PROTRACK

A forum devoted to track events from 60m to the 2 mile. Mainly pro but also news from local, national and international sprint & middle distance competitions.

Log in

I forgot my password



Search
 
 

Display results as :
 


Rechercher Advanced Search

Latest topics
» VAL CALENDAR 2017/2018
Yesterday at 4:03 pm by youngy

» 2018 BUNBURY GIFT
Tue Aug 08, 2017 10:33 am by AussiePro

» Bridge of Allan Highland Games
Mon Aug 07, 2017 3:08 pm by JH

» Stand Up Comedy debut
Wed Aug 02, 2017 3:16 pm by youngy

» St Andrews (Scotland)
Tue Aug 01, 2017 11:42 am by JH

» Mull Highland Games.
Fri Jul 28, 2017 1:57 pm by JH

» Regular VAL runner picked in U/18 Vic Metro AFL team to play WA
Wed Jul 26, 2017 10:16 pm by Willo the Whisp

» Airth(Scotland)
Sun Jul 23, 2017 9:09 am by JH

» Vale.. John Stoney John passed away last wednesday and his funeral will be held today in Albury
Fri Jul 21, 2017 12:50 pm by Jack Stoney

August 2017
MonTueWedThuFriSatSun
 123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
28293031   

Calendar Calendar


You are not connected. Please login or register

PROTRACK » Polls » Easter Bunnies - Women's Stawell Gift

Easter Bunnies - Women's Stawell Gift

Go to page : 1, 2, 3  Next

Who will win the 2017 Women's Stawell Gift?

0% 0% [ 0 ]
5% 5% [ 2 ]
18% 18% [ 7 ]
0% 0% [ 0 ]
0% 0% [ 0 ]
8% 8% [ 3 ]
0% 0% [ 0 ]
5% 5% [ 2 ]
5% 5% [ 2 ]
0% 0% [ 0 ]
5% 5% [ 2 ]
8% 8% [ 3 ]
0% 0% [ 0 ]
3% 3% [ 1 ]
0% 0% [ 0 ]
0% 0% [ 0 ]
0% 0% [ 0 ]
3% 3% [ 1 ]
0% 0% [ 0 ]
0% 0% [ 0 ]
16% 16% [ 6 ]
0% 0% [ 0 ]
5% 5% [ 2 ]
16% 16% [ 6 ]
3% 3% [ 1 ]
0% 0% [ 0 ]
0% 0% [ 0 ]
Total Votes : 38

View previous topic View next topic Go down  Message [Page 1 of 3]

1 Easter Bunnies - Women's Stawell Gift on Wed Mar 01, 2017 12:19 pm

Admin

avatar
Admin
Admin
Who will win the Women's Stawell Gift?

45 days to go.

Will add names as the last six weeks progresses.


