c4countdown

Just a reminder it starts at 1am tonight on channel 4:

http://athletics.channel4.com/

I think the race of the championships will be the 110m hurdles, with the three fastest ever hurdlers taking part. Anyway it will be interesting to see how channel 4 covers the championship, hopefully there won't be any commerical breaks during the races, particularly the 100m race with Usain Bolt.

Ouch painful viewing of the ex-athletics host:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6o52kZxvtg

I wonder if he is the new Countdown host.

p.s Channel 4 seems to be removing these videos out of embarrassment, so don't expect this one to stay up for long.

Jojo Apollo wrote:Ouch painful viewing of the ex-athletics host:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6o52kZxvtg

I wonder if he is the new Countdown host.

p.s Channel 4 seems to be removing these videos out of embarrasment, so don't expect this one to stay up for long.

Wow that was painful. I could only watch about a minute of it. Always interesting seeing people being bad at something that you otherwise take for granted (see also: acting).

Jojo Apollo wrote:Ouch painful viewing of the ex-athletics host:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6o52kZxvtg

I wonder if he is the new Countdown host.

p.s Channel 4 seems to be removing these videos out of embarrassment, so don't expect this one to stay up for long.

I had to stop after a minute, it's just too horrible. I love the look on Michael Johnson's face.

Jojo Apollo wrote:Ouch painful viewing of the ex-athletics host:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6o52kZxvtg

I wonder if he is the new Countdown host.

p.s Channel 4 seems to be removing these videos out of embarrassment, so don't expect this one to stay up for long.

Hahahaha fucking hell, that's hilarious. Thanks so much for posting this!

"We have a gloriously sunny day here in the studio.
We've seen some action as well.

Jessica Ennis.

Goodnight."

hahahahaha

Yeah the ending was classic haha!

So, er, moving on, what do you all make of the one-false-start-and-you're-out rule?

Gavin Chipper wrote:So, er, moving on, what do you all make of the one-false-start-and-you're-out rule?

Seems a bit shit to me.

Michael Wallace wrote:

Gavin Chipper wrote:So, er, moving on, what do you all make of the one-false-start-and-you're-out rule?

Seems a bit shit to me.

Yep. Complete nonsense really.

It's ten times better than the rule they had previously. I actually don't mind it.

Jon O'Neill wrote:It's ten times better than the rule they had previously. I actually don't mind it.

What was the previous rule? I thought it was just 2 false starts and you're out, or was it something else?

If anybody got a false start, the whole field was on a false start (i.e. the situation now). Which makes no sense really, competitively speaking, whilst also encouraging the most accurate starters to false start. I don't think that's a good thing.

The previous previous rule is probably better, which is 2 false starts. But that can take ages and encourages risk-taking. Although it is a shame that you can get DQed from a championships for twitching, like Dwayne Chambers (although Beevers will say he should be bant from everything ever).

Jon O'Neill wrote:If anybody got a false start, the whole field was on a false start (i.e. the situation now). Which makes no sense really, competitively speaking, whilst also encouraging the most accurate starters to false start. I don't think that's a good thing.

Wow, that's pretty mental. 2 false starts seems good to me - it might take a bit longer but that can rack up the tension, which is fun, and presumably one strike and you're out makes setting new records harder.

I think the IAAF have tried to fix the wrong problem, or rather have failed to identify what the real problem is. The problem they've tackled is that of getting too many false starts through athletes trying to anticipate the gun and get as close as possible to the tenth of a second allowed. If anyone wins that way it will still stand, but they've successfully made it too risky a strategy for most athletes to contemplate. However, the price they've had to pay is disqualifying those in Bolt's situation - the genuine false start. No-one is suggesting he was trying it on, so he wasn't part of the original problem. A classic case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

So I suggest that the arbitrary tenth of a second is the real problem. Trying to bring a bit of imagination to this, could it work if every elite athlete intending to take part in a sprint event was given a personal tariff, based on a controlled series of tests? If anticipating the gun inevitably triggers a false start, there's no point, is there?

