GrahamH wrote:

Destroyer wrote:This is a very interesting debate. There is clearly not going to be any resolution that will satisfy everyone. I am in agreement with Cito about competition. If Nadal, Federa, Djokovic, Murray, Wawrinka weren't capable of beating each other on any given day, the competition would be pointless. There are many other good players capable of beating the very best, just not as frequently.

Isn't that the situation that applies here? That a champion wins most of the time but not every time?
So do you have a threshold in mind? Where does it sit between Semenya and Usain Bolt? Was Bolt too good? Does your definition of desired competition lead to an athlete like Bolt being medicated to slow him down? Would that improve competition?

GrahamH wrote:

Destroyer wrote:
There always has to be a winner, Graham; so there will always be champions. The public will always admire those who win regularly, but not without worthy competitors who can give them a serious challenge.

Cito pointed to "90%" champions so this is not about winners per se, it's about elite athletes that dominate a sport. You seem to agree with him that such athletes are bad for sport.

Destroyer wrote:

GrahamH wrote:

Destroyer wrote:This is a very interesting debate. There is clearly not going to be any resolution that will satisfy everyone. I am in agreement with Cito about competition. If Nadal, Federa, Djokovic, Murray, Wawrinka weren't capable of beating each other on any given day, the competition would be pointless. There are many other good players capable of beating the very best, just not as frequently.

Isn't that the situation that applies here? That a champion wins most of the time but not every time?
So do you have a threshold in mind? Where does it sit between Semenya and Usain Bolt? Was Bolt too good? Does your definition of desired competition lead to an athlete like Bolt being medicated to slow him down? Would that improve competition?

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.

GrahamH wrote:

Destroyer wrote:

GrahamH wrote:

Destroyer wrote:This is a very interesting debate. There is clearly not going to be any resolution that will satisfy everyone. I am in agreement with Cito about competition. If Nadal, Federa, Djokovic, Murray, Wawrinka weren't capable of beating each other on any given day, the competition would be pointless. There are many other good players capable of beating the very best, just not as frequently.

Isn't that the situation that applies here? That a champion wins most of the time but not every time?
So do you have a threshold in mind? Where does it sit between Semenya and Usain Bolt? Was Bolt too good? Does your definition of desired competition lead to an athlete like Bolt being medicated to slow him down? Would that improve competition?

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?

Destroyer wrote:

GrahamH wrote:

Destroyer wrote:

GrahamH wrote:

Isn't that the situation that applies here? That a champion wins most of the time but not every time?
So do you have a threshold in mind? Where does it sit between Semenya and Usain Bolt? Was Bolt too good? Does your definition of desired competition lead to an athlete like Bolt being medicated to slow him down? Would that improve competition?

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.

GrahamH wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:You're not defending a position, unless it is that, in sport, commerce and the public are more important than the athletes, but there is no basis for this -- it's just your opinion. It's much easier to ask others who have only asked you what position you're defending to fucking do so. I don't know why you'd insist that anyone but competitors have any interest in the rules that apply to athletes with 'conditions', but you could always defend your notion regarding 'champions'. Sure, without media and sponsor interest, there isn't any money in it, and maybe no competition, but I doubt it. How does that weigh against the interests of other competitors? Does anyone have a right to earn a living as a sports competitor? No, it's just entertainment. I can defend your point of view better than you can. In four fucking words. I can cut it down to three: Athletes are chattel.

Ah, so you claim is that "What's desired is not champions, but competition." applies to sports competitors? Is that it?
Why is that then? Don't you think competitors aspire to be giant killers and hope to be become champions themselves?
As I said I don't see a case that sport with no champions is "desired".

GrahamH wrote:

Destroyer wrote:This is a very interesting debate. There is clearly not going to be any resolution that will satisfy everyone. I am in agreement with Cito about competition. If Nadal, Federa, Djokovic, Murray, Wawrinka weren't capable of beating each other on any given day, the competition would be pointless. There are many other good players capable of beating the very best, just not as frequently.

Isn't that the situation that applies here? That a champion wins most of the time but not every time?
So do you have a threshold in mind? Where does it sit between Semenya and Usain Bolt? Was Bolt too good? Does your definition of desired competition lead to an athlete like Bolt being medicated to slow him down? Would that improve competition?

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?

Destroyer wrote:
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.

GrahamH wrote:

Destroyer wrote:
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.

Obviously if one athlete won all the time there would be no competiotion and it wouldn't be sport, but clearly that is not the case here. The athlete is question doesn't always win and is not the fastest in the world there are is more than "one other competitor observed to de of the level required to be champion".
So do you really support Cito assertion "" What's desired is not champions, but competition." and do you consider Semenya prevents competition to a degree that other elite athletes do not?

Destroyer wrote:

GrahamH wrote:

Destroyer wrote:
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.

Obviously if one athlete won all the time there would be no competiotion and it wouldn't be sport, but clearly that is not the case here. The athlete is question doesn't always win and is not the fastest in the world there are is more than "one other competitor observed to de of the level required to be champion".
So do you really support Cito assertion "" What's desired is not champions, but competition." and do you consider Semenya prevents competition to a degree that other elite athletes do not?

Competition is indeed what is required. As I have already stated there always has to be a champion.

Destroyer wrote: But if there were to be someone who won every single event entered, then that would not be a competition:

Destroyer wrote:As for Semenya's particular case, I will leave that to the professional bodies to decide. Not everyone will be happy, whatever the outcome.

Destroyer wrote:

GrahamH wrote:

Destroyer wrote:
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.