120m Womens (Gift)
Nominations

1 Tara Angell
2 Demi Axford
3 Karlee Bailey
4 Elise Baldwin
5 Caitlin Banner
6 Hana Basic
7 Emily Bell
8 Emily Bertacco
9 Sarah Blizzard
10 CARA BOUSTEAD
11 Melissa Breen
12 Genevieve Brooks
13 Brittanny Brymer
14 Riarne Bullock
15 Kayla Bunevicius
16 Kirrily Burnett
17 Angela Byrt
18 Rachael Carnegie
19 Abby Chapman
20 MADDIE COATES
21 Michelle Cockerell
22 Merissa Colledge
23 AMELIA CROSS
24 Clare De Salis
25 Holly Dobbyn
26 Tara Domaschenz
27 Sarah Doran
28 Laura Downie
29 Hettie Driscoll
30 Hannah Duncan
31 Hannah Duynhoven
32 Olivia Eaton
33 Lauren Edwards
34 Tierra Exum
35 Gemma Fairclough
36 Molly Farmer
37 Jessica Farrugia
38 Olivia Fien
39 Sienna Fighera
40 Elizabeth Forsyth
41 Rebecca Foster
42 Christine Gates
43 Kimberley Geelan
44 Tamia Giardini
45 Eleni Gilden
46 Rosamond Gilden
47 Olivia Goder
48 Elly Graf
49 Mia Gross
50 Catherine Hannell
51 Caitlin Hawks
52 Keely Henderson
53 Niamh Henry
54 Grainne Henry
55 Laura-Jane Hilditch
56 Julie Hovey
57 Kendra Hubbard
58 Lauren Jauncey Gorringe
59 Kate Jones
60 Alexandra Kanowski
61 LAUREN KEATING
62 Zara Keca
63 Madelene Koeleman
64 Yvette Koso
65 Ebony Lane
66 Courtney Leary
67 Kayla Lemm
68 Loren London
69 Talia Martin
70 Georgia Mason
71 Jemma McDowell
72 Stella McNamara
73 Natassia Messent
74 Lily Micklethwait
75 Amie Mittiga
76 Kate Monks
77 Katie Moore
78 Stephanie Mundy
79 Ellie Nagle
80 Rachel O'Brien
81 Samantha O'Connell
82 Joanna O'Connell
83 deni O'Connor
84 Baylee O'Connor
85 Grace O'Dwyer
86 Kathryn O'Dwyer
87 Anna Pasquali
88 Jessica Payne
89 Taylah Perry
90 Angela Phillips
91 Julia Phillips
92 Dani Pike
93 Bridget Powell
94 Ella Randazzo
95 Kiara Reddingius
96 Nicole Reynolds
97 Stephanie Richards
98 Natalie Roberts
99 Emma Rosentreter
100 Mikayla Round
101 ELIZABETH RUACH
102 Imogen Russell
103 Liv Ryan
104 Loryn Savoia
105 Lesley Scanlan
106 Emily Sharpe
107 Bethany Simpson
108 Ella Squire
109 Virginia Stasyszyn
110 Kirsty Stevens
111 Davina Strauss
112 keely sykes
113 Kellie Symons
114 Karly Tafft
115 Sophie Taylor
116 Chelsea Thompson
117 Alex Tzilantonis
118 Nikki Venardos
119 Lynette Viney
120 Breeana Walker
121 hayley waters
122 Lauren Wells
123 Tori West
124 Kelsey Williams
125 Jess Williams
126 Toea Wisil
127 Emma Yates



Last edited by Admin on Thu Mar 23, 2017 9:52 am; edited 2 times in total

http://protrack.easyforumlive.com

2 Re: Easter Bunnies - Women's Stawell Gift on Wed Mar 08, 2017 11:17 am

Slowcoach


Bendigo shows no adjustment to Mittiga's handicap after her 12.04 at SA state champs. That must make her a certainty to make the Stawell final

3 Re: Easter Bunnies - Women's Stawell Gift on Wed Mar 08, 2017 11:47 am

cantrun


She should win easily this weekend off that mark.

4 Re: Easter Bunnies - Women's Stawell Gift on Wed Mar 08, 2017 12:01 pm

Phantom

avatar
ProTrack Star
ProTrack Star
"Bendigo shows no adjustment to Mittiga's handicap after her 12.04 at SA state champs. That must make her a certainty to make the Stawell final"

Big call Slowcoach as there are plenty of others equally as well placed. In the mix definitely, a 'certainty', no. If she runs this weekend and doesn't win or go close in a fast time then she might have some questions to answer.

5 Re: Easter Bunnies - Women's Stawell Gift on Wed Mar 08, 2017 1:17 pm

ShaneMcK


Moderator
Moderator
Just furthering the comments so we can all calculate times/marks without question,
As I am sure you are extremely well aware of the VAL H'Cap Regs, my calculations (without any track/wind) adjustments put her (Amy's) 120m time at 13.83. Which is inside the Ceiling Point. Easy to set up a spreadsheet to calculate the predicted times of athletes based on either current form or pb's;

When you take into account wind (+2.6) the adjusted CP is now 13.96 (added 0.18 to the time as per the VAL timing/wind adjustment of 0.05 per 1.00m/s +/-) then when you allow for synthetic track to grass, the athlete's CP comes in at above 14.00 sec. As per VAL Rule 6.15

This will give you the times the handicapper will/should be basing performance on in my opinion. This should be inline with the VAL Handicapping regulations.

