Feature
No.45
September 2005
 
  print view 

Analysis of the Functional Sailing Classification System
Stephen F. Wilson & Philip H. Vardy, Australia
 

Introduction
Sailing is an exciting and rapidly-growing sport for people with disabilities. It can accommodate a wide range of disabilities, and it is one of the few sports in which people with a wide range of disabilities can compete with a degree of equity (1,2).
As a sport, sailing is governed by the International Sailing Federation (ISAF), a member of the International Olympic Committee (IOC). Sailing for people with disabilities is governed by the International Foundation for Disabled Sailing (IFDS), a member of IPC(3).
Sailing was introduced to the Paralympic Games as a demonstration event in 1996. In Atlanta, only one class of boat was sailed which was the Sonar (4). Currently, two classes are sailed in Paralympic competition:
  • The Sonar - a three-person keelboat with a sloop rig (two sails – mainsail and jib) (Fig. 1), and
  • The International 2.4mR (5) - a single-person, sloop-rigged keelboat (Fig. 2 )
The Sonar was chosen for disabled use because of the size and design of its cockpit which can accommodate a wide range of adaptive devices. For the most part, the Sonar has fulfilled the requirements set by the IFDS for a safe competitive three-person craft that can be sailed by a crew that includes people with mild, moderate and severe degrees of disability.
The Sonar is usually sailed in open non Paralympic regattas, with spinnaker, by four able-bodied and/or disabled people. The Sonar is best sailed flat or upright in all but the lightest of conditions to maximize its performance. This means that following a tack or gibe, crew must be able to transfer to the weather (upwind) side of the boat. Such transfer requires a degree of mobility in at least some of its crew (Fig. 3)
Outside Paralympic regattas and IFDS championships, the 2.4mR also is sailed by both able-bodied and disabled sailors The 2.4mR is less physically demanding than the Sonar where the single sailor sits facing forward with all the trim controls within easy reach. The 2.4mR may be steered with either feet or hands.
The objectives of this study are:1. To set up a benchmark to measure agility among B1 and B2 visually impaired athletes.
Competitive sailing requires cognitive skill such as knowledge, experience, tactics and strategy . It also requires the physical and sensory abilities. These abilities relate to agility in moving about the boat (especially in the Sonar), responsiveness to boat movement (balance), adeptness in steering, and vision in trimming sails.
Classification is the grading, for sport, of people with disabilities. Classification originated as a medical system based on diagnosis of physical impairment. Current classification differentiates between motor, sensory, intellectual /cognitive, and transplant groupings (6). The Paralympic Games, which grew partly from wheelchair athletics, has focused more on motor and sensory disability and less on intellectual disability. The Special Olympics is an international sports umbrella organization that caters specifically to individuals with intellectual disabilities.
The IFDS since its foundation, has had a classification system for sailors competing in three-person keelboats. The IFDS was challenged to develop a fairer classification system when sailing was introduced to the Paralympic Games.
The development of such a system required considerable professional input. IFDS as a result reconfigured its Medical Committee to include classifiers who had knowledge of the sport. Most had sailed competitively at national or international levels. These classifiers had backgrounds in rehabilitation or neurology (see Acknowledgements). The aim of the new Medical Committee was to shift the old IFDS classification system from an impairment-specific model to a functional, sport-specific model. The new classification system had to:
a) Enable fair and equitable competition between athletes with all types of disability, and all degrees of disability - mild, moderate and severe;
b) Permit the compilation of multi-person crews with widely varying types and degrees of disability (to complement each other);
c) Measure only functional limitations caused by physical disability; and
d) Be unaffected by the skill, training or talent of the participant.
The IFDS Medical Committee, in devising a new classification system, drew on long-established classification systems from other Paralympic events. It borrowed from the profile approach of the equestrian classification system. It also borrowed from the swimming classification system which used (and still does) anatomical examination, a functional test, and observation in competition (7). The new sailing classification system was therefore devised to include three components before a final classification number was assigned:
1. A weighted or “functional” anatomical examination: tests of strength, range of motion and coordination.
2. Observation of the key operations required to sail a boat (standardized in situ tests): Use of tiller, sheeting of lines & ropes, cleating and/or securing lines & ropes, transferring within the boat, and hiking and/or leaning over the side of the boat.
3. Observation of actual competition.
The result was the IFDS Functional Classification System 2000 (FCS2000) (3).
This paper uses the results of the 2004 Athens Paralympic regatta to explore the efficacy and equity of the FCS2000.
Methodology
FCS2000 classifies sailors on a continuum of ‘1’ to ‘7’. Only whole digits are used. ‘Mild’ degrees of disability are reflected in high classification numbers e.g. An above-the-knee amputee is classified as ‘7’. ‘Moderate’ degrees of disability are reflected in mid-range classification numbers e.g. someone with muscular dystrophy may be classified as ‘4’. ‘Severe’ degrees of disability are reflected in low classification numbers e.g. a high quadriplegic is classified as ‘1’.
The FCS2000 accommodates athletes with sight impairment. Sailors with, International Blind Sporting Federation (IBSA) rating, visual acuity impairment of B1, B2 or B3 are classified as ‘3’, ‘5’ and ‘7’ respectively although currently under review.
The FCS 2000 system permits a person with any number of classification points (‘1’–‘7’) to compete in the 2.4mR i.e. the sailor need meet only ‘minimal disability’ as an entry requirement. Most 2.4mR sailors competing at Paralympic level will also have a ‘1’ to ‘7’ classification as they may compete in other regattas in both classes.
The system permits a three-person Sonar crew to total no more than 14 classification points per boat. This maximum was set to encourage the inclusion of ‘severe’, ‘moderate’ and ‘mild’ degree of disability. Crews of less than 14 points are, of course, permitted and such crews can be highly competitive. However ,in most circumstances , crews take advantage of the maximum number of classification points available under the rules.

Single-person keelboat
The single sailor in a 2.4mR must perform all cognitive, physical and visual requirements of sailboat competition. It was hypothesized that sailors with ‘less’ physical disability would perform better than sailors with ‘more’ physical disability. To test this hypothesis, two groups of 2.4mR sailors at the 2004 Paralympic regatta were studied:
Group 1 – Sailors deemed ‘severe to moderate’ in degree of disability (1-3 classification points); and
Group 2 – Sailors deemed ‘moderate to mild’ in degree of disability (4-7 classification points).
Nine of the 2.4mR competitors had classification numbers assigned while the remaining seven had entered under minimal disability requirements. These seven sailors were observed and discussed with classifiers to clearly determine the correct grouping for analysis. This was relatively simple as most had observable impairments such as paraplegia or amputation which could be compared to benchmark classifications.
It was further hypothesized that any difference between the above groups would be most apparent in heavy or strong winds conditions . To test this hypothesis, the finishing positions for races 3 and 7 [Light weather - wind speeds of less than eight knots (15km/hr)] were compared with the finishing positions for races 1 and 2 [Heavy weather - wind speed greater than 13 knots (24.4 km/hr)] for each group. The other races were not analysed as they did not clearly represent the definition of ‘heavy’ or ‘light’. The average wind speeds for races 4,5 and 6 were in the mid range from 8 to 13 knots and race 9 was sailed in extremely light conditions. The data for each group were compared using a Wilcoxon signed rank test and analyzed using the SPSS statistical software package (version 11.5).

Three-person keelboat
Three-person keelboats, like the Sonar (Figs. 1 & 3), are typically sailed by
  • A skipper (helmsperson) who steers (operates the tiller) at the stern (back) of the boat,
  • A main sheet-hand (middle-person) who controls the main-sail, and
  • A for’ard-hand (front-person) who controls the jib at the bow (front) of the boat.
IFDS rules for the 2004 Paralympic regatta permitted a reserve for each (three-person) Sonar but no reserve for any (single-person) 2.4mR. Four Sonar crews chose not to avail themselves of reserves.
In the Sonar, the disabled sailors divide the cognitive and physical tasks of sailboat operation between themselves. It was hypothesized that crews would optimally match their disabilities to the various physical functions required to operate a three-person boat. To test this hypothesis, the physical role undertaken by each of the 45 non-reserve Sonar competitors (skippers, sheet-hands and for’ard-hands) at the 2004 Paralympic regatta was analyzed with respect to their degree of disability as reflected in classification numbers.

