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 » Stawell Gift & Bay Sheff Comparison/Analysis

Stawell Gift & Bay Sheff Comparison/Analysis

Go down  Message [Page 1 of 1]

1 Stawell Gift & Bay Sheff Comparison/Analysis on Mon Mar 25, 2013 12:36 pm


The following is a table of the 39 (38 plus winner Josh Ross) athletes who have entered the Stawell Gift and also entered the Bay Sheffield in December.

In column 5 it shows the difference in marks between the Bay & Stawell. In the last column (6) it shows how each of the other 38 entrants meets the Bay winner - Josh Ross (& about $15k) in the Stawell Gift. Bola Lawal and Sam Jamieson meet Josh the best with an increase of 1.50m from the Bay Sheffield.

From a SA perspective, the best 'result' is only a 1.25 difference - and that's from a guy who has run in four recent Vic Gifts without advancing to a semi.

Two South Aussies actually meet Josh Ross worse off from the Bay Sheffield.

Bay Sheff 4th placegetter Dylan Panizza meets Ross 0.75 worse off for getting beaten comprehensively in the final.

Oliie Wurm & James Cibich meet Ross the same as the Bay. That is hard to comprehend given neither got close to making the Bay final.

I would have thought to be fair to those who failed to make the Bay Sheff final, the average runner would meet Ross about 2.0m better off at Stawell. But I guess what constitutes 'fairness' is up to the individual.

No SA athlete has made the semis of the last two Stawell Gifts. Hopes are resting with Tjimarri Sanderson-Milera to get past the heats. The rest........well there's always the 70 or 200!

Stawell Bay Sheff Diff J Ross Comparison
Joshua ROSS HAWTHORN EAST 1.00 0.00 1.00 N/A
1 Bola LAWAL RESERVOIR 3.50 1.00 2.50 1.50
2 Sam JAMIESON WILLIAMSTOWN 6.25 3.75 2.50 1.50
3 Christopher INNES-WONG SOUTH 9.50 7.25 2.25 1.25
4 Isaac DUNMALL QUEENSLAND 10.50 8.25 2.25 1.25
5 Ryan CAMILLE WHEELERS HILL 12.00 9.75 2.25 1.25
6 Alex SALIU SOUTH 8.50 6.50 2.00 1.00
7 Edward WARE MONT ALBERT 10.25 8.25 2.00 1.00
8 Paul TANCREDI OAK PARK 10.25 8.25 2.00 1.00
9 Dale LYONS ARMADALE NORTH 10.50 8.50 2.00 1.00
10 Damian TOHL SOUTH 9.75 8.00 1.75 0.75
11 Tjimarri SANDERSON-MILERA SOUTH 9.75 8.00 1.75 0.75
12 Bradley LETTON SOUTH 11.50 9.75 1.75 0.75
13 Ben KOSCHADE SOUTH 8.25 6.75 1.50 0.50
14 Michael BOLTON FRANKSTON 9.75 8.25 1.50 0.50
15 Dean DOBRIC ST KILDA 10.00 8.50 1.50 0.50
16 Adam COOTE ELWOOD 11.00 9.50 1.50 0.50
17 Jarrad DARTNALL DERNANCOURT 11.25 9.75 1.50 0.50
18 Khan MARR WILLIAMSTOWN 5.25 4.00 1.25 0.25
19 Brett RICHARDS SOUTH 8.50 7.25 1.25 0.25
20 Douglas GREENOUGH EAST BENTLEIGH 9.75 8.50 1.25 0.25
21 Josh TIU DONCASTER 10.50 9.25 1.25 0.25
22 Matthew EDDY NARRE WARREN 10.50 9.25 1.25 0.25
23 Matthew HARVEY KEYSBOROUGH 11.25 10.00 1.25 0.25
24 Ollie WURM ACT 8.00 7.00 1.00 0.00
25 James CIBICH SOUTH 8.50 7.50 1.00 0.00
26 Craig FOLEY surrey hills 12.00 11.00 1.00 0.00
27 Darren WHITTAKER MORDIALLOC 12.00 11.00 1.00 0.00
28 Mark HIGNETT GEELONG WEST 12.00 11.00 1.00 0.00
29 Noddy ANGELAKOS COBURG 12.00 11.00 1.00 0.00
30 Paul TAYLOR SOUTH 12.00 11.00 1.00 0.00
31 Ryan HOFFMAN QUEENSLAND 12.00 11.00 1.00 0.00
32 Paul CRACROFT-WILSON QUEENSLAND 9.00 8.25 0.75 -0.25
33 Adrian HARRIS SOUTH 9.75 9.00 0.75 -0.25
34 Connor VERRALL 8.00 7.75 0.25 -0.75
35 Dylan PANIZZA WESTERN 9.00 8.75 0.25 -0.75
36 Shane EZARD TORQUAY 10.75 11.00 -0.25 -1.25
37 Cole UNASA WESTERN 7.25 7.75 -0.50 -1.50
38 Glenn ROSS WESTERN 10.50 11.00 -0.50 -1.50

