|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
My latest whinge...
Bleve wrote:
Sure, but does that benefit "us" by getting more ordinary people out playing sport? Does it even affect grass-roots sport? My suggestion would be (no facts to back this up, it's a belief ) that focussing on elite sport may reduce grass-roots participation levels, but as above, that's just a belief, I don't know if it's the case. I've been participating in a program for the past couple of months called "Hook in 2 Hockey". There are about 250 to 300 kids here in Mackay participating, mostly ones who haven't played before. They learn the basics of the game and hopefully will go on to play for many years. It's funded by Hockey Australia, presumably from a government grant. There's also an "active after school program" where kids can go and learn about various sports. It's funded through an Australian Sports Commission program. Coaches are paid $25 per hour to run hour long sessions once per week with groups of kids. I'm sure that Cycling Australia could develop something along the lines of Hook in 2 Hockey and get more kids into cycling as a sport. That's if they think that having a lot of people who will only ever ride at a D grade or C grade level are of any benefit to the sport. I think they are, but a lot of sports administrators and senior coaches aren't really interested in people at that level. Last year Mackay Hockey Assn organised an "adult beginners" course. We ended up with far more participants than we expected, some have started playing, others have taken up coaching. It's great for the sport but mostly I'm happy that a few more people are comfortable with their ability to be active on the weekend. Peter -- Peter McCallum Mackay Qld AUSTRALIA |
Ads |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
My latest whinge...
In aus.bicycle on Thu, 11 May 2006 15:52:17 +1000
Peter McCallum wrote: While a lot of young players do get some sponsorship in the form of equipment, there isn't a lot of actual cash money available from private enterprise. When the money is available, the corporates want a clear understanding of exactly what they are getting in return for their contribution. It's not easy even if you are a skilled marketing guru to get that money, let alone a parent/coach whose real interest is sport. especially as only some sport sells. If it's big on TV, it sells. Rules or Rugby football (although the money's given to teams not individuals till they are seriously big), tennis. Or if the success will feed back into sales of gear, such as surfing or motocross. In the latter though, it's kit they get, not assistance with travelling or other expenses. I don't think most national level sportspeople get much sponsorship unless they are in a TV friendly sport and are already at the top. BUt I also don't think their success encourages more activity. What gets people playing is the local scene, their mates, word of mouth, schools, and so on. Plenty of friends of mine kept up hockey after school because they liked it at school. (I didn't....) Plenty of kids play soccer with kids clubs because their parents got them into it or the school did. They might have fantasies of being Discovered, but most of them know that's all it is. I know bods who play cricket on weekends, but it's not because of the Australian team, it's because they like cricket I suppose a big name athlete might get people curious enough to try that sport, but I don't think the effect is huge. I know that after having watched a top class freestyle cyclist I'd have trouble even thinking about bunny hopping a curb, never mind jumping on and off walls.... Zebee |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
My latest whinge...
Bleve Wrote: Peter McCallum wrote: Bleve wrote: Is there any relationship between participation rates in non-elite levels compared to elite level success? Any good studies you know of? Correlation is not causation, of course ie: Is there some connection between the amazing success of US elite sportspeople and the overall participation rate in sports in the US (or here, or anywhere?), or does Lance armstrong just get more people watching him on TV rather than going out and racing their bikes? I don't know about cycling but in hockey there are countries like China with very few players but high level elite success. They look for athletic children who have the ability to be coached and put them into training to become world champions. I think maybe the more government-controlled societies may be a bit of a special case? (or maybe we're the special case, being a lot more free to do what we want? ) I think Australian sports organisations do much the same. They don't care so much about whether you are a champion school level player at a particular sport but whether you have right the physical and mental attributes. Wasn't their an Australian in the winter olympics who came from Bundaberg or somewhere distinctly non-snowy who was selected for the toboggan (or whatever) because she could run quickly over ten metres? Sure, but does that benefit "us" by getting more ordinary people out playing sport? Does it even affect grass-roots sport? My suggestion would be (no facts to back this up, it's a belief ) that focussing on elite sport may reduce grass-roots participation levels, but as above, that's just a belief, I don't know if it's the case. This is similar to a question I keep asking myself (and hence getting dumb answers to): How does investment in elite sport actually benefit Australia? Apart from the ego factor of "ooh, we won so many medals, etc."... Now, I know that all funding doesn't have to go to things that will 'pay back' financially, and am happy to see money go to the arts 'n such. But does the exorbitant amount of money poured into relatively few athletes actually benefit the country in any significant way? Are we healthier? Are we wiser? Are we smarter? Do we get more tourists just because we're good swimmers? Or does my cynical side spy a touch of the Colosseum in govt's choices of funding - "ooh... look... glorious sports to watch... let's not worry about all the crippling social/environmental/economic issues and watch people run around instead..." -- eddiec |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
My latest whinge...
