AAI certified and accurate measured courses

ManFromAtlantis

Some races are billed as AAI certified.
Does this automatically mean the race is accurately measured (jones counter or ?)
or is the measuring of the course a separate thing.?
thks

shels4ever

ManFromAtlantis wrote: »

Some races are billed as AAI certified.
Does this automatically mean the race is accurately measured (jones counter or ?)
or is the measuring of the course a separate thing.?
thks

When the application is been made for a permit the course should have already been measured and certified. As far as I know this is part of the permit process and if the cosue has not been measured the permit should not be give. (but donsn't always work this way).

robinph

Is there any actual certification going on, as in is there a certificate number for each race to be able to show? Or is it just some standard text that people add to the bottom of their webpages regardless.



This message has been certified by an official robinph auditor....honest 'guv.

Mick Rice

Robinph - I'm on the list of AAI measurers and yes, when I've measured a course I'll produce a document afterwards that includes all of the measurement and calculation details, a map of the course and other revelvant deails. I'll also allocate a certificate number to the measured course which has to be quoted on the permit application form and produce an actual paper certificate that can be displayed at the race if the organisers wish to do that. I always recommend that they do.

ultraman1

disclaimer....just because a race has been certified and a measurement cert signed off by the measureur,the race director in all his/her wisdom may put the start/finish line in the wrong place(as has happened b4) and render the measuring a useless exercise.so if a race is long or short its not always the measurer...

Condo131

ManFromAtlantis wrote: »

Some races are billed as AAI certified.

All races are supposed to carry an AAI permit. There were always races that, through ignorance or otherwise, failed to apply for a permit. Generally these were not measured by an AAI certified measurer. In the past few years, I notice that some very high profile 'commercial' races have not carried AAI permits. This is something that I have taken up with my local Co. Board.

ManFromAtlantis wrote: »

Does this automatically mean the race is accurately measured (jones counter or ?)

The only measurement method permitted is by Jones Counter and measurement is a requirement for an AAI permit. Having said that many courses have not been remeasured in years, in spite of changes to start and/or finish, and likely changes on the route due to construction/road realignment/continental drift, etc. [Due to construction/road widening etc, my own club's race has been remeasured four times in the last 7 years - and there really hasn't been much construction. One of the changes was because we relocated the start and another because we moved the finish by approx. 15 metres.]

ManFromAtlantis wrote: »

or is the measuring of the course a separate thing.?

Measurement is 'part and parcel' of the permit application process.

I'd like to see the AAI list all courses that carry permits AND, a part of the list, the name of the measurer AND the date measured. This list of (mainly) Cork races lists the initials of the course measurer (where known)

The whole area of permits and certification needs to be tightened up, or, imho, the AAI risks losing control of races.

donothoponpop

Condo131 wrote: »

The whole area of permits and certification needs to be tightened up, or, imho, the AAI risks losing control of races.

That horse has already bolted, they've lost control. €65 half marathons, where runners share the road with cars, has become the norm. Accurate course measurement is a long way down the list of priorities for many a commercial race. Tag the "Charity" word onto your race, and you're untouchable.

I fully commend any effort you're making to highlight the drop in standards.

--amadeus--

donothoponpop wrote: »

That horse has already bolted, they've lost control. €65 half marathons, where runners share the road with cars, has become the norm. Accurate course measurement is a long way down the list of priorities for many a commercial race. Tag the "Charity" word onto your race, and you're untouchable.

I fully commend any effort you're making to highlight the drop in standards.

100% agree with DP. The AAI seem to have been totally wrong footed by the growth in running and explosion in races. As a result we have major races with thousands of participants (and attendant media coverage and sponsorship) going on without an AAI permit and charity races being advertised on here as being as accurate as possible because they are GPS measured...

Can you imagine how the GAA would react if someone started organising inter county matches without thier sanction? Or what the FAI would do if some matches were 80 minutes long and others 110? Or how welcoming would the IRFU be to the suggestion that players should wear fancy dress and give a "voluntary" donation to play a match?

Running is at a bit of a crossroads. It is massively popular but is becoming more of an activity and less of a sport. This is one area where I believe the club structure could be really powerful, putting grass roots pressure on the management in the AAI to get a grip on what has become a farcical situation.

Condo131

donothoponpop wrote: »

That horse has already bolted, they've lost control. €65 half marathons, where runners share the road with cars, has become the norm. Accurate course measurement is a long way down the list of priorities for many a commercial race. Tag the "Charity" word onto your race, and you're untouchable.

I fully commend any effort you're making to highlight the drop in standards.

Yes I believe you're right. In a nutshell, I think the AAI 'look down their noses' at road running - and have done so for an awful long time. As a result they missed the current boom in running. A very large proportion of participants in the 'commercial' races are not AAI members and really 'couldn't give a fiddlers' whether the race has an AAI permit or not.

What sanction has the AAI got if people take part in races without permits? The only one available is to suspend any AAI athlete taking part and, imho, that's using a stick without any carrot whatsoever.

I must say that efforts I, and others, have made to do something about it have really been absolutely ineffective and useless.The Co Board appears to be closed to new ideas and simply knocked suggestions, seemingly with "it won't work" or "this is the way we've always done it".

