 Poster: A snowHead
|
| Plugboy wrote: |
Axsman, They have worked very hard and are the best of British, unlike yourself. They certainly don't sit there with their hands out.
Not going to waste anymore time on you or justifying why the best in Britain should get funded.
Thought this was a skiing forum with people who were like minded about British skiing? Obviously not. |
OK I'll play and please note that this is absolutely no criticism against TJ and his peers who I'm sure do all work incredibly hard with little central funding.
British skiing is never going to be very well funded - its a minority sport that most participants see as a holiday or at best hobby and not an athletic pursuit and I suspect most of the public aren't aware of it outside of Olympic years. While we have a very active grass roots dryslope scene it is simply not on the same scale as Alpine nations so the chances of capturing the very best athletes to compete on an international stage are slim (example Squaw Valley, one of 19 or so ski resorts in Northern California has over 800 kids enrolled in its own ski club) and our chances of ever achieving consistent success on WC podiums slimmer.
So anyone who goes into the sport knowing the context has to be admired, I certainly don't think I could have done it. But whether it should be a funding priority when there are sports where UK has demonstrated and has the potential to demonstrate conspicuous success (including sliding sports in the Winter Olympics) is a big question
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
fatbob, And a bigger one is whether 'sport' should be funded by taxpayers at all? Why not let those who enjoy playing or watching, say, Football for example, pay for everything goes into producing their entertainment?
I don't (willingly) pay toward any activity involving round (or oval) balls and green surfaces. I do enjoy watching some skiing, and am quite happy to pay per view for the privilege. If I want to ski myself I pay to do so. If I had to pay the training costs for the British Team, I'd say 'feck that' I'll watch the Austrians, they're better anyway'.
Just because some people consider 'sport' important doesn't mean we should all subsidise it. They'll be expecting me to pay for Opera and Ballet next! Ooops. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
Axsman, some interesting thoughts there to take out for a cream tea on a Sunday afternoon. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| Axsman wrote: |
| They'll be expecting me to pay for Opera and Ballet next! |
Both of which are heavily funded by the government, both by the Heritage Lottery Fund and the four national arts councils. The government even paid for the rebuilding of The Royal Opera House in the 80's and 90's - a multimillion pound project.
Don't tell me that sports don't need or deserve to be supported by the government. Just because the most popular sports generate enough revenue to fund themselves, should that necessarily mean that there's no place in society for niche interests? Of course not, which is exactly why the government does fund the arts and elite sport.
I think you've forgotten what sport is really for. This is something that dates back to Ancient Greece, that educates society on ethics and morals, has had huge effects on global politics, and has a long and proud history in British society (skiing most definitely included). And that is exactly why we should do everything we can to support the continued existence of the sports, pastimes and hobbies that we enjoy. Otherwise, we are writing off our own cultural heritage.
WWE wrestling is the kind of thing that is just about entertainment. Sport - on the other hand - is a way of life.
...hope that makes you think... 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
at this time of massive budget cuts, maybe the funding of skiing is more of a luxury that we can afford. Does a non alpine european country really need to be wasting money on second rate skiers ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
rayscoops, nice troll...
Axsman, If we can only achieve national pride by succeeding at sports against other countries, we are a pretty sad bunch.
welove2ski, duh... I think he actually realised about opera and ballet funding - you might want to get your irony sensors checked...  But I am sure he will be grateful for your slightly bizarre lecture. Are you arguing that slavery and denial of the vote to women are also great ethical and moral ideals we should take forwards from the greeks?
Exercise is good, participation is good, but so much of elite sports these days is about a large population of indolent fatties watching a few fit people from the comfort of their sofa.
No sport, and no cultural activity automatically deserves central funding without critical analysis. WHen you say funding by the government - you mean funding by us. And if sport is "a way of life" should that be its own reward? What happened to corinthian ideals? Or should we fund scientologists, vegans and stalkers because they too have found a "way of life"?
As someone who has given tiny amounts for both the Chemmy fund and TJ, I do support the idea of discretionary funding of athletes, but to ask for indiscriminate government funding of every single sport is naive.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
stoatsbrother,
| Quote: |
| As someone who has given tiny amounts for both the Chemmy fund and TJ |
Its the giving not the receiving that counts ........
