India National Thread

[kapil857 31]

12 hours ago, Dolby said:

I have mixed feeling about trials. On one hand, trials are fair and keeps the senior athletes on their toes but on the other hand, I think those who have won medals at World level should be given some leeway compared to others because of experience and mental strength. Hence, I am fine with either policy as long as it is transparent and is followed without exceptions. 

 

Also, in Shooting, we don't have pure trials. Selection policy is a mixture of scores in trials held by NRAI and scores in international tournaments. Abhinav Bindra and other top shooters have been instrumental in inclusion of international tournament scores in selection policy. Their reasoning is that shooting in Olympics/World Cups is very different from shooting in a known range in selection trial. Even for Rio, NRAI didn't have any selection trial. They simply selected all the athletes who won quota except Manavjit Sandhu who was selected in place of Sanjeev Rajput. 

 

NRAI actually had a detailed selection policy for the Olympics which considered scores from international tournaments as well as selection trials. It involved considering your best 6 scores across tournaments and trials + bonus points for doing well in international tournaments and winning quota. And they followed the policy to the tee. Its just that all the quota winners anyways came out on top as per the criteria of the policy. The one person who didnt come out on top was Sanjeev Rajput as Gagan finished 2nd in the 3 position category ahead of Sanjeev despite Sanjeev receiving significant bonus points for winning the quota.

 

A few people on this forum have also said that Pooja Ghatkar should have been selected ahead of Ayonika but Ayonika was selected not because she won quota but because she was way ahead of Pooja in the selection policy (and Ayonika's quota didnt matter at all. As per NRAI policy, winning a quota or performance equivalent to winning a quota gets you 3 merit points. BOTH Ayonika and Pooja got those 3 merit points based on their performance in the Delhi qualfier since Pooja's performance was quota-equivalent with a shooter having finished below her getting a quota)

 

Also, NRAI officially declared that Manavjeet was selected ahead of Kynan based on the selection policy for Kynan's quota. And then there was an application with ISSF to award Sanjeev's quota to Kynan. So, had ISSF turned down the quota exchange request, it would have been Kynan mising out and not Manavjeet.

 

So we don't have pure trials in shooting but it is a detailed policy based on scores achieved in trials and at international tournaments. And it works for an unpredictable sport like shooting where you don't want selection to be based on a single trial as anything can happen on a given day.

 

However, wrestling is a far more predictable sport than shooting with the stronger wrestler generally coming out on top. Also, it is unfortunately a sport where every country has only one representative in major international tournaments and thus u cannot compare the performance of two wrestlers at the same event. WFI anyways selects the wrestlers to represent India at all tournaments, except the Olympics, through trials. Why not even use trials for the Olympics ?? Trials are required to ensure that (a) the best wrestler at the time of the olympics actually goes and (b) to provide a chance to a wrestler like Amit Kumar who got injured at the time of quota tournament but is healed by the time of the olympics.

 

At best, what they can do is give an advantage to the quota winners at the trials. They can adopt the chess model where you have a challengers' trial for all the wrestlers other than the quota winner. The winner of this challenger's trial then challenges the quota winner for the olympic berth. If required, this final trial can also be a best-of-3 with the quota winner given the first win by default. So that would imply that the quota winner has to defeat his challenger just once whereas the challenger has to beat the quota winner twice. 

 

Further, such trials can even be televised to make wrestling in India more popular. There was so much hype this time for a Sushil vs Narsingh trial. WFI missed a huge opportunity to hold it, televise it, and earn some moolah. In my opinion at least, trials are now a necessity with India having multiple wrestlers in the same category at around the same level.

[Dolby 754]

8 minutes ago, kapil857 said:

 

NRAI actually had a detailed selection policy for the Olympics which considered scores from international tournaments as well as selection trials. It involved considering your best 6 scores across tournaments and trials + bonus points for doing well in international tournaments and winning quota. And they followed the policy to the tee. Its just that all the quota winners anyways came out on top as per the criteria of the policy. The one person who didnt come out on top was Sanjeev Rajput as Gagan finished 2nd in the 3 position category ahead of Sanjeev despite Sanjeev receiving significant bonus points for winning the quota.