The VAL's CP for 120m Women's is 14.00, so in this case, the athlete in question, in my opinion and calculations, has no grounds to have their handicap edited. So has just as good as a chance as about 12 other athletes to make a Stawell Final

Just thought I'd share the math on how I work out/predict times. If we use the math as per the VAL Handicap Regulation, then there is no uncertainly. It should be clear.

The only thing that I can't seem to locate in the regs is the allowance for track to grass

Other than that, I'm pretty sure my formulas are accurate. They seem to work for me as I've punched in some previous performances and it's checked out OK.

To use Excel to do these calculations, below is how I set it up;

ABCDE
1Handicap
Performance
Predicted RAW time
Wind
Predicted ADJ Time
2<add data here><add data here>=(120-A2)*B2/100<add data here>=((D2/2)/10)+C2
I'm happy to be corrected if I have inaccurate information/formulas.

And by my formulas, Toea Wisil (based on her run on 11.02.2017 in Brisbane 11.26 +2.6) would be leaps and bounds ahead of everyone with a predicted adjusted CP of 13.64 assuming she is on scratch. To put her on 14.01 (Ceiling Point) her mark would theoretically be -3.25m

Happy calculations


_________________
Thanks
Shane McKenzie
W: www.speedclinic.com.au | F: www.facebook.com/SpeedClinicMelbourne |
T: twitter.com/ShaneMcKenzie | C: Athletics Australia iCoach Profile
http://www.shanemckenzie.com

6 Re: Easter Bunnies - Women's Stawell Gift on Sat Mar 11, 2017 6:30 pm

speedygon


Adding to Amies 12.04 run at State Champs, it was with an illegal wind of +2.6.. although still puts her up there with a solid chance of making the final nonetheless.

I think there are many girls who can make this years Stawell Gift Final! Might need to watch out for those beach sprinters!

7 Re: Easter Bunnies - Women's Stawell Gift on Mon Mar 13, 2017 9:34 pm

chopper


anyone got any vision of final. Live it looked liked some of the lanes (not red) had holes in them at about the 110m mark. It was a good old days "mens" final. Give the red a lift relative to the others and bring on Stawell. Pretty lucky im not the handicapper

8 Re: Easter Bunnies - Women's Stawell Gift on Tue Mar 14, 2017 9:01 am

Ribera

avatar
Expert
Expert
Mittiga winning Bendigo could mean she is being beaten at training by a stablemate. Round looked great at Bay. Cavouras looked great in the Bendigo 400m.

9 Re: Easter Bunnies - Women's Stawell Gift on Tue Mar 14, 2017 8:10 pm

Thatsthestats


Ribera wrote:Mittiga winning Bendigo could mean she is being beaten at training by a stablemate. Round looked great at Bay. Cavouras looked great in the Bendigo 400m.

Exactly what I was thinking Ribera. Round at 7.5m maybe keeps her ahead of Mittiga and that's why she scratched. Only a guess though.



Last edited by Thatsthestats on Tue Mar 14, 2017 8:43 pm; edited 1 time in total

10 Re: Easter Bunnies - Women's Stawell Gift on Tue Mar 14, 2017 8:32 pm

geton


Spot on boys. Round had all the SA girls covered at the Bay which obviously included her training partners. Mittiga knew Round had her measure.

11 Re: Easter Bunnies - Women's Stawell Gift on Wed Mar 22, 2017 6:37 pm

ding dong


I think we have another big improver like last years winner... Hannah Duncan
15.23 at Avondale off 10
And has knocked out a 12.64 100mt at state 2 weeks ago.
Has her sub 14 this coming easter...
Better put her on this list. Nearly snuck through unnoticed .

12 Re: Easter Bunnies - Women's Stawell Gift on Thu Mar 23, 2017 7:31 am

Fast


ProTrack A Grader
ProTrack A Grader
The Stawell Junior Girls Gift from the prior year is a very good form guide.