Results
General
The 2004 Paralympic regatta was sailed from the Olympic regatta site in the Aegean Sea, several kilometers SE of central Athens. The water was generally flat with little swell. Competition occurred in winds ranging from 4 to 20 knots (7.5-37.6 km/hr).
There were 72 competitors at the 2004 Paralympic regatta (2.4mR and Sonar sailors including reserves), and six were women. All classification numbers were represented. Many competitors were mature (Mean age: 40 years) and would be eligible to compete as veterans in an appropriate forum. Ages ranged from late teens (18 years) to early retirement (66 years). Although somewhat skewed towards youth, the distribution of age of competitor was approximately normal (Fig. 4)
Single-person keelboat
There were sixteen individuals who sailed in the single-person keelboat (2.4mR) competition. There were nine races . Among the competitors, the distribution of degrees of disability was approximately even with eight competitors in group 1 and eight competitors in group 2.
The finishing placings for group 1 when comparing heavy to light weather showed that in three cases placings were better, twelve cases placings were worse and in one case an identical placing occurred. The finishing placings for group 2 when comparing heavy to light weather showed that in eight cases placings were better, seven cases worse and one identical. Group 1 (severe/moderate disability) performed significantly worse in heavy than light weather (p=0.011). There was no significant difference in performance for Group 2 when comparing heavy and light weather.
Three-person keelboat
Fifty six individuals (including reserves for 11 of the 15 Sonars) were eligible to compete in the three-person keelboat event. The number of competitors (33) with higher classification numbers (‘5’–‘7’ i.e. less physical disability) exceeded the number of competitors (23) with low classification numbers (‘1’–‘3’ i.e. more physical disability) More importantly perhaps, the distribution by degree of disability shows a bi-modal distribution. The two peaks are at ‘2-3’ and another at ‘6’ (Fig. 5)
The distribution of degree of disability was highly bi-modal for helmspersons (skippers) of three-person keelboats (Fig. 6 ). No skipper with a classification number of ‘3’, ‘4’, or ‘5’ was represented i.e. not a single Sonar skipper was ‘moderately’ disabled. All were either ‘severely’ disabled or ‘mildly’ disabled.
The distribution of degrees of disability was highly variable for sheet-hands (middle-persons). No sheet-hand had a classification number of ‘1’ while four had a classification number of ‘6’ (Fig. 7). The distribution of degrees of disability among sheet-hands was bi-modal (peaks at ‘3’ and ‘6’) reflecting the distribution of the entire Sonar population and suggesting a trend towards two populations of sailors among sheet-hands.
The distribution of degrees of disability was highly skewed for for’ard-hands (front-persons).No for’ard hand had a classification number of ‘1’ while four had a classification number of ‘7’ (Fig. 8 ). These data strongly suggests a preference for crewpersons with ‘mild’ degrees of disability at the front of the Sonar.
Discussion
There are limitations to this study because its sample sizes are small. This is particularly so for the single-person keelboat (2.4mR) data in which the results of just two races have been contrasted with the results of just two other races. The conclusions drawn here are therefore optimistic. Nevertheless, we are reassured by the fact that the results of this small study are consistent with our discussions with sailors. That is , that disadvantages to some sailors with severe disabilities may occur in strong winds and heavy conditions.
The reasons for this for this finding may be that moderately/mildly disabled sailors have, in many cases, good trunk control. This means that in heavy weather, they can optimally position themselves in the cockpit of a 2.4mR. On the other hand, moderately/severely disabled sailors have, in many cases poor trunk control and in heavy weather, they must either lean to the leeward side of the cockpit of a 2.4mR or hold on to the gunwale (the side of the boat). Such action results in only one arm being available to steer and trim sails. And moderately/severely disabled sailors fatigue comparatively quickly in heavy weather.
Both single and three-person keelboat competition attracts athletes with a wide range of disabilities, and with widely ranging degrees of disability. The degree of disability is not evenly distributed with relatively more sailors with mild degrees of disability (high classification numbers) gaining entry to Paralympic competition than those with severe degrees of disability. The voices of the severely disabled seeking a more equitable arena of competition are numerous and loud. Any criticisms must be explored through continual research and evaluation of the systems we use. This will ensure future editions of the IFDS Functional Classification System will continue to deliver more equal opportunities for entry to Paralympic regattas and world championships.
Practical Implications
A decade ago, competitive sailing for people with disabilities was collegial in nature and classification was not crucial. This is not to say that the standard of competition was not high. It is rather, to nostalgically reflect on the camaraderie of most elite regattas in which some three-person keelboat crews were composed entirely of sailors who, by today’s standards, would each be classified as ‘severely’ disabled. It may have been more important for those sailors to participate than to win.
The entry of sailing into the Paralympic Games as a demonstration sport (1996) changed the nature of this competition. Suddenly, there was significant kudos to be gained through Paralympic competition. A gold medal award is often associated with funding and awards in countries like Australia and Canada. Winning was important. Coaches studied the then current IFDS classification schemes to seek advantage for national teams. Mildly disabled (some would say minimally disabled) sailors entered the sport. The result has been a benefit to the sport through a progressive increase in competitive standard. Unfortunately this has also been associated with the displacement of some severely disabled (and, in some cases, moderately disabled) sailors. The reviewing and development of classification procedures has, at times, met with resistance from national teams which develop campaigns over many years. This is why the FCS system is edited on a four year basis inline with Paralympic competition years. The results of its impact must be reviewed more frequently.
It is often said that sailing is the only sport in which the able-bodied and disabled can compete with equal opportunity. Some support for this statement can be found in the relatively high numbers of disabled sailors who contest open world championships in the 2.4mR class against able-bodied sailors. Proponents of this optimistic view often cite two significant sporting achievements to support their argument. The first is the example of Gustaf Fresk, a wheel-chair user due to Friedrich’s Ataxia, who won the (open) 1995 World 2.4mR Championship. The second is the example of Heiko Kroger, a hand amputee, who won the (open) 1999 World 2.4mR Championship. This study and wide anecdotal reports suggest that equal competition holds true only in light weather. Thus even the 2.4 mR class may have to consider classification beyond the minimal disability requirements. Another approach could be to search for modifications to compensate for factors such as trunk control.
The IFDS sought two additional events for the 2008 Beijing Paralympic regatta. The request for a competition for severely disabled sailors in a single-person class was declined. However, the request for a competition for severely disabled and less severely disabled sailors in a two-person class was successful. IPC recently announced that it would endorse three events for Beijing:
  • A three-person class (the Sonar ),
  • A single-person class (the 2.4mR), and
  • A (new) two-person class.
The IFDS Functional Classification System FCS2000) is a powerful analytical and assessment tool. However, the system is still constrained by the degrees of subjectivity inherent in observation. There is current interest in evaluating a sailing simulator which can be adapted for a range of boats (8,9). This has been developed in Australia and on the horizon have a glimmer of hope for an eventual gold standard for classification. The future direction in sailing classification continues towards function and detail ed evaluation of the sport and its components. This study demonstrates that the FCS for sailing has progressed towards achieving one its goals. The goal of enabling fair and equitable competition between athletes with all types of disability.