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
welove2ski, you're so wrong on so many levels. Why would I want to bankroll a sport that regularly spoils my enjoyment of the mountains? All racing means to me is piste closures and racers pushing into the lift line.
| Quote: |
| Don't tell me that sports don't need or deserve to be supported by the government. |
It does, but not at the elite level. If the elite level of any sport cannot support itself financially then it has no business being in existence.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
welove2ski, as the observant Stoat suggests , you need to polish up your irony meter.
Stoatsbrother good points, well made. 
We don't 'Need' to support any art, cultural or sporting activity. We MAY chose to do so. Personally I wouldn't spend a single tax penny on Football, Rugby, Cricket, Snooker, Darts, Opera, or Ballet, to name but a few. Either these things are loved and generate revenue to support themselves, or unloved and fall by the wayside to be replaced by more popular entertainments. I wonder how much tax revenue is spent on supporting Morris dancing?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| stoatsbrother wrote: |
| I think he actually realised about opera and ballet funding |
I missed that one. Lost in translation I suppose 
| stoatsbrother wrote: |
| Are you arguing that slavery and denial of the vote to women are also great ethical and moral ideals we should take forwards from the greeks? |
Are you arguing that because they were guilty of some arcane and immoral practices, we should forgo everything else they did? There goes mathematics, democracy, reason and logic, the Olympics, the foundations of our legal system, and centuries of influence on theatre, architecture, sculpture and literature.
| stoatsbrother wrote: |
| No sport, and no cultural activity automatically deserves central funding without critical analysis. |
Completely agreed. Axsman suggested that sport should not be funded by the taxpayer. End of. I disagree with him, but I don't at all think that funding for sport should be handed out "indiscriminately".
The current system in place for funding elite sport rewards success and strips funding for failure. Whilst I think there should be more of a system in place to fund young talent, it's a good system. And I'll argue with anyone who says otherwise (it's a subject close to my heart)
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
welove2ski, So why should I susbisides activities which
1) are of no interest to me
2) give me no benefit whatsoever
3) could be funded perfectly adequately by those who ARE interested
Just because some of them may be 'close to your heart'?
If that's the case YOU pay for them. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
Axsman, Do you do the lottery at all?
If so Probably 90% of what you spend goes to all of your 3 points. This includes skiing which has some indirect funding from the lottery via Sport UK. Plus a whole host of other 'Elite minority sports'
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
welove2ski, duuhhh... again
You were the one who implied that because the noble greeks (well, young male, non-slave greeks) were interested in sport, that it was a good thing. I was merely pointing out that there is a teensy logical flaw there in your argument.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
stoatsbrother, I take your point. It was a minor observation - what I was trying to say is that skiing (or opera, or ballet, or any sport that receives UK Sport funding - which is every Olympic sport bar football) represents a positive part of British culture and history. We invented it, after all (see: Sir Arnold Lunn) and have played a key role in its development ever since (despite the unremarkable performances of our elite athletes over the last few decades).
Axsman, I'm afraid that by its very nature, public spending doesn't operate on the desires of the individual. Otherwise the outcome is that those that can afford private healthcare don't pay for the NHS, the same for education, etc. Either the government spends part of the national budget on sport, or it doesn't. You can't have it both ways!
To both of you: we seem to be arguing whether or not sport (and by extension, the arts or any cultural pursuit that receives government funding) should exist simply on a survival-of-the-financially-fittest basis. I think that that's a really bad idea. Some sports/activities don't have a strong natural business model. Skiing in Britain is one of these. The cost is extremely high and the potential for the national governing body to generate revenue is low.
Cycling is another classic example: there is not scope for premiership matches held domestically every week, with gates in the thousands and TV coverage to boot. Which is not to say that neither skiing nor cycling are popular. Not as popular as the big team sports, of course. But we are still talking about 1.5 million skiers/snowboarders in the UK every year. That suggests that it's worth keeping alive, doesn't it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
welove2ski, For me - as a reasonable recreational off-piste skier and a truly abysmal mountain-biker- there is almost no connection between what I do on skis and Alpine Ski Racing. The increasing freestyle element and skier-cross make competitions more interesting, but the separation between "Holiday" skiing and racing is much much bigger that the distance between "recreational" mountain biking and what I do... so I do the odd MTB race, just as I used to race a bit on a road bike back in the day, as do many of my mates.