"Let's Go While We're Young"

2 no south australians and no young guys on Fri Mar 29, 2013 12:17 pm


From youngy's above analysis it is clear it has been decided that the SA athletes will not be allowed to progress.
However SA athletes are not the only ones to be disadvantaged.
QLD athletes (apart from backmarkers Williams-Swain and Stubbs) have no chance. Their prorunning has fallen apart since the floods. So they have not been given any concessions. QLD novice marks are back 2-5m from last year in the 100m Novice but at least in that race all VIC novice marks are also back 2m
In addition any athletes aged 17-20 have been held very tightly and almost none of them have received any of the Powell lift.

The handicapper has decided noone with little or no exposed form is going to win the stawell gift and thus he doesnt trust the traditional middlemarkers (who are usually have a big "improver" or two and a young kid should not be allowed to win it.

So my tips
Powell, Ross, Stubbs, Ware, Tiu, Eddy, Woodrow
That makes 7
No middlemarkers at all


ProTrack Star
ProTrack Star
chopper wrote:From youngy's above analysis it is clear it has been decided that the SA athletes will not be allowed to progress.

How clever of you, chopper, to spot the VAL Handicapping panel's cunning plan to deny South Australian athletes a win in the Stawell Gift.

You should now turn your considerable investigative intellect towards solving other conspiracies - the "disappearance" of the Tasmanian Tiger, the Lindbergh baby's identity swap, and why I never manage to win Oz Lotto despite not purchasing a ticket.

4 tasmanian tiger on Fri Mar 29, 2013 6:56 pm


Tassie tiger disappeared in 1941 the same year as the last tasmanian to win the stawell gift and the chances of winning OzLotto are about 1 in 45million which is slightly better than a South Aussie winning the 2013 gift. As far as the Lindberg baby kidnapping goes the guy who did it was eletrocuted in the year a South Aussie from Pt Pirie won the gift. 1935. 3 south aussies have won it since 1935. So the Lindbergh case is closed


ProTrack Star
ProTrack Star
chopper wrote:Tassie tiger disappeared in 1941 the same year as the last tasmanian to win the stawell gift and the chances of winning OzLotto are about 1 in 45million which is slightly better than a South Aussie winning the 2013 gift. As far as the Lindberg baby kidnapping goes the guy who did it was eletrocuted in the year a South Aussie from Pt Pirie won the gift. 1935. 3 south aussies have won it since 1935. So the Lindbergh case is closed

Nice work! I see it all, now.

But for the courage of those with a trained eye like yourself, the dastardly work of the VAL Handicapping panel would remain hidden and buried forever.

The VAL Handicapping Panel - along with the Freemasons and the Illuminati - have worked throughout history to keep South Australian athletes down. After all, Lee Harvey Oswald was secretly a pro runner from South Australia before the VAL Handicappers took care of him...