Figure 1
The International Sonar
The Three-person Paralympic class sloop-rigged keelboat



Figure 2
The International 2.4mR
The single-person Paralympic class sloop-rigged keelboat




Figure 3
Sonar Sailboat in Competition



Figure 4



Figure 5
The distribution of degrees of disability among 2004 Paralympic Sonar sailors



Figure 6
The distribution of degrees of disability among Paralympic Sonar skippers




Figure 7
The distribution of degrees of disability among Paralympic Sonar main sheet-hands



Figure 8
The distribution of degrees of disability among Paralympic Sonar jib for’ard hands


References
1. Vardy, P.H. (1996) Craft Suitable for Disabled Sailors – Sonar World Disabled Sailor 1:3
2. Vardy, P.H. (1997) Craft Suitable for Disabled Sailors ? International 2.4mR World Disabled Sailor 3:7
3. International Foundation for Disabled Sailing on International Sailing Federation website: www.sailing.org/disabled
4. Sonar Class Association website: http://www.sonar.org
5. International 2.4 metre website: www.sailingsource.com/24metre/files/about24.htm
6. Wilson, S.F. (1998) The Athlete with a Disability Ch. 20 Oxford Handbook of Sports Medicine, Oxford University Press, Oxford 674-698
7. Wu, S.K. & Williams, T. (1999) Paralympic Swimming Performance - Impairment, and the Functional Classification System, Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly 16:251-270
8. Virtual Sailing website: www.vitualsailing.com.au
9. Bethwaite Yacht Designs website: www.bethwaite.com

Stephen F. Wilson
MB BS (Syd.) FRACGP FAFRM(RACP) Dip. Sports
Med.(Lond.)
Senior Lecturer (Conjoint), University of New South Wales
Rehabilitation Medicine Department,
St Vincent’s Hospital,
Darlinghurst NSW 2010
Australia
E-mail: Stephen.Wilson@swsahs.nsw.gov.au






http://www.icsspe.org/portal/index.php?w=1&z=5