Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: Rhiannon on August 15, 2015, 09:19:47 AM
-
The GB athletes won't have the Union Flag on their kit for the World Championships.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/athletics/33942584
Could this be due to the influence of Scottish nationalism? Can't think why else.
Does it matter?
-
The GB athletes won't have the Union Flag on their kit for the World Championships.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/athletics/33942584
Could this be due to the influence of Scottish nationalism?
No.
Can't think why else.
My first thought was some trendy fashion designer has been at it.
-
The GB athletes won't have the Union Flag on their kit for the World Championships.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/athletics/33942584
Could this be due to the influence of Scottish nationalism? Can't think why else.
Does it matter?
A storm in a tea-cup I think.
I suspect this is merely a design decision with no 'political' overtones. Actually if you read the article and scroll down you'll see that the union flag is plastered prominently all over the kit, just not on the vest.
And it is certainly not the case that sporting kits including the national flag. I don't think the England football teams kit ever has (players tend to kiss the badge - 3 lions - to show their allegiance) - nor were the victorious ashes cricketers wearing a kit that included the England flag.
-
The athletes themselves don't seem that chuffed.
http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2015/aug/14/british-athletics-union-flag-less-vest-greg-rutherford-kelly-holmes
And this is Chris Bryant's take:
Shadow culture, media and sport secretary Chris Bryant lent his support, tweeting: "Yes @GregJRutherford is right. That vest could easily be French or American.
"Where is the Union flag? Is someone embarrassed to be British?"
Apparently it's been driven by the need to promote British Athletics as a brand name, but it's no Three Lions emblem - unlike other sports it's been the flag that athletes have used in the past. They've left it off the vest which is the part if the kit most visible, co clearly the branding is seen as the most important thing. Still, our athletes get to show their allegiance to Nike.
Can't say it bothers me much as I'm not an athlete and I don't watch athletics. But it seems to be ill thought out.
-
The GB athletes won't have the Union Flag on their kit for the World Championships.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/athletics/33942584
Could this be due to the influence of Scottish nationalism? Can't think why else.
Does it matter?
-
Great stuff!
The less we see of the butcher's apron, the better.
-
The GB athletes won't have the Union Flag on their kit for the World Championships.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/athletics/33942584
Could this be due to the influence of Scottish nationalism? Can't think why else.
Does it matter?
-
Great stuff!
The less we see of the butcher's apron, the better.
Unfortunately Anchs your side lost in the referendum......here's union jack bunting to you.
-
The athletes themselves don't seem that chuffed.
http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2015/aug/14/british-athletics-union-flag-less-vest-greg-rutherford-kelly-holmes
And this is Chris Bryant's take:
Shadow culture, media and sport secretary Chris Bryant lent his support, tweeting: "Yes @GregJRutherford is right. That vest could easily be French or American.
"Where is the Union flag? Is someone embarrassed to be British?"
Apparently it's been driven by the need to promote British Athletics as a brand name, but it's no Three Lions emblem - unlike other sports it's been the flag that athletes have used in the past. They've left it off the vest which is the part if the kit most visible, co clearly the branding is seen as the most important thing. Still, our athletes get to show their allegiance to Nike.
Can't say it bothers me much as I'm not an athlete and I don't watch athletics. But it seems to be ill thought out.
From looking at the bigger picture they seem to have moved the union flag from the vest to the shorts. Maybe some people don't like that, but its still there. The whole kit seems (as is often the case) to be based on the union flag in terms of colours and geometric design.
It is also unclear whether this just Rutherford or a widespread view - he makes that claim, but unsubstantiated.
Overall it seems rather poor if an elite athlete seems to be implying that he can't give his best unless the shirt he is wearing is designed in a particular manner. Heaven help a top cyclist who can't stand yellow!!
-
Nice jump on a bandwagon by Bryant.
-
Nice jump on a bandwagon by Bryant.
It is corporist twaddle to drop the flag in order to promote the concept and customer experience of ''Brand Athletics''. The Govt must be planning to sell GB athletics off to a global corporation......asurely it must be easier to CGI a logo straight onto a sports kit in motion than first taking a Union Jack off?
-
I am glad the Brits don't go in for flag waving to the extent those across the pond seem to do.
-
The athletes themselves don't seem that chuffed.
http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2015/aug/14/british-athletics-union-flag-less-vest-greg-rutherford-kelly-holmes
And this is Chris Bryant's take:
Shadow culture, media and sport secretary Chris Bryant lent his support, tweeting: "Yes @GregJRutherford is right. That vest could easily be French or American.
"Where is the Union flag? Is someone embarrassed to be British?"
Apparently it's been driven by the need to promote British Athletics as a brand name, but it's no Three Lions emblem - unlike other sports it's been the flag that athletes have used in the past. They've left it off the vest which is the part if the kit most visible, co clearly the branding is seen as the most important thing. Still, our athletes get to show their allegiance to Nike.
Can't say it bothers me much as I'm not an athlete and I don't watch athletics. But it seems to be ill thought out.
From looking at the bigger picture they seem to have moved the union flag from the vest to the shorts. Maybe some people don't like that, but its still there. The whole kit seems (as is often the case) to be based on the union flag in terms of colours and geometric design.
It is also unclear whether this just Rutherford or a widespread view - he makes that claim, but unsubstantiated.
Overall it seems rather poor if an elite athlete seems to be implying that he can't give his best unless the shirt he is wearing is designed in a particular manner. Heaven help a top cyclist who can't stand yellow!!
He's not saying he can't give his best. He's saying he wants to display that he's there for his country.
Athletes joining him in speaking out include David Weir, Eillish McColgan, Goldie Sayers, Dan Greaves, Michael Rimmer and Kelly Holmes.
-
Nice jump on a bandwagon by Bryant.
It is corporist twaddle to drop the flag in order to promote the concept and customer experience of ''Brand Athletics''. The Govt must be planning to sell GB athletics off to a global corporation......asurely it must be easier to CGI a logo straight onto a sports kit in motion than first taking a Union Jack off?
I'd think that was crazy shit but according to these comments it isn't so. British Athletics Ltd, funded by the tax payer, has as its corporate partners the BBC, Camelot and Nike.
So yes, it's been sold off, according to the comments and what I can find on the web.
-
I think rather than sold off, it has been 'collateralized'.
-
The GB athletes won't have the Union Flag on their kit for the World Championships.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/athletics/33942584
Could this be due to the influence of Scottish nationalism? Can't think why else.
Does it matter?
-
Great stuff!
The less we see of the butcher's apron, the better.
Unfortunately Anchs your side lost in the referendum......here's union jack bunting to you.
-
Cheers, Vlad.
I'm running short of Andrex.
-
The GB athletes won't have the Union Flag on their kit for the World Championships.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/athletics/33942584
Could this be due to the influence of Scottish nationalism? Can't think why else.
Does it matter?
-
Great stuff!
The less we see of the butcher's apron, the better.
Unfortunately Anchs your side lost in the referendum......here's union jack bunting to you.
-
Cheers, Vlad.
I'm running short of Andrex.
Classy. ???
-
Anyways, more classy stuff here.
http://www.athleticsweekly.com/blog/justin-gatlin-or-jo-pavey-who-would-you-sponsor-20182/
Great example for our young people, well done Nike.
-
Part of me wants to give up on the war against drugs in athletics because just having it out in the open might make it easier in what to believe.
-
I'm afraid I've just given up on athletics. Used to love it years ago, never bother watching it now except when the Olympics are on and even then I'm cynical. Jo Pavey I find inspirational as an individual, but not the sport.
-
floo,
Now come on, you missed the Queen's 50th and 60th celebrations? Now there's flag waving the USA has never matched. I loved seeing the sea of Union Jacks waving.
-
He's not saying he can't give his best. He's saying he wants to display that he's there for his country.
I think he is actually if his quotes are to be believed:
'Rutherford insists the union jack flag on his vest has always been a motivation for his best performances.'
'Rutherford says the flag on his vest during London 2012 helped inspire his gold medal performance.'
-
Anyways, more classy stuff here.
http://www.athleticsweekly.com/blog/justin-gatlin-or-jo-pavey-who-would-you-sponsor-20182/
Great example for our young people, well done Nike.
Shall we pick up on WingsoverScotland's example and set up a crowdfunding appeal for Jo?
