.jpg)
.jpg)
The Stawell Glitch: A Column By Len Johnson
By Len Johnson
Australia has two great handicap races _ the Melbourne Cup and the Stawell Gift _ and inarguably it is easier for a good horse to win the former than for a good sprinter to win the latter.
Australia has two great handicap races _ the Melbourne Cup and the Stawell Gift _ and inarguably it is easier for a good horse to win the former than for a good sprinter to win the latter.
The Stawell Easter Gift of 2010 will be remembered for the embarrassing fiasco over the length of the track which turned it into the Stawell Easter Glitch. Rightly so: how on earth could a track that is laid down for one event only _ and therefore requires measuring each year _ be over three metres long? Surely all that is required is to check the length, re-check it and call a third bloke in to confirm the measurement.
There was also the little matter of the $5000 withheld from the prize-money of winner, Tom Burbidge, for his puzzlingly inconsistent form. The weekend before he won the nation’s richest handicap sprint, he could not make the final of a Melbourne suburban gift.
Puzzling indeed _ and the explanation does not wash. Many of us are painfully aware about the deleterious impact a dodgy back can have on performance, but if Burbidge’s back was so bad the week before Stawell, why even run at all. The most charitable explanation may be that he needed a fitness test, but did not want to reveal his true form.
In any case, the $5000 fine was effectively nothing more than a slap on the wrist. (The fine was reported to be the largest in Gift history, though who would trust a Stawell ‘stat’ this week?) Surely, if the practice is really frowned on, Burbidge should have been relieved of at least half his winnings. The IAAF used to ensure athletes turned up to run its now-defunct Grand Prix final by docking half their series earnings if they did not.
Anyway, as amazing and amusing as the fiasco around the length of the track and the lengths the winner went to in concealing his form were, they overshadowed a longer-term problem for Stawell. Once again, the race went to an outmarker who, on the big weekend, ran metres faster than his handicap suggested. Once again the outcome of the final was obvious after Saturday’s heats.
Indeed, the 3.2 metres by which the famous uphill grass track was over the 120 metres distance, was comparable to the distance by which most winners in the past 20 years have beaten the handicapper. Why worry about the one and do absolutely nothing about the other?
That’s why I used the Melbourne Cup comparison. In the past 20 years, the Cup has adopted a quality handicap weighting system by which superior horses are given less severe weight penalties than pure handicap rules would suggest.
The difference has been obvious. Since 1990, the race that stops a nation has been won by some quality horses _ Doriemus, Saintly, Might and Power, Media Puzzle, Makybe Diva, Delta Blues and Viewed among them _ horses that were capable of winning at set weights and weight-for-age, not just under pure handicap conditions.
In the same period, the Gift has been won by just three athletes _ Dean Capobianco, Jason Hunte and Joshua Ross _ who were quality sprinters at the time they won. (Steve Brimacombe, who won in 1991, went on to become one.)
Looking at weights and handicaps, no fewer than seven horses have won the Cup in that period carrying 55.5kgs or more (the sort of weight a quality horse gets). Another three lugged 54.5 around the 3200m distance and three more carried 53.
If we assess a ‘quality’ gift handicap at five metres, only Capobianco (2.25), Hunte (4.25) and Ross (who was on scratch when he won for the second time in 2005) have won the Gift off a quality mark in the same time. Three more _ Nathan Allen (5.25), and Steve Hutton and Sam Jamieson (both off 6) have won off six metres or less. Thirteen of the 21 winners, including Burbidge at 8.75, have started off marks between 7 and 10 metres.
Just as bad, many of these have been the obvious winner from the heats, the only query being whether they can withstand the pressure of favouritism. Too many races won too easily does not make for the sort of suspense a handicap race is designed to produce.
It also makes the lot of the good runners even harder. It is difficult enough to stand up big starts when everyone is running true to form, near impossible when some have disguised their form by anywhere between one and three metres. The star runners who generate the pre-event publicity are no good thing even to make Monday’s semi-finals, much less the final.
