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


Display results as :

Rechercher Advanced Search

Latest topics
» Bunbury Gift
Fri May 25, 2018 2:47 pm by Pro Pasto

» Vale - "Maurie" Campbell
Thu May 24, 2018 3:56 pm by Dale Jones

» VRTA Awards Dinner - Awards.
Tue May 22, 2018 10:59 am by timrosen35

» Changing Stable Goss
Tue May 22, 2018 9:21 am by Thatsthestats

» VAL Website
Mon May 21, 2018 4:51 pm by mwebster

» Women's Gift
Sun May 13, 2018 6:29 pm by Fast

» Bunbury Gift & Management via WA Athletics
Thu Apr 26, 2018 4:51 pm by Pro Pasto

» Bunbury Gift timetable
Mon Apr 23, 2018 5:21 pm by Pro Pasto

» VRTA Awards - Final chance to purchase tickets.
Mon Apr 23, 2018 8:27 am by Downesy

May 2018

Calendar Calendar

You are not connected. Please login or register

PROTRACK » GENERAL » Marybourgh Marks

Marybourgh Marks

Go down  Message [Page 1 of 1]

1 Re: Marybourgh Marks on Thu Dec 20, 2012 8:32 am



Second in the Stawell Gift comes back to a starting mark of 7.75m after running off 9.75m in the Stawell Gift final. This is on the back of a 3rd place in the 2010 Stawell Gift.

I think this is fair & reasonable and about right in the context of the event and to keep the Stawell gift runner-up competitive.

No problem with that.

What have I got a problem with is the lame excuses I heard from the VAL handicappers why Dale Woodhams was ripped back 3.25m after running 2nd in 2010. And going from 7.25 back to 4.00 is a much tougher assignment than going from (an already high mark of) 9.75 to 7.75.

Running 2nd in a Stawell Gift can be a disappointment for an athlete, let alone compounding it with a massive penalty from which it's difficult to come back from. Which was my argument at the time. Why kick him in the guts again after he'd already copped it by being beaten in the first place?

Paul Tancredi ran from a bigger mark in the 2012 (justified as he definitely need it) than when he ran 2nd in 2009.

Vic athletes seem to be able to get back to competitive marks fairly easily in major Gifts. But if you are SA there's different rules.

We saw at Ballarat this year, with Corey Baker, that as soon as a SA sprinter starts to get competitive he can get ambushed and pulled out of the contest. That would not have happened to a Vic athlete.

Only 8 heats of the Maryborough Gift and not a single SA entrant.

That's on the back of the last two Stawell Gifts where no SA athlete made it through to the semis.

If the VAL are wondering why - explain the 1.25m difference in treatment for two athletes who achieved the same result?

"Let's Go While We're Young"

2 Re: Marybourgh Marks on Thu Dec 20, 2012 3:29 pm


Greenough ran 12.32
Woodhams ran 12.12

That's 2m so that's what they've obviously based it on. It seems like they never take into consideration whether a track was fast or slow though which I think is a bit stupid. Still Woodhams should be able to win big races off his mark.

3 Re: Marybourgh Marks on Thu Dec 20, 2012 3:51 pm


ProTrack Star
ProTrack Star
DizzyRunner knows nothing about sprinting, but has trawled through the handicapping guidelines and can find no reference to the disappointment an athlete feels for finishing second in a big race being a consideration of the handicapper. Come to think of it, there is no mention of athlete feelings at all.

If the heart-ache of coming close to winning was a reason not to penalise an athlete for an exceptional performance, DizzyRunner would not be getting very dizzy at all as he'd be off about 700m, in a mile race.

4 Re: Marybourgh Marks on Thu Dec 20, 2012 4:04 pm


Thanks Dizzy for that insight, but there's no need to piss down my back and tell me it's raining.

I didn't mean that it should be a consideration.

I meant that generally the runner-up doesn't get pulled much because they didn't win. It happens all the time to Vic athletes. There's several athletes in Victoria that have had plenty of wins in good quality Gifts after being in other finals picking up placings.

To smash them in the marks for running 2nd seems ludicrous. And generally that doesn't happen (as we've seen this year with Greenough).

The winner gets the spoils and the penalty. 2nd should be able to go to another meet and be a chance to pick up a sash. Not get hammered over 3m.

"Let's Go While We're Young"

5 Re: Marybourgh Marks on Fri Dec 21, 2012 12:50 pm


youngy wrote:It happens all the time to Vic athletes. There's several athletes in Victoria that have had plenty of wins in good quality Gifts after being in other finals picking up placings.
How many of them ran 12.12 breaking the ceiling time?
Seconds throughout the season don't get penalized as harshly because they don't run a 12.12, quick enough to win the 2005, 2007 and 2012 Stawell Gifts.

Besides Woodhams form or apparent form shows he has some massive improvement to do anyway, wouldn’t be to worried about getting his Stawell Handicap back. Only .5m back from his Stawell mark at Bendigo last season ran 13.19.

Another consideration, VAL’s system which rewards regular competitors. Almost double the meetings of SAAL therefore more opportunity to run acceptable performances and receive a bigger handicap.

6 Re: Marybourgh Marks on Fri Dec 21, 2012 3:08 pm


Regardless of what is said here, it's my personal experience last year at Ballarat and what I saw at Stawell that on any analysis of the facts, SA athletes don't get the same 'encouragement' to compete in the VAL as Vic athletes get to run at the Bay.

The Maryborough Gift without an SA athlete doesn't happen very often. So maybe I'm not the only one who has woken up to the disparity.

"Let's Go While We're Young"

Sponsored content

Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 1]

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