Athletics Weekly

Athletics placings table

News, reports and results from the UK and the rest of the world

Re: Athletics placings table

Postby jeremy1 » Thu Aug 23, 2012 6:23 pm

If only we could all be as wise as Fangio/BG :( :( :(
jeremy1
 
Posts: 1879
Joined: Mon Jun 04, 2012 2:40 pm

Re: Athletics placings table

Postby BigGut » Thu Aug 23, 2012 6:37 pm

Have you because apart from attacking dj and making stuff up about other posters I haven't seen you post anything that let alone add a single point of value about the debate.
BigGut
 
Posts: 1232
Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2007 3:16 pm

Re: Athletics placings table

Postby AllanW » Thu Aug 23, 2012 6:55 pm

I thought you'd already made all the contributions you intended to make to this issue, BG?

BigGut wrote:Have you because apart from attacking dj and making stuff up about other posters I haven't seen you post anything that let alone add a single point of value about the debate.


The only 'attack' on djloves was the phrase 'cop out'. Oooh, deadly! The rest of that post was a straightforward demonstration of fact that he played the man not the ball. A point he has, quite rightly, not responded to.

The reason you have failed to see a single point of value in any of my posts here BG can only be that you are blind. Possibly purblind but certainly blind. I posted all the financial details that have been brought forward so far and commented upon them in post 11. I have posted other links with data in them even if you didn't like them.

Apart from y-b I can't see anyone else posting anything of objective substance. You and fangio have derailed this discussion with your petty tantrums while people like The RealSub10 asked a great question ten comments ago that has got swamped. It should get a chance to be aired but won't while you continue to diddle yourself for all to see.

I repeat; if you have something off-topic to say to me please respect the others on here and take it to p.m. where it will get the attention it deserves and you won't continue to parade your foolishness and frustrate the chances of a real conversation. Djloves did the right thing, why can't you two seem to understand?
AllanW
 
Posts: 236
Joined: Sun Sep 26, 2010 9:07 am

Re: Athletics placings table

Postby SteveK26 » Thu Aug 23, 2012 7:06 pm

This is not a debate any longer.
Its turned into an academic war of semantics, fought between people determined to score points off each other.
SteveK26
 
Posts: 2921
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2008 6:04 pm

Re: Athletics placings table

Postby BigGut » Thu Aug 23, 2012 7:13 pm

AllanW,

here is my comment.

YB has completely missed the point with his comment that the improvement is not enough. he has made a ridiculous statement about money being diverted from grass roots without any evidence and he has given absolutely no evidence to back up his assertion that the improvement is not value for money.

I have told you what information I think is needed to properly judge this, and I have said flat out that I don't think this information is available.

When I put it is rather splendid I get you being patronising. Yu ask me a load of questions yet for some reason you didn't ask YB any. When I challenge your position you make out I am employed by the governing body, as if that is relevant, whe you have previously admonished somebody for supposedly making it personal.

So now without any patronising personal comments or any of that stuff can you please say what is wrong with my list of outside influences and why the information I would like to have to make an informed decision is not valid.

Just as a side note you yourself have quoted figures for income from 2009 to 2012, what is the relevance of this information if you are seeking to compare with Beijing, since Beijing occurred before any of these amounts were put into the sport. unless you also provide the amounts from prior to Beijing it is completely and utterly meaningless information. Even with the figure it is completely meaningless if you do not know how much of at income was actually available to affect the elite performance in the sport. For example if it were ticket income from a GP then you also need to consider the cost of putting on that GP and deduct it.
BigGut
 
Posts: 1232
Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2007 3:16 pm

Re: Athletics placings table

Postby fangio » Thu Aug 23, 2012 7:17 pm

I think the first post I made highlighted that the points and finallists were up on not only Beijing but Deagu. Don't see what is wrong with that or how it was not aiding the discussion.
fangio
 
