 Poster: A snowHead
|
The SCGB should do a lot more to promote the competitive side to the sport. Not everyone's cup of tea I know, but the potential benefits for the Ski Club are there, if rather longer term.
Setting aside the fact that they are one of the 'members' that make up the umbrella organisation for Snowsport GB, the governing body of British competitive skiing, - one could argue that this alone implies certain responsibilities that they are failing to live up to! - the SCGB could also look at this question from a purely selfish point of view.
- They would be helping to attract younger people not only into the sport itself, but kids and their younger parents who would develop strong associations with the SCGB itself over the years as a result.
- They would reap the benefits of any future success in promotional terms.
As I understand it the SCGB's current contribution to the competitive side is negligible, although I hear rumours of the SCGB proposing to host minis (under 11s) 'activities'. (I write 'activities' intentionally as apparently the powers-that-be don't wish to call young children's races 'races' any more.  Don't want to upset our little darlings by having winners and losers do we? Groan.)
There are few players in the skiing industry with sufficient weight to play a genuinely positive role in helping to develop the competitive side in GB. Most barely get involved, then jump on the bandwaggon by proposing sponsorship to individuals that have already gone a fair way to proving themselves. Did any of our current small crop of stars "come through the system"? Definitely not! Chemmy, Alain and Noel for example all developed their skills on their own, through their own contacts, guts and determination. James Leuzinger is a dual national whose training was provided by the Swiss. Finlay Mickel's skills were honed at an American ski academy on the US east coast, Green Mountain.
We may not be an alpine nation but the potential is there. A large pool of recreational skiers, developing facilities - dryslopes and snowdomes - throughout the UK. Real commitment to the future of competitive snowsports is needed, and that means money - and not just given to the senior stars. The Ski Club should realise that this would be entirely complementary to their current activities, and can only improve their "fuddy-duddy", exclusive image, which persists, despite all their efforts to the contrary.
Rumblings from insiders in Snowsport GB suggest that member bodies attempt to tap into the resources that the umbrella organisation itself (Snowsport GB) has sourced in the way of sponsorship. Yet it is they - the SCGB, BARSC (British Alpine Racing Ski Clubs), the Armed Forces (yes believe it or not they have a say!), plus the separate 'national' English, Scottish, Welsh bodies that should be more proactive in sourcing funds and contributing to finding new talent. A kind of continual back-biting session where each denies responsibility for the poor state of British race skiing.
About time perhaps that British ski racing - and in particular those that are responsible for its development - learned a few lessons from the upheavals and improvements in the management of other sports in GB and joined the 21st century.
Last edited by Poster: A snowHead on Sat 25-06-05 18:00; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
Hi PG. I am wondering how much response to the above points any of us here will be able to give you.
Back in the days when we all used to chat on SCGB site, a nice lady called Laura Zachary often used to chip in with the official line ever so often. She did join here but only made 7 postings and the last was on March 19th, so is probably not the most committed of our members!! She is both the SCGB website manager and "New Media Manager". Might it be worth inviting her to respond to this or your other unanswered questions, or ask her to find out the answers for you? She is now married and has the name Chamberlain so I do not have a current email address for her, but notice that fragglerock may well have on this thread.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
PG, anything that increases interest in snow competition has to be a good thing and can't be bad for the SCGB. Look at the Kandahar and DHO where the competitive side seems to be a major strength.
I'm not a Ski Club member and don't really see the value in my case. I have enough people to ski with, can organise my own trips, insurance, etc. and am very good (IMHO) at finding my way around new resorts. But - fair enough - lots seem to find value. Worryingly, I can see more potential as I get older and greyer!
It would seem that it could take more of a valuable co-ordinating role in organising and promoting competitive skiing across the UK.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
PG, Members of this forum have had plenty of time to appreciate your knowledge, so to them your remarks will have some weight. But from a Club Council viewpoint, I guess are seen (if at all) as an ex-pat complaining in a forum that is probably not top of their favourites. The title of this thread could be a clue why that may be so 
It might be more effective if you risked joining the club  and offered your expertise to Sally Cartwright (still chair, I think - I arrived a tad late at the AGM  ) to help sort out whatever problems there are (I have no expertise on ski race organization, so have no personal comment). If nothing else, you could air your views in the Club forum, which some council members do chip in to, including (very occasionally) Sally. Moreover, judging from what I did hear at the AGM, topics raised in the forum are discussed in Council.
So, at worst, your comments would be noticed. At best, you might be able to achieve change.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
A little clarification: John Nuttall took over as Chairman of the Ski Club from Sally Cartwright at the recent AGM. Sally Cartwright continues as President for one year.