ProTrack Star
ProTrack Star

I can help you make sense of the marks. I know the VAL guidelines are hard to understand, I myself got my baby little sister to help me with them. So, dont feel so bad about being so confused.

I have checked the guidelines and there are no concessions for flood. For future reference, there is also no consideration for eathquakes, hurricanes, Lock-ness monsters, or alien invasions.

With regards to the marks of SA runners, did you consider that maybe it is the Bay Shef marks that are out of sync and that the Stawell marks are a natural, or perhaps, mathermatical correction.

When you have a totally discretionary system, like in SA, the result is always going to inconsistancies. Rather than having the mindset that the handicapper as decided no SA runner is to make the semis, perhaps it is SA runners who have ruled themselves out by not running in Victoria often enough.

The Morphy Mongrel

ProTrack Star
ProTrack Star
Dizzy you live in fantasy land if you think the VAL handicappers have worked out marks based on a system that hasn't been heavily influenced by discretion. There's far too many anomalies and inconsistencies. For instance how does Adrian Harris meet Josh Ross worse off from the Bay?

The old argument about showing up at other Vic meets is a joke. Athletes who only turn up at Stawell are no worse off and in some cases better off than athletes who attend other Vic meets.

SA athletes like Cibich, Koschade, Richards are not good chough to be giving the starts to proven Stawell Gift runners like Shaun Hargreaves, Ware, Tancredi, Greenough, Tiu,, Coote.

No SA runner is considered a chance at Stawell. All are 80 to 1 or worse. If that doesn't tell you that there's something not quite right with the way their treated then you are delusional.


Totally agree with the Morphy Mongrel.
How is Connor Verrall off only 8 metres, he is a 110 & 400 hurdler who ran 13.51 in his 'gift' heat last year?
Damian Nicholls runs off 5 metres in the 70m in SA, 4.25 @ Stawell, i dont think he has won in SA this season.
My inexperienced view is runners are supposed to be given competitive handicaps,
not handicaps where they get smashed on the track!


ProTrack A Grader
ProTrack A Grader
One reason the SA athletes are not performing in Vic is because they focus on the Bay, peak and disclose form early and generally the handicaps in SA are back compared to QLD.

QLD Athletes do well with handicaps in Vic because QLD handicaps are inflated and beach sprinters can hide ability on sand and have no or limited track form.


This year's Stawell was pretty close to a shambles for my opinion. There were many, many inconsistencies some of which Youngy has pointed out in his original post here.

Incoming wall of text.

While I probably wasn't where I wanted to be with my running this year I was still willing to have a decent go and see if I could make anything of it.

My first race in the 400m backmarkers I was starting off 24m with four athletes directly infront of me on 28m. I was thrown aback when I lined up and saw a wall blocking me off and had to think of how I could best tackle this. After deciding there was no way I was starting 5 wide to run an entire bend, I started on the inside hoping a gap would open. Well, it never did. I ran behind the inside runner as I was blocked to my right for 320m of the race. I didn't feel it was plausible to at any point slow down and go around the right runner. I really felt I could have at least made the final and ran .5 quicker were I capable of going around the others at about 100m like I wanted to or if I barged through the middle or the inside like I saw quite a few try over the weekend, just not in my nature though. This race left me pretty confused as to how that ever happened and generally rather mad. I checked the book to see 4 people off 28m in my heat, 3 in another, 2 in another, 1 in another and 0 in the last heat. Surely they should have been spaced out throughout the heats? A sour taste was left in my mouth going into day 2.

Lining up for the 550m I was eager to redeem myself and run well, hopefully making the final. When the handicaps were released 2 weeks earlier I had 31m. The book said 25m but I was still to be in blue and my name was below the previous two, where it was supposed to be. I chalked this up as a typo and started off 31m. Sapac won my heat narrowly but I still ran a mid 1.09 which from memory, was the first time I ever broke 1.10 at Stawell or any 550m for that matter. I was fairly happy with the way that went and had no regrets. Making the final was a bonus at that point. When the final field was posted I was back to my mark of 31m which confirmed to me that the earlier mark was a typo. I ran the final (tactically) probably worse than I should have but I gave it a go, went too hard too early and got eaten up near the end. Oh well. I ended up running almost the exact same time and broke 1.10 again so no hard feelings there.