Several months ago, one of these high profile commercial races didn't apply for a permit (when this became apparent to runners, the organisers claimed to be applying for one, but, to date, several months on, no approach/application has been received). The AAI's response was, the day AFTER entries closed, to appeal to AAI registered runners to "not take part". In other words, people had paid their entry fees and possibly accomodation. Too late! That horse has bolted too.

Approx. 14 proposals were put forward to the Co Board, to combat the growth in races without permits. The response was, imho, head in the sand. Two of the prime responses were: "AAI registered athletes should not take part in these races" and "We should get on to the Guards to stop these races." The last one takes the biscuit - as if the Gardai have nothing better to do, not to mention the fact that they have no role whatsoever in deciding which organisation may run any race.

Personally, I reckon that the situation will eventually resolve itself when, as suggested in the Irish Runner an isuue or so back, sooner or later, one of these commercial races is cancelled because it hasn't broken even - and nobody will be getting their entry fee back either!

Wrt events carrying "Charity Status", if you check the small print, for most of these races, the mentioned charity is a 'Partner' and get no money from the entries....the only money they get is sponsorship raised by individuals.

My advice: Vote with your feet! There are lots of value races out there. Two that come to mind are last week-end's Cork Half Marathon (€20 for pre-entries) and next month's Cork to Cobh 15M (€10 for pre-entries).

Apologies to OP if I've diverted the thread a little off topic.

RayCun

Condo131 wrote: »

Approx. 14 proposals were put forward to the Co Board, to combat the growth in races without permits.

Could I ask what they were, or what other proposals you think would be useful?

thirtyfoot

AAI and the general athletics community is very stretched. There is an ageing officials body, there is a shortage of top coaches, there have been severe governance issues and we are struggling to get a world class high performance structure in place. In a list of priority, 'cashing in' on the latest jogging boom is not a high priority and why would it be. When it comes to the development of the sport here the focus should be on the following:

• young athletes
• club development
• coach development
• high performance

These things need to be sorted before we start focusing on the recreational runners. Much work is being done on these areas but more needs to be done. Much work is being done on recreational running but its down the pecking order and there probably isn't much appetite when there are more pressing and relevant issues to be addressed. Bear in mind athletics is a very broad and diverse sport with many areas to be looked at. Cross, road, outdoors, indoors etc from 7 year olds to 70 years olds.

Boards is very road running focused with large numbers but road running is really only a blip in the world of athletics. Organised athletics as we know it has been around for well over a 100 years. The jogging boom could be gone in 5 years much the way the '80s boom fell away. Should focus go into when it could be gone in 5 years? No, especially if it will affect the more critical items I have already mentioned. Get those sorted and then focus on the road running scene.

The only gain I can see from investing into the jogging boom from an athletics boom is as a revenue earner. Will we get many athletes or coaches from investing in it? Not sure, unlikely. The jogger is generally a selfish person with no interest in the sport but there own involvement. However, the more focused or committed who do get into running casually will probably end up looking to get more competitive anyway and join a club and get into the athletics world. Many more will be just content with their lot and not add any real value tothe wider sport. Do the IRFU see inflows of new members from the unregulated Tag rugby world? Or the FAI from the many and unregulated Astro leagues? Maybe but unlikely to be big number as people choose to play these games as they don't fancy the real version due to time or committment or even ability issues. Joggers are the tag rugby or astro players of the the atheltics world. It would be stupid to invest or focus too much on it from an AAI perspective when there are more pressing and critical issues to be addressed.

Having said that, road races do need better regulation.

RodSteel

--amadeus-- wrote: »

100% agree with DP. The AAI seem to have been totally wrong footed by the growth in running and explosion in races. As a result we have major races with thousands of participants (and attendant media coverage and sponsorship) going on without an AAI permit and charity races being advertised on here as being as accurate as possible because they are GPS measured...

Can you imagine how the GAA would react if someone started organising inter county matches without thier sanction? Or what the FAI would do if some matches were 80 minutes long and others 110? Or how welcoming would the IRFU be to the suggestion that players should wear fancy dress and give a "voluntary" donation to play a match?

Running is at a bit of a crossroads. It is massively popular but is becoming more of an activity and less of a sport. This is one area where I believe the club structure could be really powerful, putting grass roots pressure on the management in the AAI to get a grip on what has become a farcical situation.

Would I be correct in noticing that there is a big turnaround in your ethos?

RoyMcC

A well-constructed reply thirtyfoot and you make a lot of sensible points.

So if AAI aren't going to regulate what is the answer? I take it Ireland has no equivalent of the British Association of Road Races (BARR) for example? This body has done great work in raising standards of road races in GB.

However, membership of BARR is not compulsory so it remains somewhat toothless when it comes to regulation. Some of the biggest races don't sign up. It would however be a starting point if AAI were to approve such a regulatory body to scrutinise standards across the country.

RayCun

thirtyfoot wrote: »

Do the IRFU see inflows of new members from the unregulated Tag rugby world? Or the FAI from the many and unregulated Astro leagues?

Probably not, but in running there is the linking factor of athletics clubs. Most joggers may be selfish people (thanks, btw) with no interest in the sport, but properly organised races that have close associations with athletics clubs have the potential to be a gateway into the sport. That doesn't mean lots of road runners are going to become serious athletes, but a higher club membership means more youth getting involved and means that training and facilities are going to improve, surely?

