Athletics Weekly | London 2017 Post Mortem - Athletics Weekly

London 2017 Post Mortem

This topic contains 131 replies, has 30 voices, and was last updated by Profile photo of biggut Biggut 3 months ago.

Viewing 25 posts - 101 through 125 (of 132 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #68644
    Profile photo of treadwater1
    treadwater1
    Participant

    Some like “you know who” are plainly in a denial mode and stats will always be brought forward to justify the gob like in the Times today by De Vos.

    No point in responding to the above, as it hasn’t answered any of what Fangio put forward and appears to be a rehash of previous posts (I note that the challenge to find a better year from the ‘glory days’ was unmet) but i love the sheer venom with which ‘stats’ is spouted above. How dare they come at us with their ‘facts’ and ‘data’ when raw emotion will do. Did you by any chance vote for Brexit, Philipo/Jeremy?

    Philipo you accuse others of playing fast and loose with statistics but you’re refusal to acknowledge the nadir of the early 2000s actually does the same.

    I asked you earlier on in the discussion what’s the problem with lottery funding when it’s been so phenomenally successfully for other Olympic sports, can you answer my question please

    #68651
    Profile photo of philipo
    philipo
    Participant

    Because you cannot compare apples and oranges. Athletics is half a dozen entirely unconnected events unlike cycling and rowing which have been the most successful of the sports that you so glibly state justifies the payment of 27 million per Olympic cycle to UKA etc.
    Track and Field is not earning the success at individual level to justify the expenditure of the vast sum of money. You may be surprised when the next funding settlement is made; I fervently hope so. That money would be better spent on the grassroots than the current situation.
    In cycling they go round and round the same track, and in rowing they row the same route in the same boats; not Hammer and Javelin and Pole vault and sprints and triple jump and high jump and long jump and even walks…
    The lottery did not exist for decades when we were winning more medals decades ago than this current pack of athletes.Are we doing significantly better in the OG track and field than fifty years ago; I do not think so.
    You are in denial even though the facts about WC medals was set out by me and YOU have ignored the obvious that we did badly at the top elite level this year in front of our own crowds..

    You stubbornly refuse to face the facts that when we had NO lottery we still managed to perform with more distinction in medal terms in the WC than the present cossetted bunch.
    The silly points made by Fangio are not worth further comment
    My last words on this topic. Anything else is a waste of time.

    #68652
    Profile photo of philipo
    philipo
    Participant

    This year we got less individuals winning medals at WC than in the old days of the 80s and 90s; I never took it beyond those dates as the sneering posters love telling me that it was not a golden age then; and the early 2000s was bad; not what I was referring to.

    #68653
    Profile photo of philipo
    philipo
    Participant

    In 2003 we got more individual medallists in the WC in Paris than 2017 with Mo the lone individual recipient.
    This year we had the same number of individual medallists as 2005 when PR won her marathon. So, if as has been stated the noughties was a bad time for individual medal success in the WC why is this year better…. oh we won some soft relay medals that matter little in the eyes of people except on this site of course;

    #68656
    Profile photo of sovietvest
    sovietvest
    Participant

    Philipo,
    Would you agree with a statement that we have fewer world beaters than in the early 80s and early 90s but greater strength in depth – if you take finalists and the points table as an objective measure?
    Furthermore, would you agree that our decline (for arguments sake, let’s say there is a decline) is happening at a slower rate than other large Western European countries?

    #68661
    Profile photo of mysterybrick
    MysteryBrick
    Participant

    My last words on this topic. Anything else is a waste of time.

    Considering you can’t even hold yourself to this, I find it amusing you expect us to treat anything else you say (even though above, in and around the usual venomous bile, there are some good points regarding centralised funding) with any respect at all.