I'll pitch in some comments on this thread later on.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
PG, further clarification please, which other UK sports bodies have shown improvements from management upheavals?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Quote: |
Setting aside the fact that they are one of the 'members' that make up the umbrella organisation for Snowsport GB, the governing body of British competitive skiing, - one could argue that this alone implies certain responsibilities that they are failing to live up to! - the SCGB could also look at this question from a purely selfish point of view.
|
No lets not set it aside. Tell who is responsible for running racing in the UK. Tell us why if, as you say, being a member of implies responsibility for racing when Snowsports GB was itself split from the SCGB in 1964 to take on that very role. Tell us why in that case that BASI as another member don't do more to promote racing, choosing instead to concentrate on instruction for some bizarre reason!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Beck Daross wrote: |
| Quote: |
Setting aside the fact that they are one of the 'members' that make up the umbrella organisation for Snowsport GB, the governing body of British competitive skiing, - one could argue that this alone implies certain responsibilities that they are failing to live up to! - the SCGB could also look at this question from a purely selfish point of view.
|
No lets not set it aside. Tell who is responsible for running racing in the UK. Tell us why if, as you say, being a member of implies responsibility for racing when Snowsports GB was itself split from the SCGB in 1964 to take on that very role. Tell us why in that case that BASI as another member don't do more to promote racing, choosing instead to concentrate on instruction for some bizarre reason! |
Fine! So what on earth are they and the likes of the Armed Forces still involved for then! Kudos, perhaps? Just what do you mean, why should "being a member of imply responsibility for racing"!! Maybe I'm missing something here, but on a personal level, as a voting member of the board of a ski racing club, the other directors might be excused for hoping that I was actually interested in helping that club to win races!
Because BASI allegedly do little to support the competitive effort, and there are other shortcomings in the sport's management, that is no reason to excuse the SCGB for not doing more.
The whole thing should be amalgamated into a single entity. And although that's my view, it is also a direct - and very recent indeed - quote from some well-known and respected individuals within Snowsport GB.
Last edited by After all it is free  on Sat 18-12-04 16:40; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| PG wrote: |
| So what on earth are they and the likes of the Armed Forces still involved for then! Kudos, perhaps? |
I would have thought the armed forces have a fairly direct interest. When I was in Tignes a few weeks ago, the glacier was awash with RAF and Army-types doing their race training (as well as some squaddies who were being marched up the hill on skins, hurtling down in a semi-snow plough, collapsing at the bottom, and repeating ad nauseam).
What exactly would you like to see the SCGB doing PG?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
'What exactly would you like to see the SCGB doing PG?'
Subsidising his children's racing, maybe?
Well, I don't really see why the SCGB should do more to promote racing. All doing more really means in this context is spend more of the members money on racing. I presume most if not all people join because they are recreational skiers. They may be fans of racing, but they probably won't want to fund it!
The success or not of our racers will have absolutely no impact on my enjoyment of skiing and that is true for the majority I would imagine. As you say, PG, it's not everyone's cup of tea.
I see you take a pop at non competitive sport also. Well, my view is that kids can and do get upset when they do badly at sport. It's also my view that children should have the joy of taking part instilled in them rather than a 'I must please mummy and daddy by winning' mentality. I've seen kids' races where they were all awarded a medal, there were no winners and no losers, just happy kids. I've seen races with youngsters upset and distraught because they have lost. The world is a competitive place, but lets give our kids a few years of fun and innocence at least.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
Tim Brown,
| Quote: |
| Subsidising his children's racing, maybe? |
You are a relative newcomer to snowHeads, so as you suggested in another thread, I shall give you the benefit of the doubt. Although such snide remarks really merit a sharper response! If you had bothered to read my posts on this topic elsewhere in the forum, you would realise how inappropriate that comment is. I actually sponsor other children's ski racing, as well as give time to the sport on a voluntary basis.
As for the remainder of your post - and other contributors may have missed the fundamental point I'm making as well as you - the SCGB is under no obligation whatsoever to involve themselves extensively in promoting/running British snowsports. However in that case, their role as a voting member of the sport's governing body is redundant. Alternatively, I suggested that direct involvement in promoting the sport to young people and using SCGB infrastructure to coordinate efforts to attract sponsorship and raise the public profile of ski racing, could bring real benefits to the Ski Club itself.
As for the "winning mentality" issue. I'd rather not go into that in this thread, but I agree to an extent - there are children who are not cut out for competitive sport. But there are those who are - and they benefit from it, they enjoy it, win or lose. It's preparation for the inevitable knocks to come in life after all, as long as it isn't made out to be an end in itself. If you think it's too early for competition, just watch infants in the playground. Kids are competing from the moment they let out their first yell to ensure they get enough milk from their mother's breast! It's down to choice. If you don't want your children to compete, don't let them! But those kids who do enjoy it shouldn't be deprived of the opportunity, just to please those who disagree with the concept.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| Tim Brown wrote: |
Subsidising his children's racing, maybe?
Well, I don't really see why the SCGB should do more to promote racing. All doing more really means in this context is spend more of the members money on racing. I presume most if not all people join because they are recreational skiers. They may be fans of racing, but they probably won't want to fund it!