Clive Brooker wrote:I think the IAAF have tried to fix the wrong problem, or rather have failed to identify what the real problem is. The problem they've tackled is that of getting too many false starts through athletes trying to anticipate the gun and get as close as possible to the tenth of a second allowed. If anyone wins that way it will still stand, but they've successfully made it too risky a strategy for most athletes to contemplate. However, the price they've had to pay is disqualifying those in Bolt's situation - the genuine false start. No-one is suggesting he was trying it on, so he wasn't part of the original problem. A classic case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

So I suggest that the arbitrary tenth of a second is the real problem. Trying to bring a bit of imagination to this, could it work if every elite athlete intending to take part in a sprint event was given a personal tariff, based on a controlled series of tests? If anticipating the gun inevitably triggers a false start, there's no point, is there?

If that's the real problem, wouldn't a better solution be to have the time between the SET and the gun randomised?

Jon O'Neill wrote:If anybody got a false start, the whole field was on a false start (i.e. the situation now). Which makes no sense really, competitively speaking, whilst also encouraging the most accurate starters to false start. I don't think that's a good thing.

The previous previous rule is probably better, which is 2 false starts. But that can take ages and encourages risk-taking. Although it is a shame that you can get DQed from a championships for twitching, like Dwayne Chambers (although Beevers will say he should be bant from everything ever).

I don't think there was a problem with the old rule (i.e. 2 false starts for each athlete); OK, I've seen the odd ridiculous 100m where there were seven false starts and three disqualifications, but these were extremely rare. Many meetings would have no false starts at all, but some would have false starts in every race, which suggests that some meetings have starters who know what they're doing, and some don't. The current rule is far too draconian and I think the disqualification of Usain Bolt in the 100m will make the administrators look at this one again; he is by some distance the sport's current biggest asset and I dare say his disqualification will lose the IAAF quite a lot of money, one way or another.

Clive Brooker wrote:I think the IAAF have tried to fix the wrong problem, or rather have failed to identify what the real problem is. The problem they've tackled is that of getting too many false starts through athletes trying to anticipate the gun and get as close as possible to the tenth of a second allowed. If anyone wins that way it will still stand, but they've successfully made it too risky a strategy for most athletes to contemplate. However, the price they've had to pay is disqualifying those in Bolt's situation - the genuine false start. No-one is suggesting he was trying it on, so he wasn't part of the original problem. A classic case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

So I suggest that the arbitrary tenth of a second is the real problem. Trying to bring a bit of imagination to this, could it work if every elite athlete intending to take part in a sprint event was given a personal tariff, based on a controlled series of tests? If anticipating the gun inevitably triggers a false start, there's no point, is there?

Personally, I don't think the problem ever was people trying to anticipate the start. It may have happened occasionally but it was probably quite rare. Sprinters false start more often than distance runners because they are far more on edge trying to get away as quickly as possible, whereas it's unlikely to matter so much in a distance race so they are more relaxed. Being on edge means that you are more likely to accidentally go early.

The chances of actually gaining from anticipating the start are very slim. Anything under 0.1s is a false start and as far as I understand, most athletes are probably gone by about 0.15s, so to guess a particular 0.05s window is very unlikely.

If each athlete had their own limit, it would make a bit of a joke of it I think, with some people allowed to start before others. I've also always been a bit uncomfortable with the idea that starting after the gun can ever count as a false start. Maybe anything between 0 and 0.1 seconds should mean a restart but not a false start against anyone. Also the race has only effectively started after 0.1 seconds so really they should take that time off all the records.

But in conclusion, I don't think there is a way to stop sprinters being at risk of false starting, and the one-false-start-and-you're-out rule is too extreme. Giving the whole field two lives was a bit weird. The old way was probably the best they've had but obviously can add a long time onto a 10-second race.

And yeah, randomised times seem logical (how do they do it now?) and maybe a longish gap as the norm which might reduce the "on-edge-ness". Actually that's something you could look at empirically - what sort of average time leads to fewest false starts.

Also, different sports have different ways of deciding their world championships. Some sports (like F1 - if you would call it a sport, but that's neither here nor there) have the championship decided over several events, so a single small error would not make as much of a difference.

Even sports that have one event as the world championship (like snooker - if you would call it a sport, but that's neither here nor there) are still decided over the course of several frames/games or whatever, so it's quite a specific problem that athletics has. Maybe the world championship should be more of a championship but I dunno. You could turn the Diamond league into the world championship, and still have the Olympics as the gimmicky one-off event championship every four years.

