Athletics Weekly

Athletics placings table

This forum has been closed and continues at http://www.athleticsweekly.com/forums/f ... nt-events/

Athletics placings table

Postby yorkshire_best » Wed Aug 22, 2012 10:45 pm

Athletics placings table
With 8pts for 1st place down to 1pt for 8th (Beijing 2008 figures in brackets):

1st USA 304 (1st, 207)
2nd RUSSIA 179 (2nd, 200)
3rd KENYA 112 (3rd, 135)
4th JAMAICA 107 (4th, 121)
5th GERMANY 95 (10th, 44)
6th ETHIOPIA 90 (5th, 76)
7th GREAT BRITAIN 85 (6th, 72)
8th CHINA 43 (13th, 39)

Note: GB had 19 top eight finishers in 2012, one more than in 2008. (Not a very good retrurn for the investment and irretrievable costs to the grassroots)
yorkshire_best
 
Posts: 38
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 9:15 am

Re: Athletics placings table

Postby djlovesyou » Wed Aug 22, 2012 10:52 pm

What result would you have wanted for it to have been a good Olympics and value for money.

(Hint: The question is rhetorical - I know they could never score high enough for you to be 'happy'.)
djlovesyou
 
Posts: 170
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2011 2:37 pm

Re: Athletics placings table

Postby AllanW » Wed Aug 22, 2012 11:10 pm

djlovesyou wrote:What result would you have wanted for it to have been a good Olympics and value for money.

(Hint: The question is rhetorical - I know they could never score high enough for you to be 'happy'.)


Cop out. Try addressing the question not attacking the person.

Justify the medal or points return in London by comparison with Beijing for the expenditure received in the interim.

(Hint: Just saying it's fine in your opinion carries little weight.)
AllanW
 
Posts: 236
Joined: Sun Sep 26, 2010 9:07 am

Re: Athletics placings table

Postby BigGut » Wed Aug 22, 2012 11:47 pm

You say compare it to Beijing, well its an 18% increase in 4 years. Given that there is also a higher level of competition than previously then to have a points increase is a splendid achievement.
BigGut
 
Posts: 1232
Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2007 3:16 pm

Re: Athletics placings table

Postby AllanW » Thu Aug 23, 2012 12:13 am

BigGut wrote:You say compare it to Beijing,


Yes I did; your point? Care to suggest other comparisons to start with? I'm willing to listen.


BigGut wrote: well its an 18% increase in 4 years. Given that there is also a higher level of competition than previously then to have a points increase is a splendid achievement.


So your considered judgement after oooooh a couple of minutes extensive thought is that it's 'splendid'. Thanks for that. Just a couple of questions if you don't mind;

- Would you be impressed by a 17% uplift over four years? If so why, if not why not? Over five years, still 'splendid'? What about 16%, hmmm
- Do you think it matters that the 18% you quote does not take into account either the money spent or the competitors?
- How did you measure or judge the 'increase in competition' factor you introduced? And how does it affect the measure we're discussing? Please explain fully, I'm agog.

That'll do for now, we don't want to get ahead of ourselves. Plus others who find it preferable not to shoot from the ideological hip might like a chance to think about it.
AllanW
 
Posts: 236
Joined: Sun Sep 26, 2010 9:07 am

Re: Athletics placings table

Postby djlovesyou » Thu Aug 23, 2012 1:25 am

I couldn't care less.

My dismissive post was indicative of my disdain for the political trolls that infect every athletics forum.
djlovesyou
 
Posts: 170
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2011 2:37 pm

Re: Athletics placings table

Postby javman » Thu Aug 23, 2012 6:07 am

An 18% increase is surely positive, but it would be better to also place it context with the amount of money that was spent in each respective Olympic cycle. Does anyone have those figures?

Also interesting that only 4 nations improved their points score.
javman
 
Posts: 200
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2010 9:56 am

Re: Athletics placings table

Postby jeremy1 » Thu Aug 23, 2012 8:58 am

Splendid achievement???... what, to drop down in a home Olympics from 6th to 7th, to get some more points than last year in Daegu, to get 6 medals from a team of GBs size, despite every effort to select athletes with no real connection to GB athletics, to get one more top eight place than last year , to see the Germans who dont even care about most of the track events sail past GB in the points table. Germany went from 10th to 8th and doubled their placement points and even the Chinese improved considerably. We could not even get a team in the Olympic final of the short relays!!!

"Splendid achievement" sounds like the inane comments that a small club Chairman who loves the status quo of Brit athletics might make. :lol: :lol:

Rest assured there will be a lot less money to support certain undeserving athletes in the next couple of years.
jeremy1
 
Posts: 1879
Joined: Mon Jun 04, 2012 2:40 pm

Re: Athletics placings table

Postby AllanW » Thu Aug 23, 2012 9:02 am

djlovesyou wrote:I couldn't care less.


Sometimes you don't need to say anything you just need to underline what others have said.

djlovesyou wrote:My dismissive post was indicative of my disdain for the political trolls that infect every athletics forum.


I'm sure you feel better now for having got that off your chest then. You do know that a 'troll' is someone whose posts on a site contain only bitterness and who makes no attempt to help improve a situation, don't you?

Someone in fact who 'couldn't care less' ...
AllanW
 
Posts: 236
Joined: Sun Sep 26, 2010 9:07 am

Re: Athletics placings table

Postby fangio » Thu Aug 23, 2012 9:09 am

What "irretrievable costs to the grass roots" is the OP on about? He makes that sort of accusation all the time, but actually doesn't cite any money that could have ben spent otn eh grass roots whcih wasn't. It's an ignorant viewpoint.

The points score was up, not only on Beijing, but also on Deagu. More finallists than both, not including Philips Idowu, Hannah England and Andy Turner all of whom medalled in Deagu. Looks like pretty good depth to me.

If you are tryign to refer to my identity, let me please refer to yours.

Sounds like the sort of comments that a poster who has been previously banned from here many times, who set up his own forum to abuse people which has for some reason had most of it shut down and seemingly he is no longer allowed to administer, and who will never admit that things have improved because he is full of hate might make. Let's be frank about this, things have improved, CVC has driven up standards, despite setting criteria tougher than the IAAF criteria and not taking every athlete they could they still had a large team, including athletes in events that we have historically never had much quality in. It takes a particularly skewed view of the world to take a 17% uplift in points and say things are not improving.
fangio
 
Posts: 1242
Joined: Wed Apr 25, 2007 9:39 pm

Re: Athletics placings table

Postby AllanW » Thu Aug 23, 2012 9:24 am

javman wrote:An 18% increase is surely positive, but it would be better to also place it context with the amount of money that was spent in each respective Olympic cycle. Does anyone have those figures?


Unless anyone has better information I'd point you to the UKA website on the link below where the financial statements are presented. Plainly they have not reported for 2012 yet but their income statements show that for the three years of 2009, 2010 and 2011 they had about £76.5 million incoming in total. I'm willing to be wrong but from everything I've read I would expect the income figure for 2012 to be not less than £25m giving a four year total of at least £101.5m.

http://www.uka.org.uk/governance/financial-statements/
AllanW
 
Posts: 236
Joined: Sun Sep 26, 2010 9:07 am

Re: Athletics placings table

Postby AllanW » Thu Aug 23, 2012 9:40 am

fangio wrote: It takes a particularly skewed view of the world to take a 17% uplift in points and say things are not improving.


This may surprise you but I couldn't agree with this point more. There is plainly some improvement in performance between Beijing, Daegu and London. The question is not 'Was there an improvement?' but 'Is the overall outcome worthwhile?' and that involves an analysis and judgement about all the factors that influenced that outcome giving applause for merit and frowns for failure as appropriate. In order to learn what works best and apply those lessons to improve in the future.

I think that some here feel there is not enough applause given for what they perceive as merit currently while others feel that almost all aspects of the current setup deserve condemnation. However we won't make progress in reaching some common ground without dropping the fixed emotive positions adopted and then use objective information and clear, rational methods for making assessments that are incontrovertible. Make the argument for the merit in the current setup in rational terms with as much unassailable information as possible and you'll gain support. Equally, make it clear with reasoned analysis and argument where merit is not appropriate right now and maybe suggest alternative ways forward and you may gather momentum.

Skewed views of the world don't help either side to appear rational.
AllanW
 
Posts: 236
Joined: Sun Sep 26, 2010 9:07 am

Re: Athletics placings table

Postby BigGut » Thu Aug 23, 2012 9:48 am

Allan,

Do you have the figures for the total real term spend on the sport for each of the countries. Using simply the spend by the NGB is completely misleading. All spend should reflect the cost of operation in each country as well as the spend by all institutions in order to properly assess the impact of the money.