The success or not of our racers will have absolutely no impact on my enjoyment of skiing and that is true for the majority I would imagine. As you say, PG, it's not everyone's cup of tea. |
Thats exactly what Id like to see support at the grass roots level for young people to develop racing skills. The benefits would be great in my view, it would create more interest in the sport in the UK. Greater success at a national level creates more participation in that sport as people try to emulate there hero's . With the right promotion more membership for the skiclub as it finally throws off the image that it not a place for young people because that is the image many younger skiers I have spoke to believe it has. Greater membership should bring more funds to the skiclub which should improve the services that the club can offer you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I agree with Tim Brown that subsidising racing for kids is a non-starter. I would like to see the SCGB invest its dosh in competitive ski-ing for eager but unfit middle age skiers. Ideally, this would involve classifying middle age as a disability (which is what it feels like), enabling all snowheads in their twilights years to compete - with generous SCGB backing - in the next paralympics. I nominate DG to start badgering the SCGB Council about this forthwith.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
The armed forces are OBVIOUSLY involved for different reasons from the SCGB - the Combined Services being in it for racing. Now the point is that The British Ski Federation split from the Ski Club way back when to concentrate on organising and promoting racing. The SCGB is a Club for recreational skiers who voluntarily help raise and contribute to the efforts of funding for not just racers but also other charities for instance disabled skiers. The members of the club have themselves dipped into their own pockets to support such causes. I note you're not a member and so YOU have not been part of that effort and you are not even aware of it so don't put your ignorance onto the members of the SCGB. There is also the Skiers Trust - another organisation spawned from the SCGB to look after the interests of young skiers and they are a charity so can attract funding on that basis which the Ski Club cannot. So it's not the SCGBs fault that Snowsports GB aren't throwing money at your kids to race with.
As for the question of being a voting member in the sport's governing body why don't you tell us how much of a vote the SCGB get for their 27500 members and how much of a vote Snowsport Wales get for their membership? And how may that change under the proposed amalgamation to which you refer below?
| Quote: |
The whole thing should be amalgamated into a single entity. And although that's my view, it is also a direct - and very recent indeed - quote from some well-known and respected individuals within Snowsport GB.
|
Who are they then that made that quote? I'm not surprised to hear it though, the SCGB being on such a stable financial footing and sporting as it does such good facilities. An indication I think that if there's been any mis-management it's not the SCGB. I would have thought Snowsports GB would love to tap in to some of the expertise at the Club. You only have to compare the websites of the various 'member' organisations to see who's got their poo-poo in one sock.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
On the armed forces theme - click on the (menu) Results here to see what the RAF alone got up to last year in its own championships - prior to it's committment to the inter-services. I suspect that the armed forces still know an awful lot about ski racing and its organization. So, at first glance, it seems reasonable they should have an input.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| Quote: |
| So it's not the SCGBs fault that Snowsports GB aren't throwing money at your kids to race with. |
Oh dear. Is that the best jibe you can come up with? I've answered that one, from another source, above.
As for the rest, grandmothers and eggs spring to mind. I am perfectly aware of all of the factors involved, which is why I qualified all my comments accordingly.
You answer none of my points. The fact that the Combined Forces race occasionally themselves has precisely what to do with promoting snowsports at grass roots level? The following comments from another forum pretty much sum up my views:
| Quote: |
''How does Snowsport GB, England, Scotland, Wales, justify our complicated, diffuse, expensive and confusing set-up in the light of this? Can they name a successful nation in alpine competition that has a similar structure?''
Yes - well sort of anyway. Virtually ever skiing nation has a complex quasi federal structure. Take the USA which has a set of regional ski 'councils' {actually associations} which run the sport at a divisional level. Austria has an ongoing battle between the regional {lander} schilehrerverband and the national verband.
Home nations and possibly barsc are the bodies with a role to play in the process. Unless of course there is a much bigger change than any of these bodies would countenance: a sort of DSV model with an all encompassing organisation - individaul members, professional instructor members, coaching members, a performance/events division all under one umberella. However my feeling is that to some extent the increasing federalisation of the UK makes this increasingly improbable, or if you prefer there is a tension between centripetal tendancy from some bodies to become more British {note; should be UK for the constitutional illiterates who selected the GB nomenclature} and the centrifugal arising from a devolved political settlement. In effect there's pressure to become both more UK and similtaneously more English, Scottish etc.
In essence the position in Britian probably seems much worse {and therefore seems more duplicated} than many other nations because our 'regions' are actually nations, well arguably nations in their own right. In reality the federal model we have exists in many ski nations. As to what the solution is - well there's inevitably pressure to have an 'all power to the centre' model, but this has to be balanced against the increasingly complex/devolved constitutional settlment we have in the UK.
