Posted: Jun 05, 2019 1:32 pm
GrahamH wrote:Destroyer wrote:GrahamH wrote:Destroyer wrote:
Like I said, there is no easy solution in this debate. The likes of Usain Bolt, Michael Johnson etc who pretty much blew competitors away are very rare exceptions. They were, nevertheless, always pushed to the max by other very talented athletes, otherwise no one would bother to turn up for the spectacle.
How far ahead of the field do you understand Semenya to be? She holds several national records in SA but she doesn't hold the world record 800m and it was noted recently that she lost after a run of 30 victories.
So doesn't she have competition if there are women who can run faster than her?
How good is too good?
I have given no indication that I am of the opinion that Semenya should not be permitted to compete. I have simply noted that her particular case will not bring a satisfactory resolution for all concerned.
In the post you are replying to did I imply you thought she should not compete? You made the point that sport requires less than total dominance and I pointed out that Semenya does not have total dominance. Other women athletes have run faster times. Previously I asked if you had a threshold in mind. Maybe 30 straight victories at some specific event and level exceeds your threshold. Maybe holding several national records is factored in. Maybe wining an international competition more than three years in a row would be limit. Who knows? Is there any sort of standard for competition that could be defined here?
It is not about total dominance in the cases that we have been discussing - all athletes and sportspersons mentioned have all been susceptible to defeat. Susceptibility to defeat is at least the best method to determine the worth of competitors. If there aren't at least - I would say one other competitor, ideally four in knock out competitions - who have been observed to be of the level required to be champion, then any such competition would not be a worthwhile spectacle.