Peter McCallum wrote: Bleve wrote: Sure, but does that benefit "us" by getting more ordinary people out playing sport? Does it even affect grass-roots sport? My suggestion would be (no facts to back this up, it's a belief ) that focussing on elite sport may reduce grass-roots participation levels, but as above, that's just a belief, I don't know if it's the case. I've been participating in a program for the past couple of months called "Hook in 2 Hockey". There are about 250 to 300 kids here in Mackay participating, mostly ones who haven't played before. They learn the basics of the game and hopefully will go on to play for many years. It's funded by Hockey Australia, presumably from a government grant. There's also an "active after school program" where kids can go and learn about various sports. It's funded through an Australian Sports Commission program. Coaches are paid $25 per hour to run hour long sessions once per week with groups of kids. I'm sure that Cycling Australia could develop something along the lines of Hook in 2 Hockey and get more kids into cycling as a sport. That's if they think that having a lot of people who will only ever ride at a D grade or C grade level are of any benefit to the sport. I think they are, but a lot of sports administrators and senior coaches aren't really interested in people at that level. We have a J-cycle program designed to do this with kids, but much less so with adults. I decided to do it on my own with my coaching stuff (I'm not touting for business!) to provide support and coaching for grass-roots riders, as you point out, senior coaches and the clubs etc pay little attention to non junior, non elite riders. It's their loss, working with D grade riders and seeing them improve is immensely satisfying, and a healthy D grade bunch is great for the sport across the board. Maybe the next Phil Anderson or Robbie McEwen will come out of it, probably not, but they're racing, training, being involved and getting fit, which beats posing at cafe ****** any day! Last year Mackay Hockey Assn organised an "adult beginners" course. We ended up with far more participants than we expected, some have started playing, others have taken up coaching. It's great for the sport but mostly I'm happy that a few more people are comfortable with their ability to be active on the weekend. This is the sort of thing that all sporting associations should be doing, IMO. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
My latest whinge...
Bleve wrote:
or does Lance armstrong just get more people watching him on TV rather than going out and racing their bikes? Yes, it is all about entertainment. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
My latest whinge...
Tamyka Bell wrote: Peter McCallum wrote: snip While a lot of young players do get some sponsorship in the form of equipment, there isn't a lot of actual cash money available from private enterprise. When the money is available, the corporates want a clear understanding of exactly what they are getting in return for their contribution. It's not easy even if you are a skilled marketing guru to get that money, let alone a parent/coach whose real interest is sport. True. However if they were provided with a sponsorship proposal package on which they could base their sponsorship requests, it'd be a lot easier for them to get the sponsorship. Easier than doing it on their own, anyway, and probably cheaper than implementing a massive strategy to provide funding for this and that... All that does is raise the bar for everyone. It's like the first home owners grant, it just makes everything $grant more expensive. I've seen the sponsor's side of the fence, and sponsors treat sponsorship as advertsing (as you'd expect) except for a few (rare!) enthusiasts. It's no suprise the hockey team gets little. It's not on TV (hockey sucks as a spectator sport). Most small sports "suffer" from this, mainly because they don't understand what sport is. The cure is not begging for handouts, it's to remember that elite sport is entertainment, and that elite sportspeople are entertainers, and if you want someone to pay your way, you have (or should have!) to give them something back in some form. The rest of us play sports because we love it, need it, whatever, and while it's nice to get a helping hand every now and then, and the benefits for society in general are good (better overall health, people live longer, then they burn more oil, consume more resources, and take longer to die .. hrmmm ... ), we shouldn't rely on it. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
My latest whinge...