Frankly my preference would be to get rid of all of the chaff and have a structure which got rid of all of the other bodies save for the home nations. BASRC clubs should simply affiliate to a home nation, end of story. Unless we ended up with a model where the 'Tea Club of GB' became part of the fed and ran an individual membership scheme {no chance of that happening} then the tea club should be out, CSWSA will tell you that they have more registered competitiors than anyopne else - true but...... save for nordic/biathalon there's no development of excellence there so either let 'em run nordic or bin them. But.....
The settlement we have gives the home nations most of the power anyway - they have a majority of the votes at AGMs/EGMs and in terms of selecting the board they have pretty much the whole show to themselves {save for CSWSA and BARSC}. Was it a fudge - yes. To some extent all of these revisions of governing bodies are a political as well as a sporting act and to quote {possibly paraphrase} dear old Lord {RA} Butler 'politics is the art of the possible.'
You can spend years arguing with outfits like the tea club and the other 'non excellence' bodies and you'll never get a result. That leaves you with 2 options - a stalinist solution from above or a political fudge, but one that in practice cuts their {voting/electoral} balls off.
Not perfect but even if you shut all of the home nations and had a completely centralised Fed structure two things would happen:
1. Scotland, by dint of it's special status in the UK constitution would set up a Scottish Ski Something
2. A regional {in the sense of England/Wales etc} structure would reemerge to deliver activity at a level below international competition - or the fed would have to run this. Either way the costs pretty much remain.
|
and a suggestion for a 'working model'....
| Quote: |
1. Bin all of the organisations from the Fed save for the HNGBs - they are 'state recognised' bodies and feed skiers into 'elite competition'. If BARSC etc don't like it - tough, or
2. Create a Super Fed: SCGB becomes Fed individual members, BASI becomes Fed Ski Instructor education, a coaching division is set up {ok we could argue about the detail of how that's run}, but in this model you would still need {and need to fund} what one might call divisional and regional bodies - divisions being probably at home nation level to feed into/and out of in terns of communication the super fed. {Problem I suspect with this model is that it would fail to take into account the non sporting political dimension. Frankly I remain to be convinced that this would be any better than a simple 4 home nation model.
Problem that we have is that like rowing and tennis which you ve identified skiing is a small sport carried out predominantly by the middle classes, but unlike these sports it is very difficult to 'practice' domestically. I suspect that I am telling everyone exactly what they know, but this further reduces the number of athletes for who international elite ski sport is a realistic or accessible goal.
The problem we have isn't primarily political in the sense of the structures of the sport - it's economic and geographical. Unless there are a LOT more skiers who can access the sport and continue to be supported at earlier levels then things are not likely to change hugely. Though I would support changing the fed structure per 1 above the thing that would change skiing is a MASSIVE injection of cash over a very long period of time such that the sport {as opposed to the recreational activity} becomes really open to all. This is not going to happen in the forseeable future {or on planet earth, ever}. I guess that the other option is the construction of more inner city snowdomes so the sport can be practiced domestically, but..... at 20 quid an hour it's still not exactly an option for a kid in a council flat in Peckham. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
PG I don't know why you get so bad tempered. It's a perfectly valid
question to ask and not inappropriate! I wasn't born knowing what your
level of involvement in racing is. I could have done a search I suppose,
but just posing the question has given me the answer in much less time.
At least you are now giving people the benefit of the doubt!
Now, some argue that commercial sponsorship of individual children in sport is a bad thing. Too often, they say, these arrangement are only continued on the basis of success, thus putting undue pressure on children to succeed. The results can be very bad for a sport, they argue, as the cost of being competitive is reduced for the talented and increased for the less so.
I have no idea what strings, if any, are attached to your deals and I don't want to know. I just pose the question: is it not far better to sponsor a whole series of events to reduce the costs for all who take part, rather than have money pumped in in an uneven and often unfair way?
Beck, interesting to actually be presented with some facts about the SCGB. Very enlightening - thanks!
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
Tim Brown, I call a spade a spade. You inferred that I was looking for free skiing for my children and you were wrong. Have the guts to admit it and apologise.
As for your "strings" and "deals", I'm sorry but I haven't a clue what you are talking about. My original post included constructive criticism and suggestions of how more direct support and involvement could prove to be to the benefit of both parties. This has been singularly ignored by both you and Beck Daross.
[ headmarker A 19:35 ]
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
PG, I infered nothing, I just asked a question.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| Quote: |
Oh dear. Is that the best jibe you can come up with? I've answered that one, from another source, above.
|
Your whole post is a jibe you hypocrite.
| Quote: |
You answer none of my points
|
You say why doesn't the Ski Club (who you characterise as fuddy duddy) do more to promote the competetive side of the sport. The answer is simple and I have already told you. It's because it's not their job.
But you ignore the good stuff that is done by the Ski Club voluntarily in the spirit of fostering relations in the wider skiing community. Sorry if it's not what you want in your own self interest.