By the 3rd day my legs were pretty much done and I was on the fence about running the 800m. I figured I'd warm up before the race and commit if I felt good enough to at least break 2:00. Again my handicap from 2 weeks ago said 36m but the book said 30m. Again I thought this was a typo. Last year I started off of 52m but we were lifted that year 10m due to a star runner having to run from scratch. From 42m to 36m is a 6m pull for coming second last year. Bit harsh I thought but fair enough I suppose. When my coach went to inquire about the new 30m just before the race I came along and we were told the book is right, I'm running off of 30m. Any argument we tried to make was shut down with "well, the book says 30m". I was taken back 12m for coming second, 6 of which came in the last day after I already made the trip across with 36m in mind. We were also told handicaps came out 2 weeks ago and we should have dealt with this sooner, though this problem occurred only on the printing of the 2nd book. How I ran isn't as important for this one. I was tired and seem to be lacking some distance fitness so my 800m hasn't been as strong this season. Came 3rd in one of the slower of the heats.

One thing I noticed while looking at the 800m heats though, and this is of no attack against him, Ryan Hage got a 12m lift since last year. From 52m last year to 54m this year. With that artificial 10m bonus in mind that's 12m up, and he didn't run last year. How someone gets raised 12m for Stawell in one year without running the previous is beyond me. I know I slowly worked my handicap up raising 2m every couple of runs over the past few years. In his heat was Matt Axford who ran last year off of 50m and this year had 46m, a lift of 6m. These guys I thought would have been in a pretty similar boat so that's a fairly good example of inconsistency.
Running last year - 6m lift. Not running - 12m lift.

As I said, not an attack on Ryan. I like him and would've loved to see him win that 800m, just pointing out what I think was a pretty large stuff up. I'm sure there are other examples floating around even in that 800m but that's just the one I noticed since they were paired together in a heat.

There was lots more over the weekend which I wasn't involved with that was rather... well, wrong. Watching Strauss walk away with the women's gift after smashing the heats while jogging and still convincingly taking the semis and final on her new mark then thanking the lord(and not her handicap). Dizzy has shed some light on other results in another thread. Amazes me to see people hurt over someone even just asking questions or naming an athlete. People find 10, 15, 30, 40 seconds in a matter of weeks and everyone's supposed to just shake their hand and say well played?

After all that I'm not sure I want to go back to Stawell next year. It's likely that I will because I am simply a fan of running. I enjoyed watching alot of the events over the weekend regardless. Victoria also has some of the finest pro athletes I have had the pleasure of competing against and would hate to throw that away. That said I'm not sure how many Stawell's I have in me if they all feel like this.

Sorry for the long rant but I really didn't want to sit silently after this one. I'm also willing to accept I'm wrong if anything I said can be countered with an explanation. Here's hoping I don't get too much hate for this post.

The Morphy Mongrel

ProTrack Star
ProTrack Star
young writes
No SA athlete has made the semis of the last two Stawell Gifts. Hopes are resting with Tjimarri Sanderson-Milera to get past the heats. The rest........well there's always the 70 or 200!

Sanderson-milera only south aussie in the semis. Sad but good call. One SA semi finalist in three years. Need to look at what we're doing wrong?


Ryan Hage had 52m at Stawell in 2012 - same mark as Kostya Khudoshin who has a PB about 4secs quicker and has had infinitely more success over 800m than Hagey, with three wins over 800m at Whyalla, each with a first prize in excess of $500.

Hagey has one win over 800m; at TTG in 2012, worth about $100.

To have them on the same mark in 2012 was ludicrous and demonstrated poor judgement in anyone's language. But that's what was allocated.

