This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Gets on my nerves that Katherine Granger won her medals over many Olympics to finally be hailed as the greatest British female Olympian when Rebacca Adlington won 4 golds over two Olympics. Swimmers seem to be able to win over many more disciplines than athletes or other sportspeople do. They need to stretch out the distances and have a heptathlon style swimming event for the all rounders. There's just not enough variation in swimming events to justify the amount of medals.
14
7
4
2
18
4
In reply to yer maw:
What, like the individual medley?
> They need to stretch out the distances and have a heptathlon style swimming event for the all rounders.
What, like the individual medley?
7
In reply to yer maw:
Same issue re Hoy and Wiggins
I see two golds and two bronze (Adlington) as a bigger achievement than one gold and four silvers (Granger). And one silver more trumps however many bronzes more.
That's the line taken in the medal tables - that's why Germany is higher than Russia in the (unofficial of course) medal tables even though Russia has more silver and bronze for more medals in total - Germany has six golds to Russia's five
Same issue re Hoy and Wiggins
I see two golds and two bronze (Adlington) as a bigger achievement than one gold and four silvers (Granger). And one silver more trumps however many bronzes more.
That's the line taken in the medal tables - that's why Germany is higher than Russia in the (unofficial of course) medal tables even though Russia has more silver and bronze for more medals in total - Germany has six golds to Russia's five
2
1
In reply to ericinbristol:
2 of the 3 track events that Wiggins has won medals in have been dropped from the schedule, in order to give parity for the women and allow the introduction of MTB and BMX. And whilst the swimmers can go forwards, backwards, handicapped and even more handicapped over very similar distances, cornerstone events like the 1K sprint and the 4K pursuit have been lost, and something as exciting as DH doesn't get in at all.
As to the rowing, the only thing stopping them winning multiple medals is team selection - how much difference is there between the coxed and coxless 4s?
> Same issue re Hoy and Wiggins
2 of the 3 track events that Wiggins has won medals in have been dropped from the schedule, in order to give parity for the women and allow the introduction of MTB and BMX. And whilst the swimmers can go forwards, backwards, handicapped and even more handicapped over very similar distances, cornerstone events like the 1K sprint and the 4K pursuit have been lost, and something as exciting as DH doesn't get in at all.
As to the rowing, the only thing stopping them winning multiple medals is team selection - how much difference is there between the coxed and coxless 4s?
6
In reply to Chris the Tall:
Interesting. Can't say it changes my view that I (and medal tables) give absolute priority to number of gold medals over totals of golds, silvers and bronzes.
Interesting. Can't say it changes my view that I (and medal tables) give absolute priority to number of gold medals over totals of golds, silvers and bronzes.
In reply to Chris the Tall:
I only realised this week that the lightweight races in rowing were to do with the weight of the crew (had always assumed it was some different sort of boat). So someone eligible for one event would be too heavy for another.
I only realised this week that the lightweight races in rowing were to do with the weight of the crew (had always assumed it was some different sort of boat). So someone eligible for one event would be too heavy for another.
In reply to Chris the Tall:
not had coxed 4s in the Olympics for about 30 years . only coxed boat are the 8s.
not had coxed 4s in the Olympics for about 30 years . only coxed boat are the 8s.
2
In reply to ebygomm:
58 kg for women and 70 kg for men I think . used to row lightweight many years ago.
58 kg for women and 70 kg for men I think . used to row lightweight many years ago.
1
In reply to yer maw:
I wonder if anyone has worked out how competitive the sports are and allocated a ranking based on that. I haven't checked but I doubt whether there was an entry from Ethiopia in the dressage event for example.
I wonder if anyone has worked out how competitive the sports are and allocated a ranking based on that. I haven't checked but I doubt whether there was an entry from Ethiopia in the dressage event for example.
In reply to Chris the Tall:
A cox
> 2 of the 3 track events that Wiggins has won medals in have been dropped from the schedule, in order to give parity for the women and allow the introduction of MTB and BMX. And whilst the swimmers can go forwards, backwards, handicapped and even more handicapped over very similar distances, cornerstone events like the 1K sprint and the 4K pursuit have been lost, and something as exciting as DH doesn't get in at all.