    #68679
    Profile photo of fangio
    fangio
    Participant

    I find it funny that people who talk just about medal numbers, not performance by time or distance, as the indicator will say it doesn’t matter if the quality has got better and it is harder to win medals now, because they say it is just about the medal numbers, but if you point out the greater number of medals at the proper (not the same year as the Olympics) European champs, they will say the quality of the opposition does matter.

    They will also spout garbage about there being loads of events we are weak at, but be unable to cite a year that was better before the change of UKA.

    It seems they are frightened of stats, but pretend that just saying something is better or worse without actually analysing it is not a case of having rose tinted spectacles.

    #68685
    Profile photo of robo2
    robo2
    Participant

    heres our points year on year in the placing table for finishing between 1-8

    2017 – 105
    1983 – 104
    1993 – 95
    2015 -94
    1987 – 88
    2009 – 83
    1995 -79
    2013 – 79
    1997 -79
    1991 – 76
    2011 – 73
    1999 – 70
    2007 – 61
    2001 – 58
    2003 – 46
    2005 -35

    #68686
    Profile photo of robo2
    robo2
    Participant

    we had 4 field events with top 8 finishes in 83
    3 in 87 – (all javelin)
    2 in 91
    4 in 93
    4 in 95
    8 in 97
    5 in 99
    5 in 2001
    2 in 2003
    2 in 2005
    3 in 2007
    6 in 2009
    3 in 2011
    3 in 2013
    6 in 2015
    8 in 2017

    thats surprising our best years for top 8 finishes in field events were 1997 and this year

    #68687
    Profile photo of biggut
    Biggut
    Participant

    I haven’t posted in ages but this thread was something I couldn’t leave alone.

    Anybody who thinks comparing simple medal count directly over periods of decades without context is a way to measure how the sport is dong in the UK is an idiot. It is beyond stupid in its’ oversimplification.

    The UK can have an element of control over things in the UK. The sport has a moderate amount of control over what can be achieved by the people in the UK. What the country or the sport in the UK cannot control is the rest of the world. The standards and competitive participation in the rest of the world has increased phenomenally since the 1980s. I would say this degree that makes the achievements of the GB&NI team at this champs commendable. Not only did they achieve a record points score but also the highest ever number of top 8 finishes.

    It was achieved accross an amazing breadth of disciplines, how many other nations had top 8 finishers in men’s and women’s sprints, middle and long distance, throws and jumps?

    To give some perspective, the second best world champs in points was the 1983 championships. At that event of 123 medals 12 (3 gold, 3 silver and 6 bronze) were won by nations outside of the USA and Europe. That’s less than 10% of the medals on offer. Come 2017 and the figures are 61 (20 gold, 20 silver and 21 bronze) out of 144 medals. That’s 44%.

    People who want to claim that this simplistic measure of medal count is an objective measure of performance of be nation completely fail to grasp that the professionalisation of the sport and the economic development of previously poverty stricken nations means that if the sport was performing at the same level
    As it was in the 80s we’d have very little success. This is before we even start to consider all the negative health and economic/societal impacts on the sport in this country.

    The volume at club and county will never be where it was. It’s unrealistic to expect that any system would ever achieve that. How can it when people have less time and more options and are generally less healthy.

    So the measure is surely how well that smaller based pyramid is stretched to achieve high standards at the top. In those terms we are outperforming anything that came before.

    We were the first industrial nation, the Victorians invented and codified so many sports because we had leisure time when many other nations did not. Another nations become more economically secure and less subsistent so they too could do sport.

    When it was amateur then clearly this was not an option for huge swathes of the world population. Making it a professional sport then opened it up to vastly larger numbers of people. Pretending that somehow the competitionwasas strong when we competed in our little first world members club compared to now is idiotic. That globalisation of the sport and the rising of previously impoverished nations to some level of prosperity and security should be acknowledged and indeed celebrated.

    Yet despite all of this we had more top 8 finishes than ever. If some people aren’t capable of seeing that this is a fantastic achievement then I guess they don’t honestly remember what the 80s were really like.