At least one of them had a chance in 2012.

Khudoshin ran 2nd in the Stawell 800m final and Hagey scratched due to injury, not that it mattered, had he run, he would not have made the final and would have run a time about 20m behind Khudoshin's.

I would have thought by the time 2013 comes around, given their respective careers that a gap of around 20m was not too far removed from where it should be. Another 4m might appear generous, but given the raw deals Hagey has often endured over the years, he's entitled to a bit of good luck coming his way.

Hagey is now 28, been in the sport about 8 years. Finally gets a mark that allows him to run a solid 3rd at Stawell where he was belted by a runner of similar ability who ran off 70m. He was never going to win and given his age & where he is at in his career, it's unlikely he will ever get a mark to run a place (again) in the Stawell 800m.

Took a few years and in 2013 he had his chance.

Next year it will be someone else's turn.

"Let's Go While We're Young"


I fully agree that I should be 20m behind Hage under the normal circumstances Youngy. At least based on times or in SAAL. He's had a couple good runs at Loxton in the 1000m with a win and 2nd from what I remember. Those 2 results alone equal the Whyalla wins in terms of prize money.

I've had maybe some 15 races over the 4-5 years I've tried pro running in Victoria including 3 or 4 Stawells. That was Ryan's first. My first ever handicap in 800m in Vic was 32m. I moved out... pretty slowly. 2m every few runs. I don't think it's too far a stretch to have Ryan on the same mark as me for his first race. I don't quite remember but I think I was running 1:55 or so when I was first given that 32m.

My complaints aren't that I should have more or he should have less. It's that he randomly got 12m from one year to the next and I randomly lost 6m by just showing up. I knew about the first 6m and was happy to take it. I wasn't even too upset about getting another 6m pull, it's just the way in which it was done, it was messy. I should by all means still be competitive and maybe even win if I'm really on my game off of 30m but I'm just not running to my PB and that's my fault.


There are dozens of athletes who had their first start at Stawell who were on far more than the novice or a nominal 'starting mark'.

The classic case was the women's 120m winner. Was originally allocated 14m before it was reduced to 10m.

But there was plenty others just as generous and some more generous than Ryan Hage. He's been around several years with a lot of history to draw upon. He provided ample information to the handicapper to be assessed. He was given a mark and ran from it.

Given the evidence available, it would be ridiculous to give him 32m and expect him to work out to a mark for the next 3 to 4 years. So by the time he gets to 32 he gets on 52m, then what? Get smashed by some 22 year old off 50m?

The handicapper gave Hagey a mark he thought he needed to be competitive. And the handicapper to a degree was vindicated.

I had eight runners entered for Stawell in a range of events, Hagey's 800m mark was about the only I thought was good enough to make a final. And that's what happened. We had no other finalists...nor semi finalists.

Disappointing to read the one athlete (out of 8.) I had with a bit of luck in the marks is the one who has been picked on as 'generous'.

"Let's Go While We're Young"


Seems like K/K needs to worry about himself and not worry about other peoples marks. Don't get caught up on things that you can not control. If Hage runs dead last in his heat, nothing would have been mentioned and we all know it, so dare i mention the word Jealous. BTW, From K/Ks history (if he is who I think he is), if he is in PB shape, he catches Hage and places himself anyway, so whats the issue? Hage's Mark in 2012 was too harsh anyway, the handicapper has seen his mistake and fixed it the following year.


If the consensus is his first mark was an error and the new one he was lifted to was a correction then alright, I'm okay with that. I'm only questioning the 12m lift off of nothing, not whether or not he should be on 54m. Had he been originally put on 54m I'd have said nothing. You can't sit there and tell me no run the year before and a 12m lift the next year is a normal scenario.

Spiderman, as I said, I'm not in my PB shape. I didn't work any less hard than last year nor did I do much differently yet I'm a few seconds off. I trained and tried very hard to try and be at the same place I was last year. I have to go back to the drawing board next year and see what I can do differently. It's also no mystery who I am, I gave you all 3 of my races at Stawell almost as a diary entry.