Tam writes -
Given that obesity levels in Australia are pretty appalling, and getting worse, does anyone else think that, instead of the govt spending money so much money on elite athletes, we should probably focus on encouraging EVERYONE to play sport? I suspect the next big policy push will be to get individuals to take some preventitive measures for the good of their own health and the collective public benefit - and there may even be some tax or financial incentives given to encourage that. I devined that from a paper presented to the Sydney Institute a few weeks ago by Julia Gillard - and it matters not which political party proffers it - if it has sufficient public/taxpayer appeal it has a good chance of being adopted by whichever o. The simple economics are that recognising those that do significantly change their health risk profile by exercise are doing the public health system (as well as themselves) a big favour, and recognising that is smart politics. If you don't believe me, think about how many tv clips you have seen recently of Howard walking, Abbott cycling, Beasley publicly losing weight and so on. Hardly elite athletes any of them, but they see their perceived images improving by being filmed thus. The whole bloody country is sports mad - properly orchestrated, how many votes would there be in pitching to that receptive audience in a country with a climate that (mostly) is well suited to outdoor activities? I pretty much sucked at all other sports. Respectfully disagree Tam - you just had not found the ones you love or had bad introductions to - its amazing if you go back to some sports later in life, in good company and now with competant instruction, just how much the dynamic changes for the better. These were sports that I was never going to be brilliant at, but I enjoyed them. Improving myself was enough. I felt no need to judge myself against others. This is absolutely the key point - getting dissapointed at a competitive result is a real downer - but having a great time and doing something for your self esteem (not to mention getting a big dose of the good old endorphins) is what gets us out there on a regular basis - and to be of value the activity has to be consistently undertaken at least at an aerobic level. This is what will do really good things for the community. So I guess I feel like there is a serious lack of funding into promoting sport participation for everyone, and that's bad enough. But it seems even worse that there is a continual push for elite funding, spreading the message that sport is only for people who are really good at it. Again respectfully disagree Tam - the AIS trained cyclists who didn't quite make it into pro teams make great cycling coaches for us hubbards at club level, who in turn encourage recreational cyclists, our kids and others we come into contact with to get off the couch for a bit. IMHO its not a direct funding thing, its an enthusiasm and encouragement thing - get competant people showing the general population how to something safely and well will have a big impact. Countries that get mean about encouraging elite athletes suffer significantly in their public sports participation - England in recent years comes to mind - and from which country are the poms currently recruiting their high perfomance coaches from in cricket athletics swimming et al? And by way of further example, that recent 24hr mtb race effort of yours will have inspired a fair bit of uplifted activity among the readers here - so keep going well you! best, Andrew |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
My latest whinge...
Peter McCallum wrote:
There's also an "active after school program" where kids can go and learn about various sports. It's funded through an Australian Sports Commission program. And that is what is wrong with that program; it is sports orientated. They will get far more kids if it is general, active fun orientated. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
My latest whinge...
Andrew Price wrote:
I suspect the next big policy push will be to get individuals to take some preventitive measures for the good of their own health and the collective public benefit You mispelt punative! - and there may even be some tax or financial incentives given to encourage that. lol. Maybe your grandkids might. Here is a practical problem; deskjobs; are you supposed to spend two hours each evening working out at the gym to keep fit? I devined that from a paper presented to the Sydney Institute a few weeks ago by Julia Gillard - and it matters not which political party proffers it - if it has sufficient public/taxpayer appeal it has a good chance of being adopted by whichever o. If this sort of stuff was ever likely, then we'd have a serious bicyel commuting network everywhere and not the share bike/pedestrian deathtraps. Yep, I'm cynical, but when there are more bicycles sold each year than motor vehicles and we have zip facilities, it makes it clear what is really going to happen. And by way of further example, that recent 24hr mtb race effort of yours will have inspired a fair bit of uplifted activity among the readers here - so keep going well you! Actually, 24hr races are not encouraging people to get off their butt. they all seem headed for elite idiots who make great TV. If these sort of events want to encourage "active involvement" they need to cater more for the fun rider, e.g no single track, multiple bridges, different grades, etc. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
My latest whinge...
On Thu, 11 May 2006 16:45:11 +1000, Terry Collins wrote:
You mispelt punative! Did you mean punitive? Here is a practical problem; deskjobs; are you supposed to spend two hours each evening working out at the gym to keep fit? I had a desk job. It was the fittest I've ever been, thanks to riding an hour each way to get there. (uphill in the snow of course...) Actually, 24hr races are not encouraging people to get off their butt. they all seem headed for elite idiots who make great TV. If these sort of events want to encourage "active involvement" they need to cater more for the fun rider, e.g no single track, multiple bridges, different grades, etc. Um, no singletrack? That's the fun bit! Terry, I suggest you try one of these events before you pass judgement. Some of the courses are quite challenging, but most of them are only tricky if you're going fast. If you want participation events that are easier, look at the Woodford to Glenbrook classic, the Sydney to the Gong, and the RTA Cycle Sydney and Big Ride. For real beginner cyclists offroad events mightn't be appropriate. I know some who've loved it, but on road is easier to find your cycling legs (In Centennial Park or similar, not on Parramatta Rd!). -- Dave Hughes | "One of the main causes of the fall of the Roman Empire was that, lacking zero, they had no way to indicate successful termination of their C programs." -- Robert Firth |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Technical Analysis of stocks/commodities/futures markets Latest Software | futa | Unicycling | 1 | February 1st 06 01:01 PM |
Armstrong's latest challenge | [email protected] | Racing | 0 | October 5th 05 02:07 PM |
CSV's Latest 'decree' | Hitchy | Australia | 21 | April 29th 05 05:37 PM |
Just to follow up with my latest thought | Rik Van Diesel | Racing | 0 | February 16th 05 11:17 PM |
Latest Homemade Light | Gags | Australia | 30 | January 5th 05 08:43 PM |