Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

New Golden League- to include London, Lausanne ,DN Galan

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • tandfman
    replied
    Originally posted by gh
    To make numbers up (but hopefully pretty close), you had to have 12 events that qualified by having at least 6 athletes from the approved list (like the previous year's top 50). And overall you had to have at least 12 different nations represented (thus it was that U.S. meets would pay a relative fortune to fly in some obscure small-Islander to meet quota; lot easier in Europe).

    And there were, of course, requirements that you have so many field events and so many women's events.
    IIRC, both numbers (number of GP events and number of qualified athletes per event) were lower than that, but you're right--there were such requirements.

    Originally posted by gh
    So it wasn't exactly "free will" on the meet promoter's part. Much more restrictive than today. And the promoters are happier for it.
    I'm sure you're right about that, too.

    Leave a comment:


  • gh
    replied
    Originally posted by tandfman
    I don't think the designation of those events as GP events required any meet organizer to include them in their program. They did for a number of possible reasons--the events were more popular then than they are now, the economics of staging these events were different, and meets then were longer than they tend to be now. ...
    Given that it's almost a quarter-century now (yikes) I can no longer cite chapter and verse, but the IAAF did have requirements. You had to have a certain number of events which had a certain number of "world-class" people or you lost your funding. The IAAF actually sent a monitor to meets to do an on-site certification that that happened (I remember some touchy incidents on whether or not somebody counted if they acted solely as a rabbit for a lap or two).

    To make numbers up (but hopefully pretty close), you had to have 12 events that qualified by having at least 6 athletes from the approved list (like the previous year's top 50). And overall you had to have at least 12 different nations represented (thus it was that U.S. meets would pay a relative fortune to fly in some obscure small-Islander to meet quota; lot easier in Europe).

    And there were, of course, requirements that you have so many field events and so many women's events.

    So it wasn't exactly "free will" on the meet promoter's part. Much more restrictive than today. And the promoters are happier for it. Nothing worse than being forced to sell a product that's not sellable.

    Leave a comment:


  • mump boy
    replied
    Originally posted by nevetsllim
    Originally posted by Marlow
    Originally posted by nevetsllim
    As much as I dislike the Golden League,
    I'm curious as to why. Aren't the GL meets some of the best of the season?
    Not really. My favourite meetings last year were Lausanne, Stockholm and Monaco and the same events always crop up year after year (many which I find not very exciting). I preferred the old Grand Prix circuit, where there is a fairer system and every event was a Grand Prix event in a 2-year cycle.
    agreed

    for example in 97 astrid kumbernuss won the over all grand prix there i no way valeri villi can win as her event i never part of the GL :x

    Leave a comment:


  • tandfman
    replied
    I don't think the designation of those events as GP events required any meet organizer to include them in their program. They did for a number of possible reasons--the events were more popular then than they are now, the economics of staging these events were different, and meets then were longer than they tend to be now.

    Another factor is television, which has influenced the duration of meets and the choice of events in ways that do not favor the inclusion of those particular events.

    Leave a comment:


  • nevetsllim
    replied
    Originally posted by tandfman
    Originally posted by nevetsllim
    I preferred the old Grand Prix circuit, where there is a fairer system and every event was a Grand Prix event in a 2-year cycle.
    From what I understand, every event still is potentially a Grand Prix event, but instead of having a two-year cycle, with each event contested at the GP final every other year, what they have now is better. Each event is contested at the WAF (which replaced the GP Final) every single year.
    I was referring to the 'old' Grand Prix circuit, where events such as the women's discus, men's hammer etc were designated Grand Prix events every other year. I don't think the new idea if that good because none of the high profile meetings ever hold heavy throwing events. However, back in 1986, the women's discus was a GP event and there were meets in Budapest, Bratislava, Dresden, Brussels and Oslo and there were men's hammer events in Budapest, London, Moscow, Dresden, Nice, Helsinki and West Berlin.

    Leave a comment:


  • Paul Henry
    replied
    Originally posted by tandfman
    Originally posted by nevetsllim
    I preferred the old Grand Prix circuit, where there is a fairer system and every event was a Grand Prix event in a 2-year cycle.
    From what I understand, every event still is potentially a Grand Prix event, but instead of having a two-year cycle, with each event contested at the GP final every other year, what they have now is better. Each event is contested at the WAF (which replaced the GP Final) every single year.
    Seems comprehensive to me.

    Leave a comment:


  • tandfman
    replied
    Originally posted by nevetsllim
    I preferred the old Grand Prix circuit, where there is a fairer system and every event was a Grand Prix event in a 2-year cycle.
    From what I understand, every event still is potentially a Grand Prix event, but instead of having a two-year cycle, with each event contested at the GP final every other year, what they have now is better. Each event is contested at the WAF (which replaced the GP Final) every single year.

    Leave a comment:


  • nevetsllim
    replied
    Originally posted by Marlow
    Originally posted by nevetsllim
    As much as I dislike the Golden League,
    I'm curious as to why. Aren't the GL meets some of the best of the season?
    Not really. My favourite meetings last year were Lausanne, Stockholm and Monaco and the same events always crop up year after year (many which I find not very exciting). I preferred the old Grand Prix circuit, where there is a fairer system and every event was a Grand Prix event in a 2-year cycle.

    Leave a comment:


  • Marlow
    replied
    Originally posted by nevetsllim
    As much as I dislike the Golden League,
    I'm curious as to why. Aren't the GL meets some of the best of the season?

    Leave a comment:


  • gh
    replied
    To clarify my clarification ( :-) )... there is no doubt that the 2010 version of the Golden League will be different. Ascribing specific changes at this point is premature, however.

    Leave a comment:


  • Jon
    replied
    Originally posted by gh
    Note that as headlined on the front page here, the "news" of this has a question mark appended to it. This is all far (far-far?) from a done deal.
    I was about to say the exact same thing. The guys behind insidethegames.com have a knack of presenting 'maybes' as stone cold fact.

    Leave a comment:


  • croflash
    replied
    I'm not sure if this is going to have an effect all. Essentially you upgrade the Golden League and downgrade the Super Grand Prix Series, does it really matter to get more publicity ?

    Leave a comment:


  • gh
    replied
    Note that as headlined on the front page here, the "news" of this has a question mark appended to it. This is all far (far-far?) from a done deal.

    Leave a comment:


  • kuha
    replied
    A minor little quote from this article:

    "But the inclusion of Lausanne could mean that the Weltklasse event in Zurich, the self-styled "One Day Olympics" meeting and one of the most popular on the circuit, could be controversially dropped."

    Leave a comment:


  • Flumpy
    replied
    Originally posted by mump boy
    but tinkering with the format will make no difference at all to the public percieve this sport. i'm a massive fan and i couldn't care less if london is golden leaugue or not it will make no difference to the line-ups or how the meet is promoted !!
    But at least it might mean we don't have to have another shit 2 day meeting.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X