13 Re: Easter Bunnies - Women's Stawell Gift on Thu Mar 23, 2017 9:39 am

Toolman


Good pick up with Duncan there Ding Dong. Wasn't on my radar at all. PB may change her mark a little. Does anybody know who trains her ? I have no idea

14 Re: Easter Bunnies - Women's Stawell Gift on Thu Mar 23, 2017 10:18 am

Ribera

avatar
Expert
Expert
Hannah is a 16 year old who runs with Ringwood AC under the guidance of Shane McKenzie.
The 15.3 at Avondale needs context as the winner only ran 15.0 as the track had pot holes and was uphill.
The state championship performance was a week later in perfect conditions.
She has improved to a personal best performance as you would expect from a 16 year old on an upward performance curve.

Using Shane's own excel tool, the performance comes out at a predicted 120m time of 13.91 on tartan. Add the 0.1 that the VAL seem to use to convert from tartan to grass and it comes out above 14.0 secs which is the ceiling time.

[Handicap] [Performance] [Predicted RAW time]    [Wind]    [Predicted ADJ Time]
   [10]          [12.61]           [13.871]                 [0.8]          [13.911]


No handicap pull for Hannah. Although she is now very much in the mix for an Easter final.

15 Re: Easter Bunnies - Women's Stawell Gift on Thu Mar 23, 2017 11:06 am

ding dong


There's also a 15.01 off 9 at Ballarat for Duncan. If someone can improve 1 sec in 6-7 weeks regardless of their age, then I'm on the wrong program.

16 Re: Easter Bunnies - Women's Stawell Gift on Thu Mar 23, 2017 11:38 am

Ribera

avatar
Expert
Expert
Whatever you do Ding Dong do not quote this in the newspapers. It is the same knee jerk reaction that occurred at Stawell with incorrect numbers.
You need to work off the athletes best time to gauge improvement.

Hannah ran 15.01 off 9m in Ballarat women’s, not off 10m. That would be about 14.87 off 10m.
Also at Ballarat she ran;
13.22 off 21m in the 120 restricted which would be 14.68
15.16 off 5m in the 120 U/18 girls heat which would be 14.50
15.01 off 5m in the 120 U/18 girls final which would be 14.35

So you are looking at an inconsistent 16 year old who has improved from a predicted 120m time off 10m of 14.35 at Ballarat to a predicted time of 14.01 in perfect conditions. A difference of 0.34 over 4 weeks. This is less than 3m improvement to a peak performance.

If you are 16 and not improving then you may be with the wrong coach.

All this said, with Wisil and Breen in the field they will be lifted anywhere between 0m and 3m. This may push Hannah beyond the 11m limit.


17 Re: Easter Bunnies - Women's Stawell Gift on Thu Mar 23, 2017 12:39 pm

FortySevenThirty


No matter what spin you put on it Ribera there is a big difference between 15.01 off 9m at Ballarat and 12.64 on track 22 days later. She is not the only junior who run a slower RPM in the Open Women's then the junior race though. I think Farmer from memory was in this boat. Maybe they were run on different days in slightly different conditions and affected their RPM's. I can't remember what race was run when but there certainly was different conditions to contend with across the weekend.

18 Re: Easter Bunnies - Women's Stawell Gift on Thu Mar 23, 2017 12:59 pm

Ribera

avatar
Expert
Expert
There is no spin. I have no vested interest. I get tired of people distorting facts for personal gain.
Forget the 15.01. Best rating at Ballarat was from u/18 final. The predicted time off 10m would have been 14.35. This is the personal best rating to be used.
It is a less than 3m improvement to 22 days later.
These are the facts.

Both you and Ding Dong seem to be more indicating the girl was pulling up. I dare you to bring this up with Shane to his face.

19 Re: Easter Bunnies - Women's Stawell Gift on Thu Mar 23, 2017 1:25 pm

Ribera

avatar
Expert
Expert
Now for a non factual opinion. Duncan will be lucky to make the semi's.
Without knowing the marks, one of Wisil, Vernados, Round or Taylor will win.

20 Re: Easter Bunnies - Women's Stawell Gift on Thu Mar 23, 2017 2:18 pm

sprint queen


When will we know how much the lift will be? There is going to a lot of girls on the limit if they lift everyone 2-3 mt.