However I note that YOU have not answered any of my questions so allow me. the Club gets less votes for it's membership than Snowsports Wales, England or Scotland. Your quote about the amalgamation - just who are these well known and respected individuals or are you makling that up too?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Nick Zotov wrote: |
PG, Members of this forum have had plenty of time to appreciate your knowledge, so to them your remarks will have some weight. But from a Club Council viewpoint, I guess are seen (if at all) as an ex-pat complaining in a forum that is probably not top of their favourites. The title of this thread could be a clue why that may be so
It might be more effective if you risked joining the club and offered your expertise to Sally Cartwright (still chair, I think - I arrived a tad late at the AGM ) to help sort out whatever problems there are (I have no expertise on ski race organization, so have no personal comment). If nothing else, you could air your views in the Club forum, which some council members do chip in to, including (very occasionally) Sally. Moreover, judging from what I did hear at the AGM, topics raised in the forum are discussed in Council.
So, at worst, your comments would be noticed. At best, you might be able to achieve change. |
Do you think they'd have me? You may be right, but if so it's a shame. That would imply opinions are only worth considering, with respect to issues that go beyond the Club's doors, if they come from paid-up members.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Beck Daross, I'll tell you what. I'll take you seriously when you come out from behind your pseudonym and tell us who you are.
In the meantime, I did answer your point about voting rights. If you'd bothered to read my post, it's all there.
Who are those "respected individuals"? People who would like to keep their jobs, I imagine.
I spoke of a fuddy-duddy image. That's a fact, sorry - the SCGB has yet to throw this off. However that is not the same as characterising the club as a whole as such.
The post was not about what the Ski Club does to "foster relations in the wider skiing community". That was why I didn't mention their efforts in this direction, unsurprisingly. It was about what the SSGB does to promote the competitive side to the sport and you gave me the answer, thank you. Words to the effect of "That's not their job". It is, however, the mission of Snowsport GB to do just that, which is why I raised the issue in the first place.
Please explain to me how it affects my "self-interest" to have raised this question, when my children race ski in France, within the French system, entirely at my cost, having never received or asked for a penny in subsidies or costs from the British system, and having sponsored, and provided accommodation for other people's children, as well as sourced sponsors for Snowsport GB?
And again - my identity is plain for all to see. Who are you?
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
PG, if I could just pitch this back to your initial heading I think you made an error in lobbing the adjective "fuddy-duddy" (which itself is quite fuddy-duddy!), linking it to "image" and then basing the argument on a specific interest which doesn't really fit with the Club's stated - constitutional - objectives.
The Club pulled out of organising and financing British ski racing 40 years ago. I'm inclined to agree that the Club's vote on Snowsport GB is now irrelevant.
So it's probably best that this vote is relinquished.
As for the Club updating its 'image', that's achieved by getting back to the roots of the recreational sport and capturing the imagination and psyche of a new generation of skiers. Who are right here on snowHeads, and all over the mountains!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
DG, I like the expression! Haven't heard it for ages. Suppose I could have headed the post up with "Pants!" or some suitably modern term, but it just didn't seem appropriate somehow
Agree on the image update with respect to recreational skiing, but was just wondering aloud whether, if the Ski Club is determined to retain its vote within Snowsport GB, they might not consider the possibility that other opportunities exist that could complement the recreational side. Competitive snow sports do, after all, have a relatively fresh and youthful image.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| Quote: |
I'll tell you what. I'll take you seriously when you come out from behind your pseudonym and tell us who you are.
|
What psuedonym exactly are U talking about?
Get to the point you coward and tell us who U are talking about when you quote the people who U say are supporting your argument. Or stop banging on about it you weak Barrack Room Lawyer.
You've lost the substantial point by dodging the answers to your original questiion. Stick that in your pipe and smoke it!
| Quote: |
In the meantime, I did answer your point about voting rights. If you'd bothered to read my post, it's all there
|
Rubbish, it's not there at all. You just waaffled and you haven't told us who made the quotes. They don't have any credibility unless they are attributed but yours aren't so as teacher said - must try harder!
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| Quote: |
Beck Daross, I'll tell you what. I'll take you seriously when you come out from behind your pseudonym and tell us who you are.
|
Well ok lets play by you're rules - your own quote attributes to one Mr A lunn. I'll take that seriously when he comes out from behind his Pseudonym!
I note with interest that if someone agrees with you, you take them at face value, BUT if not then you want them to come out from behind their psuedonym! Speaks volumes for free speach in BSM.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I quoted his views because I agreed with them. Who Arnold Lunn is is irrelevant - I have discussed this issue with him in the past and he puts both the positive and the negative side to the notion of a federal entity in these two quotes. I accept the balance of the argument contained and it saved me retyping in my own words. Respond to the points made if you are able. I repeat - you know who I am. You expressed your own views from behind the cover of anonymity, unless Beck Daross is your real name? If so, say so. Calling me a coward in the circumstances is rather amusing. Cut out the ad hominems, the straw men and all the other examples of sophistry, and address the argument. Really, I'm interested. I'm looking towards a positive future for British ski racing, and if that is good for the SCGB, so much the better. If as David suggests, an irreversible decision to pull out of both the financing and organisation of British competitive snowsports has been taken, fine, then resign as a member body.
