndicates and Gen Paine saw the AC as a “betting opportunity”? So what bets did they lay? Who with? How much? This sounds like a claim that is derogatory, completely without evidence and made up for some unknowable reason. You made the statement, surely you should back it up with proof or retract it.


3-
I don’t think anyone here has said that the Cup was intended to make sailing more popular - the point is that some OTHER people claim they have changed the Cup rules to promote the sport and many of us do not believe the claims or that the plan has worked.

HOWEVER, it was very common in the 1800s to see yacht racing as a way to demonstrate the advantages of improved sailing craft and "improve the breed” of sailboats that were still in regular use for commercial purposes, and for many the Cup was seen as part of that objective for many years afterwards. America was of the same style as the New York pilot schooner or the many “packets” that carried mail, passengers and light freight around the area, and she was specifically created and campaigned to show the US style - not just as a means to a bet.

The “own bottom” clause, for example, was inserted in the DoG because the NYYC and in particular George L Schuyler felt that once steamships had become so big that a challenger could be sent across on one, it was essential to ensure to change the rules so that the challengers remained seaworthy vessels just as America had been. Schuyler wrote that if the Cup was taken over by unseaworthy boats, it “would not be a test of sea-going qualities, as well as speed, which would essentially detract from the interest of a national competition”.

This quote’s reference to “a national competition” is reflective of the fact that in its early days - in fact from the very start of consideration for the construction of America the schooner - the Cup and its roots was seen largely as a national public contest between the national US school of yacht design versus the national UK school of yacht design. Schuyler, one of the donors, clearly did NOT see the Cup as a private betting matter between rich men but as a “national contest” of design. He was there, he sailed in the Cup, you were not there, and you almost certainly have not. He knew the facts, you do not.

Many others echoed the claim that the Cup led yachting and yachting led design in smaller and working sailing craft, and they had evidence on their side. Ed Burgess, for example, parlayed his Cup fame into improving the design of fishing schooners. The AC was for some time seen as the ultimate “battle of the types” between the deep UK cutters and the beamy US centreboarders, NOT as a stand-alone betting competition between rich men. Independent witnesses say that Lt Henn of the Galatea challenge, for example, was openly and clearly interested in “the battle of the types” as Sutton seems to have been by the way of refused to sail-over when the previous US defender was DSQd, saying he was there for a race and not a walkover.

The “battle of the types” was a significant issue in grass-roots US sailing and the Cup victories of the Burgess “compromise sloops”, which were heavily influenced by the deeper British boats, played a major part in promoting deeper, safer boats to the US sailing community. The Cup’s part of it is just another example that is was much more than a private betting race - it had wide influence on sailing.