No, not every road runner is going to become a club member, but it becomes much more likely if they take part in well-organised club races. If your only exposure to races is through for-profit company-run races, how are you going to get involved in athletics? (And if those races are badly organized, unmeasured, etc - why would you get involved?)

sean_84

thirtyfoot wrote: »

The only gain I can see from investing into the jogging boom from an athletics boom is as a revenue earner. Will we get many athletes or coaches from investing in it? Not sure, unlikely. The jogger is generally a selfish person with no interest in the sport but there own involvement. However, the more focused or committed who do get into running casually will probably end up looking to get more competitive anyway and join a club and get into the athletics world. Many more will be just content with their lot and not add any real value tothe wider sport. Do the IRFU see inflows of new members from the unregulated Tag rugby world? Or the FAI from the many and unregulated Astro leagues? Maybe but unlikely to be big number as people choose to play these games as they don't fancy the real version due to time or committment or even ability issues. Joggers are the tag rugby or astro players of the the atheltics world. It would be stupid to invest or focus too much on it from an AAI perspective when there are more pressing and critical issues to be addressed.

I probably agree with your main points, but you might get more athletes, coaches and volunteers if you don't call them all selfish, and lacking in commitment and ability...

About the IRFU, they do run their own tag rugby league, so I guess they see some benefit (maybe only a source of money).

But an added source of funds could help greatly with the 4 bullet points you listed as well.

oldrunner

Over the course of a year, there are hundreds of races across the country. Some of these will be badly organised or expensive or badly measured or masquerade as a charity event. But I don't understand why people see more regulation as the answer. Let the market decide - bad races will lose runners. As for everything else you spend money on else Caveat Emptor.

donothoponpop

oldrunner wrote: »

Over the course of a year, there are hundreds of races across the country. Some of these will be badly organised or expensive or badly measured or masquerade as a charity event. But I don't understand why people see more regulation as the answer. Let the market decide - bad races will lose runners. As for everything else you spend money on else Caveat Emptor.

One area that needs regulation is closed courses. Some Race Directors turn a blind eye to the dangers of funneling thousands of runners down half-closed roads. An unregulated environment will encourage this risk-taking, and since road-closure orders are expensive, and cut into profit, those risks will escalate until some runner is seriously injured or killed by a car on a course. Then people will start asking how could this have been allowed to occur?

Agree with you in principle about caveat emptor. (Also there are a lot of RD's who go to great lengths to run successful events, I don't mean to tar them all with the same brush).

RayCun

oldrunner wrote: »

Let the market decide - bad races will lose runners. As for everything else you spend money on else Caveat Emptor.

Sure, that's one way to go, but then why issue race permits at all? Either have some standards and try to enforce them, or wash your hands completely.

plodder

Sean_84 wrote:

but you might get more athletes, coaches and volunteers if you don't call them all selfish, and lacking in commitment and ability...

Couldn't agree more.

RoyMcC wrote: »

A well-constructed reply thirtyfoot and you make a lot of sensible points.

So if AAI aren't going to regulate what is the answer? I take it Ireland has no equivalent of the British Association of Road Races (BARR) for example? This body has done great work in raising standards of road races in GB.

However, membership of BARR is not compulsory so it remains somewhat toothless when it comes to regulation. Some of the biggest races don't sign up. It would however be a starting point if AAI were to approve such a regulatory body to scrutinise standards across the country.

I think that could be a way forward. Though I'm not sure why membership should be compulsory anyway. It'd be better if clubs (race organisers) who pay to get their stamp of approval for their events, are actually getting something beneficial in return (eg. publicity, and hopefully more people entering).

oldrunner

RayCun wrote: »

Sure, that's one way to go, but then why issue race permits at all? Either have some standards and try to enforce them, or wash your hands completely.

AAI certification should be used to give races a competitive edge in attracting runners - it should be seen as a quality endorsement. It helps runners make an informed decision about which race to support and which not to.

sean_84

oldrunner wrote: »

Over the course of a year, there are hundreds of races across the country. Some of these will be badly organised or expensive or badly measured or masquerade as a charity event. But I don't understand why people see more regulation as the answer. Let the market decide - bad races will lose runners. As for everything else you spend money on else Caveat Emptor.

I think a problem with that is that if you spend maybe 6 months training for a specific marathon but then find out around mile 25 that it's a bit short, you'd be fairly annoyed... Having a certification process should stop that and mostly does.

But there's no way to stop unregulated races, except to provide regulated races that are more attractive for runners. Club races are very good at offering good value, and being well run, but maybe they could look at how other races are advertised as having lovely panaromic views of the Atlantic coast, and being a challenge open to everyone etc.

thirtyfoot

sean_84 wrote: »

I probably agree with your main points, but you might get more athletes, coaches and volunteers if you don't call them all selfish, and lacking in commitment and ability...

About the IRFU, they do run their own tag rugby league, so I guess they see some benefit (maybe only a source of money).

But an added source of funds could help greatly with the 4 bullet points you listed as well.

