Ringwood 400m Men's Gift 2022

This weekend marks the 41st Ringwood Gift, a local gift for many, and a rare chance to race on the synthetic. Solid entries here with 59 athletes set for battle. Will it be a Ringwood trained athlete who takes it or will a visitor come to take the chocolates? We will wait and see.

Matthew Napier to start as the backmarker off 16m. Who wins?

Throw a pineapple on Clarke for the win.
48.10s pb off 20m - running around the field will still run sub 46s.

Chol, Plant and Mouratch all mid 49s runners can’t match that speed off the same hcp.

Easier Said Than Run wrote:Throw a pineapple on Clarke for the win.
48.10s pb off 20m - running around the field will still run sub 46s.

Chol, Plant and Mouratch all mid 49s runners can’t match that speed off the same hcp.

Good call ESTR, if Clarke has pulled up alright from nationals then 20 is a handy mark for him but another 2 x 400's in one day after a big nats campaign... Hoffman is actually my pick been consistent and there abouts ready for a big one.

So we are now giving a 48.10 runner the novice mark. The sport is doomed unless this sort of nonsense isn't sorted out.
Handicaps are out of control across all distances. Novice marks are for novice runners.
Is it that hard to work out?

Jack Clarke

Sample 1- PB 48.10sec plus 2sec allowance = 50.10sec / 400 = 0.12525
Sample 2- NB 48.20sec plus 2sec allowance = 50.20sec / 400 = 0.1255
Average RPM = 0.125375

400m STT = 47.60sec / 0.125375 = DTR 379.66
NSM = 400 - 379.66 = 20.33m

Zonked, it's pretty clear as per above calculations and strictly as per current guidelines.

Instead of all the hysteria, let's see what happens on Sunday.

BTW, I'm now of the view that 2sec allowance is too much over 400m, but hindsight is a wonderful thing.

If you always do what you always did, you'll always get what you always got!?!

This statement or saying is so true on so many fronts.

Wow, can't dispute the calculations.
I know I'm not the smartest person in the room but 2 secs is absurd. 1 sec was always the agreed and understood allowance.
With a 48.1 runner on 20m that means a 49.1 runner would need about 28m and a 50.1 runner would need 36m. So a 50.1 runner is in the frontmarkers division at Stawell !!!1
On the flip side a 47.1 runner would be on 12m and a 46.1 runner would be on 2m

My hysteria was also targeted at a few handicaps in the 40's and 50's that have slipped out dramatically this season.
A 52 sec runner now needs to have 50m to be a chance. Most around that handicap would be 54 sec runners.

Never has a 48.1 runner been deserving of the novice mark of 20m. It is just far too generous. You have to then pity the true novice who comes in off 20m and would be obliterated by the 48.1 runner.

Why does Matthew Napier have to give Clarke a 4m start when his pb is slower?

Napiers pb from 2016 is 48.29.
He was able to win Waverley 400m off 14m in 2019. This more than suggests he is competitive and also suggests the 1 sec allowance for synthetic to be accurate.

Common sense handicapping says Napier is on about the right mark and Clarke needs to be off 12m.

If Clarke runs up to his pb of 48.10, a handicap of 20m has him 45.6!!!

That wins the Ringwood gift EASILY and would be ready to win Stawell if his mark isn’t altered

Dwight K Schrute
Dunder Mifflin Scranton

Zonked wrote:Why does Matthew Napier have to give Clarke a 4m start when his pb is slower?

Napiers pb from 2016 is 48.29.  
He was able to win Waverley 400m off 14m in 2019. This more than suggests he is competitive and also suggests the 1 sec allowance for synthetic to be accurate.

Common sense handicapping says Napier is on about the right mark and Clarke needs to be off 12m.

Another handicapper to add to the panel next year, welcome aboard Zonked!

In all seriousness, let's have a closer look at Napier who with a 48.29sec PB had 1sec allowance added giving RPM 0.123225 which of course equals NSM of 14m which is strictly as per the guidelines applicable back in 2019/20.

Matt has his 1st run at Waverley which is one of the best grass tracks in Australia apparently, off 14m wins in a time of 49.46sec which by any standards is extremely soft given STT is 47.6sec with CTT at 46.5sec, luckily the penalty is only 2m bringing him back to 12m.

Matt then runs at Rye, Parkdale & Keilor in the lead up to Bendigo, at which point is is allocated 11m for Bendigo which in actual fact is 14m given the field was back 3m.

Unfortunately for Matt he doesn't run again until Waverley 2021/22, at which point he should have been allocated 14m given his NSM is actually 16m but was instead allocated 11m.... Oops, bloody handicapper and HRP, you incompetent lot!!

Since the start of the season, Matt has been lifted from 11m to 16m having had 4 runs with 2 in AP range and other 2 noted as SP so the lifts are justified.

