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.