Stawell is a great carnival and great fun _ and many of its devotees demand nothing more than that. But as a quality athletic event it has more credibility problems than a long track. It’s easy to get a more accurate surveyor, harder to change long-held attitudes.
.jpg)
.jpg)
25 comments to "The Stawell Glitch: A Column By Len Johnson"
Agree with you 100% Len
The dodgy track length only confirms my beliefs. Pro running should be treated like school sports- a bit of fun and nothing to be treated seriously. I would argue that athletics in Australia would be in a better state without pro running. Maybe some of the self proclaimed pros would take up athletics seriously and fulfill their potential instead of hiding their form all season and "peaking" for some obscure pay day.
Spot on Len. Another great read.
Well said Len, I have always thought that Stawell is just an event that rewards mediocre tallent, any athlete trying to qualify for an international event will always find it near impossible to compete, because they do not hide their true form. Spare a thought for Watt, runs just one race a year ago and gets a mark that he was never going to win with, yet they didn't mind using him as a draw card for the event.
Well said Len .
Surely beating the handicapper is a " skill " that is worked to its peak by not only the athlete but all those who advise him too .
a whole years focus on one BIG paycheck worked as a strategic exercise by all concerned for the intended result
epic fail. none of you have a clue.
'I have always thought that Stawell is just an event that rewards mediocre tallent,'
you serious??
you think worse than you spell.
From winners of the last 20 years:
- Josh Ross, Capo, Brima, Billy McManus have all represented australia at the olympics
Amongst the others:
- Glenn Crawford ran 10.35
- Adrian Mott has 10.43 so far
- Steve Hutton ran 46.x in the same year he won
and sprinter from the early to mid-90s could tell you Stu Uhlmann had freak talent but got smashed by injuries.
presume you have the same credentials, don?
and honestly, len, who gives a flying faaark if the track was long or short or whatever.
i know this may be hard for you to comprehend when you think that running fast in a perth interclub with the freemantle doctor up your ass is the pinnacle of athletic achievement ....
... but i was always under the impression that athletics at its best is winning the race no matter what the conditions.
not running a pb because absolutely everything was going your way.
racing under pressure's something a lot of the "star runner"s need to man up and get a lesson in.
very few of our sprinters go anywhere near their best in major champs when they're under pressure.
aside from steff, the only guy in recent years that could do this was ross (pre-brain explosion). who learnt how to race in the pros.
Len,
Spot on again... The obvious solution is to adjust handicaps after heats & semis
For goodness sake - you don't need to be an elite runner to comment on an event. In the same way you never need to run for parliament in order to comment on politics. You're way too sensitive. People are allowed not to fall over themselves about Stawell and fawn in the way you want them to.
Not sensitive and not asking anyone to fawn mate. Just suggesting they get their head out of their arses and stop talking the same old nonsense.
Feel free to contradict any of the points I've made above.
Or make a valid one of your own.
Have you ever heard of freedom of speech.
You are a bit sensative.
Stawell has been going for 129 years and you managed to list 4 names that have represented Australia.
Last 5 years taken from Stawell website
2010 winner Tom BURBIDGE off 8.75m Not on 2010 or 2009 rankings for 100m but has 21.89 200m in 2009.
2009 winner Aaron STUBBS off 7.25m. In 2009 ran 10.73 in June after Stawell not on 2008 ranking list even though it goes to 10.94
2008 winner Sam JAMIESON off 6.0m. Not on any rankings list.
2007 winner Nathan ALLEN off 5.25m runs 10.46 in 05 & 06 nothing in 07 then done for steroids after Stawell, end of career.
2006 winner Adrian Mott off 7.25m, on 2006 rankings list at 10.8
All these winners received more money for this one race than any athlete trying to qualify to compete for Australia would have received in their career, and yet not one of these runners are anywhere near to qualifying for an Australian team.