 

A few people on this forum have also said that Pooja Ghatkar should have been selected ahead of Ayonika but Ayonika was selected not because she won quota but because she was way ahead of Pooja in the selection policy (and Ayonika's quota didnt matter at all. As per NRAI policy, winning a quota or performance equivalent to winning a quota gets you 3 merit points. BOTH Ayonika and Pooja got those 3 merit points based on their performance in the Delhi qualfier since Pooja's performance was quota-equivalent with a shooter having finished below her getting a quota)

 

Also, NRAI officially declared that Manavjeet was selected ahead of Kynan based on the selection policy for Kynan's quota. And then there was an application with ISSF to award Sanjeev's quota to Kynan. So, had ISSF turned down the quota exchange request, it would have been Kynan mising out and not Manavjeet.

 

So we don't have pure trials in shooting but it is a detailed policy based on scores achieved in trials and at international tournaments. And it works for an unpredictable sport like shooting where you don't want selection to be based on a single trial as anything can happen on a given day.

 

However, wrestling is a far more predictable sport than shooting with the stronger wrestler generally coming out on top. Also, it is unfortunately a sport where every country has only one representative in major international tournaments and thus u cannot compare the performance of two wrestlers at the same event. WFI anyways selects the wrestlers to represent India at all tournaments, except the Olympics, through trials. Why not even use trials for the Olympics ?? Trials are required to ensure that (a) the best wrestler at the time of the olympics actually goes and (b) to provide a chance to a wrestler like Amit Kumar who got injured at the time of quota tournament but is healed by the time of the olympics.

 

At best, what they can do is give an advantage to the quota winners at the trials. They can adopt the chess model where you have a challengers' trial for all the wrestlers other than the quota winner. The winner of this challenger's trial then challenges the quota winner for the olympic berth. If required, this final trial can also be a best-of-3 with the quota winner given the first win by default. So that would imply that the quota winner has to defeat his challenger just once whereas the challenger has to beat the quota winner twice. 

 

Further, such trials can even be televised to make wrestling in India more popular. There was so much hype this time for a Sushil vs Narsingh trial. WFI missed a huge opportunity to hold it, televise it, and earn some moolah. In my opinion at least, trials are now a necessity with India having multiple wrestlers in the same category at around the same level.

Thanks for clarifying the shooting situation.  

Regarding Wrestling, I like your idea. It is fair and also gives a chance to someone to create upset. 

 

 

[sameerph 5]

That is an excellent idea, Kapil on Wrestling trials. Only one more issue which WFI has been presenting is that the trials held at a late stage can lead to injuries to wrestlers which will hamper their participation in Olympics. I don't how valid is that argument.

 

 

[kapil857 31]

1 hour ago, sameerph said:

That is an excellent idea, Kapil on Wrestling trials. Only one more issue which WFI has been presenting is that the trials held at a late stage can lead to injuries to wrestlers which will hamper their participation in Olympics. I don't how valid is that argument.

 

 

 

Injuries can happen in training as well. Saina didnt get injured in any competition. Amit Kumar didnt get injured in any competition. It is just an excuse.

[shrikant 3]

6 hours ago, kapil857 said:

 

NRAI actually had a detailed selection policy for the Olympics which considered scores from international tournaments as well as selection trials. It involved considering your best 6 scores across tournaments and trials + bonus points for doing well in international tournaments and winning quota. And they followed the policy to the tee. Its just that all the quota winners anyways came out on top as per the criteria of the policy. The one person who didnt come out on top was Sanjeev Rajput as Gagan finished 2nd in the 3 position category ahead of Sanjeev despite Sanjeev receiving significant bonus points for winning the quota.

