Back in the decades, when Girls’ Champs was held before Boys’ Champs there was a great outcry from the athletics administrators of the land. The essence of the outcry was the lack of appreciation for, and demoralisation of the girls.
Girls’ Champs lacked support. The buzz and excitement was all about Boys’ Champs. ‘Ladies before gentlemen’ was not necessarily adherence to social graces, but rather to logistics. If the boys had gone first, the immediate concern about any other champs would have been about the next boys’ champs.
One of the major incentives to boost Girls’ Champs was a marked reduction of the entry cost. It failed miserably. Before long, there was another promising incentive: anyone could attend Girls’ Champs without paying. No one would have blamed the administrators for counting spectators before they were ‘hatched’. It was, however, a super-miserable failure. The administrators went back to draw on some board — apparently of a cerebral kind — and then, Bingo! That strategy could not escape success. It resulted in a savoury merger.
The suggestion to revert to separate championships may seem to be a fizzy paradox. Consider scheduling both championships (Thursday – Saturday) for consecutive weeks. Use detachable twin tickets, amounting to 90 per to 95 per cent of the combined cost of both events. Benefits would include more earnings for Champs organisers, stadium and vendors, and reduced stress in relation to ticket sales/purchases.
Girls’ Champs wouldn’t revert to the gloomy days. Respect for the girls has grown considerably. They are holding their own and are soaring. It would be delightful to see an impressive crowd come out, without being lured, to watch them. Many who might not be inclined to visit the girls’ event may end up going because they had to pay for it. Also, there are some people who would be satisfied with going to Girls’ Champs, only, and avoid the rush of the other; they would graciously, or grudgingly, forego boys’ Saturday. Also important, is the fact that much less fans would be able to afford twins.
Hensley Pink
Lampard, Claendon
h_s_pink@yahoo.com
Girls’ Champs lacked support. The buzz and excitement was all about Boys’ Champs. ‘Ladies before gentlemen’ was not necessarily adherence to social graces, but rather to logistics. If the boys had gone first, the immediate concern about any other champs would have been about the next boys’ champs.
One of the major incentives to boost Girls’ Champs was a marked reduction of the entry cost. It failed miserably. Before long, there was another promising incentive: anyone could attend Girls’ Champs without paying. No one would have blamed the administrators for counting spectators before they were ‘hatched’. It was, however, a super-miserable failure. The administrators went back to draw on some board — apparently of a cerebral kind — and then, Bingo! That strategy could not escape success. It resulted in a savoury merger.
The suggestion to revert to separate championships may seem to be a fizzy paradox. Consider scheduling both championships (Thursday – Saturday) for consecutive weeks. Use detachable twin tickets, amounting to 90 per to 95 per cent of the combined cost of both events. Benefits would include more earnings for Champs organisers, stadium and vendors, and reduced stress in relation to ticket sales/purchases.
Girls’ Champs wouldn’t revert to the gloomy days. Respect for the girls has grown considerably. They are holding their own and are soaring. It would be delightful to see an impressive crowd come out, without being lured, to watch them. Many who might not be inclined to visit the girls’ event may end up going because they had to pay for it. Also, there are some people who would be satisfied with going to Girls’ Champs, only, and avoid the rush of the other; they would graciously, or grudgingly, forego boys’ Saturday. Also important, is the fact that much less fans would be able to afford twins.
Hensley Pink
Lampard, Claendon
h_s_pink@yahoo.com