I realise that nice big sweeping statements sound really great but they entirely mirepresent the real situation in many cases. The UK does not operate in a vacuum and there are so many factors that you cannot possibly say that an increase in fudning should achieve x, y or z. If you want to assess the achievement of the funding then you need to look at absolutes not figures that are influenced by others. This is of course impossible in athletics. However the closest you could get is to look at how close to having a full team we got this year and how many people would have attained the 2012 qualification standards in the past. This is measuring against a set standard which the money would definately be expected to impact on.

Counterbalancing this it must be understood that there will be both positive and negative impacts which are not controlled by the input of the money. The main negative impacts are:

A smaller competitive age population
An unhealthier population
Massive increase in money in other sports taking talent to other sports
An increase in operating costs in the UK due to health and safety
A reduction in competitive school sports
An increase in sports and leisure options

The main positive impact seems to be the fact we had a home games.

If people genuinely want to find improvements then they need to look at the complete picture and avoid playing politics.
BigGut
 
Posts: 1232
Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2007 3:16 pm

Re: Athletics placings table

Postby TheRealSub10 » Thu Aug 23, 2012 9:53 am

yorkshire_best wrote:(Not a very good retrurn for the investment and irretrievable costs to the grassroots)
Does anyone have the evidence that the amount invested in grass roots has gone down in the last 4 years? I know investment in Elite sport has gone up but I didn't think that was at the expense of the investment from Sport England in grass roots.
TheRealSub10
 
Posts: 472
Joined: Sat Apr 22, 2006 11:00 am

Re: Athletics placings table

Postby fangio » Thu Aug 23, 2012 10:11 am

Allan,

Will you join the call for yorkshire-best to stop posting up soundbites without justifications, you seem to want anyone not posting up criticism to have to do that, so instead of supportign him and his soundbites as you normally do, how about a nice even handed request for his "unassailable facts".
fangio
 
Posts: 1242
Joined: Wed Apr 25, 2007 9:39 pm

Re: Athletics placings table

Postby AllanW » Thu Aug 23, 2012 10:27 am

BigGut wrote:Allan,

Do you have the figures for the total real term spend on the sport for each of the countries.


Not yet, do you? I notice you have failed to supply any actual information at all yet in these discussions but feel it necessary to say as quickly and fully as possible what is wrong with anything that others actually produce or which you feel is in danger of criticising your paymasters. Are you quite sure you're happy with how you are presenting yourself at this point?

BigGut wrote: Using simply the spend by the NGB is completely misleading. All spend should reflect the cost of operation in each country as well as the spend by all institutions in order to properly assess the impact of the money.


If you think this is so then I look forward to your detailed figures and justification for adopting this method of analysis. Failure to provide it will of course mean we can safely ignore your unhelpful contributions.

BigGut wrote: If you want to assess the achievement of the funding then you need to look at absolutes not figures that are influenced by others. This is of course impossible in athletics. However the closest you could get is to look at how close to having a full team we got this year and how many people would have attained the 2012 qualification standards in the past. This is measuring against a set standard which the money would definately be expected to impact on.


Let me get this straight; you want us to believe that any useful way of assessing the performance that you and your organisation achieve is impossible? And the best we can expect to do for the millions of pounds of taxpayer funds that you are given is to see how many bodies we get on an Olympic entry form and then form some sort of retrospective idea of how British athletes in the past may have approached the 2012 London Games? Can you see how self-servingly manipulable those suggestions are?


BigGut wrote:Counterbalancing this it must be understood that there will be both positive and negative impacts which are not controlled by the input of the money.


Yes, they need to be managed by the people paid tidy sums to do that job; your point is?

BigGut wrote: The main negative impacts are:

A smaller competitive age population


If this is true (which I'm not convinced of yet) then isn't it the job of the NGB responsible for the sport in this country to remedy that situation? This is entirely the point being made elsewhere about the myopic focus of UKA being mindlessly away from the grassroots. You are agreeing here that this is a mistake; are you quite sure you haven't make a job-threatening admission here? We've all been shown lately just how frightening the regime in Birmingham can be so you must be careful here.


BigGut wrote: An unhealthier population


I'll shudder and pass over the grammatical howler and point you to NHS figures that show precisely the opposite of what you are saying. Health results in the general population are continuing to rise. Life expectancy results are good and improving and have been for fifty years; what sort of tailored and skewed data are you being fed?

http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsand ... /index.htm


BigGut wrote: Massive increase in money in other sports taking talent to other sports


Prove it.

BigGut wrote: An increase in operating costs in the UK due to health and safety


Show it beyond doubt AND the mechanism of exactly how it reduces athletic performance.

BigGut wrote: A reduction in competitive school sports


Show the recent data and exactly how this affects your argument that we should accept lower performance by you and your colleagues.

