Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
2015 TI Race Calendar
Options
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
I'm going to try this one more time Peter and then I'm done with this thread.peter kern wrote: »to answer your question i know enough that i know that what you write is still not correct.
you still leave 2 points out of the selection process.
your link dosnt work on my computer so iam not sure if the link you are using is an old one ( bad enough ) or you chose toignore facts (even worse)
http://www.triathlonireland.com/index.php?id=107&nid=2035
Or another option, I made a mistake when I posted the link. Lord knows you make enough of them when posting. Then instead of giving me the benefit of the doubt, you come out with the two accusations above. The link I tried to post was the exact same one you have supplied yourself.
I'm going to assume you looked at the link and you must know everything about the selection process for category 1, if you're coming on here making such authoritative claims on the matter. With that being the case, can you explain the following table to me?
It's taken straight from the link you provided. And below this table there is a list of 93 'mandatory' category 1 athletes! Both you and I are on the list, can you explain that to me? The only way I can see how this is happened is we met some of the criteria set out in the above table.
You accuse me of ignoring facts.:rolleyes:peter kern wrote: »but what you write is still not correct ...
and the slection process is not finihsed yet ....
if you go on TI website the last article they posted .you see that people can apply to race cat 1 if they can show 3 times bellow a min requirement ( off my head this is 1.05 for sprint and 2.09 oly for males and 1.14 2.26 for a females )
and there is also one category called execptional circumstances no idea what that is but i guess if you say you where a pro cyclist that can swim (and prove that with results) they will let you in even if you have never done a tri.
so really if you cant get in with those times than i hope we agree that you are not cat 1 material .
but i can t see how you can claim that some that are good enough cant race cat 1 next year or why there is an indication that the field will be weaker in 2016 .
so really anybody who is decent can race cat 1
it might be cooler to be selcted than having to apply but i dont think anybody cares aobut that
Yes I know people can apply for the series if they have bettered the times you quote. And my understanding of the 'exceptional circumstances' is the same as yours. I never denied or argued this. But however many people successfully apply based on times, or however many athletes are deemed exceptional enough to be worthy of category 1 status, it is not going to change the fact that the majority of category 1 athletes next year (i.e. virtually all 93 athletes on the list you seem to be ignoring) are going to be drawn from results in the NS over the last two years. If the criteria TI use for 2016's super series is the same as they used for next year, then the standard will almost certainly be lower. I've talked a good few people in the real world about this, and you're the only person who doesn't see my point.peter kern wrote: »as for nat series
OVERALL it will be more competeive
it makes it an easier league to participate in for those atheltes the Ns was designed for ,so for me the nat sereis serves its purpose now better.
most people on boards agree that the Nat series was a joke and to losely use tunneys words it was never meant to be a competetive league .it was designed as a banter for dave and hugh .
it was never competive if only 300 people finsh it .unless you think getting 80 point per races for 6 races is more competitive than my 117 points average for 4 races ....
your are right there will be more races to cherry pic from but this was always the case in the nat series.
HOWEVER there will be more people finishing so it will be more competetive ...
if you have 5000 people fighting for places as you suggested than this will make it much harder to come 5 th in your age group than if you have 300 people overall finsihng a sereis
i think ther is more than 25 age gorups so an average of 12 athletes per age group is not really competive
so looking at it at the whole there was always many faster atheltes that never got the 6 races done as they do ironman or whatever so there will be in the competition now an d id argue this makes it more compteive nat overall as the guy with 80 points per will not be 12 th in his age group anymore as there are many better people that just never did 6 races .
it likely be a bit less accurate than beofre but roughly it will still be right and i dont think is i sth eend of the worlds if you finsh 234o th but are in reallity no 2325 th as you got beaten by 5 cheery picker.
but it will defo mean more to sayit you came 1oth in your age group as its likely there will be more than 10 people in you agr group now if oyu are bellow the age of 60 . ( i hope you are not going to make the aruement now that the Ns cant be really competive with the better atheltes racing in cat 1 and therefore is less competeive as you arguee ,,,please dont if you have a valid point please bring it up but dodnt argue for the sake of arguing please)
Oh the irony!
I thought the NS was a joke because the athletes seldom if ever had to face each other, (next year this is even more likely) not because such a small percentage of TI members had completed it. TI need to incentivise people to race the NS. They're not doing that, people will just complete it by default.
Expanding the number of possible races that you can score points in will undoubtedly increase the number of people who complete the series, but it doesn't make it anymore successful in my eyes. By your definition of success TI could have stipulated one only needs to do two races to complete the series, and they would have been even more successful still.0 -
-
-
Overall what I see is you don't seem to distinguish that nat series was never above performance
And this now taken up by the super series so why would we worry as there will be more athletes in the cat one than there is athletes that are really performance so if you can't make it cat 1 you are very fat do really performance ( I mean my kilkee was not the minimum standard I would see as performance or it it was just about so what I say all and I mean all the people that are close to what I think is cat 1 level will get in. And the nat series has a great purpose for improving athletes and so to make more people to participate is a great thing .