Alternatively, I would be more than happy to see a prosperous and forward-looking Ski Club more directly engaged in assisting an underfunded British minority sport. I have expressed no negative views in this thread about the club itself other than with respect to the SCGB's image, which in my view and that of quite a few others, remains rather 'old-fashioned'. If I am mistaken, explain why, but try to leave off the ad hominems will you? It does nothing for your argument.
And come on, tell me who you are. If you're afraid to do so in public, PM me. I won't tell.
| Quote: |
| Speaks volumes for free speach in BSM. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
My views are my own views that's the point. Your views aren't even your own. I agree it doesn't matter who Arnold Lunn is because he is IRRELEVANT. But again the hypocrite in you shines through - demands to know who I am and refusal to reveal your own sources all in one breath. Nobody has to take my word for what I say - it is here on the internet for anyone to see. Log on to Snowsport GB, log on to skiclub.co.uk, log on to the Skiers Trust and search for the facts as I have. Your argument however has now come down to the opinions of some fictitious character with fictitious credentials.
I've already addressed your substantial but fatally flawed point that the Club is not doing enough for racing by showing that it is not their responsibility - whilst they do help raise funds. I'm quite sure that the members of the Club have contributed more funds to more worthy causes than your company. Now you say the SCGB should do more for financing and organisation of British competitive snowsports or pull out of Snowsport GB. So tell us this - is Snowsport GB now concerned solely with racing? You haven't answered my previous questions because, as you know, the answers spoil your argument. So here is the answer to this one - they are NOT! Your opinion is clearly that members of Snowsport GB should support racing or leave. So BASI will have to go too won't they. Wake up, there's more to skiing than racing. I haven't seen any of the British team in here moaning that the Ski Club doesn't support them enough because they probably know what they are talking about.
I don't even know what ad hominems are and don't care it's just waffle. Our language is english but I'll get windows to convert all to latin for you if that will help you understand the simple truth - the Ski Club does not run racing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
Beck Daross, I really don't understand why this is making you so cross. The role of SCGB in promoting competitive skiing seems, at the very least, worth debating.
| Quote: |
| So tell us this - is Snowsport GB now concerned solely with racing? You haven't answered my previous questions because, as you know, the answers spoil your argument. So here is the answer to this one - they are NOT! |
I though Snowsport GB was focused on racing: "Team Selection and Management... Promotion of Team and Team Sponsors... Seeding of British Alpine Competitors... Implementation of FIS Rules... Management and Selection of Athletes within Olympic Team... Liaison with Organisations"
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
Beck Daross,
| Quote: |
Man: I came here for a good argument.
Mr Vibrating: No you didn't, you came here for an argument.
Man: Well, an argument's not the same as contradiction.
Mr Vibrating: It can be.
Man: No it can't. An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a definite proposition.
Mr Vibrating: No it isn't.
Man: Yes it is. It isn't just contradiction.
Mr Vibrating: Look, if I argue with you, I must take up a contrary position.
Man: But it isn't just saying "No it isn't".
Mr Vibrating: Yes it is.
Man: No it isn't, an argument is an intellectual process... contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of anything the other person says.
Mr Vibrating: No it isn't.
Man: Yes it is.
Mr Vibrating: Not at all.
Man: Now look! |
With apologies for quoting someone else....
Feel free to drop in sometime and I'll explain my point of view a little more succinctly. But don't forget, I'll need to know who you are first.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
Odd, really, PG. Beck adds some relevant information to the thread and - at that point - you go off to play somewhere else. Also, I really don't get the "I can only argue with you if I've seen your birth certificate line". What did you think of the various links Beck offered - i.e. SCGB sponsoring a skier every season, raising funds for the team etc etc?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
DavidS, not at all, it's just that the debate with the anonymous Mr Beck was counter-productive. He chucks out ad hominems from behind the cover of anonymity and I have zero respect for people who do that. The links themselves are fine, and I am more than happy to agree that the SCGB provides some support for established athletes (in the main) - and I have never suggested otherwise (reread my posts). But if you take my original point you can see that I was targeting the most neglected, and initially unrewarding of areas - encouragement of grass roots competitive skiing.
The Monty P quote is an indirect comment on BD's style. He confuses contradiction with argument.
I also addressed the issue of how British competitive skiing should best be managed, and I believe that the involvement of certain member bodies is somewhat 'passé'. Unless they take a more pro-active approach.