    #68705
    Profile photo of justrunfast
    justrunfast
    Participant

    I haven’t posted in ages but this thread was something I couldn’t leave alone.

    Anybody who thinks comparing simple medal count directly over periods of decades without context is a way to measure how the sport is dong in the UK is an idiot. It is beyond stupid in its’ oversimplification.

    The UK can have an element of control over things in the UK. The sport has a moderate amount of control over what can be achieved by the people in the UK. What the country or the sport in the UK cannot control is the rest of the world. The standards and competitive participation in the rest of the world has increased phenomenally since the 1980s. I would say this degree that makes the achievements of the GB&NI team at this champs commendable. Not only did they achieve a record points score but also the highest ever number of top 8 finishes.

    It was achieved accross an amazing breadth of disciplines, how many other nations had top 8 finishers in men’s and women’s sprints, middle and long distance, throws and jumps?

    To give some perspective, the second best world champs in points was the 1983 championships. At that event of 123 medals 12 (3 gold, 3 silver and 6 bronze) were won by nations outside of the USA and Europe. That’s less than 10% of the medals on offer. Come 2017 and the figures are 61 (20 gold, 20 silver and 21 bronze) out of 144 medals. That’s 44%.

    People who want to claim that this simplistic measure of medal count is an objective measure of performance of be nation completely fail to grasp that the professionalisation of the sport and the economic development of previously poverty stricken nations means that if the sport was performing at the same level
    As it was in the 80s we’d have very little success. This is before we even start to consider all the negative health and economic/societal impacts on the sport in this country.

    The volume at club and county will never be where it was. It’s unrealistic to expect that any system would ever achieve that. How can it when people have less time and more options and are generally less healthy.

    So the measure is surely how well that smaller based pyramid is stretched to achieve high standards at the top. In those terms we are outperforming anything that came before.

    We were the first industrial nation, the Victorians invented and codified so many sports because we had leisure time when many other nations did not. Another nations become more economically secure and less subsistent so they too could do sport.

    When it was amateur then clearly this was not an option for huge swathes of the world population. Making it a professional sport then opened it up to vastly larger numbers of people. Pretending that somehow the competitionwasas strong when we competed in our little first world members club compared to now is idiotic. That globalisation of the sport and the rising of previously impoverished nations to some level of prosperity and security should be acknowledged and indeed celebrated.

    Yet despite all of this we had more top 8 finishes than ever. If some people aren’t capable of seeing that this is a fantastic achievement then I guess they don’t honestly remember what the 80s were really like.

    Just gonna repost just incase certain posters miss this as they like to have selective replies!

    #68707
    Profile photo of treadwater1
    treadwater1
    Participant

    This year we got less individuals winning medals at WC than in the old days of the 80s and 90s; I never took it beyond those dates as the sneering posters love telling me that it was not a golden age then; and the early 2000s was bad; not what I was referring to.

    I feel like we’re going over old ground here, but my point essentially was there’s no logic in highlighting the high points of the 80’s and 90’s without looking at the wider picture. Tokyo 64 – 12 medals, Mexico City 68 – 4 medals, Munich 72 – 4 medals, Montreal 76 – 1 medal, Moscow 1980 – 10 medals and on and on. There’s been a lot of ups and downs over the years, but you just wont acknowledge that 6/7 medals over the last few years is still operating at a reasonable level.

    I don’t make a distinction between medals won by individuals and medals won in relays, I prefer to judge each performance on its merits. You get weaker medals in the individual events from time to time (Campbells Bronze from 03 or Beitia’s HJ gold from last year spring to mind) as you get weaker medals in relays. I thought the 4×100 gold was as good as any British performance I’ve seen over the last 10 years, I got very little enjoyment out off the womens 4×400 silver but to lump them all in the same category is simplistic. If you start saying one brand of medal in more worthy than another you’re on the slippery slope taken by Piers Morgan where Silver and Bronze are pointless.