 

A few people on this forum have also said that Pooja Ghatkar should have been selected ahead of Ayonika but Ayonika was selected not because she won quota but because she was way ahead of Pooja in the selection policy (and Ayonika's quota didnt matter at all. As per NRAI policy, winning a quota or performance equivalent to winning a quota gets you 3 merit points. BOTH Ayonika and Pooja got those 3 merit points based on their performance in the Delhi qualfier since Pooja's performance was quota-equivalent with a shooter having finished below her getting a quota)

 

Also, NRAI officially declared that Manavjeet was selected ahead of Kynan based on the selection policy for Kynan's quota. And then there was an application with ISSF to award Sanjeev's quota to Kynan. So, had ISSF turned down the quota exchange request, it would have been Kynan mising out and not Manavjeet.

 

So we don't have pure trials in shooting but it is a detailed policy based on scores achieved in trials and at international tournaments. And it works for an unpredictable sport like shooting where you don't want selection to be based on a single trial as anything can happen on a given day.

 

However, wrestling is a far more predictable sport than shooting with the stronger wrestler generally coming out on top. Also, it is unfortunately a sport where every country has only one representative in major international tournaments and thus u cannot compare the performance of two wrestlers at the same event. WFI anyways selects the wrestlers to represent India at all tournaments, except the Olympics, through trials. Why not even use trials for the Olympics ?? Trials are required to ensure that (a) the best wrestler at the time of the olympics actually goes and (b) to provide a chance to a wrestler like Amit Kumar who got injured at the time of quota tournament but is healed by the time of the olympics.

 

At best, what they can do is give an advantage to the quota winners at the trials. They can adopt the chess model where you have a challengers' trial for all the wrestlers other than the quota winner. The winner of this challenger's trial then challenges the quota winner for the olympic berth. If required, this final trial can also be a best-of-3 with the quota winner given the first win by default. So that would imply that the quota winner has to defeat his challenger just once whereas the challenger has to beat the quota winner twice. 

 

Further, such trials can even be televised to make wrestling in India more popular. There was so much hype this time for a Sushil vs Narsingh trial. WFI missed a huge opportunity to hold it, televise it, and earn some moolah. In my opinion at least, trials are now a necessity with India having multiple wrestlers in the same category at around the same level.

Wrestling match against Narsingh and Sushil would have seriously done good for the sport in our country, these trials should be arranged for all sports and they all need to be televised as only during Olympic phase other sports get huge importance and they should capitalize this opportunity also in terms of Olympic trials...

[Govind 9]

Just One question on Boxing ..

 

Is India is only country which complaints about AIBA or many other countries complain on it.. Actually in This forum in other threads many of them don't want boxing to be there at Olympics, as scores are manipulated.  

 

Is there any official complain on AIBA at CAS by any country.  Can someone help me in understanding?

 

 

[tirtha22 238]

Badminton

 

The Jharkhand Badminton Association (JBA) today announced the launch of first professional academy for coaching in the state on the National Sports Day.

[tirtha22 238]

Boxing

 

The coveted Olympic medal eluded him yet again but far from being bogged down, boxer Vikas Krishan says he is now aiming to become the first Indian to clinch two medals at the World Championships next year irrespective of whether a national federation takes shape or not.

[Prashanth 184]

Srikanth moves into the Top 10 back again....Ajay is in 21st place...

Saina down to 9th and Sindhu remains at 10th....

Manu/Sumeeth at 21st....

Jwala /Ashwini moved down to 26th...

[Prashanth 184]

World Junior Wrestling Championship 2016 Macon, France Aug 30-Sep 4,2016

 

Men's Freestyle :

Rahul-50kg
Ravi Kumar-55kg
Sharvan Sharvan-60kg
Vikas-66kg
Pritam-74kg
Deepak punia-84kg
Mandeep-94kg
Abhijeet Chandrakant Katake-120kg

 

Men's Greco Roman :

Arjun Halakurki-50kg
Kumar Raj-55kg
Sagar-60kg
Ravinder-66kg
Sajan-74kg
Sunil Kumar-84kg
Ravi-96kg
Sachin-120kg

 

Women's Freestyle :

Divya Tomar-44kg
Pooja Gehot-48kg
Pinki-51kg
Manju Kumari-55kg
Manisha-59kg
Devi Pooja-63kg
Reshma Anil Mane-67kg
Pooja-72kg