21 Re: Easter Bunnies - Women's Stawell Gift on Thu Mar 23, 2017 3:45 pm

Fast


ProTrack A Grader
ProTrack A Grader
FortySevenThirty wrote:No matter what spin you put on it Ribera there is a big difference between 15.01 off 9m at Ballarat and 12.64 on track 22 days later. She is not the only junior who run a slower RPM in the Open Women's then the junior race though. I think Farmer from memory was in this boat. Maybe they were run on different days in slightly different conditions and affected their RPM's. I can't remember what race was run when but there certainly was different conditions to contend with across the weekend.


Again this highlights the ridiculous argument of selecting any random or poor performance and ignoring an athletes PB or want they are capable off.

The handicapping of an athlete must be referenced to an athletes PB’s and previous winning performances it is a ridiculous and a flawed system that does not do this, as all athletes are capable of reproducing their previous best to well into their 30’s.

Poor performances should be ignored for handicapping and stewarding purposes. Surely it is an athlete’s best performance that determines their handicap.

Poor performances are irrelevant it is the PB performance you should be considering.

22 Re: Easter Bunnies - Women's Stawell Gift on Thu Mar 23, 2017 4:54 pm

Hubbaup


Ribera is probably correct in the fact that she probably couldn't win it. She's probably not even the best chance from Shane's squad. But I think that anybody hovering around the ceiling ,if they run to the best of their ability can certainty make the semi or maybe sneak into the final. I like all of your others you mentioned Ribera. All huge chances. Didnt think Venardos finished the race off at Stonnington so not sure about her uphill over 120m. Add Blizzard, Coates, Perry, Eaton, Hawks and Gross to the equation too I would think. One thing's for sure it will be a ripper final. Until handicaps come out and news of a field lift ( if any) though it's just a guess.

23 Re: Easter Bunnies - Women's Stawell Gift on Fri Mar 24, 2017 9:32 am

Mushroom


Fast wrote:
FortySevenThirty wrote:No matter what spin you put on it Ribera there is a big difference between 15.01 off 9m at Ballarat and 12.64 on track 22 days later. She is not the only junior who run a slower RPM in the Open Women's then the junior race though. I think Farmer from memory was in this boat. Maybe they were run on different days in slightly different conditions and affected their RPM's. I can't remember what race was run when but there certainly was different conditions to contend with across the weekend.


Again this highlights the ridiculous argument of selecting any random or poor performance and ignoring an athletes PB or want they are capable off.

The handicapping of an athlete must be referenced to an athletes PB’s and previous winning performances it is a ridiculous and a flawed system that does not do this, as all athletes are capable of reproducing their previous best to well into their 30’s.

Poor performances should be ignored for handicapping and stewarding purposes. Surely it is an athlete’s best performance that determines their handicap.

Poor performances are irrelevant it is the PB performance you should be considering.

I have to say Fast you system has it's flaws as well.

Using an Athlete's PB to determine there mark alone has it's advantages & dis-advantages.

For young kids huge advantage, massive advantage. They have a great deal of room to improve and this should be assessed when determine there mark or else the rest of the running fraternity might as well give up why they sit back and take what they like, only improving when it suits them. Should we not allow for improvement went handicapping these Athlete's so fair on all Athlete's

For those in there late 20s & early 30s can advantage a little if improving but those that have stopped will never win a big race as they will not be able run quicker than net which is required to win.

For those late 30s & beyond might as well pack up and go home as never going to run anywhere near a PB, and a lot of these can be a long way from a previous win so will never see that performance again either

As for ignoring poor performance, we should never let the sport to decay to that extent where we accept athlete's are not trying and allow that to infiltrate and become a cancer on the sport. It is hard enough to control as it is, to just allow it to happen would be a cancer & cause a lot more frustration and disenchantment in the system to a much greater extent than it already does.

A good system and not a perfect system because there is no perfect system needs to take other factors into account and then it must have governance over it to allow it to evolve.