    #68779
    Profile photo of biggut
    Biggut
    Participant

    I thought since days had passed without a reponse, as is usual when some posters are faced with facts, I would add some further comment.

    Phillipo states that we won more medals before lottery funding. He seems to suggest that system is part of the reason for the medal count not being higher. We could look at the stats for performance just prior to lottery funding and see that in the years prior to funding the medal count was actually lower than in the most recent Olympic cycles. But instead I thought I’d list a few things we’d need to change for the sport to bev back where it was in the 1980s:

    Reduce the amount of processed food
    Reduce gender equality in the home
    Reduce aspiration in education and work a generation of young people
    Re-instate school playing fields
    Re-amateurise the sport
    Re-amateurise rugby
    Take the money out of football
    Return to having 3 TV stations
    Ban Triathlon
    Ban Ultimate Frisbee
    Un-invent the internet
    Un-invent the mobile phone
    Un-invent the home computer
    Restore British manufacturing industries
    Restore the job for life culture
    Un-sell social housing
    Re-introduce famine in Africa
    Un-develop the poorer nations of the world
    Create massive civil wars in Africa
    Plunge the Eastern Bloc countries back into relative poverty
    Go back in time and increase the birth rate in the UK between 1982 and 1999
    Go back in time and reduce the birth rate in the rest of the world between 1982 and 1999.

    The reasons for extra money not meaning loads more medals are vast. To make a facile comment about we won more medals before before funding shows a complete inability to grasp that the sport does not operate in a vacuum.

    #68801
    Profile photo of sovietvest
    sovietvest
    Participant

    I nominate the above from Biggut as Post Of The Year.

    #68809
    Profile photo of stevek26
    SteveK26
    Participant

    I nominate the above from Biggut as Post Of The Year.

    If it was ‘Sporting Post Of The Year’ then Big Gut would get our very own SPOTY award!

    It was very well composed and succinct and I wished I’d written it!

    Whilst I have a lot of sympathy for all those who loved our sport “back in the day’ and celebrated GB success throughout the 80’s and 90’s, the fact is world athletics has evolved. There is a lot more competition these days.
    Thats not to say I’ve given up on GB ever finding another mens middle distance champion one day!

    Until then I look forward to seeing what Asher-Smith and Muir will produce, hopefully see a lot more of our promising juniors make the grade as seniors, hope to see Prescod run 200 and 400 next year, and see a smile return to the face of KJT.

    ………..Not too much to ask ?

    #68838
    Profile photo of philipo
    philipo
    Participant

    I nominate the above from Biggut as Post Of The Year.

    If it was ‘Sporting Post Of The Year’ then Big Gut would get our very own SPOTY award!

    It was very well composed and succinct and I wished I’d written it!

    Whilst I have a lot of sympathy for all those who loved our sport “back in the day’ and celebrated GB success throughout the 80’s and 90’s, the fact is world athletics has evolved. There is a lot more competition these days.
    Thats not to say I’ve given up on GB ever finding another mens middle distance champion one day!

    Until then I look forward to seeing what Asher-Smith and Muir will produce, hopefully see a lot more of our promising juniors make the grade as seniors, hope to see Prescod run 200 and 400 next year, and see a smile return to the face of KJT.

    ………..Not too much to ask ?

    Steve what a bunch of red herrings by Biggut in stating that matters such as civil war and famine in Africa or social policy in the political stuff in Bigguts list( not to mention some other naïve stuff in his list) has effected British abilities to win as many medals in this years WC on home territory as we have in previous generations .
    This year we won two individual medals from one athlete which as you well know is poor compared to past times in the WC; if there was the slightest validity in Biggut’s totally misfiring post, then how come the Americans, subject to many of the multiple reasons alleged to be the cause of our failure to get more than one athlete medalling in London, managed to score their highest WC total ever .. 30 medals.
    Perhaps you may be able to divine the reason why the Americans managed it with a all those new countries winning medals.