BigGut wrote: An increase in sports and leisure options


Show exactly how this supports your argument for lower performance by you and your colleagues.

BigGut wrote: If people genuinely want to find improvements then they need to look at the complete picture and avoid playing politics.


Then present it. If you're so sure then present this picture you claim would show us all how great things are now. No ifs, buts or evasions, convince us why we should be grateful for the level of outcome that was achieved. Or stop playing politics yourself.
AllanW
 
Posts: 236
Joined: Sun Sep 26, 2010 9:07 am

Re: Athletics placings table

Postby AllanW » Thu Aug 23, 2012 10:39 am

fangio wrote:Allan,

Will you join the call for yorkshire-best to stop posting up soundbites without justifications, you seem to want anyone not posting up criticism to have to do that, so instead of supportign him and his soundbites as you normally do, how about a nice even handed request for his "unassailable facts".


Will I giggle and smirk in this clique against the unpopular boy in that other part of the playground? Can I answer the McCarthy-ite slogan and not support the outsider? Sigh.

I'm even-handed in requesting grown-up, clear, rational, evidence-based discourse while realising that not everyone does that all the time, including me. However I try to avoid using this failure as a basis for trying to excommunicate them, cleanse the forum or enforce adherence to a particular point of view. You won't find anyone as even-handedly honest as me but equally as unaccepting of dogma, ideology, irrationality or dishonesty either.

Please provide numerous examples of me supporting yorkshire-best on this forum though; it can't be hard as you seem to think it is 'normal' for me to do so. Thanks.
AllanW
 
Posts: 236
Joined: Sun Sep 26, 2010 9:07 am

Re: Athletics placings table

Postby fangio » Thu Aug 23, 2012 11:12 am

So that's a no then, you will demand that anyoen disagreeing with yorkshire -best puts up evidecne but no that he evidecne his point. OK, we know where we stand.
fangio
 
Posts: 1242
Joined: Wed Apr 25, 2007 9:39 pm

Re: Athletics placings table

Postby AllanW » Thu Aug 23, 2012 11:24 am

fangio wrote:So that's a no then, you will demand that anyoen disagreeing with yorkshire -best puts up evidecne but no that he evidecne his point. OK, we know where we stand.


It's this kind of willful dishonesty that loses you credit, my friend. Look this up;

'Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.'
AllanW
 
Posts: 236
Joined: Sun Sep 26, 2010 9:07 am

Re: Athletics placings table

Postby BigGut » Thu Aug 23, 2012 11:33 am

Allan,

You are not here to debate reasonably uyou are clearly a vindictive liar like Frank Plunkett and others. I say this because you keep repreating that I work for the NGB. I don't, I never have, I never will. Your willingness to lie about me shows that you do not want to discuss anything, rather make unfounded statements wherever you wish and attack those who disagree with them.

Your last response to me is seriously flawed:

I do not have the figures on all spend, neither do you, and unlikely anybody does. That is my point that you cannot go around making statements about the relative value of investment without looking at what others have spent. I am not making comment on relative value, you are.

We do have a smaller competitive age population as the birthrate dropped in the 1980s from its post war highs. It's nothing to do witht he NGB. THERE ARE LESS PEOPLE OF COMPETITIVE AGE NOW THAT THERE WERE IN THE 80S and before. PS it's not jopb threatening as I am nothing to do with the NGB and it has nothing to do with the focus of the NGB, not unless you think they can go back in time 25 years and impregnate tens of thousands of women.

Your health stats are ridiculous, they refer to mortality, not the health of the population at competitive age, which has a higher incidence of obesity than ever before. There are not many 95 year olds who will be winning athletics medals so that is irrelevant, whereas obesity of people in their 20s is relevant.

You want proof of massively more money in other sports. I will get some but frankly do you live in a bubble. Does the professionalisation of rugby, investement of massive Sky contracts in Premiereship football and Championship 20/20 and Test Cricket not ring any bells? Are you not aware that top level annual funding for athletes in this country is less than a third of what John Terry gets paid every week?

When I talk about operating costs you say "Show it beyond doubt AND the mechanism of exactly how it reduces athletic performance." You seem to be ignorantly misreading what I wrote. I am not saying that increased operating costs reduce athletics performance. I am saying that it costs more to operate in the UK than it did. I am therfore saying that you cannot simply say more money must equal more benefit. Increases in funding or comparable spend in diferrent countries muct be assessed in real terms, not just as headline figures.