Obviously if one athlete won all the time there would be no competiotion and it wouldn't be sport, but clearly that is not the case here. The athlete is question doesn't always win and is not the fastest in the world there are is more than "one other competitor observed to de of the level required to be champion".
So do you really support Cito assertion "" What's desired is not champions, but competition." and do you consider Semenya prevents competition to a degree that other elite athletes do not?

Competition is indeed what is required. As I have already stated there always has to be a champion. But if there were to be someone who won every single event entered, then that would not be a competition: you may as well get all the other competitors to accept defeat beforehand, and just compete for second place.

As for Semenya's particular case, I will leave that to the professional bodies to decide. Not everyone will be happy, whatever the outcome.

GrahamH wrote:

Destroyer wrote:

GrahamH wrote:

Destroyer wrote:
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.

Obviously if one athlete won all the time there would be no competiotion and it wouldn't be sport, but clearly that is not the case here. The athlete is question doesn't always win and is not the fastest in the world there are is more than "one other competitor observed to de of the level required to be champion".
So do you really support Cito assertion "" What's desired is not champions, but competition." and do you consider Semenya prevents competition to a degree that other elite athletes do not?

Competition is indeed what is required. As I have already stated there always has to be a champion.

No there doesn't. This is in the sense cito used it, an athlete with 90% win percentage. Clearly any competition will have one (or possibly more) winner but that is not a "champion" in the relevant sense. A winner may only have won the one event in their entire career. I don't think we disagree on anything there. really, you are just using a different definition.

Destroyer wrote: But if there were to be someone who won every single event entered, then that would not be a competition:

agreed, but irrelevant. That is not the case here.

Destroyer wrote:As for Semenya's particular case, I will leave that to the professional bodies to decide. Not everyone will be happy, whatever the outcome.

Not everyone will be happy. That's life.

I suspect you basically agree with me that "" What's desired is not champions, but competition." is not right and sport benefits all round when there are champions AND competition is some elusive proportion. The bigger the champion the greater the spectacle, the greater the awe and the greater the competion in trying and sometime managing to beat them. Champions ARE desired.

nunnington wrote:

Destroyer wrote:

GrahamH wrote:

Destroyer wrote:
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.

Obviously if one athlete won all the time there would be no competiotion and it wouldn't be sport, but clearly that is not the case here. The athlete is question doesn't always win and is not the fastest in the world there are is more than "one other competitor observed to de of the level required to be champion".
So do you really support Cito assertion "" What's desired is not champions, but competition." and do you consider Semenya prevents competition to a degree that other elite athletes do not?

Competition is indeed what is required. As I have already stated there always has to be a champion. But if there were to be someone who won every single event entered, then that would not be a competition: you may as well get all the other competitors to accept defeat beforehand, and just compete for second place.

As for Semenya's particular case, I will leave that to the professional bodies to decide. Not everyone will be happy, whatever the outcome.

But the IAAF are not trying to reduce Semenya's performance, because she always wins are they? Well, I think some of her supporters do argue that. There are DSD athletes who are not medal winners, the most obvious being Dutee Chand, who first objected to the rules on T. Or there are probably women with high T, who are not very good at running. And some sports scientists are arguing that the evidence on DSD athletes is minimal. I don't think there has been any longitudinal research on DSD and performance.

Destroyer wrote:
No, Graham, anyone who wins a race is the champion of that particular race. What you are talking about are 'superstars' of events Yes, the public do like their superstars, but they still have to compete, and should be prone to the odd defeat to make competition worthwhile.

GrahamH wrote:

Destroyer wrote:
No, Graham, anyone who wins a race is the champion of that particular race. What you are talking about are 'superstars' of events Yes, the public do like their superstars, but they still have to compete, and should be prone to the odd defeat to make competition worthwhile.

Yawn.
Use whatever label you like, the statement made by cito that you claimed to agree with related to dominant athletes defined as those winning 90% of events. If it makes you happy call them "superstars". It makes no difference.
So you do aggrege with me, "superstars" / "champions" can be good for sport, contrary to what cito stated (" What's desired is not champions, but competition."
Sport benefits from both, and too much of a level field or a champ that is too dominant is a problem.
Simples.

Destroyer wrote:

GrahamH wrote:

Destroyer wrote:
No, Graham, anyone who wins a race is the champion of that particular race. What you are talking about are 'superstars' of events Yes, the public do like their superstars, but they still have to compete, and should be prone to the odd defeat to make competition worthwhile.

Yawn.
Use whatever label you like, the statement made by cito that you claimed to agree with related to dominant athletes defined as those winning 90% of events. If it makes you happy call them "superstars". It makes no difference.
So you do aggrege with me, "superstars" / "champions" can be good for sport, contrary to what cito stated (" What's desired is not champions, but competition."
Sport benefits from both, and too much of a level field or a champ that is too dominant is a problem.
Simples.

Destroyer wrote:
Yes, superstars can be good for sports! Do you think that Cito was denying this with his statement? I didn't. If you weren't sure, you could have just asked him if that is what he meant?
It should have been evident from my first post that this is not what I meant.

GrahamH wrote:

Destroyer wrote:
Yes, superstars can be good for sports! Do you think that Cito was denying this with his statement? I didn't. If you weren't sure, you could have just asked him if that is what he meant?
It should have been evident from my first post that this is not what I meant.

His words were not ambiguous and he didn't volunteer any clarification or respond when challenged. He didn't merely say that competition was more important than champions, which is perhaps how you took it. He literally stated "What's desired is not champions, but competition.". Literally champions are not desired, competition is what is desired.
He had ample opportunity walk back from that literal meaning to the meaning you prefer and it seem to me he only dug in deeper.

But that's cito, he's usually on the attack.

Cito di Pense wrote:the presumable intent of the regulation...