List the three main reason people won't join a club. I don't have the time (committment), I won't get anything from it (selfish) and I am not good enough (ablity). I am not trying to be controversial and its not an opinion that held in athletics. I will encourage anyone to join a club and have done here many times. I am pointing out the reason why your jogger won't join a club.

IRFU have their own tag and AAI have Fit4Life. I would imagine the relative % resources that go into each are probably the same and the gains they both get are probably the same.

To make money and how much is debatable, they would have to spend money from the jogging boom. Right now, there are more pressing issues at hand. Thats my point. Get these sorted and then it can be moved onto.

TFBubendorfer

thirtyfoot wrote: »

The jogging boom could be gone in 5 years .... The jogger is generally a selfish person with no interest in the sport but there own involvement .... not add any real value to the wider sport .... unregulated Tag rugby .... unregulated Astro leagues .... It would be stupid to invest or focus too much on it from an AAI perspective ...

If you intended to come across as elitist, snobby, aloof and unapproachable, you certainly succeeded.

Krusty_Clown

thirtyfoot wrote: »

I am pointing out the reason why your jogger won't join a club.

Calling non-club runners selfish, and labeling them all as joggers won't exactly help your cause or encourage them to join a club. I hope you're not involved in public relations.

You said yourself that the 'running' boom is cyclical, so the AAI needs to adapt, to take advantage of it, when it is at its peak and encourage it when it is in the doldrums. The associations funding must be one of their significant challenges. Finding ways to monetize the running boom doesn't have to be something that detracts from focusing on the valid list of concerns you have raised. In fact, if the AAI focussed on the challenges you have listed and brought in somebody else to look after the business challenges, it would probably be best for all involved.

I was at a school meeting last week, where one of the teachers (responding to a parent's question had the following response (verbatim):

If your son is not good enough to get onto the Hurling squad, then there is the Football season starting after Christmas. If they can't get onto the football squad, then they can try out for the basketball team. If they can't get on to the basketball team, then there are games in the indoor gym, or athletics.

When the teachers are making it clear that athletics is ranked below dodgeball, you know you're in trouble.

--amadeus--

RoyMcC wrote: »

So if AAI aren't going to regulate what is the answer? I take it Ireland has no equivalent of the British Association of Road Races (BARR) for example? This body has done great work in raising standards of road races in GB.

Funny enough something like that was suggested a while back and got a knock back. Interestingly enough T. was one of those who knocked the idea of an independent road race review body back then as it would (among other things) fragment the government and management of the sport. Although apparently road racing isn't terribly important anyway.

That said if I were the Chief Exec of the AAI and I saw that the number of regular runners in the UK had doubled since 2006 I'd be working damn hard at trying to bring thier Irish equivalents inside the fold. I started running properly in 2005 and AFAIK there were 4 marathons in Ireland then (Dublin, Longford, Conn and Belfast). Now there are how many? 10, 12? The number of regular Ultras seems to have pretty much tripled as well and - judging by Run Ireland and teh Events forum here - that pattern is repeated across the shorter distances.

Now you would have to be spectacularly inept, blinkered or elitist to think that *none* of this could have a positive impact on the sport as a whole. More runners should mean more club members. More club members means more club (and so AAI) revenue. More club members means more volunteers. More club members means more people getting coaching training. More coaches should mean better coaches - widening the net widens the talent pool. And more club members means more heads to pick up the admin load and maybe even a refreshing of the management at all levels in the sports hierarchy. More runners also means more advocates of teh sport - my 9 year old has already done a 10k and my 7 yr old is keen to join a running club and one of teh reasons is that they see me run and teh pleasure I get from it. If kids see parents, family or respected adults run and race then they have a chance of getting inspired themselves (they'll hardly get inspired from seeing athletics on TV or in the press given it's lack of coverage). And more kids coming in means better athletes at underage level (again a widening of teh net should mean a deepening of teh talent pool).

Comparisons with tag rugby or astro football are nonsense. They are watered down or small scale versions of the games they are based on. It is insulting in the extreme to consider road running / racing to be to track and field as tag is to rugby. Of course there are those who prefer to live in an ivory tower and who pat each other on teh back after training sessions down on teh track with a smug "ahhh look at those oul foolish road runners, sure we were here long before and we'll be here long after!". As I said before the sport is at something of a crossroads in many ways and IMO that kind of dinosaur attitude will kill any progressive movement within the AAI and cause far more fractures than it heals. Smart, far sighted management would be attempting to reach out to road runners. Not for the benefit of the road runners but for the benefit of teh sport. But it's a lot more comfortable to stay on the inside grumbling than to have your boat rocked by new blood.

thirtyfoot

TFBubendorfer wrote: »

If you intended to come across as elitist, snobby, aloof and unapproachable, you certainly succeeded.

That wasn't the intention, apologies if thats what you picked up.

thirtyfoot

Krusty_Clown wrote: »

When the teachers are making it clear that athletics is ranked below dodgeball, you know you're in trouble.

You are basing this on one teachers comments or opinions. I can give teachers who will do everything to get kids doing athletics.

thirtyfoot

--amadeus-- wrote: »

That said if I were the Chief Exec of the AAI and I saw that the number of regular runners in the UK had doubled since 2006 I'd be working damn hard at trying to bring thier Irish equivalents inside the fold.