-
I wnder whether it is the physical flag that is so psychologically valuable? After all, the new kit effectively absorbs or represents the flag.
-
He's not saying he can't give his best. He's saying he wants to display that he's there for his country.
I think he is actually if his quotes are to be believed:
'Rutherford insists the union jack flag on his vest has always been a motivation for his best performances.'
'Rutherford says the flag on his vest during London 2012 helped inspire his gold medal performance.'
Ok, so let's say Greg really does regard the UF as his lucky pants. Is it right to replace it with what are in effect two corporate logos for international competition? According to the people at Athletics Weekly the designs's pretty much the same as Canada.
-
The whole thing is daft, why have standard kit at all? Athletes should be allowed to wear whatever they like within the rules of fairness in the sport or as needed for team games.
-
After all, the new kit effectively absorbs................ the flag.
It's the sweat.
-
The main reason to have an identifiable team kit at international competition is ease of identification for spectators.
-
The World Championship is a team competition.
-
Yes, spectators should be able to identify their team by the kit they wear, hence my use of the expression 'identifiable team kit'. Of course the GB team could wear neon yellow as their team kit and still be the GB team.
-
Ah I see, it's all to encourage Hooray Henry patriotism and national rivalry!
-
Well, in a sense. I think the WC bases its image on the Olympics, which is pretty much about nationalism at the elite level. But also it used to be an amateur sport, and state funding was pretty essential for athletics to function at international level.
But thinking about this now, and looking at the IAAF website with its endorsement of great philanthropic bodies such as a Chinese oil and gas giant, coupled with countries such as Qatar being allowed to 'buy' themselves champions from elsewhere, the whole thing's pretty much a joke. Maybe in the same way that in cycling Team Sky are a British team but not the GB team, and in F1 Lotus are British and Lewis Hamiltion is British but neither represents GB as such, athletics needs to move on and have Team Nike, Team Coco Cola, Team Amazon. After all, many elite athletes train away from their home country in centres sponsored by people like Nike. I'm not sure how it would translate for the Olympics, but just as Steve Ovett was behind the times in his rant against athletes being paid, so maybe Rutherford and others are old school in terms of the importance that they attach to the Union Flag and national representation.
-
Do you think our athletes are just not good enough or there are prejudices against them. 8) ;)
So they think they might let them win.
I think that if they are no representing the GB then GB should not support the athletes or provide sponsorship for them.
If it is nothing to do with GB then let them pay for their own training and provide their own sponsorship. No tax relief for companies who do provide the sponsorship has to come out of their pockets...
Athletes who are not representing GB in a GB event should not be allowed to compete.
Well what did they expect... If truth is told...but for GB and the people and companies of GB where would the Athlete be.
-
He's not saying he can't give his best. He's saying he wants to display that he's there for his country.
I think he is actually if his quotes are to be believed:
'Rutherford insists the union jack flag on his vest has always been a motivation for his best performances.'
'Rutherford says the flag on his vest during London 2012 helped inspire his gold medal performance.'
Couldn't he just get his mum to sew on a wee union jack onto his vest before he goes? ::)
-
Well, in a sense. I think the WC bases its image on the Olympics, which is pretty much about nationalism at the elite level. But also it used to be an amateur sport, and state funding was pretty essential for athletics to function at international level.
But thinking about this now, and looking at the IAAF website with its endorsement of great philanthropic bodies such as a Chinese oil and gas giant, coupled with countries such as Qatar being allowed to 'buy' themselves champions from elsewhere, the whole thing's pretty much a joke. Maybe in the same way that in cycling Team Sky are a British team but not the GB team, and in F1 Lotus are British and Lewis Hamiltion is British but neither represents GB as such, athletics needs to move on and have Team Nike, Team Coco Cola, Team Amazon. After all, many elite athletes train away from their home country in centres sponsored by people like Nike. I'm not sure how it would translate for the Olympics, but just as Steve Ovett was behind the times in his rant against athletes being paid, so maybe Rutherford and others are old school in terms of the importance that they attach to the Union Flag and national representation.
But despite Jeremy P's post that the World Championship is a team event, I really struggle with that in track and field athletics.
These are individual sports - sure you can bundle up all the individual results and pretend it is a team sport, but it isn't really. And that is a bit different in cycling where the team members actively support each other to ensure one of them wins during the actual sporting competition. That isn't the case in athletics.
I I doubt that even Rutherford sees this as a genuine team sport. In the Olympics he won gold, the 'team' came third (I think because again the Olympics isn't a team competition). Would he have preferred to have won an individual bronze (or no medal at all) if the team had come come top (of course not). In a genuine team event the most important thing for the individual is for the team to win - that's how the individual wins. You cannot imagine a top footballer preferring to score in a losing team in the world cup final, rather than not scoring but being in the winning team.
-
The World Championship is a team competition.
Really - I thought it was a series of individual events with the competitors competing under the banner of their country.
So if it is a team competition, which team won in 2013? Wikipedia doesn't seem very clear, although it is clear who won all the individual events.
-
The World Championship is a team competition.
Really - I thought it was a series of individual events with the competitors competing under the banner of their country.
So if it is a team competition, which team won in 2013? Wikipedia doesn't seem very clear, although it is clear who won all the individual events.
Isn't there a medals table and a points system or something? Maybe I'm confusing it with the European Championships.
-
He's not saying he can't give his best. He's saying he wants to display that he's there for his country.
I think he is actually if his quotes are to be believed:
'Rutherford insists the union jack flag on his vest has always been a motivation for his best performances.'
'Rutherford says the flag on his vest during London 2012 helped inspire his gold medal performance.'
Couldn't he just get his mum to sew on a wee union jack onto his vest before he goes? ::)
Felt tip pen. It's much quicker.
-
Well, in a sense. I think the WC bases its image on the Olympics, which is pretty much about nationalism at the elite level. But also it used to be an amateur sport, and state funding was pretty essential for athletics to function at international level.
But thinking about this now, and looking at the IAAF website with its endorsement of great philanthropic bodies such as a Chinese oil and gas giant, coupled with countries such as Qatar being allowed to 'buy' themselves champions from elsewhere, the whole thing's pretty much a joke. Maybe in the same way that in cycling Team Sky are a British team but not the GB team, and in F1 Lotus are British and Lewis Hamiltion is British but neither represents GB as such, athletics needs to move on and have Team Nike, Team Coco Cola, Team Amazon. After all, many elite athletes train away from their home country in centres sponsored by people like Nike. I'm not sure how it would translate for the Olympics, but just as Steve Ovett was behind the times in his rant against athletes being paid, so maybe Rutherford and others are old school in terms of the importance that they attach to the Union Flag and national representation.
But despite Jeremy P's post that the World Championship is a team event, I really struggle with that in track and field athletics.
These are individual sports - sure you can bundle up all the individual results and pretend it is a team sport, but it isn't really. And that is a bit different in cycling where the team members actively support each other to ensure one of them wins during the actual sporting competition. That isn't the case in athletics.
I I doubt that even Rutherford sees this as a genuine team sport. In the Olympics he won gold, the 'team' came third (I think because again the Olympics isn't a team competition). Would he have preferred to have won an individual bronze (or no medal at all) if the team had come come top (of course not). In a genuine team event the most important thing for the individual is for the team to win - that's how the individual wins. You cannot imagine a top footballer preferring to score in a losing team in the world cup final, rather than not scoring but being in the winning team.
I suppose we have to accept that 'team' means different things to different sports. No athlete will be required to take one for the team like Ole Gunner Solskjaer did in getting sent off after fouling Rob Lee. But the GB athletes are there to support each other - Martyn Rooney is team captain - and apparently view themselves as competing for their country as well as themselves.
-
I suppose there's a sort of Wittgensteinian aspect to the meaning of ream here - it's not exactly black and white about what a team is. In the Prof's use, it's effectively a single competition with a team playing together. As noted in that sense athletics can rarely be seen as such, though a relay would qualify. The TEAM GB thing is relatively new and previously for the Olympics or athletics competations we would have been more likely to refer to a squad.
There are examples of individual sports with team competations e.g. the Davis Cup, and the Ryder Cup, and in both of these I would suggest the individuals are far more focussed on the team result than their individual performance. There is a team championship in Eurpean athletics with points being awarded on the basis of all positions and that also has promotion and relegation. Language is fluid, and I think the branding of TEAM GB and the Olympics have pushed the wider definition of team into more general parlance here.
-
The World Championship is a team competition.
Really - I thought it was a series of individual events with the competitors competing under the banner of their country.
So if it is a team competition, which team won in 2013? Wikipedia doesn't seem very clear, although it is clear who won all the individual events.
Isn't there a medals table and a points system or something? Maybe I'm confusing it with the European Championships.
There's a medal table. You can find past ones on the IAAF website.
There was/is also a competition held over a weekend that works on points but for the life of me I can't think what it was called. There was a men's competition and a women's in Europe, the countries in the first two or three places then went onto the world finals which had the same format. I don't know if it even happens any more, it's been so long since I really watched athletics.
-
This is what I remember.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Cup_(athletics)
And this
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/IAAF_World_Cup_in_Athletics
The European Cup is now this:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Team_Championships
which is what NS referred to.
-
The World Championship is a team competition.
Really - I thought it was a series of individual events with the competitors competing under the banner of their country.
So if it is a team competition, which team won in 2013? Wikipedia doesn't seem very clear, although it is clear who won all the individual events.
Isn't there a medals table and a points system or something? Maybe I'm confusing it with the European Championships.
Yes there is - but it isn't actually clear which of various ways of putting the individual results together constitutes 'winning'.
So is it most golds (often used in the media), most medals or IAAF points which gives points for the top 8 in each competition. In 2013 either Russia or USA 'won' depending on which approach you use.
Point is that if you cannot definitively say which 'team' won, then I don't think think it really is a team competition at all.
And even if it is the 'team' result certainly plays second fiddle to the individual results.
-
Well, in a sense. I think the WC bases its image on the Olympics, which is pretty much about nationalism at the elite level. But also it used to be an amateur sport, and state funding was pretty essential for athletics to function at international level.
But thinking about this now, and looking at the IAAF website with its endorsement of great philanthropic bodies such as a Chinese oil and gas giant, coupled with countries such as Qatar being allowed to 'buy' themselves champions from elsewhere, the whole thing's pretty much a joke. Maybe in the same way that in cycling Team Sky are a British team but not the GB team, and in F1 Lotus are British and Lewis Hamiltion is British but neither represents GB as such, athletics needs to move on and have Team Nike, Team Coco Cola, Team Amazon. After all, many elite athletes train away from their home country in centres sponsored by people like Nike. I'm not sure how it would translate for the Olympics, but just as Steve Ovett was behind the times in his rant against athletes being paid, so maybe Rutherford and others are old school in terms of the importance that they attach to the Union Flag and national representation.
But despite Jeremy P's post that the World Championship is a team event, I really struggle with that in track and field athletics.
These are individual sports - sure you can bundle up all the individual results and pretend it is a team sport, but it isn't really. And that is a bit different in cycling where the team members actively support each other to ensure one of them wins during the actual sporting competition. That isn't the case in athletics.
I I doubt that even Rutherford sees this as a genuine team sport. In the Olympics he won gold, the 'team' came third (I think because again the Olympics isn't a team competition). Would he have preferred to have won an individual bronze (or no medal at all) if the team had come come top (of course not). In a genuine team event the most important thing for the individual is for the team to win - that's how the individual wins. You cannot imagine a top footballer preferring to score in a losing team in the world cup final, rather than not scoring but being in the winning team.
I suppose we have to accept that 'team' means different things to different sports. No athlete will be required to take one for the team like Ole Gunner Solskjaer did in getting sent off after fouling Rob Lee. But the GB athletes are there to support each other - Martyn Rooney is team captain - and apparently view themselves as competing for their country as well as themselves.
You can compete for your country in an individual sport without necessary being part of a team.
But surely to be a team sport the first requirement is that the individuals in the team compete against the other team, not members of their own team. This isn't the case in athletics.
Just as an example in the 100m final of the last athletics world championship there were 4 members of the same team (Jamaica) directly competing against each other. They weren't acting as team members, trying to ensure the 'team' won - nope each one of them was competing directly against each other.
-
What is Martyn Rooney the team captain of then?
-
What is Martyn Rooney the team captain of then?
I'm not saying that they try to create the appearance of a team but that doesn't really mean that there is a team competition, rather than a way to aggregate the results of individual competitions (in which team members compete against each other) to engineer a team result.
Wiki defines a team sport as:
'A team sport includes any sport which involves players working together towards a shared objective.'
That seems to be a reasonable definition to me. So in what way do the 4 Jamaican team members in the 100m final of the last world championship meet this definition? They don't.
Are they working together - nope. Do they have a shared objective - nope, I think each one of them had an individual (and mutually incompatible) objective to win gold for themselves. Sure there might be a secondary objective that if you didn't win you'd prefer one of your team-mates to do so, but that really is very, very secondary.
I cannot see how you can have a team event if individual team members are competing against each other in exactly the same manner as they are with others who are nominally in opposing teams. And when winning is an individual activity.
-
Then you need to tell British Athletics they've got it wrong.
-
Then you need to tell British Athletics they've got it wrong.
Why - it's up to them if they want to try to define an individual sport as a team sport. And it is up to me to disagree that athletics genuinely classifies as a team sport.
You haven't really addressed my point about individuals competing against their own 'team' members in this supposed 'team' competition. In a team sport you work together in competition against the opposing team or teams, you don't compete against your fellow team members in exactly the same manner that you do against opposition team members.
-
Because it's not something I'm especially fussed about. If they want to call themselves 'Team GB' or whatever they can. If you think that they aren't a team then you can do that too.
-
Because it's not something I'm especially fussed about. If they want to call themselves 'Team GB' or whatever they can. If you think that they aren't a team then you can do that too.
Indeed - I'm not that bothered either - they can call themselves what they want, but that doesn't mean it is really a team sport.
Interesting how few people here even understand how the 'team' element of the competitions even works, yet we'd probably have a good knowledge of who won key athletics events. I think that rather confirms that most people see athletics as a series of individual events won by individual athletes. The only exceptions of course are the relays.
-
I don't know how swimming competitions work - do they have a points element?
Athletics clearly isn't a team sport but it does have team competitions; but it's a moot point whether there is a team element to the major championships. I suppose our national squad are positioning themselves as a 'team' to promote cohesion and mutual support between athletes. And of course during the Olympics Team GB was a marvellous marketing tool.
-
I don't know how swimming competitions work - do they have a points element?
Athletics clearly isn't a team sport but it does have team competitions; but it's a moot point whether there is a team element to the major championships. I suppose our national squad are positioning themselves as a 'team' to promote cohesion and mutual support between athletes. And of course during the Olympics Team GB was a marvellous marketing tool.
I think that is all true, but ultimately it comes down to individuals and individual competition.
I wonder whether the entire 'team' that wins the 'team' competition all get gold medals? I've no idea and that we don't know tells us that it isn't that important. In football for instance we see the whole squad in the world cup winning team getting winners medals, whether they played or not because it is a team game. Will an athlete in the GB team who went out in the heats of the 100m get a bronze medal if the overall team finishes 3rd. No idea but I've never heard of this happening.
-
IIRC correctly in the team competitions there are no individual medals (eg IAAF World Cup). In the major championships there's just a medal table. This is a list of some stars from the World Championships - no mention of a team result.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/IAAF_World_Championships_in_Athletics
So although the perception is (and becoming more so thanks to marketing) that there is a GB team competing, there is no team award, just placings on a medal table.
One thing I don't know is if club competitions have a team element. Obviously the elite athletes will compete on the Grand Prix circuit which is purely commercial. But many of our lower tier athletes will only compete in British athletics and I don't know how important the team element is at that level.
-
IIRC correctly in the team competitions there are no individual medals (eg IAAF World Cup).
Not even sure that is correct, and it has now become the IAAF Continents Cup:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IAAF_Continental_Cup
I the most recent event (2014) there does seem to be individual medals awarded as in other competitions - the overall 'result' is based on the IAAF scoring for top 8 places.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_IAAF_Continental_Cup
Others might comment, but my impression seems to be that this event doesn't really pull in the big hitters: for example look at the line up in the sprint finals and their times and compare with the 2013 world championship or 2012 olympics.
-
It's one of those events that used to be worth watching, but it's now been superseded by the Grand Prix circuit.
-
Lots of good points above.
I think what I'd like is to ditch all the national and international controlling bodies eg UK Athletics, FIFA, IOC, IAAF that are really self-serving and ultimately corrupt when big money is in play. The whole idea of national teams. Bernie Ecclestone too. Even the concept of local football clubs/teams seems rather silly nowadays given that most of the players and supporters are spread worldwide.
Would prefer something more cause/charity based - eg like the London Marathon, where organisations can put forward competitors to raise money for their causes. This could still all be supported by sponsorship (ie advertising) and media also lotteries etc, but we could do without building of grand stadiums, villages, roads and so on ... that are useless after the event.
It is true that I haven't thought through how it would all work.. :)
-
Elite athletes get paid a mint to compete at the London Marathon. Even the drug cheats.
I think the lines between sport and entertainment are becoming increasingly blurred. The Grand Prix circuit in athletics is there to provide entertainment. The Premier League is entertainment - traditional football is found in the Championships or even lower. To stage an event as big as the Olympics requires vast amounts of money which in turn requires huge amounts of sponsorship.
But the grassroots plays a huge part in the wellbeing of ordinary people, whether through running clubs - UK Athletics/England Athletics cover events such as fell running and endurance racing too - or Sunday morning footie. Without the big events how would these get funding? Even my boy's village football team is regulated by the FA. Get rid of the governing bodies and you lose grassroots sport - ok, so people might still go for a run, but hurdling/javelin/discus for fun (ie club level) will die, and without clubs supporting junior athletes it will at the elite level also.
-
Marathon appearance fees.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A59283-2005Apr16.html
http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2013/apr/18/mo-farah-london-marathon-criticism
Suspicious results
http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2015/aug/09/seven-london-marathon-winners-in-12-years-doping-suspicion
-
Lots of good points above.
I think what I'd like is to ditch all the national and international controlling bodies eg UK Athletics, FIFA, IOC, IAAF that are really self-serving and ultimately corrupt when big money is in play. The whole idea of national teams. Bernie Ecclestone too. Even the concept of local football clubs/teams seems rather silly nowadays given that most of the players and supporters are spread worldwide.
Would prefer something more cause/charity based - eg like the London Marathon, where organisations can put forward competitors to raise money for their causes. This could still all be supported by sponsorship (ie advertising) and media also lotteries etc, but we could do without building of grand stadiums, villages, roads and so on ... that are useless after the event.
It is true that I haven't thought through how it would all work.. :)
I don't have any problem with teams in team sports.
And once you need a team, such as in football, I also have no problem with having some competitions where they are club based, and not unreasonably based in towns and cities. It doesn't matter to me whether the players aren't local - it is the club that is historically based in a location, not the players who necessarily come and go.
Nor do I have a problem if some team game tournaments are based on countries with eligibility criteria. In fact I rather like the different approach this gives - that you cheer someone to the rafters when in their club shirt but not in the country shift and vice vera - all good fun and a natural extension for a team sport.
But I've always had a problem with trying to pretend that individual sports are team sports - more so that they are somehow country based teams. So Usain Bolt isn't really running for Jamaica - he is running to win as an individual, and he will do absolutely everything he can to beat some of his sternest rivals - who just happen also the be part of the same Jamaican 'team'. And they will be doing the same to beat him. It is an individual sport so no 'team' is required - just the individual competing against other individuals.
-
I suppose this goes back to the days when athletics was an amateur sport and international competitions were reliant on national governments to fund the competitors. Even now national funding from government is replaced for the most part by national lottery funding - only the elite get sponsorship or advertising deals and they can be fickle, as Jo Pavey has discovered.
Contrast that with tennis, F1 and golf (traditionally the sports of the well-heeled) where government support has been minimal, at least here in the UK - for all we (supposedly) love to see a Brit win we don't think Andy Murray or Lewis Hamilton are competing for GB, except in certain events - Davis Cup, or Ryder Cup (although that is Europe and not GB).
-
I suppose this goes back to the days when athletics was an amateur sport and international competitions were reliant on national governments to fund the competitors. Even now national funding from government is replaced for the most part by national lottery funding - only the elite get sponsorship or advertising deals and they can be fickle, as Jo Pavey has discovered.