Youngy, I did say there were other cases and Ryan/Matt is one I pointed out. I also mentioned the women's gift as you just did. I can see your point that maybe Ryan got 6m more than someone like Matt is because he has quite some years on him, but fair enough if you think his first handicap was a mistake and this was rectifying it. Once again, I was not arguing 54m is generous, only that 12m from one year to the next was odd and my 6m docking on the day also.


ProTrack Star
ProTrack Star
Spiderman wrote:BTW, From K/Ks history (if he is who I think he is)

I think your Spidey senses are failing you, Spiderman, if you can't work out who he is. He gave his place in a final last year, and then there's his forum name. Plus the VAL website search function.

Not quite a task for Hercule Poirot. Razz


Handicapping is not an exact science. There are no normal scenarios.
Lots of runners got lifted more than average and others got less. Check the 1600 and you will find many who went up heaps and some none. Not sure why a guy who ran 3rd in the 800 is such an issue? Your 8 mark.last year was generous but no one raised it then.


Not sure why everyone is jumping all over you for a simple question k/k but I'm on board buddy.
If I was in the same situation I would have been asking the question as well.
Not arguing the fact of whether his mark is fair or not but getting a 12m lift for not running seems unfair for people who run often or at least yearly at stawell.
I copped a pull this year at stawell because my handicap was "reassessed" after having very minimal success and being nowhere near my form of last season.
If it were another sa runner youngy and perhaps Ryan missed under the same circumstances I'm sure you would be asking questions.


If the handicap is such an issue why bring it up after? Obviously once the handicaps were declared you had an issue with what you were given. This is the reason their is a review panel take it to them and see if you get the handicap adjusted or a reason you've been given the original mark.

21 Re: Stawell Gift & Bay Sheff Comparison/Analysis on Fri Apr 05, 2013 10:05 am


Here's two facts for you Rookie.

1. I would not have brought it up - just as I did not raise it last year when it did happen to someone else.

2. I doubt this would have been brought up at all if not for the fact Ryan is with YGTS. My view is had he been a McKinnon Pde athlete this would not have been raised. (Ryan might have had more had he been with McKinnon.....we'll never know)

I could highlight a number of generous Stawell marks dished out to other SA athletes, but I haven't and won't. It would lead to nowhere.

This matter is done & dusted.

Time to move on.

"Let's Go While We're Young"

22 Re: Stawell Gift & Bay Sheff Comparison/Analysis on Fri Apr 05, 2013 10:15 am


ProTrack Star
ProTrack Star
The future viability of the entire pro-running competition has to be based on the handicapping premise that 'the more often you run, the likely you are to get lifts to make you competitive in events where you are not competitive".

To give athletes lifts when they have not collected 'ticks' is questionable, regrettable, unsustainable, irresponsible, and lamentable.

23 Re: Stawell Gift & Bay Sheff Comparison/Analysis on Fri Apr 05, 2013 10:37 am


You serious Dizzy?

12 months is a long time in athletics.

The athlete in question has been a regular competitor in SA for 8 years.

An athlete competes all season in his home state and after due deliberation, the handicapper realises on all the available evidence the previous year's mark was uncompetitive, so rectifies it to a more competitive mark - Well, that's about as responsible as handicapping can get.

He was injured in 2012 that's why he did not run - and had he run he would have been smashed by Khudoshin among others.

If every interstater (who only turns up in SA once per year) was handicapped for the Bay in 2012 based on how they went in 2011 - imagine the outcry from disgruntled Vics. Of course recent home state results are considered.

Some of the guys commenting on here should look in their own backyard - they have been the recipient of some generosity in the past and benefited handsomely.

People in glass houses, etc........

