|
Post by Gun Show on Jun 2, 2010 22:32:35 GMT
Queens vs Trinity this weekend.
Any thoughts?
Senior Men? Senior Women? Novice Men? Novice Women?
|
|
|
Post by quackers on Jun 3, 2010 9:39:25 GMT
To be honest Trinity could win all those events except the Senior men. Then again that depends on if Queens put out their top senior 8 or their second one. They could give the 2nd one a race alrite but I still couldn't see them winning. If the top Queens crew goes out it won't be a contest
|
|
|
Post by snakebite on Jun 3, 2010 20:17:48 GMT
This event seems to somewhat be dragging its heels. There is a negative correlation between public interest/return and the ammount of money invested with each year. It is propelled by queen's to serve its own interest. To get a mention from Trinity on their website, one has to go back to 2007. www.boat.tcdlife.ie/NewsArchive.php This speaks volumes! I also believe this event is in breach of the IARU bylaws by having a private race on the same day as an IARU regatta. I am all for promoting rowing but talk about flogging a dead horse.
|
|
r7
New Member
10%
Posts: 16
|
Post by r7 on Jun 3, 2010 21:08:29 GMT
The race itself can almost be considered secondary to the 'occasion'. The enclosures, parties, and riverside events that coincide with the race provide an excellent base for the rowing community and others to get together and enjoy themselves (surely not allowed!). The alumni (of both universities) can dress up in their blazers and chat of times past and admire the crop of the present. Whilst all this may not be on the scale of Henley, it does provide a more formal occasion and something different in the calendar. The fact that the race attracts a sponsor (and not just someones dad propping up the event) shows it has value. Or perhaps we should just stick another regatta, with the same old format, back into the calender.
|
|
jdk
New Member
Posts: 8
|
Post by jdk on Jun 3, 2010 21:25:22 GMT
Would Queens top 8 not be going to London/Metro regetta this weekend instead? Word on the street has it their only sending out their B eight against trinitys ''senior'' crew.....
|
|
|
Post by buffalo on Jun 3, 2010 21:59:16 GMT
Snakebite, you are clearly involved or have close links to the organisation of the event, hence your knowledge of money spent, returns etc. If you are in such a position maybe you should use it to enhance the event rather than coming onto a public forum to voice your concerns. People are great at finding faults without offering solutions.
I think if the event had no benefits it would have stopped years ago. As for your rule break concerns, I suggest you contact the union immediately to get the race stopped, it would be a catastrophy if it took place and Queens and Trinity, the only clubs in the whole of Ireland missed Carlow Regatta!
|
|
|
Post by snakebite on Jun 3, 2010 22:11:12 GMT
I am not sure which point to tackle first. "The race itself can almost be considered secondary to the 'occasion.'" Given it is supposedly mirrored on the Oxford Cambridge boat race, the above comment is a very poor one at best. Sadly, Queen's this year, by not fielding their top crew serves only to reinforce this. In saying that, Trinity have adopted a cavalier approach to the event in the past. In 2008, they spent the morning training in blesso, arrived late and were still building their boat when they should have launched. The rowing definitely is secondary, and that being the case, why bother? If it is to promote rowing, it has to be done by keeping the integrity of the sport at its highest levels. Prior to this year, the event has been an invite only affair for Queen's old boys (not even their ex women rowers), and albeit a select few at that. I believe it is now open to all that pay for the Queen's coach. Any trinity blazers present are few and far between, and quite frankly a token gesture. The event is coming into its 7th year and whilst attracting sponsors over the years, it has yet to deliver any tangible benefit to either club. To put it bluntly, it has not generated revenue for either club, unless you count the resale value of a used sweaty one piece. buffaloDon't make assumptions about me that you have no way of verifying. It easy to point fault at many things in life, not just a queens trinity boat race, but after seven years, you have to face the reality despite the best efforts, the event is running on empty. I find it interesting that you criticise me for not being supportive of the event, yet you are guilty of exactly the same with Carlow regatta. It was Carlow this year but in previous years, it has been Athlone. At which point is this event in which rowing is secondary more important compared with an event in which the rowing is primary?
|
|
r7
New Member
10%
Posts: 16
|
Post by r7 on Jun 3, 2010 22:45:13 GMT
your own use of the Oxford v Cambridge Boat race to refute my point actually backs it up... Of the half million people who turn up on the bank, and countless millions more who watch it on tv, how many do you think actually care about the quality of the rowing, and how many are there for the 'occasion'. No, Queens v Trinity is not on the same scale, but the idea of creating a spectacle is similar.
Why exactly do you care? The people who attend the event will enjoy it (except perhaps the trinity senior men...), rowing will get some publicity and the athletes will hopefully get some good racing (remember their is some novices and women as well...).
The only losers? Well, Carlow regatta on the miniscule off chance that Queens/Trinity would have gone. And perhaps yourself, who will sit and debate this 'meaningless' event from afar...
|
|
|
Post by snakebite on Jun 3, 2010 23:46:17 GMT
I think this is coming down to a very philisophical question of which came first, the chicken or the egg?
The 'occasion' at the boat race is a result of two world leading academic and rowing universities racing. They do not race to justify an 'occasion.' Race=action 'occasion'=reaction
If I am interpreting what you are saying it is that the rowing doesn't matter so long as the 'occasion' is good. On that same logic, why bother with putting any serious rowing event on. How about we have a jello wrestling match between the ladies clubs instead? Although, I suspect you would have one hell of an 'occasion' on your hands if that was the case.