So cat 1 is performance ns is for people to have a friendly and performance positive environment but it's not performance given the fact that all the performance people race car 1 and if they have a bit of a case they will get in so . It's much better to make ns more widely available .
You seem to focus on ns being the same as super series when it serves another purpose.
And again if I did not want to race cat one than I apI'm going to try this one more time Peter and then I'm done with this thread.
Or another option, I made a mistake when I posted the link. Lord knows you make enough of them when posting. Then instead of giving me the benefit of the doubt, you come out with the two accusations above. The link I tried to post was the exact same one you have supplied yourself.
I'm going to assume you looked at the link and you must know everything about the selection process for category 1, if you're coming on here making such authoritative claims on the matter. With that being the case, can you explain the following table to me?
It's taken straight from the link you provided. And below this table there is a list of 93 'mandatory' category 1 athletes! Both you and I are on the list, can you explain that to me? The only way I can see how this is happened is we met some of the criteria set out in the above table.
You accuse me of ignoring facts.:rolleyes:
Yes I know people can apply for the series if they have bettered the times you quote. And my understanding of the 'exceptional circumstances' is the same as yours. I never denied or argued this. But however many people successfully apply based on times, or however many athletes are deemed exceptional enough to be worthy of category 1 status, it is not going to change the fact that the majority of category 1 athletes next year (i.e. virtually all 93 athletes on the list you seem to be ignoring) are going to be drawn from results in the NS over the last two years. If the criteria TI use for 2016's super series is the same as they used for next year, then the standard will almost certainly be lower. I've talked a good few people in the real world about this, and you're the only person who doesn't see my point.
Oh the irony!
I thought the NS was a joke because the athletes seldom if ever had to face each other, (next year this is even more likely) not because such a small percentage of TI members had completed it. TI need to incentivise people to race the NS. They're not doing that, people will just complete it by default.
Expanding the number of possible races that you can score points in will undoubtedly increase the number of people who complete the series, but it doesn't make it anymore successful in my eyes. By your definition of success TI could have stipulated one only needs to do two races to complete the series, and they would have been even more successful still.0 -
Overall what I see is you don't seem to distinguish that nat series was never above performance
And this now taken up by the super series so why would we worry as there will be more athletes in the cat one than there is athletes that are really performance so if you can't make it cat 1 you are very far from performance ( I mean my kilkee was not the minimum standard I would see as performance or it it was just about so what I say all and I mean all the people that are close to what I think is cat 1 level will get in. And the nat series has a great purpose for improving athletes and so to make more people to participate is a great thing .
So cat 1 is performance ns is for people to have a friendly and performance positive environment but it's not performance given the fact that all the performance people race car 1 and if they have a bit of a case they will get in so . It's much better to make ns more widely available .
You seem to focus on ns being the same as super series when it serves another purpose.
And again if I did not want to race cat one than I get a British license or use one day license so mandatory does not interest me
apI'm going to try this one more time Peter and then I'm done with this thread.
Or another option, I made a mistake when I posted the link. Lord knows you make enough of them when posting. Then instead of giving me the benefit of the doubt, you come out with the two accusations above. The link I tried to post was the exact same one you have supplied yourself.
I'm going to assume you looked at the link and you must know everything about the selection process for category 1, if you're coming on here making such authoritative claims on the matter. With that being the case, can you explain the following table to me?
It's taken straight from the link you provided. And below this table there is a list of 93 'mandatory' category 1 athletes! Both you and I are on the list, can you explain that to me? The only way I can see how this is happened is we met some of the criteria set out in the above table.
You accuse me of ignoring facts.:rolleyes:
Yes I know people can apply for the series if they have bettered the times you quote. And my understanding of the 'exceptional circumstances' is the same as yours. I never denied or argued this. But however many people successfully apply based on times, or however many athletes are deemed exceptional enough to be worthy of category 1 status, it is not going to change the fact that the majority of category 1 athletes next year (i.e. virtually all 93 athletes on the list you seem to be ignoring) are going to be drawn from results in the NS over the last two years. If the criteria TI use for 2016's super series is the same as they used for next year, then the standard will almost certainly be lower. I've talked a good few people in the real world about this, and you're the only person who doesn't see my point.
Oh the irony!
I thought the NS was a joke because the athletes seldom if ever had to face each other, (next year this is even more likely) not because such a small percentage of TI members had completed it. TI need to incentivise people to race the NS. They're not doing that, people will just complete it by default.
Expanding the number of possible races that you can score points in will undoubtedly increase the number of people who complete the series, but it doesn't make it anymore successful in my eyes. By your definition of success TI could have stipulated one only needs to do two races to complete the series, and they would have been even more successful still.0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
Advertisement