Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Visa Money [Lolo's $25K]

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

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

  • #16
    Originally posted by AthleticsInBritain
    Do people really go to a meet to see someone win a lot of money? Can't say the idea of anyone winning a million in gold bullion at the Golden League ever made any difference to me when it came to wanting to watch Oslo or Zurich. I couldn't care less about the money - as a reason to go to a meet anyway.
    not sure if you were responding to my post, but by "poor turnout" i meant the athletes not the fans...

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by MJR
      The bigger miscarriage of justice is that pro athletes are only making $25000 as the Visa winner. They should be taking that much home for winning their event, at least. Winning $2500 in your event barely covers expenses and makes claiming you're a professional athlete on your tax return a joke.
      I, like, totally agree!
      "Who's Kidding Who?"

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by mrbowie
        Originally posted by MJR
        The bigger miscarriage of justice is that pro athletes are only making $25000 as the Visa winner. They should be taking that much home for winning their event, at least. Winning $2500 in your event barely covers expenses and makes claiming you're a professional athlete on your tax return a joke.
        I, like, totally agree!
        I am just now watching the broadcast. When they spend the first five minutes hyping the $25k best-mark reward, any general sports fan must be thinking 'what a Mickey Mouse event'. A pathetic amount of money to be making a big deal about in sports today. They'd be better off ignoring it altogether. I have yet to get to where they hype the $2.500 first place money.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by AS
          It's curious that everyone is so sad about poor prize money for this champs, but noone seemed very excited about it actually happening anyway.

          Were VISA/USATF judicious in realising most stars would bypass meet in post-Olympic year? Or did low prizemoney lead to poor turnout?
          Our athletes do not go to the US Champs for the prize money. The prize money is always low, and they always have a low athletes turnout after an Olympic year when there is no meet to qualify for.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by polevaultpower
            Originally posted by AS
            It's curious that everyone is so sad about poor prize money for this champs, but noone seemed very excited about it actually happening anyway.

            Were VISA/USATF judicious in realising most stars would bypass meet in post-Olympic year? Or did low prizemoney lead to poor turnout?
            Our athletes do not go to the US Champs for the prize money. The prize money is always low, and they always have a low athletes turnout after an Olympic year when there is no meet to qualify for.
            There are some events where the US Champs is the one of the few prize money competitions they get to all year. It also is where they get their health insurance renewed. Think RW, LJ, TJ, W Shot & WT for example.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Barto
              Originally posted by Powell
              I wonder if you'd be happy with the rule you're proposing if Stuczynski was then beaten to the prize by a 14.30 TJ...
              Yes, I would because we need to encourage that 14.30 girl to continue and develop in the sport. Jenn will continue without the extra help. The big names in track from the US do not need help. The emerging elite do.
              But you could just as well have emerging athletes in events where the AR is hard to beat. It's just totally unfair to base the prize money on historical performances of other US athletes. Would the 14.30 TJer really deserve the money more than an up-and-coming 7-meter LJer? Or, say, a 19.60 SPer?
              Było smaszno, a jaszmije smukwijne...

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Powell
                Originally posted by Barto
                Originally posted by Powell
                I wonder if you'd be happy with the rule you're proposing if Stuczynski was then beaten to the prize by a 14.30 TJ...
                Yes, I would because we need to encourage that 14.30 girl to continue and develop in the sport. Jenn will continue without the extra help. The big names in track from the US do not need help. The emerging elite do.
                But you could just as well have emerging athletes in events where the AR is hard to beat. It's just totally unfair to base the prize money on historical performances of other US athletes. Would the 14.30 TJer really deserve the money more than an up-and-coming 7-meter LJer? Or, say, a 19.60 SPer?
                But it is not "prizemoney". It is "bonus money". And the bonuses should benefit American track and field - as in assist in producing more medalists.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Barto
                  But it is not "prizemoney". It is "bonus money". And the bonuses should benefit American track and field - as in assist in producing more medalists.
                  I don't completely disagree, although I think Visa is more interested in company name exposure than in developing US T&F. But the 19.60 shot putter would probably be a better medal chance, anyway, and would need the money just as much, or more, than the 14.30 triple jumper.
                  Było smaszno, a jaszmije smukwijne...

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by bad hammy
                    I am just now watching the broadcast. When they spend the first five minutes hyping the $25k best-mark reward, any general sports fan must be thinking 'what a Mickey Mouse event'. A pathetic amount of money to be making a big deal about in sports today.
                    Well, it is as much as the first prize in the National Scrabble Championships
                    Było smaszno, a jaszmije smukwijne...

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Smoke
                      A soft wr? One woman has jumped anywhere near that.
                      That "one woman" will break the record before the next Olympics, and Jennski and maybe others will match the existing record.

                      The women's pole vault as an event isn't old enough to have hardened yet. The women's pole vault record will see much more improvement and quicker improvement than the women's hurdles record.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by AS
                        Originally posted by AthleticsInBritain
                        Do people really go to a meet to see someone win a lot of money? Can't say the idea of anyone winning a million in gold bullion at the Golden League ever made any difference to me when it came to wanting to watch Oslo or Zurich. I couldn't care less about the money - as a reason to go to a meet anyway.
                        not sure if you were responding to my post, but by "poor turnout" i meant the athletes not the fans...
                        I was and sorry AS (and Smoke), I thought you meant the fans rather than the athletes. My bad.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          I have to agree with the poster. Jen's mark has been bettered by only 2 athletes, while Lolo's has been bettered by 22 (and tied by a few more). The PV is not a "weak" event anymore. If it was we'd have an ever expanding group of ladies jumping 5m. I'll lay odds that 5m will still be a great height in 2015. And if I'm right then the event has become "solid."

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            jeremyp gets it. 7,84 is a time one should expect from the best of the best in ANY given competition. Jennski jumped a height only she can clear as a yank. 7.84 can be run by a number of hurdlers out there. The equity is not there. Soft wr or not.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Smoke
                              jeremyp gets it. 7,84 is a time one should expect from the best of the best in ANY given competition.
                              You're making it sound like half a dozen American women run 7.84 every week. In fact, Lolo is the only USAnian who's done it in the last 5 years.
                              Było smaszno, a jaszmije smukwijne...

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                I think others can. Smoke is correct in his (response)- athletes with 100m H best of -12.60 should be able to run 7.84. The tendency is that many just don't drop down to train for indoor events.

                                What would Marlow say about a five hurdle event?

                                Originally posted by Powell
                                e best in ANY given competition.
                                You're making it sound like half a dozen American women run 7.84 every week. In fact, Lolo is the only USAnian who's done it in the last 5 years.[/quote]

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X