So I think viewing the 1.5 million recreational skiers/boarders as being a constituency for Alpine racing is a bit far-fetched.
The real issue as regards funding is surely whether we can trust any GB based organisation to not screw it up again.. ie good money after bad?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
| Plugboy wrote: |
Axsman, Do you do the lottery at all?
..... |
No.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| welove2ski wrote: |
... Either the government spends part of the national budget on sport, or it doesn't. You can't have it both ways!
... |
I don't want it both ways. I want them to stop spending my money on things which offer no value other than entertainment to the minorities who enjoy them. I am happy to pay for my own entertainment, why shoudn't others do the same?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
stoatsbrother, two points: first, the development of any recreational sport is directly influenced by elite sport. Do you think the carving ski was invented with the holiday skier in mind? No. Have recreational skiers benefited from it? Yes.
Second, government funding for a specific sport is received by the national governing body of the sport. In snowsports, our NGB is essentially divided into four parts: Snowsport England, Wales and Scotland, whilst Snowsport GB (now superseded by BSS) was the fourth with the first three its constituent members.
England, Wales and Scotland are responsible for the development of snowsports for all English/Welsh/Scottish skiers and snowboarders. Yes, they collectively preside over the national teams (not just for alpine). But they're also collectively responsible for the sport as a whole.
Axsman, if you've ever been to a dryslope or indoor slope, if you've ever taken a lesson or been coached by a UK Snowsports qualified instructor or coach, you've probably benefited from public spending on snowsports.
"Well that's not a whole lot of benefit," you might say. Absolutely it is not. Which is why we need more public spending allocated for snowsports, not less! With more funding for the sport, the benefits you will receive as a recreational skier will be greater. And how is public spending on specific sports determined? By the performance of its elite athletes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| welove2ski wrote: |
| stoatsbrother, two points: first, the development of any recreational sport is directly influenced by elite sport. Do you think the carving ski was invented with the holiday skier in mind? No. Have recreational skiers benefited from it? Yes. |
Would we have managed perfectly well without carving skis and still enjoyed our skiing in blissful ignorance? Yes.
| Quote: |
| .... we need more public spending allocated for snowsports, not less! ..... |
Given the current state of the deficit, you are deluded (I hope). Public spending on snowsports is not on my list of what the public should be spending money on.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| welove2ski wrote: |
| ... the development of any recreational sport is directly influenced by elite sport. Do you think the carving ski was invented with the holiday skier in mind? No. Have recreational skiers benefited from it? Yes. |
My understanding is that the carving ski was developed with the recreational skier in mind. For example, Bode Miller choose to ski a recreational carving ski (K2 Fours IIRC) rather than a race department ski which had not yet been developed with a more pronounced sidecut. See p.80 of Ron LeMaster's 2nd edition for info.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
welove2ski, I think you have your history and your logic a little bit backwards there... again...
Next thing you will be telling us that the non-stick frying pan would never have been invented if it wasn't for the space programme...
I suspect the main cause of innovation in recreational skiing is the desire of the manufacturers to sell more kit, and the main role of their involvement in Alpine snowsports is to get publicity.
Now if you were talking about freeride skiers and boarders and their contribution to ski design (width, twin tips, rocker etc etc) you might have a point... My kit looks quite like what freeride skiers use, and nothing at all like what DH/GS/SL racers use (except my one pair of race department skis)
And did you actually miss the total financial implosion of SSGB?! and project "Bob" ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| welove2ski wrote: |
Axsman, if you've ever been to a dryslope or indoor slope, if you've ever taken a lesson or been coached by a UK Snowsports qualified instructor or coach, you've probably benefited from public spending on snowsports.
"Well that's not a whole lot of benefit," you might say. Absolutely it is not. ..... |
Never been to a dryslope. Have always paid for my own lessons thanks. Don't need the govt to spend my taxes on such things.
I guess from your statement that govt spending on sport, in particular snowsports gives little benefit, and your conclusion that therefore more such spending is needed, that you didn't pay much attention when they were teaching logic at your school? 