Only issuing being now that Matt actually started of the incorrect handicap at beginning of the year which should have been 14m instead of 11m, so the only fair and reasonable outcome is to lift Napier to 18m this weekend, plus we should all alert him to the appeal process or maybe even this website where be can and should make a song and dance about his handicap but overall handicapping in general.

Unfortunately we don't have a time machine to go back and apply the 2sec allowance to Matt, especially given that his 1st run in the pros was a win in a super soft race as the time indicates.

Zonked as I stated in an earlier post, the 2sec allowance for 400m as per current guidelines is too much over that distance, not to say it's too much over 800m and especially 1600m so more work is required in the off season to get the allowances right and the guidelines changed once again, it's fantastic that you've put your hand up to be part of the process and on the VAL payroll.

I'm sure that Zonked and any other wannabe handicapper will excel next year with refined guidelines or allowances given the perfect world that we live in.  

So Clarke is lucky he entered this year and not last year as last year he would have got 12m. Then not get lifted to 20m this year when the rules change as he had already run off 12m.
Crikey's.

Clarke or anyone with 48.10 or faster times who enter this year get an 8m advantage over last season.
So in essence they end up straight on to their ceiling point rather than start mark. eg/ targeted to run 46.5 instead of 47.5.

Here's another saying for you to remember Zonked, you'll need it for next year as Handicapper and in the perfect world you're living in Champ........

"You can please some of the people some of the time, but not all of the people all of the time!"

Zonked you continue to look at posts in isolation to suit your cause, concessions have been made that 2sec isn't right but it is what it is for this season, but the way the fact is if Clarke entered last year and was allocated 12m and ran off that mark, then guess what he would have started of 12m this year as you can't have more than your last declared handicap.

I still don't see how Clarke is on CTT, he's on the newly formulated STT as are every other runner with history in VAL at the start of the season with track adjustments calculated in results retrospectively.

I feel for Napier as the example here as he's situation is rather unique, the only fair and reasonable course of action is to move Matt out the more he runs, perhaps he should have been given 2m after every run instead of 2m after every 2 runs?

Finally, if you check out Bendigo 400m Final results and if you watched the race closely, I think you'll find that Clarke is far from a morale at Ringwood.

Thanks Nick.
I was merely pointing out what seemed obvious to me. No agenda. Just love the sport.

No problem to me if Clarke wins. The result has no bearing on anything. It is about fairness and logic.
He may not perform or may not back up after 1 hour from the heat etc....

I am petrified things are going the way of SAAL. Although I have faith in the current HRP and board. Just have to be careful of so called experts coming in suggesting rule changes.

A saying for you "Change for change sake does not always result in progress, it can be more damaging to your efforts".

All a bit of fuss over nothing in the end. That said, everyone’s (constructive) passion can be healthy for the sport.

Great display of quarter running by middle distance specialist Jake Cobba Stevens.

All roads now lead to Stawell…

The fuss still exists and as Nick DeFibre alluded to will be looked at in the off season as 2 secs allowance is too great.
It was never about the one result at Ringwood.
The young lad ran a shocking tactical race and will derive much benefit from his first pro run not in lanes.

Great run from Stevens a quality 800m runner.
Ringwood gift a happy hunting ground for quality middle distance runners as they have won the last 4 running of the event.

Zonked, if you watch the race on YouTube he catches blue 180 to go and backs off, then stays Lane 1 and boxes himself in rather than following blue wide. Might be a novice pro, but I’m not convinced that he won’t run a tactical Masterclass in 2 weeks. Also 5:05 into coverage- why was Jeff Sargeant wearing a wristwatch in vets 3 and clearly timing something as he crossed the line?

He is not entered at Stawell Runforit. So you can relax and put your conspiracy theories away He has never run a race without lanes before and clearly got lost tactically. Was not deliberate/some master plan.

Well that’s poor prep by him and his coach Tim. Had that race on toast if he swung wide. Hope u aren’t the coach Tim?!

Why is it poor? He was targeting nationals/world juniors. He decided to come have a run at a pro meet that wasn’t far away after his ammo season “finished”. Shouldn’t we be encouraging that? Stawell isn’t the be all and end all for every athlete. Would he have gone well? Probably. Would he have had the race on toast? It’s a Stawell 400 so nope. They’re still tough to win.

No I do not coach Jack. He is coached out of diamond valley athletics club by Rod Kelly

Easy mate. I felt like he had the Ringwood race on toast. Totally agree it was great to have him race, but like I said I’m a bit miffed by the poor tactics/lack of awareness. Clearly as you pointed out not a Stawell tactic, but if I was coaching him I’d be showing him some vids of pro races. I just think it was a rookie error that could have been avoided and he could have got a sash on debut. Appreciate his focus was nationals, but even just a 1min conversation saying you will likely have to swing wide would have been worth having. Yes no Stawell conspiracy, so my 2nd post was actually frustration for him as he could have picked up a sash