I don't have the school sports figures, but adopting your own techniques, stop attacking me for making this statement and provide evidence that it is untrue. Oh is that not fair. Ah well shows what a complete and utter hypocrite you are, since you are asking me to do the self same thing when opposing the original post.

On an increase in sports and leisure options, are you serious? Do you not see how if there are 1 million active people and 2 sports then each of those sports would have more chance of attractinng people to them than if there are 50. Honestly is that how completely blind to reality you want to be. yet again this has nothing to do with me and my colleagues, because I am nothing whatever to do with the governing bodies at all. STOP TELLING LIES AND PRETENDING TO BE AFTER REASONABLE DEBATE.

You can't convince a man who has already closed his mind and turned to personal attacks. Also I have nowhere said that I know exactly what the merit of the performance is. I am merely saying that the ridculous simplification of the debate to we spent more money therefor we should do massively better is only used by simpletons aiming to cause trouble and not people who want to actually seek genuine improvement. I stand by this.
BigGut
 
Posts: 1232
Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2007 3:16 pm

Re: Athletics placings table

Postby AllanW » Thu Aug 23, 2012 12:05 pm

BigGut wrote:You can't convince a man who has already closed his mind


Not that I have a closed mind but at least you could try. Don't assert things, show that they are true. I'll get back to it this evening.
AllanW
 
Posts: 236
Joined: Sun Sep 26, 2010 9:07 am

Re: Athletics placings table

Postby BigGut » Thu Aug 23, 2012 1:20 pm

Allan,

The original poster asserted without evidence. Another poster asked what that person would have expected for it to be considered successful. that was not an unreasoable question. However your response was:

AllanW wrote:Cop out. Try addressing the question not attacking the person.

Justify the medal or points return in London by comparison with Beijing for the expenditure received in the interim.


You didnt ask the original poster to supply evidence. You merely accussed somebody of attacking the person. Just o be clear dj had posted:

djlovesyou wrote:What result would you have wanted for it to have been a good Olympics and value for money.

(Hint: The question is rhetorical - I know they could never score high enough for you to be 'happy'.)


I don't see any attack on the person in that post. Certainly not one to match your decision to lie completely about me repeatedly throughout your response to my post.

If you are hypocritically going to call for people not to attack other posters then how can you stand there and attack me rather than the point I was making.

This is why I say your mind is closed, because despite your bleating, quite incorrectly, that dj has attacked the person not the argument you chose to make your response to me an entirely personal attack. that is not the mind of somebody who is open to debating it is the mind of somebody who wishes to avoid debating.

I also note that you are fuine with people asserting whatever they like if it is negative, but heaven help those who assert something positive. As I say cliosed petty mind intent on attacking people and not debating the truth.
BigGut
 
Posts: 1232
Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2007 3:16 pm

Re: Athletics placings table

Postby BigGut » Thu Aug 23, 2012 1:22 pm

Oh and here's hint, just saying that the points total isn't fine in your opinion carries little weight.
BigGut
 
Posts: 1232
Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2007 3:16 pm

Re: Athletics placings table

Postby AllanW » Thu Aug 23, 2012 3:10 pm

Change of timescale, I had ten minutes over lunch. Let’s get the puerile personal bitterness out of the way first, shall we?

BigGut wrote:You are not here to debate reasonably uyou are clearly a vindictive liar like Frank Plunkett and others.

I don’t know who these people are and you plainly don’t understand what the words ‘debate’ and ‘reasonable’ mean. What you think of me personally is completely irrelevant to the question in hand; address that and use the pm system if you really must vent your spleen. ‘Vindictive’ presumably means ‘contradicts me’ in your world, does it?

BigGut wrote:you keep repreating that I work for the NGB. I don't, I never have, I never will.

I am happy to acknowledge it (Oooh! See what a lying, vindictive and vindictive-type liar I am!). Feel free to ignore any point I made about that wrong assumption on my part and I’ll try not to repeat the mistake.

BigGut wrote:Your last response to me is seriously flawed:

I’m glad you have got over your mental twitch and are prepared to present reasoned arguments. Go for it big boy.

BigGut wrote:I do not have the figures on all spend, neither do you, and unlikely anybody does.

Then why ask for them?

BigGut wrote: That is my point that you cannot go around making statements about the relative value of investment without looking at what others have spent. I am not making comment on relative value, you are.

I have made no statements like that at all so far, you are mistaken. I haven’t made up my mind on this question yet because I think it is a complex issue requiring a decent interval for analysis, fact-gathering and thoughtful contemplation. As opposed to you who gave your unequivocal vote within minutes. You have our respective positions on this completely backwards I’m afraid to say.