You ask why I care! I will be honest; I don't like to see hard training honest rowers exploited!
They happily jump through hoops for sponsors or whoever tells them be it the university or alumni with an unhealthy influence on a club they should have 'let go of' many years ago. The rowers and them alone make the event possible. They train hard and sacrafice alot: the endless hours of training; financial hardship; strained family & friend relationships. Thus, an event like this should be about the rowers.
They get nothing in terms of reward for themselves or their club. Sponsorship should be mutually beneficial and in this case it is a balance of maximising pr/profits for the sponsors/masters whilst dangling the carrot of PR for the rowers.
This is not right!
Whereas I have answered your question of why do I care, the more pertinent question is why do trinity not care?
|
|
|
Post by socrates on Jun 4, 2010 0:17:37 GMT
As an earlier poster pointed out, I think everyone enjoys it (except maybe the senior trinity men). We all train to race. And what better race to make a change from the same old six lane format, than a side by side shootout, on a good river, with 3 of the 4 pairs of crews probably pretty evenly matched. Great fun.
As long as the rowers enjoy the race itself, then I really dont get what everyone is moaning about!
|
|
r7
New Member
10%
Posts: 16
|
Post by r7 on Jun 4, 2010 11:01:56 GMT
"They get nothing in terms of reward for themselves or their club"
Unbelievable statement. Queens University and Lady Victoria have provided excellent training facilities, a full time coach, sports science back up, new boats etc etc. This has provided a platform for the rowers to acheive much higher standards in the sport than would ever have been possible beforehand. All this, and the rowers are being 'exploited' by 2k race and a bit of pre race publicity (I'm sure the rowers hated having to appear with the First and deputy first minister, slots on tv and the newspapers etc etc). They then get to have a party and all their mates and parents get to come along and enjoy the occasion.
I am simply at a loss to see what you can credibly have against this? Whether or not it is 'adding'something to the sprt of rowing seems to be a bone of contention, but it is certainly not taking anything away, so let it go!
The only thing I can see wrong with the race is that it lacks close competition in the Blue Riband event. If Trinity and Queens were evenly matched, rather than dominance swinging from one to the other, would this make a difference??
|
|
|
Post by snakebite on Jun 4, 2010 11:42:04 GMT
If you insist on quoting me, at least put the qoute in the context which it was used. I was referring to tangiable awards from the boat race. The rewards you are referring to relate to a different source altogether.
Those rewards were/are the result of the alumini digging their hands into their pockets. They would be there irrespective if the queens/trinity boat race existed or not.
My point is there is a significant sum of money put into the event (20-30k?) yet how much of that goes to the rowers/clubs? None! I am sure the guys loved to get a bit of PR but why is it limited at that?
Which would you prefer, 10k for the club or a meeting with NI politicians? Plus why weren't Trintiy there? I suspect you will point out it was the belfast club meeting belfast politicians. That being the case, where is the reciprocal jesture in Dublin? Why no mention on Trinity website or Dublin press?
Trinity put the bare minimum into the event because they get nothing out of it and can see it for what it is? A queens run spectacle to serve its own 'non-queens boat club' interests.
|
|
|
Post by junior8s2009 on Jun 4, 2010 12:33:19 GMT
Senior Men= Queens if they field their 1st 8, if they field their inter/senior 2nd 8 it could be a closer affair but even at that id fancy them more but anything can happen at a river regatta!!
Senior Women=trinity Novice Men=trinity Novice Women=trinity??
Whatever way if pans out id guess each club will take away half the spoils each.
|
|
r7
New Member
10%
Posts: 16
|
Post by r7 on Jun 4, 2010 12:45:34 GMT
I am well aware of the context of your statement, my answer was stating that Queens receive benefits all year round, so to take part in one race as some form of 'payback' should be no great effort.
I find it sad that you are looking at rowing from the perspective of 'Whats in it for me?'.
Trinity could make more of it, but choose not to. That is their choice. Maybe it doesn't mean much to them, but they could get more out of it by putting more into it.
|
|
|
Post by snakebite on Jun 4, 2010 14:40:23 GMT
Well if you find an alternative, albeit incorrectly construed, view point sad, that is your problem.
Queens taking part in a 'payback' race for receiving benefits all year round! Why bother?
'What's in it for me?' I wasn't aware that I disclosed my alleged unifying outlook on rowing in such a direct and unambigious manner. You couln't be further from the truth.
As you have brought up the issue, are you saying there are no winners in this?
All involved are at all times selflessly pursuing the interests of other parties.
The sponsors at all times are thinking selflessy of the rowers: how can we give as much as possible to the rowers/clubs and expect nothing in return or how can we get as much out of this as possible by putting as little in as possible. We all know its the latter. It's how business works, so the key is to maximise the extent of what level of little is acceptable to both parties.
So with this in mind, I put the question to you what is in it for Trinity that they should so selfessly pursue the event, whilst without offending abusing the selfless interests of all parties. Trinity not getting further involved is their prerogative and until they have the incentive to do so, don't expect this to change them anytime soon.
There is being selfish (not caring about anyone else) and looking after your own interests. The two are very different
|
|