The discussion with B. Daross could and should have stopped with his statement:
| Quote: |
| You say why doesn't the Ski Club (who you characterise as fuddy duddy) do more to promote the competetive side of the sport. The answer is simple and I have already told you. It's because it's not their job. |
Exactly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
Hmm. Bearing in mind the low funding level Snowsports GB receives from the exchequer (though I am glad to see lottery funding is also happening) the organization needs all the friends it can get. Seems to me good old fuddy-duddy Ski Club contributes generously in fund-raising and publicity. The related Club web pages are anyting but fuddy-duddy, IMO. Maybe the Club should remain a member, so giving its expertise in those areas directly at meetings? I don't feel emotional about it -but as a spectator at the sidelines, it does look as though the Club's participation is benficial.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
Generosity is relative. In financial terms the sums involved are relatively minor in comparison to major sponsors. Sponsors, however, do not have a say in how the governing body is run. (In theory )
The point is that the involvement of non-excellence bodies, as "Arnold Lunn" describes the likes of the the Ski Club, makes little sense. Should "Golf Vacations UK" have a say - no matter how small - in who is selected for our Ryder Cup team? My view is that organisations whose primary role is far removed from the promotion of excellence within a sport should not sit on committees that influence the direction the competitive side to the sport should take.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Do you, PG. care to name one racer who is not grateful for the 'relatively minor' generosity? Relatively minor having already been characterised by you as 'neglible' (probably before you found how much is being done).
Of course the thread is counter productive. Based on a false premise, it was going nowhere from the start.
Your latest view is that you don't think the SCGB should have any influence over the direction racing takes. Do you still think that the Club should 'do a lot more to promote the competitive side of the sport'?
And do you include the SCGB in this:
'About time perhaps that British ski racing - and in particular those that are responsible for its development - learned a few lessons from the upheavals and improvements in the management of other sports in GB and joined the 21st century.'?
I'm assuming that you don't. But if you do I expect you'd rather the Club kept any lessons learnt to themselves, seeing as how you don't want them to influence racing now. Or have I got you completely wrong? Is your point that you actually want the SCGB to learn the lessons and take over the running of racing? I don't think so.
And you've intimated that the SCGB is one of the member organisations that you've heard 'rumblings' are trying to tap into the funds of Snowsport GB. That is nonsense. The Club is a self sufficient not for profit organisation whose accounts are properly audited and held at Companies House so there's no need for a debate here.
PG, if you'd just join the Club you'd probably be less ignorant about these matters.
From what I can see your position is this:
You don't want the Club to have a vote about competitive sport. You do however want them to raise lots more money for the grass roots of the sport because it would be helpful in shedding the Club's fuddy duddy image.
Nice one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I would guess that most competitive skiers are children of recreational skiers. If that's true, then at least in theory, the main impact of the SCGB on racing could be by increasing the size of the pool through encouraging recreational skiing (which it would seem is it's raison d'être). Maybe the reps could organise training and races in resorts for the children of British recreational skiers. Those that enjoyed it and showed talent could then join race clubs. My children have had that opportunity, but by another route. Maybe the SCGB does this kind of thing already (I'm not and never have been a member of the SCGB).
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
Beck Daross, I stated from the outset that if it were possible for the SCGB to involve itself more directly, to the benefit of British ski racing and indirectly to the benefit of the SCGB itself, all well and good. The inference is that minor financial supporters that are not interested in the competitive side, as you yourself have agreed with respect to the SCGB, should not have a say in how the sport is managed. I have said this about half a dozen times now. Perhaps we can move on?
| Quote: |
| You don't want the Club to have a vote about competitive sport. You do however want them to raise lots more money for the grass roots of the sport because it would be helpful in shedding the Club's fuddy duddy image. |
a) depends b) no - at least not for the reason given. Replace 'because' by 'and', and the answer becomes yes.
| Quote: |
| Do you, PG. care to name one racer who is not grateful for the 'relatively minor' generosity? Relatively minor having already been characterised by you as 'neglible' (probably before you found how much is being done). |
The sums provided in sponsorship are nowhere near enough. In the overall scheme of things the sums provided by the SCGB are negligible' - "relatively minor" in comparison to those provided by the 'big' sponsors'. I wouldn't be at all surprised if the Les Arcs Club alone didn't have a bigger budget than Snowsports GB, which says something about the financial backing from sponsorship Snowsport GB receives.
| Quote: |
| Your latest view is that you don't think the SCGB should have any influence over the direction racing takes. Do you still think that the Club should 'do a lot more to promote the competitive side of the sport'? |
My views have been the same from the outset: "the SCGB is under no obligation whatsoever to involve themselves extensively in promoting/running British snowsports. However in that case, their role as a voting member of the sport's governing body is redundant. Alternatively, I suggested that direct involvement in promoting the sport to young people and using SCGB infrastructure to coordinate efforts to attract sponsorship and raise the public profile of ski racing, could bring real benefits to the Ski Club itself."
| Quote: |
| And you've intimated that the SCGB is one of the member organisations that you've heard 'rumblings' are trying to tap into the funds of Snowsport GB. That is nonsense. The Club is a self sufficient not for profit organisation whose accounts are properly audited and held at Companies House so there's no need for a debate here. |
My fault for confusing the issue slightly here. I was referring to Snowsport Scotland/England/Wales etc who, it has been suggested, look to the governing body and their sponsors for support in financing home country initiatives rather than sourcing their own sponsors.
| Quote: |
| Or have I got you completely wrong? |
It seems so.
| Quote: |
| PG, if you'd just join the Club you'd probably be less ignorant about these matters. |
Do I have to join the National Front to understand what it stands for?
Last edited by You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net. on Mon 20-12-04 6:41; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Beck Daross wrote: |
I don't even know what ad hominems are and don't care it's just waffle. Our language is English but I'll get windows to convert all to Latin for you |
Oh Beck Daross, there's no excuse for ignorance! Surely you've noticed by now that if you don't know something, you only have to ask. People are always so friendly and helpful around here.
As you say, the language is English, the definition of which, most consider to be bounded by the contents of the Oxford English Dictionary. This does include a definition of ad hominem. So you can switch off your Latin translator and just get out the good old Oxford English
But, in the spirit of snowHeads helpfulness, I'll save you the trouble.
We are in consideration of the debate between PG and yourself on the subject, "Should the ski club of Great Britain direct more resources toward British competitive skiing and if not, is its continued directorial role in snowsportsGB justified?"
If PG were to say
| Not what PG actually wrote: |
The air of sophistry and pedantry around Beck Daross's argument is quite in character with the bolshy defensiveness exhibited by the ski club of Great Britain whenever its administration is criticised. I wonder if his/her objectivity is clouded by involvement in the scgb administration?
|
He would be arguing "ad hominem" since he would be attempting to gain ground in the argument merely by trying to evoke an emotional response rather than dealing with the points of debate.
Alternatively, if PG were to say
| nothing to do with what PG wrote: |
Beck Daross is a sophist and a pedant.
|
We could say he had 'resorted to ad hominems', in that he was no longer addressing your point at all but had regressed to personally attacking you. Contextualising it as a noun is more modern usage.
I guess PG was referring, in his use of the term, to you calling him a 'hypocrite', 'coward' and a 'Barrack room lawyer'. None of these things served any purpose to further the debate, being purely attempts to discredit your opponent’s viewpoint. So he was quite accurate in referring to them as ad hominems.
I personally fail to see any hypocrisy in PG's words during the course of this debate.
PG quoted those comments by Arnold Lunn and said very clearly that he agreed with them.
| Quote: |
| The following comments from another forum pretty much sum up my views |
He has thus declared this to be his own opinion not 'used it to back up his opinion'. He still stands by it and has not contradicted it in deed AFAIK, so your repeated calls of 'hypocrite' constitute, IMO, unfounded abuse and PG deserve's an apology.
His request that you identify yourself beyond your pseudonym was quite reasonable though you obviously have no obligation to comply. However, I've never before seen such brazen hostility expressed at snowHeads and it's hard to imagine you having the nerve to be quite so abusive were your true identity known. To call PG a coward in this context would appear to be the greatest act of hypocrisy contained herein.
It appears to me that, your approach to this debate is predominantly to casually redefine one of PG's points so as to make it untenable then insult him for it. This is nothing more than sophistry.
e.g.
| Beck Daross wrote: |
From what I can see your position is this:
You don't want the Club to have a vote about competitive sport. You do however want them to raise lots more money for the grass roots of the sport because it would be helpful in shedding the Club's fuddy duddy image.
|
However, my impression of PG's argument is: “the scgb is currently not doing enough for competitive skiing to warrant its seat on the board of snowsportGB. But, he thinks that is a shame as, if it were to do so, both competitive snowsports and the scgb's image would benefit.”
Throughout the whole of this discussion you have similarly mis-defined PG’s points and argued your redefinitions. There used to be another individual who used this approach ad nauseam at snowHeads but no, surely you couldn’t be him?
Now may I respectfully suggest you try to deal with the actual debate rather than some exercise in 'Gold standard back biting'. Frankly, it is increasingly common to be in circumstances where it is embarrassing to be a member of the scgb. In my view it is behaviour like yours here that makes it so.
Oh, and if your real name's Beck Daross then I'm the grave-digger of the Bolshevik revolution!
My views on the topic under discussion?
I think the scGB has always been involved in racing* but it's hardly cut out for the serious stuff is it? It should stick it's strengths and leave the pros to do a proper job.
*"See you for drinks at the bottom dahling, race you down"
Last edited by Ski the Net with snowHeads on Sun 19-12-04 18:16; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