BigGut wrote: THERE ARE LESS PEOPLE OF COMPETITIVE AGE NOW THAT THERE WERE IN THE 80S and before.

What are you burbling about? The question is about the recent past, Beijing and Daigu not a few generations ago. Present the data for the last four or six years that supports this argument of yours if you can.

BigGut wrote:it has nothing to do with the focus of the NGB

cf Paxman/Michael Howard. I know, so do we all, but one interesting aspect of these discussions is to reflect upon the notion that the deliberate stance of UKA to ignore the grassroots of the sport might be a factor in the ultimate performance at Games. Arguing that only the elite level of the sport gets a look-in at UKA is beyond dispute, what we’re trying to get a grip on is ‘Has that been a clever decision?’

BigGut wrote:Your health stats are ridiculous, they refer to mortality, not the health of the population at competitive age, which has a higher incidence of obesity than ever before.

Terrific! A point worth exploring. Well done … eventually. You made no such caveat as ‘competitive age’ with your initial comment about the health of the population so how were we to infer it? If you insist upon making obscure or unspecific comments don’t blame people for pointing this out. Having said that, I can understand the point you’re making but yet again you fail to support it with any evidence; you just make an assertion. Show me the data that supports your comment of ‘at competitive age there are less athletes because of, for instance, higher levels of obesity’. Then I’ll believe it. See how that works?

BigGut wrote:You want proof of massively more money in other sports. I will get some

No; YOU wanted it. It was your point not mine. I just asked you to back it up after you said it. Don’t shift the argument like this, it is dishonest. I look forward to the proof as and when you present it.

BigGut wrote:When I talk about operating costs you say "Show it beyond doubt AND the mechanism of exactly how it reduces athletic performance." You seem to be ignorantly misreading what I wrote. I am not saying that increased operating costs reduce athletics performance. I am saying that it costs more to operate in the UK than it did. I am therfore saying that you cannot simply say more money must equal more benefit.

I have never said that. Who is ignorantly misreading posts here?

BigGut wrote: Increases in funding or comparable spend in diferrent countries muct be assessed in real terms, not just as headline figures

You are making two points here. First the one about ‘real spending power’ which I’m prepared to consider; please show the figures and see if they are convincing. Thanks. Please be aware that I have a background in economics and so understand what things like ‘comparative purchasing power’ are and how you generate those figures. That’s a friendly piece of advice.

Your second point is that we cannot make a judgement about whether the outcome at these Games was worthwhile (and hence whether the effectiveness of the current structure of the sport in this country is good enough) until we have constructed some sort of league table of equivalent spends and outcomes across all countries. Then the right answer will leap out at us from the tables. Well go ahead, make your case. I’m willing to be persuaded. Show me the data matey.

BigGut wrote: I don't have the school sports figures

That’s a shame.

BigGut wrote:stop attacking me for making this statement and provide evidence that it is untrue. Oh is that not fair.

If I understand your tortured spelling and grammar sufficiently, ‘No’ it isn’t fair. It’s not even reasonable :). YOU introduced the argument that one of the reasons the Games outcome was as it turned out was because of ‘a competitive reduction in school sports’. I asked you to provide evidence for your statement. YOU fail to do so but now want the burden of proof to rest with me to prove that what you said is untrue? You do realise what this looks like, don’t you? ‘Whatever I say is true just because I say it (I don’t need to show why) AND it remains true unless you disprove it.’ Are you at all serious here? This is the reasoning of the kindergarten and deserves no further respect until admitted and changed.

BigGut wrote:On an increase in sports and leisure options, are you serious? Do you not see how if there are 1 million active people and 2 sports then each of those sports would have more chance of attractinng people to them than if there are 50. Honestly is that how completely blind to reality you want to be.

What reality? So far you have provided nothing more than a biblical fable of one million people and a scenario of 2 or 50 sports; are you going to go on to how to feed them all with only a few loaves and fishes? Provide some data that describes reality and I’ll listen to it. You haven’t done so so far. And remember, these are your points we’re discussing, not mine. These are the things you have already considered in coming to your complete judgement that the Games were a ‘splendid achievement’ so none of it can be too hard, can it?

BigGut wrote:You can't convince a man who has already closed his mind

I think even my most mindless critics would be forced to admit that I have displayed very far from a closed mind on this question. I have at every stage said just how prepared I am to be swayed, just how open I am to evidence to convince me one way or the other and have not yet come down on one side or the other of the ‘worthwhile or not worthwhile’ side of this question. In short, I haven’t made up my mind yet whereas you voted on this question within minutes of it being posted. Decided. Definite. Sure. Who’s the one with the closed mind here, I ask you?