24 Re: Easter Bunnies - Women's Stawell Gift on Fri Mar 24, 2017 10:59 am

youngy

avatar
Admin
Admin
Fast wrote:
FortySevenThirty wrote:No matter what spin you put on it Ribera there is a big difference between 15.01 off 9m at Ballarat and 12.64 on track 22 days later. She is not the only junior who run a slower RPM in the Open Women's then the junior race though. I think Farmer from memory was in this boat. Maybe they were run on different days in slightly different conditions and affected their RPM's. I can't remember what race was run when but there certainly was different conditions to contend with across the weekend.


Again this highlights the ridiculous argument of selecting any random or poor performance and ignoring an athletes PB or want they are capable off.

The handicapping of an athlete must be referenced to an athletes PB’s and previous winning performances it is a ridiculous and a flawed system that does not do this, as all athletes are capable of reproducing their previous best to well into their 30’s.

Poor performances should be ignored for handicapping and stewarding purposes. Surely it is an athlete’s best performance that determines their handicap.

Poor performances are irrelevant it is the PB performance you should be considering.

Poor performances should be ignored for handicapping and stewarding purposes.

Oh really?

Imagine if stewards in sports like thoroughbred, harness or greyhound racing ignored ALL poor performance? It would be anarchy.

Thankfully the stewards do not ignore poor performance when it's detected. I'm not saying every person who performs below par should be sanctioned or penalised but officials cannot ignore it when it is blatant & the impact is likely to be detrimental to the credibility and integrity of the sport.

I think FAST should take on the role of a steward or a handicapper for a season or two and see how the other half lives.


_________________
"Let's Go While We're Young"

25 Re: Easter Bunnies - Women's Stawell Gift on Fri Mar 24, 2017 11:31 am

Fast


ProTrack A Grader
ProTrack A Grader
Mushroom and Youngy,

All we have is the Junior athletes PB, so that has to form some reference to the handicap, but I agree the handicap allocation needs to be conservative to accommodate Junior improvement.

I would like to see the Introduction of unacceptable personal best improvement -UPBI.

Where athletes will be sanctioned automatically if their personal best improvement is outside an acceptable range and they win a group 1 or classic VAL race.

Remove the concept of inconsistent running as all athletes will be inconsistent at some time and replace it with Unacceptable PB Improvement.

As for old athletes -I’m not suggesting that those older than 35 be referenced to their PB’s, but most are capable of getting back to their PB’s up to about age 35.

To accommodate your concern about athletes PB’s being too good than introduce a Handicappers Discretion Ceiling handicap adjustment: Where the handicapper has the discretion to give or take up to half a metre either side of a runners Ceiling handicap, e.g. the handicapper may assess that the PB times used to calculate a runners ceiling handicap were run in very favourable conditions and on a fast track, or the handicapper may assess that the pb used doesn’t reflect the runners actual ability….however there would need to be restrictions so that the handicapper only has the discretion to move within a tight range say plus or minus 0.50m from the runners ceiling point.

Poor Performances.

A poor performance does not matter as long as the athlete is not rewarded for it.

Only an incompetent handicapper or a flawed system would reward a poor performance.

The current VAL system does not reward poor performance, poor performance is allocated an NAP or a UP (Non-Acceptable performance or Unsatisfactory Performance) and this is sufficient there is no need for further sanction.


So no athlete has any reason to run a poor performance or can gain from a poor performance.

Some will argue that poor performance impacts the credibility of professional running. The logical and rational would argue, as long as one can’t gain from poor performance creditability is maintained.

The credibility of the VAL is far more effected by poor handicapping and poor tracks and poorly run meetings. The quality of our meetings, tracks and handicapping and colours is far more important for our reputation, credibility and marketing than unrewarded poor performance.


Non-Transparent handicapping impacts the credibility of professional running. There is a need for transparent handicapping. The basis of every athlete’s handicap and how it is calculated should be transparently disclosed on the VAL website? This adds to the credibility of professional running, with the technology available today this is not a difficult task.