> As to the rowing, the only thing stopping them winning multiple medals is team selection - how much difference is there between the coxed and coxless 4s?
A cox
2
In reply to Chris the Tall
Except that one reason why the Kiwi rowers (a pair?) in one event were seen as less competitive than expected was that they had doubled up and were also in an eight. The effort just seems too great whereas in swimming ( hard as it is) the medallists manage to come out half an hour later and swim a different stroke and still get another medal.
> As to the rowing, the only thing stopping them winning multiple medals is team selection - how much difference is there between the coxed and coxless 4s?
Except that one reason why the Kiwi rowers (a pair?) in one event were seen as less competitive than expected was that they had doubled up and were also in an eight. The effort just seems too great whereas in swimming ( hard as it is) the medallists manage to come out half an hour later and swim a different stroke and still get another medal.
3
In reply to ebygomm:
Can understand that in combative events and weight lifting, but a speed event ? We don't get extra cycling events for those of us on the heavy side !
P.s. Can someone remind Gary Herbert that he isn't a cox any more, the crews can't hear him, so he should commentate (or better still STFU)
> I only realised this week that the lightweight races in rowing were to do with the weight of the crew (had always assumed it was some different sort of boat). So someone eligible for one event would be too heavy for another.
Can understand that in combative events and weight lifting, but a speed event ? We don't get extra cycling events for those of us on the heavy side !
P.s. Can someone remind Gary Herbert that he isn't a cox any more, the crews can't hear him, so he should commentate (or better still STFU)
1
In reply to tim000:
Oh don't start bringing facts into the arguments, that's not fair. Anyway, how much difference is there between rowing and flat water kayaking? Same venue, same distance, still sat in a boat, same muscles but in a slightly different way, so very similar to different swimming strokes. And they'd get more rest than the swimmers !
> not had coxed 4s in the Olympics for about 30 years . only coxed boat are the 8s.
Oh don't start bringing facts into the arguments, that's not fair. Anyway, how much difference is there between rowing and flat water kayaking? Same venue, same distance, still sat in a boat, same muscles but in a slightly different way, so very similar to different swimming strokes. And they'd get more rest than the swimmers !
2
In reply to yer maw:
Those swimmers are fantastic. They swim 100 metres faster than the average human runs it. No need to quibble its just astounding. The more events there are the more to watch. And... no stuff about points for style etc just raw effort and speed; pure sport.
Those swimmers are fantastic. They swim 100 metres faster than the average human runs it. No need to quibble its just astounding. The more events there are the more to watch. And... no stuff about points for style etc just raw effort and speed; pure sport.
4
4
In reply to Chris the Tall:
loads of difference . kayaking is arms and back rowings all about the legs. about as similar and football and tennis
loads of difference . kayaking is arms and back rowings all about the legs. about as similar and football and tennis
2
In reply to Pete Pozman:
They do get to have a boost of the sides of the pool every 50m
> Those swimmers are fantastic. They swim 100 metres faster than the average human runs it. No need to quibble its just astounding
They do get to have a boost of the sides of the pool every 50m
1
In reply to Pete Pozman:
Those swimmers are fantastic. They swim 100 metres faster than the average human runs it. No need to quibble its just astounding.
Are you sure?
By my admittedly totally mental arithmetic, they are swimming at approximately 4.5 mph.
Those swimmers are fantastic. They swim 100 metres faster than the average human runs it. No need to quibble its just astounding.
Are you sure?
By my admittedly totally mental arithmetic, they are swimming at approximately 4.5 mph.
In reply to FactorXXX:
BUT.... You're not allowed to run by the side of swimming pool
> Those swimmers are fantastic. They swim 100 metres faster than the average human runs it.
BUT.... You're not allowed to run by the side of swimming pool
18
In reply to Ron Rees Davies:
BUT.... You're not allowed to run by the side of swimming pool
Good point!
Which means, we'll never find out if Mr Average can run faster than an Olympic swimmer...
BUT.... You're not allowed to run by the side of swimming pool
Good point!
Which means, we'll never find out if Mr Average can run faster than an Olympic swimmer...
12
In reply to tim000:
Kayaking is all about the core. Arms and back to some extent maybe, legs as well but good rotation is vital.
Kayaking is all about the core. Arms and back to some extent maybe, legs as well but good rotation is vital.
In reply to Bellie:
In which case even less worthy of the greatest female Olympian accolade. The justification stands for me.
> Rebecca won 2 golds and 2 bronze.
> Carry on.
In which case even less worthy of the greatest female Olympian accolade. The justification stands for me.
1
In reply to ebygomm:
That's a good point, but still needs stretched out.
> What, like the individual medley?
That's a good point, but still needs stretched out.
In reply to yer maw:
Laura Trott has become the first British woman to win 3 golds. Mind you, can't even remember what the argument is about !
Laura Trott has become the first British woman to win 3 golds. Mind you, can't even remember what the argument is about !
5
In reply to galpinos:
I'm thinking more of the people enjoying breakfast in Morrison's cafe than a rock hard crank machine which you, no doubt, are.
> 47 seconds for 100m. I fancy my chances....
I'm thinking more of the people enjoying breakfast in Morrison's cafe than a rock hard crank machine which you, no doubt, are.
In reply to Pete Pozman:
I'm thinking more of the people enjoying breakfast in Morrison's cafe than a rock hard crank machine which you, no doubt, are.
My grandmother could run 100m in under 47s and she's been cranking up the daises for years!
I'm thinking more of the people enjoying breakfast in Morrison's cafe than a rock hard crank machine which you, no doubt, are.
My grandmother could run 100m in under 47s and she's been cranking up the daises for years!
4
In reply to FactorXXX:
Half of the USA's medals have come from swimming alone. It's greatly over represented but it's hard to take events from the US. Cycling has recently had a number of events cut however.
Half of the USA's medals have come from swimming alone. It's greatly over represented but it's hard to take events from the US. Cycling has recently had a number of events cut however.
Post edited at 00:13
In reply to yer maw:
I've always said that swimming medals should just be for the fastest stroke, this instantly cuts the number of medals available and makes it comparable with athletics.
It probably means race walking has to go, but I can live with that.
I've always said that swimming medals should just be for the fastest stroke, this instantly cuts the number of medals available and makes it comparable with athletics.
It probably means race walking has to go, but I can live with that.
In reply to The New NickB:
It's economics. You can't justify the cost of an aquatics centre without lots of medals.
It's economics. You can't justify the cost of an aquatics centre without lots of medals.
In reply to yer maw:
I might as well trott out my alternative rules for selection of Olympic events.
1. Outcome should be able to be objectively measured. So that's gymnastics, diving, dressage and synchronised swimming out. It probably means the fighty sports are out as well.
2. The Olympics should be the biggest thing in the sport. So Tennis, Golf, Football out. Probably men's basketball and the men's road race as well.
3. It shouldn't be realistically possible to win more than 3 medals at one Olympics (4 in really exceptional circumstances, maybe). As gymnastics is already excluded in rule one, swimming is the main culprit here and the rule I have already mentioned around fastest stroke should resolve that issue.
I might as well trott out my alternative rules for selection of Olympic events.
1. Outcome should be able to be objectively measured. So that's gymnastics, diving, dressage and synchronised swimming out. It probably means the fighty sports are out as well.
2. The Olympics should be the biggest thing in the sport. So Tennis, Golf, Football out. Probably men's basketball and the men's road race as well.
3. It shouldn't be realistically possible to win more than 3 medals at one Olympics (4 in really exceptional circumstances, maybe). As gymnastics is already excluded in rule one, swimming is the main culprit here and the rule I have already mentioned around fastest stroke should resolve that issue.
2
In reply to elsewhere:
Do they cost more than velodromes?
> It's economics. You can't justify the cost of an aquatics centre without lots of medals.
Do they cost more than velodromes?
In reply to Chris the Tall:
Yup, I think I spent the last minute of the mens' eights just asking him to tell us how far they had left to go, not exhorting them to 'stay long'...
Yup, I think I spent the last minute of the mens' eights just asking him to tell us how far they had left to go, not exhorting them to 'stay long'...
In reply to The New NickB:
Agreed. Every distance should just be freestyle. There's no 100m hopping on one leg, 100m backwards etc in athletics....
Agreed. Every distance should just be freestyle. There's no 100m hopping on one leg, 100m backwards etc in athletics....
1
In reply to yer maw:
Not saying it doesn't. Neither have I seen Rebecca hailed as our greatest olympian... but I could have easily have missed that. She is in the same bracket as Kelly holmes. So wouldn't have expected her to be given the moniker.
Not saying it doesn't. Neither have I seen Rebecca hailed as our greatest olympian... but I could have easily have missed that. She is in the same bracket as Kelly holmes. So wouldn't have expected her to be given the moniker.
1
In reply to elsewhere:
I don't think it's cost. It's time.
You can only use an aquatics centre for water based sports, so you have two weeks to fill.
Similarly with a velodrome, you have to fill, or fit everything in, depending on your viewpoint.
It's not like you can swim in the velodrome or vice versa. So you can fit lots of swimming/cycling in, but if the races are longer you get less events (including heats)
I don't think it's cost. It's time.
You can only use an aquatics centre for water based sports, so you have two weeks to fill.
Similarly with a velodrome, you have to fill, or fit everything in, depending on your viewpoint.
It's not like you can swim in the velodrome or vice versa. So you can fit lots of swimming/cycling in, but if the races are longer you get less events (including heats)
In reply to The New NickB:
Agree - always have done. If a sport isn't prepared to rate the Olympics as the most prestigious event in it's world programme then it shouldn't be at the Olympics. Football and golf out for sure - most of the top competitors aren't even there. Tennis is at least making an effort with the top competitors present and the gold medal going to one of the top three.
Martin
> 2. The Olympics should be the biggest thing in the sport. So Tennis, Golf, Football out. Probably men's basketball and the men's road race as well.
Agree - always have done. If a sport isn't prepared to rate the Olympics as the most prestigious event in it's world programme then it shouldn't be at the Olympics. Football and golf out for sure - most of the top competitors aren't even there. Tennis is at least making an effort with the top competitors present and the gold medal going to one of the top three.
Martin
1
In reply to Martin Hore:
In previous years Tennis has awarded ranking points for the Olympics - making it equivalent to the Masters series (half the points of the slams). Some say they should made it equivalent to the slams, but having no points at all has deterred some of the mid-ranked players (well a couple of yanks anyway) who know they have little hope of winning and want to concentrate on the forthcoming tournaments in the states.
And yet for the top players, the lack of money/points isn't an issue - they want the prestige, which is the way the olympics used to be before they allowed professionals in. And last nights match was a cracker - JMdP looking the better player at times (particularly with his forehand), but lacking the fitness of Murray. If his wrists can withstand it, he should be back in the top 10 in no time, and will make the US open draw very interesting.
And going back to the men's road race, look at Nibbles. Won all the grand tours and a monument, but prepared to risk serious injury in pursuit of olympic gold. Slightly different to those who stayed away due to fear of mossie bites!
In previous years Tennis has awarded ranking points for the Olympics - making it equivalent to the Masters series (half the points of the slams). Some say they should made it equivalent to the slams, but having no points at all has deterred some of the mid-ranked players (well a couple of yanks anyway) who know they have little hope of winning and want to concentrate on the forthcoming tournaments in the states.
And yet for the top players, the lack of money/points isn't an issue - they want the prestige, which is the way the olympics used to be before they allowed professionals in. And last nights match was a cracker - JMdP looking the better player at times (particularly with his forehand), but lacking the fitness of Murray. If his wrists can withstand it, he should be back in the top 10 in no time, and will make the US open draw very interesting.
And going back to the men's road race, look at Nibbles. Won all the grand tours and a monument, but prepared to risk serious injury in pursuit of olympic gold. Slightly different to those who stayed away due to fear of mossie bites!
In reply to elsewhere:
Just looking at the costs for London, it seems the original budget for the aquatics scheme was about £20m less than the velodrome budget. The velodrome was completed to budget, the aquatics centre very definitely wasn't.
> Yes.
Just looking at the costs for London, it seems the original budget for the aquatics scheme was about £20m less than the velodrome budget. The velodrome was completed to budget, the aquatics centre very definitely wasn't.
1
1
In reply to DancingOnRock:
Swimming would be far more interesting if they used the white-water course !
But the fact that both use single-purpose arenas doesn't explain why you have 33 events in the pool and just 10 in the velodrome.