I have nothing against any of these athletes and I hope they one day might get to represent their country. But let's face it, the reason you need a handicap is because you're not as good as the guy behind you.
Spectator wrote: "All these winners received more money for this one race than any athlete trying to qualify to compete for Australia would have received in their career, and yet not one of these runners are anywhere near to qualifying for an Australian team."
So What? I don't buy a tattslotto ticket so I don't expect to win it. But if someone does win it I don't sook about how much money they won and how undeserved it might be.
If athletes don't want to run in the Stawell Gift or better still support the pro circuit through the year to give oneself a better chance of being successful in a major Gift, then that's their choice.
It's there for the taking - like Tom Burbidge and 128 runners before him. It's a difficult assignment and the sacrifices in its quest make the prizemoney worthwhile.
Instead of whinging about how much money is available in pro-running go out there and participate and get a slice of the action. But be warned you have to work for it by running more than one race in a day.
By the way, nice biased read from LJ but keep it in perspective.
I take Len Johnson's comments on pro-running with a grain of salt. He's always been anti pro-running and unfortunately is too blinkered to perceive the wonderful benefits it offers. Give him a platform to criticise Stawell and he invariably will.
spectator, now we all know you don't know what you're talking about i'll give you a hand working on two of your biggest fails:
1. type "adrian mott australian open 100m 2007" into google. press enter. read what comes up on the bright shiny thing in front of you.
2. ask someone who's not 12 (or retarded) about the history of "professional" sports and the olympics. and why it might be more difficult to find people who competed in both from, say, the mid-80s back .... and while you're revisiting the past see if you can't find bring len's prejudices back to the present. think they're stuck sometime in the 1920s
ignorance is bliss says:
spectator, now we all know you don't know what you're talking about i'll give you a hand working on two of your biggest fails:
1. type "adrian mott australian open 100m 2007" into google. press enter. read what comes up on the bright shiny thing in front of you.
You blokes are good...
You're just helping me make my point.
Adrian Mott won Stawell in 2006 and only showed 10.8 form on the rankings list, next year he knows his mark at stawell will be pulled so runs fair dinkum and what do we get 10.43. What a surprise.
Youngy, I don't care how much the winner gets paid, and I'm not winging they get more than the amateur runners, I was merely making a case for my earlier comment that Stawell rewards mediocre performances. You can't deny that the winner is not the fastest runner at Stawell, he's the one that gets the biggest head start in relation to his form. If that's pro running and you guys think that it's great, that's you're opinion and you're entitled to it, just the same as I'm entitled to my opinion.
I'm not calling people names and making derogatory remarks like some, I'm just giving my opinion on a subject that Len Johnson introduced to the site.
Notwithstanding that 10.43 wouldn't and didn't get Mott on a National team the point still remains that the vast majority of high level (national team) athletes in Australia and the world don't treat Stawell (and pro running) seriously.
It is precisely because athletes in the 10.50 - 11.00 range can run several metres slower than their best for 1-2 years and then once run at their limit to beat honest athletes. If that is pure athletic endeavour then I have seriously wasted a large part of my life trying to be the best athlete I can.
Sure a few quality athletes (Capabianco, Ross, etc) have turned up and tried their best but the vast majority of quality athletes that are trying to improve themselves.
The upcoming National Track and Field Championships is by no means the pinnacle of athletic endeavour but a spectator can be sure that all of the athletes will be trying their best which can't be said for pro running.
I made an analogy with school sports and pro running. The other analogy is pro wrestling. The WWF doesn't advertise that it is fake and the wrestlers aren't really trying 100% but at least the spectators aren't under any illusion that the wrestlers are all top quality athletes. Some pro runners and spectators appear to think pro running is legitimate athletic endeavour. It's not - it's a game for entertainment and fun much like Monopoly.
Daniel
You speak out of utter ignorance. The pro wrestling analogy is an insult and shows how little you really know.
