With the advent of wind tunnels, it seems to have shifted the winning formula to a matter of money rather than talent. Do you agree with this statement and do you think this is fair?
Stu Ferguson - I’ve been both sides of the fence on this one. It can be frustrating watching even the play teams putting thousands into the tunnel, but then, why not? Name a sport where winning does not involve funding? At competitive levels even your most basic of sports require capital to progress. Running every day doesn’t make you a pro runner. Time, money and coaching do that. Same with our countries great sport of football – It’s the training that makes grades and the training that costs. These days I don’t see why skydiving is looked down on because of the ability to pay to learn. Spending more does make a difference but that’s life isn't it?!
Henry Chow - I don't fully agree with the statement that the winning formula is money rather than talent. While you do need significant financial backing in order to succeed in competitive 4-way, having money does not take talent and perseverance away from a competitor. No amount of money can buy you hard work. In a nut shell, you can spend a lot of money, but still be mediocre.
Phil Hartree - It's always been about the money. The more you have available, the more you can use the tools: tunnels / coaches / training camps / personal trainers / packers / tree hugging hippies, the better you get. For those that can do that without, more kudos to them. Another way of looking at it... If you're shite, then it doesn't matter how much money you throw at it, it's not likely that you'll become a club / regional / National / world champion... (OK not strictly true, but you get my point)
Sally Uren - Yes a bit - but even before tunnels time and money was always a factor, what can anyone do about it?!
Simon Cathrine - Simple mathematical model: M=4W(£+T)^4
where W = hard work
£ = dosh
T = talent
M = medals
Also, as the late great Tommy Armstrong used to say, 'you cant polish a turd'.
Stu Ferguson - I’ve been both sides of the fence on this one. It can be frustrating watching even the play teams putting thousands into the tunnel, but then, why not? Name a sport where winning does not involve funding? At competitive levels even your most basic of sports require capital to progress. Running every day doesn’t make you a pro runner. Time, money and coaching do that. Same with our countries great sport of football – It’s the training that makes grades and the training that costs. These days I don’t see why skydiving is looked down on because of the ability to pay to learn. Spending more does make a difference but that’s life isn't it?!
Henry Chow - I don't fully agree with the statement that the winning formula is money rather than talent. While you do need significant financial backing in order to succeed in competitive 4-way, having money does not take talent and perseverance away from a competitor. No amount of money can buy you hard work. In a nut shell, you can spend a lot of money, but still be mediocre.
Phil Hartree - It's always been about the money. The more you have available, the more you can use the tools: tunnels / coaches / training camps / personal trainers / packers / tree hugging hippies, the better you get. For those that can do that without, more kudos to them. Another way of looking at it... If you're shite, then it doesn't matter how much money you throw at it, it's not likely that you'll become a club / regional / National / world champion... (OK not strictly true, but you get my point)
Sally Uren - Yes a bit - but even before tunnels time and money was always a factor, what can anyone do about it?!
Simon Cathrine - Simple mathematical model: M=4W(£+T)^4
where W = hard work
£ = dosh
T = talent
M = medals
Also, as the late great Tommy Armstrong used to say, 'you cant polish a turd'.
No comments:
Post a Comment