26 Re: Easter Bunnies - Women's Stawell Gift on Fri Mar 24, 2017 6:56 pm

Thatsthestats


Poor performances are being rewarded FAST that is the problem. Always have always will. OGA runners get moved out way too quickly especially in the womens in my opinion. Its great for the athlete to be made competitive as soon as possible but too many coaches exploit this generosity a little too much. Maybe juniors need to win a junior race before being allowed to run in an Open event. That way it may flush out their real ability before they tackle the Open Events. Some of your handicapping ideas have real merit FAST but how do you stop a junior with no recorded PB from taking the P155 ?

27 Re: Easter Bunnies - Women's Stawell Gift on Mon Mar 27, 2017 8:57 am

Fast


ProTrack A Grader
ProTrack A Grader
Poor performance is defined as a performance significantly less than an athletes PB.
And I don’t believe such performances are rewarded as they would be a NAP or a UP and I don't see how any further Stewarding sanction could assist in more accurate handicapping in these situations.


THATSTHESTATS you will need to be more specific with some examples of where athletes are being lifted because of poor performances, that is a performance significantly less than their PB, as I don't believe it is happening as often as you make out or at all.


I still maintain poor performances, a performance worse than the athlete’s PB, should be ignored for handicapping and stewarding purposes (other than a NAP)...why would you reward a performance than is inferior to an athlete’s PB or what the athletes is capable off? ...and what point is there to imposing further sanctions when the athlete has a disclosed PB that is superior that can be used for setting the athletes handicap.


However, you are correct in stating that some juniors or athletes that were good juniors were in the past lifted far too early and too much, in the big races, but I don't think that is due to poor performances and it does not appear to be happening anymore. But some of these lifts are still washing through the system. There were examples of good or former state level juniors getting unwarranted big handicaps but had those athletes been handicapped with reference to those junior or PB performances then there would be less of a problem but I fail to see how steward sanctioning of poor performances (that are not as good as the athletes PB) is going to be of any assistance what so ever.

However, l believe it is a different situation for the Junior races.
The Junior and Novice races are supposed to give juniors a taste and encourage them and I have no problem, and actually encourage the handicapper to continue to move junior runners around and give them opportunities in these races, we need that. It also aids in handicapping as the handicapper can get an indication of their rpms.

But I agree with you and just like Talia Martin did in winning two Junior Stawell gifts, juniors should have to win junior races before getting past a novice handicap.... or at least hasten slowly with the lifts. This would also see greater participation and competition in Junior and Novice races.

Having said all that, established athletes are forced to earn their ceiling handicap by running AP's, the basis of a good system but they should be reasonably allowed to get to their ceiling handicap before the end of the year...it can take over 20 AP's just to get to the ceiling handicap and I think that is a problem.... everyone’s ceiling handicap should be transparently disclosed on the VAL website and hopefully the VAL is in the process of doing that. If they are not, then they are not addressing issues that are important to the credibility of the sport.

28 Re: Easter Bunnies - Women's Stawell Gift on Mon Mar 27, 2017 12:53 pm

Hey Hey

avatar
ebony lane  12.29 in heat at nationals 1.8 tail. Hannah Duncan 12.51 1.9 tail.  Mark for stawell???

29 Re: Easter Bunnies - Women's Stawell Gift on Mon Mar 27, 2017 1:52 pm

Willo the Whisp

avatar
Please do some analysis before suggesting an alteration to a handicap for someone like Lane.
Her last 120m mark was 5.50m at Ballarat.
The ceiling before field movements for Breen and Wisil is 14.00. After the field lift it will sub 14.00.
Therefore her Nationals 12.29 creates no adjustment.
.1 to be added for rubber and .08 to be added for the tail wind giving her a conversion of 12.47.
That RPM gives about 14.28 off 5.50m.
no where near an adjustement for 14.00 before the Breen and Wisil lift.

30 Re: Easter Bunnies - Women's Stawell Gift on Mon Mar 27, 2017 1:57 pm

Hey Hey

avatar
Willo, not asking for adjustments, just letting the public know what the girls have run, and curious on the present marks. More the fact, are they a chance???

Sponsored content


View previous topic View next topic Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 3]

Go to page : 1, 2, 3  Next

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum