Im just wondering looking at past results (i am a bit of a geek)...Marcus Preedy from rossendale is in his 3rd year of an under 12???? Im a bit confused
Im just wondering looking at past results (i am a bit of a geek)...Marcus Preedy from rossendale is in his 3rd year of an under 12???? Im a bit confused
Trying to plod up hills every day slightly faster than the day before
Heres a two'penneth for what its worth and an ill thought out one at that. firstly as RW said at least we have a club champs this year I happen to think is a great development. To expect it to hit the ground running and make everyone happy is unrealistic. However good it was someone somewhere would complain. The very nature of fairness as briefly comtemplated above is that people are listened too, it does not mean that what they want happens. To be listened to as FJ says you need to take the issues to the FRA.
there is an option of doing a club champs for girls and boys seperately but having not looked at numbers I have no idea if that would work out as well as an overall combined one. More work for those not paid to do the work I know but it could be a development for next year.
I think those that are worried are thise who think they're club should do better than it will. I do have a natural tendency to want to see those who are are furtehr back, loyal club runners rewarded and included in the success somehow and not just picking up their "reward" for doing 4 races but I cant see how this could happen.
Just some thoughts to keep the debate stoked up.
"Moors are a stage for the performance of heaven"
Hello geek.Originally Posted by TurboTom
I don't know when Marcus's birthday is, but I suspect that he was 10 in 2008, and therefore became eligible for U12 part way through that year. 2009 11, 2010 still 11 on 1st January, hence still in U12.
Going downhill fast - until I fell over
CCR is right; it's the volatility of numbers from year to year that undermines a club championship. There used to be separate awards, but the rules were based around (something like) leading 2 from each age group, unless a club didn't have enough U16, in which case they could have the next best from another age group - all from the overall results.This of course closely matched the individual medal winners. At least the current version can be scored as we go along. Furthermore, a club can take the trophy having had only 3 runners all season or 18 different scorers.
Two races in to a new version is perhaps a little early to express concern, but I understand and welcome the interest. Don't forget that to improve chances of winning overall a club has to have a minimum of 3 runners at each race. It was pointed out to me at Coiners, that some leading clubs may struggle to maintain that at Patterdale (round 5), as some of their runners may be at Susa. So those with more depth may come to the fore. I suggest a review will be more objective at the end of the season.
At least junior fell running is in a healthy state; 15 years ago you could almost get an individual medal for just 'turning up'.
Going downhill fast - until I fell over
Looking at it from a gender point of view, consider a comparison with the current state of marathon running in the UK.
And first of all, I want to say I am far from an endurance runner basher - I applaud the efforts of guys like Andi Jones.
In the Mens we do not have anybody capable of running sub 2:10, a time achieved by Ron Hill in 1970 and most recently beaten in 1997 by Richard Nerurkar.
You can see wwe also have a long way to go in the ladies, but at least we still have the current 1st and 2nd running and half of the all time top 10 are recent efforts.
It is clear that in a race between the best 20 men and best 20 women, that the men will win.
It is clear that there are more numbers and therefore more depth in mens marathon running
But it's also clear that the quality of the Women in World or UK terms is higher than that of the Men.
Now I'm not saying that is the case in Junior FRA terms, I'm just trying to say don't confuse the number of competitors with the quality of the competitors.
By the way, I think that this comparison would work for all endurance distances from 400m up to marathon.
Why did you have to tell them that! You should have made them sweat
(To repeat myself - apologies) That mix can change significantly from year to year, which is to some extent why the new rules are as simple and open as they are. They should allow all the variables to come into play, but each year the winning club will be (probably arguably) the one that is the best for and of that year's particular profile. In other words, it might or might not have the dominant runners, it might have an outstanding group of only boys or only girls, it might have the most runners, it might be the only one to have 3 scorers at each race.
Going downhill fast - until I fell over
Because Will Marsh wants to enter his Grandmother as a 'ringer'.Why did you have to tell them that! You should have made them sweat
Going downhill fast - until I fell over
My apologies in mistakenly addressing my comments directly to you FJ.
I do not represent any specific club and my comments are purely for debate and are not intended as a criticism of those whose tremendous efforts have gone in to running the competition.
As to quality vs quantity, yes the individual championship represents quality, but surely, a club championship should, as you say, reflect club efforts.
RH - no problem and I totally understand.
I've probably expressed my view better in post 37 above.
I think it comes down to we all have an idea of what a club championship should be, but the relevant factors are not always there every year; mainly because young people grow up and move on, and multi-disciplinary clubs change their emphasis.
I'm really interested to see what the club championship looks like by the end of the year.
Going downhill fast - until I fell over
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote