preston wrote:Why don't we start above where you tell ANOTHER lie to make your point. I NEVER said all soccer players, I said: "11.61 is NOT difficult, nearly any soccer player can run it...it shows that a country is NOT doing anything to develop the athletes ...
Preston, you're playing semantics here. What's the difference between "nearly any" and "all", besides the difference between, say, 95% and 100%?
The point remains, however, that 11.5s is NOT "easy" to run. For fun, I checked the rankings of a few populous nations that generally compete in athletics (Canada and UK). If you look at Canada's annual 100m rankings, by the time you get to about 50th place you're at 11.00s. The country's population is about 37 million. In the UK (roughly twice the pop. of Canada), it's about 180th. If we take both of those to be representative of typical population distributions, then it suggests that roughly one in a million people can run under 11s (give or take -- I rounded the numbers off, but it doesn't change the point). If your population base is 50k, then how many does that make? Why should we, then, readily expect them to have someone who can run mid-11 with "ease"?
Look, I grew up in eastern Canada and started sprinting in the early 80s. At that time, there were about TWO people who could run sub-11s in the Maritime provinces (total population about 2 million). By the time I went to University at the end of that decade, I was ranked about 5th in the 100m in that region with a blazing time of 11.09s.
I think you need to re-calibrate your assessment of what constitutes "fast" in the 100m.
JRM, I virtually (notice a qualifier) NEVER confuse sometimes, all or always, and never. EVER (or maybe I should say nearly ). And, its a more than a pet-peeve of mine when others do it. ALL means all as Gary Oldman would say, "EVERYONE!!!" Nearly all allows for the fact that not EVERYONE can or will.
You, better than me, would understand that the distribution curve is going to be thinner at the margin and it will "bunch up" in the middle. 11.61 is where it bunches up for trained men. I will bet that though the fastest CAN is about 10.1x and the fact that it takes 50 men to go .9s to get to 11.00 that there are MORE than 50 (if not 100) that go the .5s from 11.0 to 11.5. By the time you get to 11.6 there's probably 50 more.
To answer your question about population size, and I know you know the sprints, then what would be the explanation for 50k SKN (Kim Collins and 3 other guys under 10.12 in 2012) or 300k BAH or 100k Grenada, ALL of whom have world Champions If we're ONLY talking about size? Also, I've said from the beginning that the countries should be developing talent (though with all of the back-and-forth it may have been lost) so I don't expect them to be "ready-made" - I expect them to WORK for it like other athletes have to. However, a professional soccer player could much more easily be developed to run 11.6. (well after my 40th birthday I could still run sub-11 in full sweats and flats [haven't tried since knee surger] - and I was certainly no 100m sprinter...zero interest in ever competing masters. EVER)
And, maybe you're right and I do need to "recalibrate" my time on what constitutes "fast" for the purposes of what qualification should be for these countries that are not developing athletes, but I'm CERTAIN that you would agree -and I hope that you weigh in on this- that 12.48 for a professional anybody who ostensibly "runs" in his sport is SLOW!
2011 WJr - 11.48 Rodman Teltull PLW (boys) -20,000 people 12.75 Lovelite Detenamo NRU (girls) -9,000 people (I take it back, this is decent for such a small country...Maybe Marlow should start a scholarship program to his private school for these athletes. He might be able to get her back up to 13.00)
preston wrote:You, better than me, would understand that the distribution curve is going to be thinner at the margin and it will "bunch up" in the middle. 11.61 is where it bunches up for trained men.
Of course it's non-linear. Let's assume for the sake of argument that in a given population, a whopping 10 times as many people can run 11.5 or faster, versus 11-flat or faster. That's 1 in 100,000 people. Still, when you have a population of 50k, you're pushing the envelope to find someone. Since those figures are rather liberal, the picture paints itself.
To answer your question about population size, and I know you know the sprints, then what would be the explanation for 50k SKN (Kim Collins and 3 other guys under 10.12 in 2012) or 300k BAH or 100k Grenada, ALL of whom have world Champions If we're ONLY talking about size?
Obviously size isn't the only factor; my model was as simple as you can get. But it does give an appreciation for a "first order" approximation of the numbers (I'm not going to perform a robust statistical analysis while taking 10 minute breaks from real work). But I think the Carribbean islands are anomalies in that track already has a history and a foothold there. Had the same thing happened in Palau or the Marshall Islands 50 years ago, maybe things would be different.
I don't disagree with anything you've said for the most part (and thank you for making it easy for me to understand); however, and this is more of a theory...again, 11.6 is about where I would expect an average trained man - that's far from man's limitations, but that's probably because I don't believe that there is THAT much variation between humans - even in populations of only 9000 (even though 12.0 could be their Bolt - again, only holding for size and not the other differences among humans that has to be taken into consideration). Of course, that could be grossly inflated, but again, that's not that good.
JRM wrote:...Had the same thing happened in Palau or the Marshall Islands 50 years ago, maybe things would be different.
Agreed, but I also showed the junior from Palau who has already run sub-11.50 and they have a population of only 20k. My point is that the Olympics, or World Champs for that matter, is not where you "develop" athletes (if they have a rule to keep Jacko Gill out because he was 16, then why let juniors compete who wouldn't qualify on the standards for world youth?); there needs to be SOME type of work that should show that you've actually made an attempt to find and groom the best in a country. That's my issue; if these countries don't care enough to find out what is best among them then they shouldn't get a lane.
1. There is really no difference between saying “all soccer players can run under 11.61” seconds and saying “nearly all”. As has been pointed out above. Both are blatant LIES. You have absolutely no proof that this true. Anyone who has played soccer will say that is a bogus statement. 2. You lied blatantly when you said inviting these athletes was against the Olympic creed. 3. No one on this thread agrees with the premise of this and poster after poster has exposed your constant LIES, semantic games and distortions.
4. Look at the estimated population of the Pacific Islands Nauru (9000) Cook Islands (11,000) American Samoa (70,000) Kirbati (101,000) Vanuatu (200,000)
People with common sense can see that these Islands are limited not only by low population, but by several factors such lack of interest. You are the only person I know of who thinks that the officials are the reason why they don’t produce Olympic caliber runners. It is ridiculous for anyone to think that suspending Nauru (population 9000) will make the officials wake up and start producing Olympic caliber runners. Talk about warped logic
This again proves that you have no idea what you're talking about or how organizations work. The Bahamas and a few other countries almost had their OC's decertified in the last 4 years...and there were additional officials WAITING to fill their place.IAAF/IOC do expect each country to pull their weight (effectively acting as sales managers) only they don't punish or hold them accountable except in the most egregious of circumstances.
Once again you are comparing a country like Bahamas where the sport of track and field is popular and there are qualified former athletes who can do a decent job with the small pacific islands where the sport is not taken seriously at all. This comparison is hardly logical.
And, in every country they're practically killing for the perks of the job. You clearly have no idea of what you're talking about and this is why you continue to get mad and sling insults, etc.
It is a blatant lie to suggest that there are people in EVERY country practically killing to take this job. Do you actually have proof that this is true in Nauru or Kiribati ?
IAAF/IOC do expect each country to pull their weight (effectively acting as sales managers) only they don't punish or hold them accountable except in the most egregious of circumstances.
Unlike you , IAAF have enough common sense to know the difficulties that people on an island like Nauru have when it comes to promoting the sport. Your idea of "holding them accountable" is to barr them from participation. This is laughable. You dont know for a fact that lack of effort is the problem. Logic suggests that demographics and culture are the reasons. Bahamas has had culture of track and field for 5 decades. These Pacific Islands have other interests. No amount of armtwisting and suspensions will make them change.
1. There is OBVIOUSLY a difference between near and all. ALL doesn't include "athletes" who can "run" 12.48. They are blatant lies. BY YOU. YOU didn't characterize what I said so you just made it up. You're a liar. It's sad, but it is what it is. 2. Show me where I exactly said that. Again you lie. 3. The only person who has resorted to lies and distortions is you, kamikaze7 AKA claptrap. I've represented your words perfectly and you have made up things I didn't say in every post. And, now you're moved your own goal posts from EVERYBODY to this thread. You're a joke, but I'm not laughing at you. Again, I feel sadness for you. 4. The people with common sense unfortunately don't include you. Why did you leave out Palau? I already referenced them. Yet you include American Samoa? BECAUSE YOU SEE THAT PALAU HAS A JUNIOR WHO RUNS 11.48 - WHICH PROVES MY POINT. AND THE POPULATION OF PALAU IS 20,000. Which is considerably less tham Amer. Samoa, Vanuato or Kirbati. See that's how weak your argument is: you have to bring in extraneous people, lies and distortions, and insults because your incensed that you're being destroyed in a simple debate. It's not that serious; get a grip. CALM DOWN.
You obviously don't know anything about administration or training development and now you're angry that it has been exposed. Well, you exposed it when you "presented" your wrong ideas to the forum. Administration is critical to development. Ask the Eastern Europeans of the cold war or even the Australians who have an institute of sport. You can hit reply out of stubborness all you want, but I will continue to let you know how wrong you are. You're wrong. Again.
Size is size. You brought population into this; if you don't like it then you should have kept the argument to Pac Islands. You didn't because you don't know what you're talking about. And, the sport can only become more popular with evengelists - the federation. You really are a waste of time, but I will stay here until you get it.
IAAF is a political body, believing that they may act strictly for sporting reasons (sensing the difficulties of the Nauru's etc) is naive. You're naive.
Lastly, you showcase your ignorance of development when you say that "[I] don't know for a fact that lack of effort is the problem". This just proves you have no credibility to even engage in this discussion. You're really trying to say that the culture is the cause? Like Bahamians just show up at international events and win? Like they don't have youth, and club and collegiate development programs? You CLEARLY have no idea about sport in the Caribbean and the cause of the results. This is shameful. Development, or the lacktherof, is the reason why you see men running 12 seconds showing up at the olympics. That's not "culture".