    #68839
    Profile photo of philipo
    philipo
    Participant

    According to my examination of the Americans medals their average from 1983 to 1999
    was 21 medals and their average in this century including this year is approx 21 medals. So no big dropping off despite a number of reasons that were set out in Bigguts post, affecting that country same as ours.
    But then again they don’t like losers, excuse makers, entitlement athletes and they don’t possess our British love of being a nice loser, doing your best.

    #68844
    Profile photo of biggut
    Biggut
    Participant

    Oh dear,

    You think that the USA maintains its position because they don’t tolerate losers. Honestly, that’s your theory. Do you not think it might possibly have something more to do with the $265 million per annum spent purely on NCAA Div 1 scholarships for track and XC. That’s just onscolarships, that doesn’t include facilities, coaching, support services or any expenditure below Div 1 schools.

    Also my investigations show that we won more medals in the 2015-17 cycle and the 2011-2013 cycle than we did in 95-97. I believe we also had more finalists and we achieved more points. All of these were on the decline in the 90s to early 2000s. I would suggest that this is precisely because of the reasons I gave in my earlier posts.

    When you change a process that is to do with development you will get lag in terms of output. So if you change the funding or you implement new coaching or competition structures you will not normally see immediate impact on elite performance. It is not unreasonable to suggest that the first senior athletes to have started the sport under UKA will not have begun coming through for 7-8 years. It will then take time for those that have come through the new system to become the majority. It is quite clear that on this basis the new systems and processes and the funding of them has reversed a declining trend in elite performance in every conceivable measure.

    But of course if we amateurised the sport it would all be better…. you do realise that all of the sports in the UK that we compete for talent with would still be funded, right?

    Honestly man, do you even try to understand the reality of the world we live in?

    • This reply was modified 3 months ago by Profile photo of biggut biggut.
    #68847
    Profile photo of biggut
    Biggut
    Participant

    Just to give you an indication of the margins we are talking about here, if we simply re-ban South Africa because of apartied and put the Eritrean was of independence and associated Ethiopian famine back into play then it’s reasonable to suggest Callum Hawkins medals in the marathon, Laura Muir in both 1500 and 5k and Nathanael Mitchell-Blake in the 200m.

    But of course society and world affairs has no impact.

    #68848
    Profile photo of justrunfast
    justrunfast
    Participant

    According to my examination of the Americans medals their average from 1983 to 1999
    was 21 medals and their average in this century including this year is approx 21 medals. So no big dropping off despite a number of reasons that were set out in Bigguts post, affecting that country same as ours.
    But then again they don’t like losers, excuse makers, entitlement athletes and they don’t possess our British love of being a nice loser, doing your best.

    Imagine using America who has forever had a college system where if you are between the ages of 18-24 you train full time and get medical, S&C and nutrition as an example. You are either a full time athlete in college or a professional there literally no “amateur” athletes in the US

    No big drop off because they have had the same development system for decades, your posts are hilarious.

    #68849
    Profile photo of jeremy1066
    Jeremy1066
    Participant

    Biggut – absolutely agree with your perspective on the interconnection between sport and world events/affairs. Just as astounding for me is believing that £27 million is an obscene amount of money that should provide miracle performances or results. Anyone who thinks that, needs to get real. That sum of money is sadly a drop in the ocean today.

    #68850
    Profile photo of biggut
    Biggut
    Participant

    As demonstrated above the American collegiate systems spends well in excess of 40 times as much. In reality with staff, facilities and other divisions it’s likely to be 60-70 times as much.

    As I have stated many times before, I do not think the levels of funding can possibly overturn the damage of the changes in UK society. As a result the money will always be about stretching the reduced number of competitive athletes further. It’s is being very successful at this if you consider the drops in depth are going hand in hand with improved performance at the top 3 level. All other things remaining equal you would expect a reduced base to result in a reduced peak.

    #68851
    Profile photo of ursus
    Ursus
    Participant

    A most eloquent post from biggut indeed. I accept some of his arguments, but by no means all.

    Let’s strip medals out of this. Backley could no more influence Zelezny’s date of birth than Dasher can Elaine Thompson’s.

    We may have more strength in depth in terms of top 10 or 20, but I’d argue that back in the day not only did we have much higher calibre performers at the elite end, but club competition was also stronger in terms of both participant numbers and standards. Look at some of the BAL record holders and compare against the lukewarm efforts that competition dishes up today.

    If we go back to the golden era, Coe, Cram, Ovett, Backley, Gunnell, Whitbread, Radcliffe, Steve Jones, Edwards, Thompson, Moorcroft, Jackson all set (often multiple) WRs, as did Zola Budd (OK, but we still import today….) and Paula Fudge in the 5K who I’d completely forgotten about. MLF and Steve Smith set junior marks too.

    Those all redefined, at the time, what was possible in their event. Yes there’s more competition, and yes there’s drugs, nonetheless many events have moved on and we’ve not played a part in that or even done much in the way of infiltrating all time top 10s (Jess is 6th). Fabulous racer though he is, Mo hasn’t redrawn any parametres, nor has Jess, Greg or TBO. Edwards was our last T&F WR in 1995.

    One of the great things about athletics is that you can look at the watch or the tape in absolute terms. Many of the WRs I mention remain as unchallenged NRs to this day (virtually all if you strip out the estimable efforts of Mo and Paula on the track) and those performances would mostly still have the athletes in the hunt for global medals today, 20 or 30 years on.

    We may be talking about strength in depth now, but in the golden era a lot of the success came in, at least, pairs. Coe, Cram and Ovett had Sharpe and Elliott snapping at their heels. Hill kept Backley honest (Roberson and Neiland barely got a look in but would be British no 1 by 8m nowadays) and you can’t mention Whitbread without Sanderson. Idowu and Tony Jarrett would’ve been feted in any other era, but fate consigned them to being admirable number twos. Smith and Grant weren’t a bad pair of high jumpers.

    Of course not all events in the golden era were magnificent, but a pretty good cross section were. Even at a slightly lower level the longevity of Head and Oakes’ NRs is striking and we’ve had the Kathy Cook debate on another thread.

    There’s much in what biggut says about social change. But I still think the talent’s there. It’s about identification and then making the sport attractive to remain and progress in; the latter may necessitate a complete rethink about the competition, remuneration and coaching structures and I don’t claim to have the answers.

    Or maybe we were just all doped up to the eyeballs like we say everyone else was.

    #68858
    Profile photo of justrunfast
    justrunfast
    Participant

    I think the assumption is that myself and some of the posters are making excuses for poor performances when this is not the case. Like I have said athletes who are lottery funded and full time should be held accountable for poor performances 100%. But to totally disregard the huge difference of the world socially, economically and it’s effect on athletics is jut plain ignorant!

    2017 Women’s Rugby, Netball and Cricket now all have professional national teams with the women’s club football now a semi professional league. Like Ursus said a this moment in time the above sports are far more attractive than athletics this was not the case 30 years ago.

    The amount of English schools winners and medalists we currently have playing league one, two and semi pro football is outrageous! Who’s going to run track when CJ Ujah only picked up $50,000 dollars for winning the DL????

    • This reply was modified 3 months ago by Profile photo of justrunfast justrunfast.
    • This reply was modified 3 months ago by Profile photo of justrunfast justrunfast.
    #68864
    Profile photo of sovietvest
    sovietvest
    Participant

    Ursus identified the golden age as 77 (Ovett’s first year as world #1) to 2002 (Edward’s last year). 25 years. Interesting to note however that in the 15 years since then we have seen British NRs in the majority of events.

Viewing 25 posts - 101 through 125 (of 132 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Product Reviews View All
Don't Miss
Videos
AW Offers