A few years ago I was told how pro running celebrates mnediocrity and their all hacks. Then I got my squad to compete on the amateurs and we went to club championships and relay titles. AND we won regularly, blowing amateur clubs & teams out of the park. In 2004 at the national club titles, my squad outscored every club in the flat track events (200, 400, 800, 3k and 2 relays), including clubs 10 times our size. I don't get access to the best talent and make do with what I've got, but from what I've seen in terms of commitment, dedication, a preparedness to make sacrifices, etc, most pro runners are significantly more committed to getting better. Most pro meets are conducted in rural communities and there's a real excitement and sense of community spirit that is lacking in a Saturday interclub.
I'm sick & tired of reading about another 'elite' track athlete whinging about funding yet if managed properly could easily pick up $6000 per season on the pro running circuit. But they won't because that would mean they would have to compete and maybe run multiple races in a day. They would rather just train & live off handouts. In pro running you have to compete regularly and run well to win. It's a great sport as it rewards those willing to work hard regardless of natural talent. Yes there's tactics and strategies employed to maximise one's earnings, but that goes in all sport and in all walks of life and one shouldn't condemn an entire sport because of a few bad apples.
By the way, I've witnessed just as much unethical behaviour in amateur athletics as I have in the pro's.
Youngy, It is an interesting discussion so I'll respond point by point.
"You speak out of utter ignorance. The pro wrestling analogy is an insult and shows how little you really know."
I'll ignore the personal attacks other than to ask: How could you make any inferences on my ignorance of athletics based on my two posts above? Do you know me?
"A few years ago I was told how pro running celebrates mnediocrity and their all hacks. Then I got my squad to compete on the amateurs and we went to club championships and relay titles. AND we won regularly, blowing amateur clubs & teams out of the park. In 2004 at the national club titles, my squad outscored every club in the flat track events (200, 400, 800, 3k and 2 relays), including clubs 10 times our size."
Wow, that is fantastic! You won regularly! Did your squad also beat blue house at the school sports? Even a fan of amateur athletics like me can acknowledge that Club and Relay Championships aren't particularly competitive events.
"I don't get access to the best talent and make do with what I've got, but from what I've seen in terms of commitment, dedication, a preparedness to make sacrifices, etc, most pro runners are significantly more committed to getting better."
I am genuinely (no sarcasm intended) pleased that you have a squad of committed athletes. I hope their sacrifices mean they will reach the top of their sport.
"Most pro meets are conducted in rural communities and there's a real excitement and sense of community spirit that is lacking in a Saturday interclub."
I wholeheartedly agree. I volunteered for several years at a pro carnival and was impressed with the enthusiasm of the community. It was for this reason I continued to volunteer. Interclub lacks in this area. I have also observed similar enthusiasm at school sports.
"I'm sick & tired of reading about another 'elite' track athlete whinging about funding"
Don't read the articles when you find them would be my advice. But you probably aren't seeking my advice.
"yet if managed properly could easily pick up $6000 per season on the pro running circuit."
Ah, now we get to the crux of the matter. If an athlete is "managed"; not coached in areas of peaking, periodisation, training load, technique and all of those boring, athletic things they can earn $6,000. My problem and fellow training partners problem appears to be that we sought PB's, State, National, International Titles and international representation. I should have gone after $6,000.
"But they won't because that would mean they would have to compete and maybe run multiple races in a day."
And when I did school sports and the occasional multi event at Interclub I had a lot of fun too.
"They would rather just train & live off handouts."
I have never seen this from all the national and international athletes I have trained with, read about and talked to.
"In pro running you have to compete regularly and run well to win."
But not too well or you will be fined $5,000 like the recent Stawell gift winner.
"It's a great sport as it rewards those willing to work hard regardless of natural talent."
Good
"Yes there's tactics and strategies employed to maximise one's earnings, but that goes in all sport"
Ahhh, no. I know lots of amateur athletes and footballers, cricketers, etc. that join enjoy competing to the best of their ability on the day.