Which bit of 'why should I pay tax to support activities which simply provide entertainment for a minority' don't you understand?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| achilles wrote: |
| Would we have managed perfectly well without carving skis and still enjoyed our skiing in blissful ignorance? Yes. |
Oh come on. Seriously?
| achilles wrote: |
| Public spending on snowsports is not on my list of what the public should be spending money on. |
Hypothetically, not literally. Axman argues that ethically the government shouldn't spend money on skiing, the state of the national budget regardless.
| stoatsbrother wrote: |
| I suspect the main cause of innovation in recreational skiing is the desire of the manufacturers to sell more kit, and the main role of their involvement in Alpine snowsports is to get publicity. |
No! WC alpine racers are integral to the R&D of race skis, whose construction determines the development of construction innovation in freeride skis. For example, Head continued to pay Alain Baxter a salary long after he had stopped having success on the WC because he was so invaluable to the R&D department.
| stoatsbrother wrote: |
| Now if you were talking about freeride skiers and boarders and their contribution to ski design (width, twin tips, rocker etc etc) you might have a point... |
I am! These people are elite athletes in snowsports! Their actions have a direct effect on you as a recreational skier. That is exactly what I am saying; you are connected to the elite level of the sport, whether you like it or not.
| stoatsbrother wrote: |
| And did you actually miss the total financial implosion of SSGB?! |
No, I didn't. Why should the failings of that organisation change our stance on whether or not, idealistically, government spending should be allocated to sport in general?
| axsman wrote: |
| I guess from your statement that govt spending on sport, in particular snowsports gives little benefit, and your conclusion that therefore more such spending is needed, that you didn't pay much attention when they were teaching logic at your school? |
That's not what I said. Government spending on sport is hugely beneficial to the public as well elite athletes (just look at British Cycling's various initiatives). Funding for snowsports is virtually non-existent. Therefore, such huge benefits in snowsports don't really exist, but if there was more money then they would.
| axsman wrote: |
| Which bit of 'why should I pay tax to support activities which simply provide entertainment for a minority' don't you understand? |
Which bit of 'sport is not simply entertainment, it has a huge positive social and economic benefit to the nation' don't you understand?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
|
welove2ski, For an industry professional you're not exactly covering yourself in glory here with your well thought out argumentation here. I've used artificial facilities a reasonable amount and am glad they are available as a recreational resource much like swimming pools, rec grounds etc but I fail to see how maintenance of leisure resource leads to a conclusion that anyone aspiring to elite athlete status in the should be able to demand funding. I've had the pleasure of skiing with some elite skiers (including an olympic gold medallist) and while I clearly bear as much relation to them as a rusty MkII Fiesta does to Red Bull's current F1 car, the impression I got was that they had really got to where they were by a fortunate combination of talent, determination, geographic happenstance (access to the snow) and more than a little bit of family support. Public funding didn't really seem to come into it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
welove2ski Let's lay it out simply because you really really do not seem to be seeing the gaps in your emotional argument that others are pointing out to you.
1) Glad you now accept that Alpine racing technology is of relatively little relevance to the 1.5 million UK skiers.
2) The current UK funding stream from UK snowsports organisations is slanted hugely towards Alpine, not freeride or nordic. Your idea about technological spin-offs potentially occurring from government funding of these organsations is therefore illogical.
3) The income stream for freeride skiing is largely from manufacturers, other sponsors and video production. Perhaps you think the UK government should give money to these?!
4) UK Snowsports organisations in the UK have not in any case demonstrated organisational or fiscal maturity which would encourage anyone to let them spend government money until they grow up and get their houses in order.
5) If there is one thing that the last 10 pages of this thread demonstrate - it is the importance of having a clear idea of to whom money is going to go, when it will go, and what it will be used on.
6) Even the Australian government - long champions of the "let's buy some medals" approach are reviewing this.
If sport does help develop better kit in a cost-effective manner, it doesn't take the UK government to achieve this.
For most people who ski from the UK - it is a holiday, a pastime, a hobby with very very distant connections to racing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
fatbob, sport-specific government funding operates in a top-down pyramid. The funding awarded is determined by the performance of the elite level athletes. Look at British Cycling.
Little success for elite level and little NGB funding > some success at elite level and an increase in NGB funding > building of the Manchester Velodrome, which has social and economic public benefit > lots of elite level success and lots of NGB funding > additional private funding from this success, paid for by government funding > huge socially beneficial initiatives such as Skyride, getting kids cycling and actively improving healthy living.
The development of elite athletes is completely dependent on government funding (being a world class athlete is really expensive!). With success at this level comes more government funding, which flows down to create immediate social benefits. You aren't as disconnected from the Olympians in your favourite sport as you may think. Almost all our Olympian skiers have used the same artificial facilities as you have to get where they are.
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
welove2ski, show me how government funding currently specifically helps freeride skiers - other than saying that they had skied on dendix next to a bloke who once had some dosh indirectly from a government funding stream.
| Quote: |
| Almost all our Olympian skiers have used the same artificial facilities as you have to get where they are. |
and the same roads, sewage system and police force. So what? If the government pay more money to SSGB's successor - are we going to get a new fridge south of the Thames? I think not.
It is the elite athletes who benefit from our recreational skiing, not the other way round.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
stoatsbrother, the state of the governing of snowsports in the UK is an absolute mess in reality (I'm sure we can agree on that). This doesn't affect the ideology behind what I think.
1. Government funding for sports is a good thing (ideologically). It can create great social and economic public benefits (ideologically). The little funding that is received by snowsports in the UK at present is not administered correctly (in reality). This doesn't change my belief (ideologically) that sport-specific funding in general should be built on the foundations of government funding.
2. Freeride skiing in the UK does not receive government funding (in reality). But all snowsports should be governed and funded centrally and supplemented with private finance (ideologically).
3. Technological development in skiing doesn't come through government funding (in reality). However, progression and innovation at a recreational level depends upon progression and innovation at an elite level i.e. recreational skiing and elite level skiing are inextricably linked.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
welove2ski, I'm not denying that your model seems to work for cycling but that is a sport which has relatively good accessibility in the UK i.e. anyone can get on a bike and ride and local clubs full of enthusiasts do most of the development of yougsters. So you already have a relatively large competitive talent pool such that promising youngsters can be identified for development programmes
What I am arguing is that the "throw public money at it" solution will not necessarily work in the same way for alpine skiing. If I seriously thought my kid had a chance of making it big in WC skiing rather than hang around waiting for handouts and taking him/her to the local dryslope by far my better option would be to move the family as soon as possible somewhere where there was great skiing infrastructure in place (as a byproduct of the local recreational/economic market) - this could be a small town in BC/France/Austria etc or a city like Zurich, Geneva, Grenoble, Vancouver, Calgary, Denver, SLC etc. Enrolling him/her in the local ski club would give him/her 5 months plus of solid development and competition a year for minimal cost plus appropriate summer training opportunities. It no accident that Speyside remains the cradle of more GB skiers than other areas.
I'm not suggesting that anyone who doesn't do this for their kids doesn't care about their success but it seems a far easier way of cultivating a future GB medallist. I acknowledge the ironic possibility that they would only realistically wear GB colours if they were not good enough to make the adopted nation team, unless I/they were unduly principled.
Interestingly I think that due to the ability to dryland train we might be better suited to producing Nordic competitiors than Alpine although the participant pool/level of competition would remain an issue.
Last edited by You know it makes sense. on Sun 30-05-10 14:55; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
welove2ski,
Because government funding is such an efficient way of achieving success?
How do you see freeride skiers working in a government sponsored set up? Where is the freedom/attitude in that?
Government funding should certainly be used for sports. For grassroots participation in sports in which the majority could potentially participate on an ongoing basis, leading to health and social gains. By any measure, skiing is not going to be a sport which meets these criteria in the UK. It would in France or Austria, but not here. So let's not pretend otherwise.
What I would like to see is specific bursaries awarded to promising young athletes across a range of sports, free from the internecine squabbling of snowsports organisations and general Blazerdom.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
| Quote: |
this could be a small town in BC/France/Austria etc or a city like Zurich, Geneva, Grenoble, Vancouver, Calgary, Denver, SLC etc. Enrolling him/her in the local ski club would give him/her 5 months plus of solid development and competition a year for minimal cost plus appropriate summer training opportunities. It no accident that Speyside remains the cradle of more GB skiers than other areas.
I'm not suggesting that anyone who doesn't do this for their kids doesn't care about their success but it seems a far easier way of cultivating a future GB medallist. I acknowledge the ironic possibility that they would only realistically wear GB colours if they were not good enough to make the adopted nation team, unless I/they were unduly principled.
|
I agree with this. Our british born kids are enrolled at ski club in Calgary (skiing mainly out of Nakiska but also out of Sunshine). There are tonnes of other british born kids enrolled in their ski club. Although the largest, its by no means the only ski club in Calgary, and so thre are presumably more sking out of other clubs. I presume the french ski clubs are peppered with brits too etc. The clubs up the Bow Valley, such as Sunshine and Norquay would, I imagine, have a smattering of brits too. In fact I imagine there are almost as many brit kids club-skiing seriously here as there are kids club-skiing in Britain (we used to ski at Lions so have some idea of their size). Don't get me wrong, the domes and dry slopes do offer all year round opportunities, but they are very narrow in their scope. Here we have the National Canadian Alpine Training centre coupled with the facilities of COP. My guess is the Brits skiing over here could do quite well, and that maybe where the british team comes from in the future, British Citizens raised abroad. Of course they probably would have to fail entry to their host nation squad, as likely it would provide more money than a brit squad. In addtion, though their roots may be in UK, why should someone raised in Canada since an early age feel unduly principled towards UK?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
gryphea, You have to race for the country that issued your passport, that doesn't make all that much difference at FIS level but it would at higher levels.
When I'm training in France I can see the difference in standard between kids born in the mountains, kids from valley clubs and those from nearby cities.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
rjs,
Kids become dual citizens. Our will be in 3 yrs time. Then you can race for either of your passport holder countries.
Maybe in France the difference exists, but here COP is such a good weeknight facility that I don't think 'coming from a city' precludes you in any way. Not many french alpine resorts have skiing evenings in the midweek.
John Kucera is from Calgary and he's not bad. Plus training at Nakiska actually offers you sight of all these atheletes on the mountains, many nations train there before world cup races at LL (and did before the olympics). Nothing spurs these young atheletes on more than sking alongside world class racers and getting their bibs/helmets signed. At COP my son met Alexandre Biladeau, so calgary kids get access to world class freestyle and skier cross as well. AT COP the gymnast/gym training facilites are awesome, allowing various sports to cross-fertilise. Why else do you think some of the british sliders train there?
My kids won't be great ski racers, they don't have the phsyce I reckon. But in my son's ski group of 7 there were two other british born. Surely with the number of brits training out here, they are as likely to produce british born racers as those that remain in britain? Even if their home is a city? I reckon............... obviously these may not be as successful as maybe french mountain skiers, but we'll see.......................
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| stoatsbrother wrote: |
| Because government funding is such an efficient way of achieving success? |
Of course a big cheque does nothing by itself, but administered correctly government funding is a tried-and-tested, solid foundation for building success in sport. Naturally we can find all sorts of examples of where the money is spent spectacularly badly by the NGB, but that suggests the problem that needs to be addressed in these cases is sport-specific and managerial. So yes, government funding is an efficient way of achieving success.
| stoatsbrother wrote: |
| How do you see freeride skiers working in a government sponsored set up? Where is the freedom/attitude in that? |
That's a whole other kettle of fish we should probably avoid for the sake of argument. It would be nice - theoretically - if the likes of Beanie Milne Home could also receive government support to do the FWT though, wouldn't it?
| stoatsbrother wrote: |
| Government funding should certainly be used for sports. |
At least we now seem to agree that government funding should be used for sport! Axsman believes it should not be used at all, and I completely disagree, which is why I entered the thread.
| stoatsbrother wrote: |
| For grassroots participation in sports in which the majority could potentially participate on an ongoing basis, leading to health and social gains. By any measure, skiing is not going to be a sport which meets these criteria in the UK. It would in France or Austria, but not here. So let's not pretend otherwise. |
I disagree - there are almost 80 facilities (ski resorts, dry slopes, indoor slopes) spread across England, Scotland and Wales where members of the general public can learn to ski. I dare say many of the 20,000 members on this website have used domestic facilities at one time or another (if not frequently). From my own experience, I've seen the great effect of government leisure schemes run through schools at Sheffield Ski Village. On weeknights, the place is filled with dozens of school children from disadvantaged backgrounds that are given the chance to gain certificates in beginner and intermediate skiing.