It also depends on what you're trying to achieve. If this is a simply just some competition with certain rules and you just have to win under these rules then fine, but if you're setting it up as a competition to see who is the best runner over a certain distance, then you have to try and achieve that properly. And that didn't happen in the 100 metres final.

Gavin Chipper wrote: The chances of actually gaining from anticipating the start are very slim. Anything under 0.1s is a false start and as far as I understand, most athletes are probably gone by about 0.15s, so to guess a particular 0.05s window is very unlikely.

It's similar to the debate about disallowing very fast conundrum solves. Basic decision theory tells you to expect some amount of babies and some amount of bathwater no matter what approach you take. But the two-strikes rule worked well enough for me.

I was wondering how other people compared the athletics at the Olympics with the World championships. To me, they're completely interchangeable, but sometimes from what people say on TV, it's as if they consider the Olympics to be "better". It might be partly because the Olympics are in London next year but I still think it's generally the case. It's no harder or more impressive to win at the Olympics. The best people compete at both and in all relevant respects they are exactly the same.

Also, because I see them as the same, when they talk about someone defending their Olympic or World title, I see it in terms of whoever won the last Olympics or Worlds as defending the title of global champion. And they should have a World championships in the even years when there isn't an Olympics (e.g. 2010 and 2014). Having a global championships three out of every four years is just weird.

Gavin Chipper wrote:I was wondering how other people compared the athletics at the Olympics with the World championships. To me, they're completely interchangeable, but sometimes from what people say on TV, it's as if they consider the Olympics to be "better". It might be partly because the Olympics are in London next year but I still think it's generally the case. It's no harder or more impressive to win at the Olympics. The best people compete at both and in all relevant respects they are exactly the same.

I see what you mean, but it could also be self-perpetuating in that people think the Olympics is a bigger deal, so the athletes get more funding, train harder and perform under more pressure, which makes the act of winning more impressive. Maybe.

Gavin Chipper wrote:I was wondering how other people compared the athletics at the Olympics with the World championships. To me, they're completely interchangeable, but sometimes from what people say on TV, it's as if they consider the Olympics to be "better". It might be partly because the Olympics are in London next year but I still think it's generally the case. It's no harder or more impressive to win at the Olympics. The best people compete at both and in all relevant respects they are exactly the same.

Also, because I see them as the same, when they talk about someone defending their Olympic or World title, I see it in terms of whoever won the last Olympics or Worlds as defending the title of global champion. And they should have a World championships in the even years when there isn't an Olympics (e.g. 2010 and 2014). Having a global championships three out of every four years is just weird.

Yeah, for me the Olympics and Worlds have always been exactly the same level (i.e. the only proper global championships). The Worlds used to be every four years too, but in 1991 it went biennial so you get the lopsidedness that exists now. Mind you, in the years that there's neither Olympics nor Worlds, there's the Commonwealth Games and while they're not genuinely global, it's at least something (and in quite a few of the athletics events - especially distance events - there's not many contenders missing).

Yeah but the Olympics is the frigging Olympics, isn't it.

Jon O'Neill wrote:Yeah but the Olympics is the frigging Olympics, isn't it.

No. The Olympics and the Frigging Olympics are two entirely separate and distinct events.

In my experience, the Frigging Olympics happens way more often than once every four years too.

Matt Morrison wrote:In my experience, the Frigging Olympics happens way more often than once every four years too.

Really? How often do they come then?

I always seem to come second (sometimes third ) at these games.

Matt Bayfield wrote:

Matt Morrison wrote:In my experience, the Frigging Olympics happens way more often than once every four years too.

Really? How often do they come then?

OK. That's it. Bring back likes.

Liam Tiernan wrote:

Matt Bayfield wrote:

Matt Morrison wrote:In my experience, the Frigging Olympics happens way more often than once every four years too.

Really? How often do they come then?

OK. That's it. Bring back likes.

Would if I could.

On a recent edition of The Media Show, Channel 4 executive Stuart Cosgrove responds to Des Lynam's criticism of the Athletics coverage, he also mentions Des' first Countdown appearance. You can hear it here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/series/media#playepisode2 (discussion starts around the 10 minute 40 sec mark)