"and in all walks of life and one shouldn't condemn an entire sport because of a few bad apples."
Agreed.
"By the way, I've witnessed just as much unethical behaviour in amateur athletics as I have in the pro's."
That's unfortunate.
By the way- I though of another analogy: The AFL pre-season cup. I'm pretty sure St. Kilda won and I'm pretty sure my team went out in the first round but I'm not that fussed. However, once the season proper starts I get excited because I know the footballers are now fair dinkum.
daniel
it's fairly obvious from your first post that you didn't have a clue about handicap racing, so you can step on down from your high horse.
what was your point again?
people don't try at stawell?
or stawell rewards mediocre talent?
just trying to work out which one's more demonstrably rubbish.
it's neck and neck at the moment.
also i think you were also trying to make a comparison between school sports and pro running in there ...
but it was way too subtle.
you might need to repeat it another 357 times or something.
And more analogies in general would be good too.
the first three have beeen awesome.
Pros is much better administered. They make money, where AA lose money...
hahaha
Whatever,
You appear to have some serious questions so I'll try to clarify my position:
"it's fairly obvious from your first post that you didn't have a clue about handicap racing"
If we take your assumption that I "didn't" have a clue. Can we now assume that I do?
My initial point was largely that I agree with Len's article. In particular the last three paragraphs.
In response to your specific questions:
"people don't try at stawell?"
I've conceed that I have only watched the Stawell carnival a couple of times but given it's exalted status in the pro circuit I'm assuming (maybe incorrectly) that this is the one carnival that most athletes do try 100%. It is the other ones in which a large minority don't try 100% that makes me think they are not legitimate athletic competition.
Your third question: "stawell rewards mediocre talent?"
A whole hearted YES! Stawell rewards the less physically talented, less commited towards training for improvement and those that are "managed".
Regarding your request for another analogy:
Getting excited about a winner of a handicapped pro race is like getting excited about a winner of a heat or semi-final of a State, National, World or Olympic championship. The goal is not always to win or try your best.
Whatever, keep the questions coming. I'll try my best to answer them.
A whole hearted YES! Stawell rewards the less physically talented, less commited towards training for improvement and those that are "managed".
These athletes are no less committed to training than any Olympic athlete. You are a fool to suggest otherwise.
I can attest from first hand experience of myself and athletes that I have trained with, know and see in peak condition that they give as much effort to training and improvement than anyone else.
If superior performance only came from training then why aren't you better than you are?
I agree wholeheartedly. This year's Gift winner competed at the National Championships and was nowhere near the winners in the 400m, yet, he earnt more out of winning Stawell than the 7 of the 8 finalists will earn over the next 2 years. Yet, most of that final group brought home a bronze medal at the World Athletics Final. None of those athletes have time to hold down a full time job and train for athletics, yet the winner can work and take home more money from athletics than the rest of the 400m runners that will compete at Comm. Games.
i have know clue to what yous are all on about but im thirteen years of age. and my year 9 touch extension class held a gift race :D each of us had our own role to play :) some of us where commentators and most were in the heats some where on equipmet etc.. :) and now i have to write a newspaper article on the day.. can anyone help me its due 15th june in two days :) and this is all i have so far 'A stunning golden treat was won by Jaedyn as he came in first on the day of the Browns Plains gift race, which was run by the year 9 touch extension class, each played a role making the day a great success. Perfect conditions for the competitors who were competing as the weather was amazing due to the sun glazing down of the track and wind blowing in the tree top the day was hot nor clod.
The stawell gift race was the inspiration for holding the event at browns plain in the first place. The stawell gift rice is held only on the day of easter every year commentators' is what i have ok and can anyone of yous help me with what a handi cap is ? like how could i tell the reader like how can i explain to them.? hehehhe thanks every one :D:D:D:D X.