Skiing in the UK provides thousands of children each year with quality leisure time, and the opportunity to achieve something. And that's before we consider the normal retail of lessons and recreational snowsports at domestic slopes. These public health and social gains that you say don't exist in the UK already do.
| stoatsbrother wrote: |
| What I would like to see is specific bursaries awarded to promising young athletes across a range of sports, free from the internecine squabbling of snowsports organisations and general Blazerdom. |
You're contradicting yourself - this is in favour of funding for elite athletes!
We aren't arguing about whether the current system of awarding funding works, but whether public funds should be allocated for investment in sport or not (and more specifically, whether the elite level should be included in this investment).
I think that sport should be funded by the government, elite athletes included. Do you now agree?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
welove2ski, nope, and throughout your posts you have yet to show much pattern of logical thought, and seem not to have understood what I actually posted, so there is probably no point in discussing this with you.
But...
1) I don't see elite Soccer needing government funding. Sports do not automatically need government funding to be successful. In fact lots of great art and culture and sport happens with no government funding at all.
2) Re freeride. No it wouldn't - it would miss the whole point of the ethos of the sport.
3) I suspect Axsman does support access to sports in schools and at a population level. You are taking him out of context
4) Skiing is never going to be a mass sport in the way that others are. Run the numbers. And we are not going to lead the world in Jai Alai or Ice Hockey. We don't have to excel at everything
5) Bursaries for promising athletes to act as seedcorn to see if people might succeed - rather than to proven elite athletes. Avoiding all the snowsports organisations with their own organisational agendas.
Once children have been given some access to a range of sports it is up to them what they do with that. The idea that you, and a few others seem to be pushing, that the best in any given sport are automatically entitled to government funding and that res ipse loquitur. They aren't and it doesn't.
Last edited by Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do. on Mon 31-05-10 21:32; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
stoatsbrother, tax avoidance, res ipsa loquitur, whatever next? Are you studying law on the side?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
stoatsbrother, my friend, there's no need for personal insults here. It's degrading to the discussion.
Are you really reading what I'm saying as the belief that anyone is "automatically entitled to government funding"?! As I quite clearly said, just a few posts ago:
| welove2ski wrote: |
| I don't at all think that funding for sport should be handed out "indiscriminately". The current system in place for funding elite sport rewards success and strips funding for failure. Whilst I think there should be more of a system in place to fund young talent, it's a good system. |
| stoatsbrother wrote: |
| Sports do not automatically need government funding to be successful. In fact lots of great art and culture and sport happens with no government funding at all. |
When have I said otherwise?! Again, to quote myself:
| welove2ski wrote: |
| Just because the most popular sports generate enough revenue to fund themselves, should that necessarily mean that there's no place in society for niche interests? |
| welove2ski wrote: |
| Some sports/activities don't have a strong natural business model. Skiing in Britain is one of these. The cost is extremely high and the potential for the national governing body to generate revenue is low. |
If you're going to put words into my mouth that are the complete opposite to what I've clearly stated is my position, we're never going to get anywhere.
n.b. Ice hockey in the UK is extremely popular. Over 1 million tune in on TV to watch it every season, with the 10 EIHL teams raising gates of over 1,000 every week. You cannot measure a sport's national popularity by national team success on the world stage.
Last edited by Then you can post your own questions or snow reports... on Mon 31-05-10 22:41; edited 2 times in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
admin, Good job, well done. Glad it all ended well, and suspect you're glad it all ended. 
stoatsbrother, Re 3 - bang on, no prob with kiddies being taught the fundamentals, lets them choose what sport (if any) they might be actively interested in later.
welove2ski, You just don't get it do you? sport is a leisure pursuit. It produces nothing, feeds no-one, delivers no concrete benefit other than entertainment to the masses. Despite this competitive sport has somehow managed to stay popular for thousands of years without the support of the tax base. Good on it I say. But let it stay that way. let those who wish to indulge, and have the talent, do so, let those who wish to watch, pay to do so and support the folk they wish to watch. just don't give me the bill for your enjoyment of curling.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Axsman, indeed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