Perhaps - no idea why athletics is different from other individual sports. But I think that's different now as athletics is professional and I think the top athletes can earn as much as many other sports - not the super rich sports but the same as plenty.
Contrast that with tennis, F1 and golf (traditionally the sports of the well-heeled) where government support has been minimal, at least here in the UK - for all we (supposedly) love to see a Brit win we don't think Andy Murray or Lewis Hamilton are competing for GB, except in certain events - Davis Cup, or Ryder Cup (although that is Europe and not GB).
And I think this is correct - I might cheer for Andy Murray or Lewis Hamilton because I'm a fan as an individual, not because they are Brits. And the same should be the case for athletics.
And on the 'team' part - well although tennis and golf are largely individual sports (albeit sometimes doubles) the Davis Cup, or Ryder Cup satisfy the criteria for a team sport event much better than the athletics events we have been talking about. Basically because players in the Davis Cup, or Ryder Cup never compete against their team mates, they compete against the opposition team and help their team-mates. And I don't think there is the equivalent of a 'medal' for winning your individual bit (e.g. one round of golf in the Ryder cup) as there is in athletics. The sole purpose of winning is to provide points for your team, rather than to win individual glory with a gold medal.
-
Absolutely, which is why I wondered if Rutherford is behind the times. But then for all we are sending Team Camelot maybe other nations competing will still largely be state funded. I don't know. Is it daft to have a British Athletics brand without the national flag? I don't know that either, although stuff with the Union Flag sells well.
Also, going back in history the Olympics was seen as adequate as the international athletics championships. The IAAF largely seem to have transferred how the athletics works at the Olympics to the World Championships, rather than presenting something new, even though it's a comparatively recent competition.
-
Absolutely, which is why I wondered if Rutherford is behind the times. But then for all we are sending Team Camelot maybe other nations competing will still largely be state funded. I don't know. Is it daft to have a British Athletics brand without the national flag? I don't know that either, although stuff with the Union Flag sells well.
Well I think we are back to where we started.
Whatever we might think about the validity or otherwise of athletics as a team sport or even a national team sport it is certainly less credible in that context than Football, Rugby or Cricket (to take three examples). Playing for your national team is a major thing in all of those sports, yet none brand themselves with the national flag in England (nor I think I am right in saying in any other GB or UK context).
England Rugby is the rose, in football and cricket three lions. Wales is the three feathers for Rugby and a different dragon for football, Scotland is a lion for football and thistle for rugby. Ireland use the shamrock for rugby etc etc.
Indeed there seems almost to be a distinct policy not to use the national flag (although the colour of strips allude to it) yet there is a much greater sense of national identity within those sporting teams than in any athletics 'team' event.
-
Again I think that is down to history. Athletics has never had a comparable symbol in the UK apart from the various national flags. And in football, rugby and cricket the international sides are the individual nations, not GB. What is the GB symbol other than the national flag?
-
Again I think that is down to history. Athletics has never had a comparable symbol in the UK apart from the various national flags. And in football, rugby and cricket the international sides are the individual nations, not GB. What is the GB symbol other than the national flag?
Here's a little site that shows GB athletics strips through the decades.
Interesting how tiny the flag is on some of them, and there are also ones without it at all.
Check out the Coe, Ovett, Cram picture - Cram is the only one who seems to have the flag on his vest - the other two don't at all.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17474959
Perhaps in Rutherfords eyes Coe and Ovett are lesser athletes than Cram due to not wearing the flag. Incidentally in that 1980 Olympic final. Incidentally Coe won, Ovett came third and Cram 8th (clearly must have been weighed down by the flag!!!).
-
The GB athletes won't have the Union Flag on their kit for the World Championships.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/athletics/33942584
Could this be due to the influence of Scottish nationalism? Can't think why else.
Does it matter?
-
Great stuff!
The less we see of the butcher's apron, the better.
You mean the Scottish flag " doesn't " look like a butchers apron?
I'm sure I could find you one.
This one would probably suit 😜
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Novelty-sexy-Scottish-Flag-Bikini-Apron-/191662572500
Flags all look like butchers aprons, they are a popular style.
Or tea towels.
-
The 'butchers apron' is a name first applied to the union flag by the United Irishmen...and also by many other colonised nations and territories of the 'british empire'.