True and a good point. My original point still stands that there are other things that are more important to fix first. When they are fixed, then move onto capitalizing on the running boom.

--amadeus-- wrote: »

Now you would have to be spectacularly inept, blinkered or elitist to think that *none* of this could have a positive impact on the sport as a whole. More runners should mean more club members. More club members means more club (and so AAI) revenue. More club members means more volunteers. More club members means more people getting coaching training. More coaches should mean better coaches - widening the net widens the talent pool. And more club members means more heads to pick up the admin load and maybe even a refreshing of the management at all levels in the sports hierarchy.
.

We don't necessariliy need more runners or athletes right now. We need coaches. Coaches to the young athletes, coaches to bring through the club athletes and coaches at the elite level to help the high performance function of our sport. Generally your joggers will still want to compete. They won't get into coaching. Thats way I say that on the face of it it might seem good to get more numbers in the door, its what we get them doing is the key. If they come in and are just going to compete and pay club fees then that won't have a massively positive impact on bringing through young athletes, raising club standards, raising coaching standards and helping high performance. Do you have evidence that getting recreational runners into the mainstream sport will benefit the 4 key critical areas? Right now in Ireland, we have more recreational runners yet the standard of competitive distance running is falling. So, more people doing the sport (ie road running) yet the standard is dropping at the top level.

We have a base of athletes in competitive sport at all ages at the moment. I say, lets cement them and improve them. Get systems in place to do that. Then when that working, lets build the pyramid and get more numbers in. Its like an assembly line. If the tools working on the raw materials aren't up to scratch, then it doesn't matter how many raw materials you put through the product will still in the main be sh8t.

--amadeus-- wrote: »

Comparisons with tag rugby or astro football are nonsense. They are watered down or small scale versions of the games they are based on. It is insulting in the extreme to consider road running / racing to be to track and field as tag is to rugby.

Comparisons are very valid. Tag is recreational rugby. The vast majority of joggers are recreational runners. Makes sense to me.

--amadeus-- wrote: »

Of course there are those who prefer to live in an ivory tower and who pat each other on teh back after training sessions down on teh track with a smug "ahhh look at those oul foolish road runners, sure we were here long before and we'll be here long after!".

This made me smile. Have you ever been to a track for maybe even a consistent period. I spend a lot of time on a track. I share it with many road runners. There are no ivory towers there. They are great places and cater for all levels.

I am trying to be realistic. I live in the real world. You make very valid points and they look good on paper. So follow up and do something about it.

My concerns and motivations are to try and push our sport on and not to make recreational runners feel good about themselves and pat them on the back. Yes it'll be great to get more of them involved but right now there are more pressing issues at hand. In maybe 4 or 5 years if there is still a boom and all the ducks are in a row as regards the critical issues, then yes, try get more joggers in. Until then.

Condo131

oldrunner wrote: »

......But I don't understand why people see more regulation as the answer. Let the market decide - bad races will lose runners. As for everything else you spend money on else Caveat Emptor.

As an AAI Certified National Measurer, I am NOT looking for more regulation, What I AM looking for is consistent standards for all races. I do accept that a small local race should be not be compared with the 'mega' races.

Wrt the market deciding, imho, there has been an explosion of races that charge 'an arm and a leg', while providing lesser standards of organisation/prizes/safety/road closure etc. Most of these have very slick marketing operations in place - something that the amateur clubs CANNOT match. I just cannot understand people paying a lot of money for some well-marketed races, while excellently organised races, organised by clubs and Cork or Dublin BHAA charge significantly less entry fees, e.g Blarney Half (€20), Cork to Cobh (€10) and Ballycotton (€15) AND offer superior organisation.

Recently, one of Ireland's leading race organisers showed me a recent copy of Distance Running, the AIMS magazine. He pointed out two upcoming half marathons, in France and Czech Republic. The Czech event is €20 and you got a t-shirt, medal and a bottle of wine. The French one is €15 and you got a technical t-shirt, a medal and a few other odds & ends.

I think a lot of Irish running consumers are being led by market hype and a small number of individuals are currently 'cleaning up'.

plodder

--amadeus-- wrote: »

Funny enough something like that was suggested a while back and got a knock back. Interestingly enough T. was one of those who knocked the idea of an independent road race review body back then as it would (among other things) fragment the government and management of the sport. Although apparently road racing isn't terribly important anyway.

Ideally, it would be affiliated to the AAI, as the UK equivalent is to UKA. In my opinion, the people best placed to drive this would be clubs, because they're the ones who stand to gain from more revenue (club members, race entries etc.). It's obvious that the main focus of AAI itself is at the elite end of things, and I don't see a problem with that. But, it would be difficult for clubs to organise something like this, without the approval of AAI.

Having said that, if the AAI don't want it, then there's nothing stopping the for-profit crowd from organising it. But, I don't think that would be a good outcome. And if the clubs don't want it, then there isn't much point anyway. The big well-publicised events will continue to grow and draw in the money, and the less publicised (though often better) events won't.

[edit]One reason why the comparison with tag rugby is off the mark is this. "Recreational runners/joggers" may well be the people you see jogging on the streets in the evenings. But, the people we're talking about here are the thousands who enter the well-known races and compete, but who aren't members of clubs. The statistics are there. Road running is the only sport I know of, where the majority of participants enter organised and officially sanctioned competitions, but have no other connection with the sport.

ocnoc

If people are still willing to pay €50 for a poorly organised race (or any race in fact). Leave them too it.