BigGut wrote:Also I have nowhere said that I know exactly what the merit of the performance is.

Well now you’re just being silly in front of everyone.

Try making cogent and understandable points of fact, supported by evidence connected by reason and logic and you and I will be the best of friends. Emotive and irrational outbursts make no progress. And as for the other bitter posts you've made since lunch, they deserve no response. Just try cooling down, breathing deeply (through your nose this time) and concentrating on improving the sport. Just a suggestion.
AllanW
 
Posts: 236
Joined: Sun Sep 26, 2010 9:07 am

Re: Athletics placings table

Postby fangio » Thu Aug 23, 2012 4:21 pm

It's simple AllanW

Yorkshire-best says the figrues are not good. People have not said he is wrong BECAUSE of the figures for comparative spend etc, they have siad he would need to provide those. he hasn't. Instead of telling people who are saying he has no basis for his statemtn that they need to provide the figures, tell him to provide something. By demanding that those who do not agree with his statement should provide the evidence you are not being even handed. So, matey, get on with saying he needs some evidence rather than having a go at anyone else who asks he to.
fangio
 
Posts: 1242
Joined: Wed Apr 25, 2007 9:39 pm

Re: Athletics placings table

Postby BigGut » Thu Aug 23, 2012 5:05 pm

OK AllanW,

You did make it complately personal and attack me and make, what you now say was an incorrect assumption, that I worked for the NGB. If you aren't looking to make this personal then what the hell has who i work for got to do with anything. regardless of whether it was an incorrect assumption it was completely irrelevant to the debate and yet you chose to bring it up.

Don't give me the "What youthink of me personally is completely irrelevant" when you decided to make the debate into who you thought i work for. You are a complete and utter hypocrite.

I say vindictive because you started out not by addressing my valid points, but by accussing me of having a vested interest, why would any person interested in having the debate do that? It's alright apologising but it does display that you are not prepared to listen with an open mind and are just here to try to invalidate my view by making stuff up about me personally.

If you do not see why I would ask for the most relevant figures, because I do not have them, then you are clearly again missing the point. The point is that the actually useful information is not available, ie total real spend on the sport in these nations. That would be the relevant data. if somebody has it then that is what we should look at, if not we shouldn't just say well lets take a completely misleading figure that is easily available and base a rational discussion on the obviously flawed data.

I agree with the Beijing and Deagu thing being very close, if that is all we are comparing then go for it, somebody provide the comparative spend by UKA for the 4 years to Beijing and the 4 years to London. As i say it will not be a true reflection as points are also influenced by other nations efforts not just our own, but if somebody has that then go for it.

You brought up the population thing as something to do with the NGB, it isn't so this whole grass roots thing is irrelevant.

As for the rest it's just silly. It is very clear that you are not open minded because you have not challenged any assertions from the negatiove camp on any threads. When you challenge them I may well believe you, but until then you are simply somebody who has decided to attack me personally by making stuff up about me rtather than address the point. You are arguing that I cannot disagree with an unevidenced post until i present you with the evidence. However I am very clear indeed that I do not think that the figures needed are available and as such I think those setting out to be negative are doing so from an untenable position.

Meanwhiole I am not saying that things are measureable enough for me to show stats to give the actual effect of the negative issues. I am merely saying that there are negative issue which impact on the sport and in particular on the ability to attain more points.

If you are economically trained then you will be well aware of the phrase ceteris paribus. The point here is that people are attempting to draw negative conclusions by saying lots of money spent not much improvement in point. However all else has most very definately not remained equal.

Oh and by the way sayuing that you have an open mind and behaving like it are two very different things.
BigGut
 
Posts: 1232
Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2007 3:16 pm

Re: Athletics placings table

Postby AllanW » Thu Aug 23, 2012 5:24 pm

fangio wrote:It's simple AllanW

I very much doubt it ...

fangio wrote:Yorkshire-best says the figrues are not good.

No he doesn't; he said they are not a good enough return on the investment and for the alternatives foregone. I already agreed with the clear point you made earlier with regard to the bald numbers being higher than Beijing but his point was not that simplistic, I believe. Please check with him if I've read it wrongly.

fangio wrote: People have not said he is wrong BECAUSE of the figures for comparative spend

You are mistaken, Big Gut introduced this facet not y-b. And used comparative spend over time and comparative spend between countries as an excuse for why the outcome was not higher. It's all in the posts above, go back over it carefully. Big gut was quite clearly saying that y-b was wrong in his assessment and that it was a 'splendid achievement'.

fangio wrote: Instead of telling people who are saying he has no basis for his statemtn that they need to provide the figures, tell him to provide something.

You have made the same elementary mistake that Big Gut seems to have made; one of attribution. Y-B gave his opinion along with the initial numbers. I will stand right alongside you in requesting a fuller explanation of how he got to his conclusion but please don't confuse what he said with what Big Gut said later. He said something different and likewise needs to justify it. This is what reasonable debate means. Now if we could avoid the personal mud-slinging we might read more substance than hot air.

fangio wrote:By demanding that those who do not agree with his statement should provide the evidence you are not being even handed.

Sigh. Agree with y-b, don't agree with y-b it's up to you. But for goodness' sake make sense and support your points or it's just a waste of pixels. I'm not asking Big Gut to support or deny anything other than the points he raised. Him. Himself. Isn't it reasonable to ask someone to explain what they say rather than attempt to hand-wave the need away as something that someone else isn't doing? I'd like y-b to be forthcoming as well but I'm sure as hell not going before the Congressional Board on UnAmerican Activities that you seem to have convened to denounce him for what he said or didn't say. That smells horribly authoritarian and witch-hunty for my liking.

fangio wrote: So, matey, get on with saying he needs some evidence rather than having a go at anyone else who asks he to.

Now who's making demands, hmm?

Are those situations mutually exclusive in your mind? I hope not. And they aren't in mine. Do you think there is some kind of see-saw going on here whereby if you say something to Big Gut you have to say something equally to y-b at the same time? Do you think there are only two sides to this debate-thingy, fangio? Is everything so simple and monochrome in your mind or does it need to be made so?

Most people on here are capable of seeing the gradations of point being made on these threads, it only seems to need to be 'us v them' in a few people's minds. The rest of us are trying to have an adult conversation without juvenile games or point-scoring ephemera. Want to join in?
AllanW
 
Posts: 236
Joined: Sun Sep 26, 2010 9:07 am

Re: Athletics placings table

Postby AllanW » Thu Aug 23, 2012 5:28 pm

BigGut wrote: It's alright apologising


Good. Let's move on then.

Oh. The rest of it said you didn't want to produce any information or support any of the points you've made so far because either you accept they are irrelevant or you can't be bothered to do so. Fine. Your choice.

You're happy with your judgement of 'splendid achievement' and leave it at that. Thanks.
AllanW
 
Posts: 236
Joined: Sun Sep 26, 2010 9:07 am

Re: Athletics placings table

Postby fangio » Thu Aug 23, 2012 5:42 pm

Oh dear Allan

Yes BG intorduced the idea that comaparative spend needed to be considered. I did not say he did not, I said he did not say YB was wrong becuase of it, he said that you woudl need to look at it.

"if we can avoid the personal insults....." then you should have finished your sentence without one.

It is silly to suggest, as you have done, that peopel asking for reasonable evidence get from a poster get told that they must provide it themselves. Biggut I don't think made claims, he listed things that would need to be considered, as did others. You appear to be unable to read what people are writing and merely questioning YB leads to you demanding that people provide you with information

You say "for goodness' sake make sense and support your points or it's just a waste of pixels", so that is what you think of the original post is it? You say it's reasonable to ask people to explain, which is what the seocnd post on this thread did, resulting in you calling it a cop out! So it seems people will get you name calling if they do somehting htat you yourself say is reasonable. Oh well.

Where have Oi called for a witch hunt? Serioulsy please show me anythign that does such a thing. I simply haven't I have pointed out hat something is a soundbite and suggested ways in whcih the analysis may be flawed.

You say "who's demanding" well, if you don't like it then stop demanding it of others.

I refer you to your first post on theis thread as evidecne that you are not trying to have an adult conversation, please fdo not try to pretend that your post was anythign of the sort.
fangio
 
Posts: 1242
Joined: Wed Apr 25, 2007 9:39 pm

Re: Athletics placings table

Postby AllanW » Thu Aug 23, 2012 6:21 pm

fangio wrote:Oh dear Allan etc


More and bigger yawn. Got anything of interest to add to this discussion?
AllanW
 
Posts: 236
Joined: Sun Sep 26, 2010 9:07 am

Next

Return to Current events (Legacy Only)

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Yahoo [Bot] and 4 guests

cron

 

Athletics Weekly Limited © 2010. Terms of use

Design by The Church of London