Posts: 1242
Joined: Wed Apr 25, 2007 9:39 pm

Re: Athletics placings table

Postby hank » Thu Aug 23, 2012 10:26 pm

GCSE and A'level results down. Surely UKA and EA must all go!!!!
hank
 
Posts: 436
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 11:11 pm
Location: Essex

Re: Athletics placings table

Postby AllanW » Thu Aug 23, 2012 11:10 pm

hank posted some interesting data on another thread that could be of interest her as well. Thanks hank.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/datablo ... sfeed=true

Does this change anyones judgement or add to their certainty?
AllanW
 
Posts: 236
Joined: Sun Sep 26, 2010 9:07 am

Re: Athletics placings table

Postby hank » Thu Aug 23, 2012 11:24 pm

Looking at the photo in the link above, I am more inclined to comment about the ethnicity of our medal winners across all sports.

How many of the public school educated athletes accept lottery funding?
hank
 
Posts: 436
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 11:11 pm
Location: Essex

Re: Athletics placings table

Postby BigGut » Fri Aug 24, 2012 7:10 am

Allan,

Are you serious? You bang on about evidence about relative value for money between Beijing and London. Your link provides absolutely no evidence whatever that helps with this, it talks about relative cost per deal by sport. That doesn't answer anything. As the article points out itself the average cost is not a pure indicator of value as a straight number, and certainly given the differing competitiveness of sports it is virtually meaningless.

In short that article adds precily nothing to a debate about relative value between Beijing and London.
BigGut
 
Posts: 1232
Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2007 3:16 pm

Re: Athletics placings table

Postby AllanW » Fri Aug 24, 2012 10:38 am

SteveK26 wrote:This is not a debate any longer.
Its turned into an academic war of semantics, fought between people determined to score points off each other.


Steve makes a good point, one that a few of the readers here probably agree with. This thread stopped being of use in getting toward some greater understanding of the problems in athletics some time yesterday afternoon. I’ll shoulder my share of the blame for that. For a couple of hours I had my head down in the trenches and was concentrating on showing up the trolls for what they are. That they are harmful is still as true today as it was yesterday but after a night thinking about it I agree with the implication of Steve’s comment and it has made me raise my head to appreciate the wider picture.

The process of holding a mirror up to them in order to show what they are like, while productive in highlighting who they are, is fruitless after this point because for them to change requires characteristics they do not possess; a sense of shame and a minimum capacity for thought. The last few weeks has seen demonstration enough for the rest of us on here to appreciate who they are and what damage they cause but the disadvantage in terms of disruption and derailing of threads has become too high. So I’ll stop doing it. I’ll stop pointing and laughing at each instance of idiocy, hypocrisy, lies and stupidity because to continue to do so would be a full-time job and it has started to detract from the main aim of improving the sport. Which is what I’ll confine myself to trying to do. Just remember to insert your own laughter-track after their posts because I won’t be doing it any more. Or just ignore them as I intend to do. No responses, no addressing their inanity, no rising to the juvenile baiting that ‘silence equals assent’, none of it. Treat them as the News of the World reporters they resemble.

Thanks for the wise interjection, Steve.
AllanW
 
Posts: 236
Joined: Sun Sep 26, 2010 9:07 am

Re: Athletics placings table

Postby fangio » Fri Aug 24, 2012 1:06 pm

So more insults masquerading as a reasonable response.

As I said yesterday, look to me first post, also look at yours. I think it is clear who started trolling.
You think pointing out that a completely unevidecned soundbite has been used is trollign and harmfiul, whereas I belive a soundbite such as that is more detrimental. I think that if peoppel give such soundbites they should give at least some sort fo reasonign for them. You thinkt hat if peopel question soundbites they need to provide unassailable evidence (well soundbites you agree with anyway). Yes you write in reasonable language but you are abusive, and certainly make up allegations against people. teh attack on Malcom Fenton on teh other thread is a clear indication that you are hateful.

Personally i will continnue to ask for peopel to provide reasining for their soundbites and to point out where anaylsis which is being given to support them is ridicualous. I have no doubt you will attack me for doing so.
fangio
 
Posts: 1242
Joined: Wed Apr 25, 2007 9:39 pm

Re: Athletics placings table

Postby mump boy » Fri Aug 24, 2012 1:28 pm

Why do any of you engage with these ridiculous men ??

They have no interest in any kind of debate or exchange of idea, they have come on here with one purpose, to spread their entrenched, bitter, partisan views. They're not interested in the health of British athletics, we could win every event in a WR and they's still find something to complain about.

We just has a once in a lifetime home OG where we won 4 gold medals, had the best single night in track history, won 2 other medals, saw some amazing performances by young athletes and have a load more who may not have delivered on the day but are having great seasons. Win, lose, draw, I enjoyed EVERY LAST MINUTE of it, all they have to talk about is the minutie of funding and completely arbitrary and subjective assessments of what constitutes success

These sad embittered old men are only on here because you lot actually pay them some attention and make them feel important (something that they are obviously lacking in real life), i feel sorry for them but not so sorry that i feel the need to be some kind of therapy for their obvious personality defects.

IGNORE THE TROLLS
mump boy
 
Posts: 2856
Joined: Tue Aug 21, 2007 11:06 am

Re: Athletics placings table

Postby sidelined » Fri Aug 24, 2012 1:34 pm

Too right, mump boy. My thoughts exactly.
sidelined
 
Posts: 1968
Joined: Fri Sep 05, 2008 8:19 pm

Re: Athletics placings table

Postby SteveK26 » Fri Aug 24, 2012 8:26 pm

My own view, for what its worth, is that ''value for money'' might be best assessed by overall performance rather than judging it on two weeks in London.
For example , someone wrote on another thread somewhere that 11 GB records have been broken this year. Thats a benchmark for showing progress, (or lack of it), dont you think?
I'm not a fan of CVC's style, neither do I know enough to be drawn into a debate on the politics of UKA; but there has been (for me) a 'feelgood' factor this year that suggests our team is stronger than for a long while. And certainly the future looks brighter now than it did 4 years ago.
Could/should things be even better? I have no idea.
SteveK26
 
Posts: 2921
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2008 6:04 pm

Re: Athletics placings table

Postby alfie7 » Sat Aug 25, 2012 12:42 pm

SteveK26 wrote:My own view, for what its worth, is that ''value for money'' might be best assessed by overall performance rather than judging it on two weeks in London.
For example , someone wrote on another thread somewhere that 11 GB records have been broken this year. Thats a benchmark for showing progress, (or lack of it), dont you think?
I'm not a fan of CVC's style, neither do I know enough to be drawn into a debate on the politics of UKA; but there has been (for me) a 'feelgood' factor this year that suggests our team is stronger than for a long while. And certainly the future looks brighter now than it did 4 years ago.
Could/should things be even better? I have no idea.


Believe it or not , Steve , I just logged back on after a few hours digesting the arguments (?) on this thread , with the avowed intention of posting almost exactly the sentiments you have just expressed...

Thanks for saving me the trouble :)
alfie7
 
Posts: 161
Joined: Sat Jun 30, 2012 11:41 am

Re: Athletics placings table

Postby jeremy1 » Sat Aug 25, 2012 12:45 pm

mump boy wrote:Why do any of you engage with these ridiculous men ??

They have no interest in any kind of debate or exchange of idea, they have come on here with one purpose, to spread their entrenched, bitter, partisan views. They're not interested in the health of British athletics, we could win every event in a WR and they's still find something to complain about.

We just has a once in a lifetime home OG where we won 4 gold medals, had the best single night in track history, won 2 other medals, saw some amazing performances by young athletes and have a load more who may not have delivered on the day but are having great seasons. Win, lose, draw, I enjoyed EVERY LAST MINUTE of it, all they have to talk about is the minutie of funding and completely arbitrary and subjective assessments of what constitutes success

These sad embittered old men are only on here because you lot actually pay them some attention and make them feel important (something that they are obviously lacking in real life), i feel sorry for them but not so sorry that i feel the need to be some kind of therapy for their obvious personality defects.

IGNORE THE TROLLS


And the flag waving poseurs :lol: :lol: :lol:
jeremy1
 
Posts: 1879
Joined: Mon Jun 04, 2012 2:40 pm

Re: Athletics placings table

Postby jeremy1 » Sat Aug 25, 2012 12:45 pm

mump boy wrote:Why do any of you engage with these ridiculous men ??

They have no interest in any kind of debate or exchange of idea, they have come on here with one purpose, to spread their entrenched, bitter, partisan views. They're not interested in the health of British athletics, we could win every event in a WR and they's still find something to complain about.

We just has a once in a lifetime home OG where we won 4 gold medals, had the best single night in track history, won 2 other medals, saw some amazing performances by young athletes and have a load more who may not have delivered on the day but are having great seasons. Win, lose, draw, I enjoyed EVERY LAST MINUTE of it, all they have to talk about is the minutie of funding and completely arbitrary and subjective assessments of what constitutes success

These sad embittered old men are only on here because you lot actually pay them some attention and make them feel important (something that they are obviously lacking in real life), i feel sorry for them but not so sorry that i feel the need to be some kind of therapy for their obvious personality defects.

IGNORE THE TROLLS


And the flag waving poseurs :lol:

What a sick little Post by a man who knows little about track except to tell the whole world he is the worlds greatest fan, who loves to distraction an old female sprinter about whom he made himself look ridiculous on TFN Forum, and who thinks that hanging around great athletes with small boy hero worship, and getting their smiles and approval and surrounding himself only with people who he regards are his own high :( standards, somehow makes him an expert on objective, rational evaluation of this or any other countries state of athletics health; And he knows more than practically any body else, of course, especially concerning British Relay participants about whom he is the worlds greatest Bore and doesn't understand that our sprinters have n't the expertise to even pass the stick.
jeremy1
 
Posts: 1879
Joined: Mon Jun 04, 2012 2:40 pm

Re: Athletics placings table

Postby djlovesyou » Sat Aug 25, 2012 1:24 pm

Very impressive addition to the discussion jeremy.

Did all those insults make you feel good about yourself?
djlovesyou
 
Posts: 170
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2011 2:37 pm

Re: Athletics placings table

Postby trickstat » Sat Aug 25, 2012 4:58 pm

jeremy1 wrote:
mump boy wrote:Why do any of you engage with these ridiculous men ??

They have no interest in any kind of debate or exchange of idea, they have come on here with one purpose, to spread their entrenched, bitter, partisan views. They're not interested in the health of British athletics, we could win every event in a WR and they's still find something to complain about.

We just has a once in a lifetime home OG where we won 4 gold medals, had the best single night in track history, won 2 other medals, saw some amazing performances by young athletes and have a load more who may not have delivered on the day but are having great seasons. Win, lose, draw, I enjoyed EVERY LAST MINUTE of it, all they have to talk about is the minutie of funding and completely arbitrary and subjective assessments of what constitutes success

These sad embittered old men are only on here because you lot actually pay them some attention and make them feel important (something that they are obviously lacking in real life), i feel sorry for them but not so sorry that i feel the need to be some kind of therapy for their obvious personality defects.

IGNORE THE TROLLS


And the flag waving poseurs :lol:

What a sick little Post by a man who knows little about track except to tell the whole world he is the worlds greatest fan, who loves to distraction an old female sprinter about whom he made himself look ridiculous on TFN Forum, and who thinks that hanging around great athletes with small boy hero worship, and getting their smiles and approval and surrounding himself only with people who he regards are his own high :( standards, somehow makes him an expert on objective, rational evaluation of this or any other countries state of athletics health; And he knows more than practically any body else, of course, especially concerning British Relay participants about whom he is the worlds greatest Bore and doesn't understand that our sprinters have n't the expertise to even pass the stick.


What a sick little Post....irony lives :roll: :roll: :roll:
trickstat
 
Posts: 1148
Joined: Thu Jul 30, 2009 11:09 pm
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Athletics placings table

Postby Flumpy » Sat Aug 25, 2012 6:51 pm

jeremy1 wrote:What a sick little Post by a man who knows little about track except to tell the whole world he is the worlds greatest fan, who loves to distraction an old female sprinter about whom he made himself look ridiculous on TFN Forum, and who thinks that hanging around great athletes with small boy hero worship, and getting their smiles and approval and surrounding himself only with people who he regards are his own high :( standards, somehow makes him an expert on objective, rational evaluation of this or any other countries state of athletics health; And he knows more than practically any body else, of course, especially concerning British Relay participants about whom he is the worlds greatest Bore and doesn't understand that our sprinters have n't the expertise to even pass the stick.


And breathe.

I think it's time for an intervention.....

http://www.alcoholics-anonymous.org.uk/
Flumpy
 
Posts: 1400
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 6:11 pm

Re: Athletics placings table

Postby jeremy1 » Mon Aug 27, 2012 6:08 pm

In view of the comments about improvements this year over the OG cycle or whatever, using Placings Points, it is not without interest to me if not others that the IAAF Top 20 World Rankings, with a couple ofweeks to go, shows as follows, for individual British athletes for 2008, Olympics year, 2010, mid point in the OG cycle, and this year with a home Olympics and a few additional imports :

Numbers include Male and Female athletes.Excluding Relays and walks and the heptathlon as a mixture of both.

2008 Beijing.......... 21 athletes.... 12 track and 9 field

2010 No WC/OG..... 27 athletes..... ( didnt split them into T and F)

2012 London.......... 25 athletes......14 track and 11 field

I see no significant improvements over the 4 year cycle for all the financial support of the last 4 years, the inclusion of athletes who somehow never appeared as Brits 4 years ago and the inspiration of a home Olympics

To some posters the increase over 4 years ago will be nearly 20 %.. fabulous :lol: but not as good as 2 years ago :(
jeremy1
 
Posts: 1879
Joined: Mon Jun 04, 2012 2:40 pm

Re: Athletics placings table

Postby djlovesyou » Mon Aug 27, 2012 7:26 pm

How many British top 20 athletes would it take for you to praise UKA?
djlovesyou
 
Posts: 170
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2011 2:37 pm

Re: Athletics placings table

Postby fangio » Mon Aug 27, 2012 8:10 pm

Interesting, you have compared the mid point of the 4 year cylce to teh end point. How about the mid point of this cycle to the mid point of the last one. 2006, 16 athetles in the top 20. Looks like things are improving.

Of course the standard response to obvious improvements are that they are not good enough.
fangio
 
Posts: 1242
Joined: Wed Apr 25, 2007 9:39 pm

Re: Athletics placings table

Postby hank » Mon Aug 27, 2012 8:23 pm

I think generally a 4 year rolling average best recognised method to demonstrate progression.
hank
 
Posts: 436
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 11:11 pm
Location: Essex

Re: Athletics placings table

Postby AllanW » Mon Aug 27, 2012 8:44 pm

djlovesyou wrote:How many British top 20 athletes would it take for you to praise UKA?


Not picking a fight at all, just making a point by holding up the mirror.

'How few British top 20 athletes would it take for you to consider even questioning whether UKA have been a success?'
AllanW
 
Posts: 236
Joined: Sun Sep 26, 2010 9:07 am

Re: Athletics placings table

Postby AllanW » Mon Aug 27, 2012 8:50 pm

hank wrote:I think generally a 4 year rolling average best recognised method to demonstrate progression.


That's possible certainly. As part of a bank of indicators against which to assess things. But 'progression' isn't really the issue, is it? We can all see that '25' in 2012 is higher than '21' in 2008 (even though it's lower than '27' in 2010) as the metrics used at the beginning of this thread showed without doubt that some progression had been made; it is clear. The real question is; 'Has the level of the result been worth what was put in to achieve it?'

It's still unclear to me even after happily acknowledging the actual level of success achieved. 5 medals from 4 people; table ranking; ranking points; top 20 athletes etc does not give an unequivocal answer to enquiring minds.
AllanW
 
Posts: 236
Joined: Sun Sep 26, 2010 9:07 am

Re: Athletics placings table

Postby fangio » Mon Aug 27, 2012 9:11 pm

5 medals from 4 people, has someone been disquaified?
fangio
 
Posts: 1242
Joined: Wed Apr 25, 2007 9:39 pm

Re: Athletics placings table

Postby djlovesyou » Mon Aug 27, 2012 10:02 pm

AllanW wrote:
djlovesyou wrote:How many British top 20 athletes would it take for you to praise UKA?


Not picking a fight at all, just making a point by holding up the mirror.

'How few British top 20 athletes would it take for you to consider even questioning whether UKA have been a success?'


You don't know whether I do or do not. I just don't feel that posting ad nauseum on various message boards under a variety of different and ever changing pseudonyms is the way forward.

You don't see me (or anyone for that matter) starting threads on how amazing UKA are doing, but all we see is threads (from the same people) on how bad things are.

I think it's a fair question to ask what it would take for you persistent dullards to either stop the posting, or indeed post something positive.
djlovesyou
 
Posts: 170
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2011 2:37 pm

Re: Athletics placings table

Postby jeremy1 » Mon Aug 27, 2012 10:52 pm

Fangio's comments are the usual pathetic illustration of his desire at all costs to prove that his beloved UKA are improving; nobody could ever prove to his satisfaction with any statistics that he couldn't attempt to twist that it was not really the case; thats his mad obsession ...namely to search for any excuse as he has just done to prove this wonderful "improvement"; how much improvement for you justifies the spending of vast money, £25 million over a few years, coupled with the dictatorial approach exhibited by the National body. A damn sight more improvement in the last two years than is illustrated by the figures of 27 top 20s in 2010 and 25 this year or 21 in 2008 and 25 this year; thats my answer and I have no desire to plough through more stats to suit Fangio or anybody else.

If you want to ""believe""", rather like a religious order, do so.

How can one ignore the fact that we placed 27 athletes in the top 20 two years ago, two more than 2012 at end of August.

In 2008 we had 12 Top 20s on the Track and this year, 4 years after all that cash, all those imported Brits and all the diktats from UKA, it's risen to 14 , on my counting.Wow!!
Does that improvement make your heart sing.... not mine, especially with no real improvement in the finalists since last year, no real improvement in the Medal total, no climbing up the ladder against other countries, in the last year.( Yes I know we got more points than we did in Beijing, so we should in London).
After 4 years since Beijing we have still massive gaps in the track events, men and women, and the field events are not so special in top 20 terms, if you consider that when we had 3 guys doing 2.30 in the high Jump previously this year a new guy on the block but what happened to the other 3. There are promising real talents around, Grabarcz, Bleasdale, Okoye, Hitchon, but a number of our other top field event athletes were around four years ago, mens LJ and PV and womens Javelin for example.
For each new face like Gemili, Osagie, Clarke, Okoye, Bleasdale, Green there have been athletes off the radar and you all know who they are.; our sprinters, our 400m guys, our 400 metre women endlessly chewed over by the relay bores, our middle distance athletes of yesteryear, our lack of long distance and steeplechasers(thank the Lord for Mo).

If its the fate of British athletes that the situation in mens track and in womens track,not to mention other gaps, is not to improve much in the next few years, so be it, but for Gods sake stop rabbiting on about how marvellous and cosy it all is due to UKA or whatever, cos it aint.!!

By the way, where were the expert predictorsof British fortunes, like Fangio and Mump, in our Olympic prediction contest in which one actually had to state the Medallists and thus the British medallists.? Never noticed them.
jeremy1
 
Posts: 1879
Joined: Mon Jun 04, 2012 2:40 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Current events

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Yahoo [Bot] and 3 guests

cron

 

Athletics Weekly Limited © 2010. Terms of use

Design by The Church of London