"Let's Go While We're Young"

24 Re: Stawell Gift & Bay Sheff Comparison/Analysis on Fri Apr 05, 2013 11:05 am


ProTrack Star
ProTrack Star
k/k I have to say, as usual, well said. I didn't really follow stawell in the lead up to it this year nor really pay any attention to the results. I think the first thing that was interesting was how they gave you a different mark in the book and made no effort to look into it for you. I think for that thing to happen at the premier meet of the year is pretty bad.

I agree with you about the marks and needing to earn your stripes so to speak. I know Youngy does too (deep down) because uniformity is a necessity when handicaps are involved. Paul knows this to be true otherwise why else would he drive over to some VAL meets with Brett this year or like he used to do with Dale. I am sure many people are in that boat of travelling to Vic just to get a tick against their name.

I know from experience my first 800m race for the VAL was off 8m.. slightly different to the 16m SAAL mark I had. The reason for it.. so there were no surprises. I am pretty sure I came last in my heat but that is what happens.

No one is mistaking how much of a good bloke Hagey is but whoever it is, they probably shouldn't deserve anything else than what others get.

The other option of course is to change the way they have been doing things and just give people the marks they should get regardless of whether they support the VAL or not but that could end up badly.

25 Re: Stawell Gift & Bay Sheff Comparison/Analysis on Fri Apr 05, 2013 11:41 am


Youngy I can assure you that my comments had nothing to do with hage being a YGTS athlete and to be honest I had no idea who Ryan's coach was before this thread.
Funny trumpet you mention asking the handicapper as this is exactly what I did. Very politely asking if there was any reason my mark had gone back to which he replied something along the lines of.

"it was reassessed at the start of the season and if you had come across and run a few times before stawell we could have had a look to see where you were at"

which seemed perfectly fair to me and I had no issue but it does become confusing where cases like hage's come up.
Again I'm not pointing fingers at any athlete or coach and hage's case is just the one of a few that has been pointed out and is directly in front of us to compare to.
It just is confusing when things are being said but not necessarily followed through with.

On a side note k/k watching you run it just makes me think if you were about a foot taller (no offence meant here) you would be absolutely unstoppable!!

26 Re: Stawell Gift & Bay Sheff Comparison/Analysis on Fri Apr 05, 2013 12:34 pm

Double Jeopardy

ProTrack A Grader
ProTrack A Grader
DizzyRunner wrote:The future viability of the entire pro-running competition has to be based on the handicapping premise that 'the more often you run, the likely you are to get lifts to make you competitive in events where you are not competitive".

To give athletes lifts when they have not collected 'ticks' is questionable, regrettable, unsustainable, irresponsible, and lamentable.

You're right Dizzy but we can't expect interstate athletes to play by the same rules as Victorians.

Taking the 800m as an example. I think it's fair to say, you need approximately 8-10m more handicap in SA to be competitive over the distance. Past Bay Sheffield & Stawell results highlight this. If I was handicapper I'd give a first time VAL runner from SA roughly 12-14m less than their current SAAL handicap. This keeps them competitive but it gives the handicapper a few metres up his sleeve to judge the runner for themselves. After a couple of runs in the VAL if the handicapper is happy with them they will eventually be allocated a handicap of roughly 8m less than their SAAL mark. That will be a handicap which will be good enough to win off providing they are in the right shape.

And for VAL runners obviously it's important athletes aren't just given lifts because they turn up. If they're in good shape, try and still need a lift then fair enough. Getting a tick simply because you turn up and jog only leads to more 'big improvers come the business end of the season.

27 Re: Stawell Gift & Bay Sheff Comparison/Analysis on Fri Apr 05, 2013 10:27 pm


Again If Hage gets run out in his heat no one says anything. He has a bit of success and people do a bit of research and then start complaining. Get over it, you can't be competitive at every Stawell!

And dont come back with the same question asking why he got the lift. No one knows so asking on the forum will achieve nothing! Call the handicapper and ask him directly regarding Hage's mark. I'm sure he will tell you where to go Shocked

Sponsored content

Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 1]

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