To the person thats making the profits - good hussle and foresight to see the opening in the market.

If you don't like the race, don't put your hand in your pocket.

RayCun

thirtyfoot, your argument seems to be that we should
1. raise the standard of the existing athletes in training, and only then
2. increase the size of the pyramid, by trying to integrate people from the running boom

But the running boom is not likely to last forever, sooner or later that tide is going to go out*. So shouldn't you be working the other way around? Integrate as many people as possible now, while they are around, so that when the swimming craze hits in two years time, more people have become locked into the sport by joining running clubs. And then you have more resources, and a bigger pool of athletes to train.


*and badly run races are exactly the kind of thing that will sour people on running

RayCun

probably relevant to note that, as Hard Worker just announced on the other thread, there are over 8000 entrants to the half marathon on Saturday.

thirtyfoot

RayCun wrote: »

thirtyfoot, your argument seems to be that we should
1. raise the standard of the existing athletes in training, and only then
2. increase the size of the pyramid, by trying to integrate people from the running boom

There is limited resources as in time and money. Focus on whats critical first with the best people. No point getting loads of people into clubs if there are no coaches and proper strutures. Look at most clubs around the country and they are surviving because of one or sometimes maybe two people. You bring an increase of members in of even 20-25% and they would be overrun. The sport and the organisation is not ready for an influx.

Anyone who coaches young kids (I don't) will tell you its bloody hard keeping them in the sport. Focus should go into keeping these people in before we start trying to raise the numbers.

Thats my point, get the structures right first and then when we are ramped up and ready to go, focus on the numbers game.

The people in the running boom will, in fairness, add little to the areas that need focus right now. Its like class sizes in a school. We need to reduce athlete/coach ratio. I would say a ratio of maybe 8-10 athletes per coach is probably good. This will help the coach to improve quicker as its less of a babysitting exercise and more mentoring and also benefit the athlete as they will get more focus and also better coaching. Focusing on an area like joggers will only lead to the athlete/coach ratio rising. It will improve quantity but not quality.

If you build a pyramid on dodgy foundations it will collapse.

RayCun

You seem unclear on the concept of 'a pyramid'.

Club A has ten runners - of a high standard - and one coach.

Club B has 30 runners and one coach. Only ten of those runners are of a high standard, and the coach will spend nearly all his/her time working with those ten. They are the ones who'll need individual training plans, for example. But the other twenty people make the club stronger, even if they are not ever going to be elite athletes. And because they're not elite athletes, they don't need as much coaching support. In the long term, the larger club is going to attract more young runners.

petermijackson

RayCun wrote: »

You seem unclear on the concept of 'a pyramid'.

Club A has ten runners - of a high standard - and one coach.

Club B has 30 runners and one coach. Only ten of those runners are of a high standard, and the coach will spend nearly all his/her time working with those ten. They are the ones who'll need individual training plans, for example. But the other twenty people make the club stronger, even if they are not ever going to be elite athletes. And because they're not elite athletes, they don't need as much coaching support. In the long term, the larger club is going to attract more young runners.

I could not agree more - I have been reading this post and trying not to get angry. The sport does not just need elite athletes. Casual or recreational runners can have as much interest in the sport as an elite athlete or coach. Some of these will get involved with the admin side of the clubs. I'm going to take the GAA as an example, how many clubs around the country have people involved at boardroom level that are just involved for the love of it - a lot of these were or will never be intercounty players but are very good administrators and club people. The great thing about running is that anybody can do it at some level and therefore get involved in their club.

The more people in the club the better chance you have of finding people that are good at other things other than "running and jumping"

RoyMcC

I think this interesting debate has drifted. The fact is that you'll never get the majority of recreational runners to join a club - it's no good beating them over the head until they do.

So forget AAI for the moment. A BARR-type organisation could be set up - for example - by a confederation of the best road races in the country. If (again for example) the promotors of Ballycotton, Dublin & Connemara announced that they were setting up a body which would invite other races to join but who would need to adhere to certain minimum standards. Member races would be able to publicise the fact that they were members of this organisation. Do you not think (a) that all other races with the interests of the runner at heart would wish to join and (b) that runners generally would gravitate towards those races which guaranteed such standards?

Maybe wishful thinking. I don't think (stand to be corrected) London or the Crap North Run are BARR members but it hasn't seemed to cut their numbers. But worth a try and it needs to be led by those already setting the best examples.

oldrunner

Condo131 wrote: »

I just cannot understand people paying a lot of money for some well-marketed races, while excellently organised races, organised by clubs and Cork or Dublin BHAA charge significantly less entry fees, e.g Blarney Half (€20), Cork to Cobh (€10) and Ballycotton (€15) AND offer superior organisation.

I think a lot of Irish running consumers are being led by market hype and a small number of individuals are currently 'cleaning up'.

I can't understand it either. To date, this year I have ran 29 races through a mixture of club, BHAA, Dublin Athletics Board. AAI championships and a couple of open road races. Grand total €155 (plus club membership).

There were loads of MP3 players before the iPOD but Apple's marketing won the day. Like it or not slick marketing makes all the difference.

Slightly off topic, what's the attraction of the huge participation races - why run with 8000 when you can run with 200 and much less hassle? I don't get it myself.

RayCun

oldrunner wrote: »

Slightly off topic, what's the attraction of the huge participation races - why run with 8000 when you can run with 200 and much less hassle? I don't get it myself.

Partly it is a publicity snowball thing - the Great Ireland Run has publicity, so gets more runners, so gets more publicity, and so on. I know people from work who will enter that, or the Mini-Marathon, because they are well-known events. It just wouldn't occur to them to enter a less-publicised 10k, even though it would be a better experience in lots of ways. And lots of these runners are running for charity, so they want to run in a race that they people they're hitting up will have heard of.

There's also a fear, with an unknown race, that it will be all 'elites' and you won't just be last, everyone else will be standing at the finish line tapping their watches, waiting for you to finish so they can pack up and go home. New runners ask that on here all the time - what is the standard? will I be last?

BrokenMan

thirtyfoot, I tend not to get involved in topics like this but I just have to respond here

Frankly your comments typify what is the percieved problem with AAI, you openly state that you have no interest in bringing in recreational runners and are only interested in or care about the elite atheletes. Yet you claim that you are not trying to come accross as elitist or snobbish. Can you not see the contradiction here, can you imagine the GAA stating that they only care about inter county teams?

Thankfully most clubs don't share your attitude and openly welcome all levels of participant. I recently joined my local club and am treated with the same level of respect and welcomed just as much as the top atheletes in the club.

Any sporting body should be all embracing and willing to encourage and support anyone wishing to become involved it the sport. Any runners thinking of joining a club reading this would be put off immediately an dthat can only be a bad thing.

The sooner AAI realises that they are alienating people at grassroots levels with this old fashioed attitude the better.

jb-ski

RayCun wrote: »

Club B has 30 runners and one coach. Only ten of those runners are of a high standard, and the coach will spend nearly all his/her time working with those ten. They are the ones who'll need individual training plans, for example. But the other twenty people make the club stronger, even if they are not ever going to be elite athletes. And because they're not elite athletes, they don't need as much coaching support. In the long term, the larger club is going to attract more young runners.

Why is larger club going to attract more runners? that suggests 30+ kids still with 1 coach?

i think thirtyfoot is making some very valid 'real world' arguments, of course in an 'ideal world', there would be loads of coaches etc. & parents wouldn't just drop the kids off to be 'minded' for 90min.

i also get the impression that the GAA / Soccer clubs local to me struggle to get coaches/managers/helpers on board.

how can we get people (parents) to come on board and help out/ coach?

(i realise this thread has gone way off original topic!:))

Krusty_Clown

jb-ski wrote: »

i think thirtyfoot is making some very valid 'real world' arguments, of course in an 'ideal world', there would be loads of coaches etc. & parents wouldn't just drop the kids off to be 'minded' for 90min. how can we get people (parents) to come on board and help out/ coach?

Fair point, and I agree that thirtyfoot is representing things from a nurturing talent background, while others (myself in particular) are thinking from a business/survival perspective.

Are there any/many professional (paid) coaches attached to the clubs or are they all volunteers?

RayCun

jb-ski wrote: »

Why is larger club going to attract more runners? that suggests 30+ kids still with 1 coach?

I wasn't talking about kids, I meant grown-ups. We need (slightly) less supervision.

thirtyfoot

RayCun wrote: »

You seem unclear on the concept of 'a pyramid'.

Club A has ten runners - of a high standard - and one coach.

Club B has 30 runners and one coach. Only ten of those runners are of a high standard, and the coach will spend nearly all his/her time working with those ten. They are the ones who'll need individual training plans, for example. But the other twenty people make the club stronger, even if they are not ever going to be elite athletes. And because they're not elite athletes, they don't need as much coaching support. In the long term, the larger club is going to attract more young runners.

Ok your concept of the pyramid is the exact one I want to avoid having. I want a situation that the club with the 30 athletes will have 3 coaches. Are those 20 athletes with no real coaching input going to progress? No, especially if they are kids. You are making my point. I say make the foundations stronger with more coaches so that we can have 30 athletes in a club who are well coached. Your concept of a pyramind is what currently exists. The best athletes get the best coaches, the rest are left to their own devices and don't improve and then lose interest. If we keep encouraging people in and their are no systems, coaches, relevant competitions then you will lose them.

I'm not looking at this on an elite level. Elite is going to the olympics. There are dozen people in Ireland at that level. The rest are club athletes, they are the people I am talking about. Many of these athletes are currently left to their own devices. Imagine a whole raft of new members coming in on top of that, they won't stand a chance.

thirtyfoot

Krusty_Clown wrote: »

Are there any/many professional (paid) coaches attached to the clubs or are they all volunteers?

Wholly volunteer. Even the best coaches in Ireland (Sean and Terrie Cahill) coach Derval O' Rourke for free. They don't think it should be any different.

thirtyfoot

BrokenMan wrote: »

thirtyfoot, I tend not to get involved in topics like this but I just have to respond here

Frankly your comments typify what is the percieved problem with AAI, you openly state that you have no interest in bringing in recreational runners and are only interested in or care about the elite atheletes. Yet you claim that you are not trying to come accross as elitist or snobbish. Can you not see the contradiction here, can you imagine the GAA stating that they only care about inter county teams?

Thankfully most clubs don't share your attitude and openly welcome all levels of participant. I recently joined my local club and am treated with the same level of respect and welcomed just as much as the top atheletes in the club.

Any sporting body should be all embracing and willing to encourage and support anyone wishing to become involved it the sport. Any runners thinking of joining a club reading this would be put off immediately an dthat can only be a bad thing.

The sooner AAI realises that they are alienating people at grassroots levels with this old fashioed attitude the better.

Where do I say I have no interest in bring in recreational runners? Read my posts on "join a club" or "should I join a club" threads. You'll see my opinion on that.

My point is the organisation is not ready to take in the big numbers now. I am saying that we need to stop thinking 'lets get the membership' up and thinking that will solve all problems. Fix the structures now. Get things right. Get systems working. High performances centres* setup. Proper links with schools. Proper coach education. These need to be fixed. The whole setup will be scaleable then because now if you bring in and target the joggers then you will yes maybe get more athletes in but no coaches (for at least 5-10 years), athlete/coach ratio rises and that ain't good. When the things I mention are fixed then go and look at getting the joggers in. The jogging boom has seen more people running races (8,000 in Dublin HM) yet standards dropping. Why is that? Less top coaches coaching less and less athletes perhaps.

The concept that the AAI should be 'cashing' in on the jogging boom is a valid point but if that is the whole reason for it then its a flawed idea. Money ain't everything and much can be done without it if the system is right.

What I suggest isn't crazy or off the wall. Its just about getting what we do sorted first, get the product right (ie coaching/competition) and then go chase the consumers. No point selling a below par product.

* these are not necessarily places where only world class athletes will be. They can be training centres around the country where athletes can come together with coaches and simply train.

RayCun

thirtyfoot wrote: »

Ok your concept of the pyramid is the exact one I want to avoid having. I want a situation that the club with the 30 athletes will have 3 coaches.

That would be great, but why do you have to have the coaches in place before the members? More club members -> more money & a wider pool of potential coaches.

Are those 20 athletes with no real coaching input going to progress? No, especially if they are kids.

Progress compared to what? Compared to not being in a club at all, yes they will progress. Group running sessions, where people can share the knowledge they have (and get some input from an actual coach, even if its a lot less than the ideal amount) will bring people on.

Besides, the point of a club is not just to get all the members up to a certain standard.

The best athletes get the best coaches, the rest are left to their own devices and don't improve and then lose interest.

There are 8000 people running a half marathon in Dublin on Saturday. They are (or should be) part of the pyramid. If one-tenth of the non-club members from Saturday went out and joined a club then yes in the short term there would be a shortage of coaching resources and they wouldn't get the level of coaching we'd all like. But in the long term it would make athletics much stronger. And if you wait to have the perfect structure in place before inviting them in, the running boom could pass long before you're ready.

It's not like all these runners are mewling infants either. If ten random runners from Saturday joined a club, you can be sure that some of them would be able to contribute. They wouldn't all be just drains on your limited resources.

petermijackson

Are coaches born coaches?? Surely they are runners at some level 1st. Are coaches just going to drop from the sky to form this pyramid? More members now means more coaches long term - some will be good,bad and who knows maybe great....

RayCun

This is all getting beside the point anyway - it's not as if thirtyfoot has a magic wand he could wave to double the number of club runners tomorrow, even if I convinced him it was a good idea.

But anyway

• There are an awful lot of races being organized in Ireland each year
• The standard of those races is extremely variable
• Everyone (except dodgy race organizers) would be better off if those races had to conform to some clear standards
• The AAI has a permit and certifcation process that doesn't really work, because races lose nothing by not being certified and permits don't come through before the race takes place
• Any systemic reforms should be lead by the AAI, because there's no point in having a second, unrelated certification process. And most (?) races are still organized by AAI member clubs

... though I've no idea how a better system could be enforced

RoyMcC

RayCun wrote: »

• Any systemic reforms should be lead by the AAI, because there's no point in having a second, unrelated certification process. And most (?) races are still organized by AAI member clubs

... though I've no idea how a better system could be enforced

It doesn't need to be a certificated process - that can remain in whatever faulty shape or form it is. Enforcement isn't going to work either. What I believe is required is a VOLUNTARY system which rewards races conforming to acceptable minimum standards. That reward will come in being able to quote, in its publicity and literature, that it holds the recognised 'kitemark'. This however has to be accredited by those best placed to award it. And to me that is an amalgam of those presently adhering to best practice.

BeepBeep67

From my experience - most coaches are born from previous athletes (regarless of standard) or interested parents.
We encourage and fund senior members and parents to take the Introductory Level Coaching course with AAI and then start by helping with Juvenille training - more senior members = a bigger pool of volunteers and maybe by the law of averages you get some people who really get it and have the desire to take it forward.
While I agree there's a gap to coach the elites, there's no harm in focusing on grass roots in parallel.
My son has recently joined the local rugby club and by week 2 each parent was approached and asked if they would be interested in putting their name down to help with training - if 5% say yes, then there's potentially 6 new coaches for the future.