> I don't think it's cost. It's time.
> You can only use an aquatics centre for water based sports, so you have two weeks to fill.
> Similarly with a velodrome, you have to fill, or fit everything in, depending on your viewpoint.
> It's not like you can swim in the velodrome or vice versa. So you can fit lots of swimming/cycling in, but if the races are longer you get less events (including heats)
Swimming would be far more interesting if they used the white-water course !
But the fact that both use single-purpose arenas doesn't explain why you have 33 events in the pool and just 10 in the velodrome.
1
In reply to ebygomm:
Again. AFAIK there's only one lake. That hosts sailing and rowing, add in the heats and it starts to get congested. I assume you need wind for sailing while it's not good for rowing. I'm not sure how they timetable it all.
You can't just say - let's have more rowing and less cycling.
Again. AFAIK there's only one lake. That hosts sailing and rowing, add in the heats and it starts to get congested. I assume you need wind for sailing while it's not good for rowing. I'm not sure how they timetable it all.
You can't just say - let's have more rowing and less cycling.
In reply to ebygomm:
I haven't considered the fine detail on that one. It's not really covered by any of my criteria. A weight limit is basically a handicap, in the same way as insisting you swim a certain slower stroke, so maybe it would be out for the sake of parity.
> Would you include/exclude lightweight rowing events?
I haven't considered the fine detail on that one. It's not really covered by any of my criteria. A weight limit is basically a handicap, in the same way as insisting you swim a certain slower stroke, so maybe it would be out for the sake of parity.
In reply to DancingOnRock:
Less than 45 seconds? Team and individual sprints in track cycling, realistically in swimming the 50m events and just over for the various 100m.
> How many cycling events last 45 seconds?
Less than 45 seconds? Team and individual sprints in track cycling, realistically in swimming the 50m events and just over for the various 100m.
In reply to DancingOnRock:
The don't sail in the rowing lake, the sail in the sea. The rowing lake hosts the rowing and sprint canoe events. The slalom canoe events have their own dedicated facilities.
In the past they have also used the rowing lake for the 10km swim, I am assuming this will be the case in Rio.
The don't sail in the rowing lake, the sail in the sea. The rowing lake hosts the rowing and sprint canoe events. The slalom canoe events have their own dedicated facilities.
In the past they have also used the rowing lake for the 10km swim, I am assuming this will be the case in Rio.
Post edited at 11:17
In reply to The New NickB:
That approach would speed up the boxing, judo and taekwondo events no end, which would make room for the absurdly omitted squash.
> . A weight limit is basically a handicap, in the same way as insisting you swim a certain slower stroke, so maybe it would be out for the sake of parity.
That approach would speed up the boxing, judo and taekwondo events no end, which would make room for the absurdly omitted squash.
In reply to DancingOnRock:
The 1K - controversially dropped in 2008 - takes about a minute. And the 4K IP - another keystone event - only takes 4 minutes. They fit in far more more events in the same number of days at the worlds. Scheduling has nothing to do with it.
> How many cycling events last 45 seconds?
The 1K - controversially dropped in 2008 - takes about a minute. And the 4K IP - another keystone event - only takes 4 minutes. They fit in far more more events in the same number of days at the worlds. Scheduling has nothing to do with it.
In reply to DancingOnRock:
The Olympics is three weeks long. The swimming lasts a week, the track cycling lasts a weeks. It's really not a time issue. The aquatics centre gets used for other stuff, but only because it's built with that purpose. Diving, water polo and sychronised swimming.
The Olympics is three weeks long. The swimming lasts a week, the track cycling lasts a weeks. It's really not a time issue. The aquatics centre gets used for other stuff, but only because it's built with that purpose. Diving, water polo and sychronised swimming.
In reply to MG:
Check my rules, boxing is already omitted completely.
> That approach would speed up the boxing, judo and taekwondo events no end, which would make room for the absurdly omitted squash.
Check my rules, boxing is already omitted completely.
In reply to The New NickB:
Why? - knockout is pretty objective.
Would you remove separate women's competitions on the same basis as weight?
> Check my rules, boxing is already omitted completely.
Why? - knockout is pretty objective.
Would you remove separate women's competitions on the same basis as weight?
Post edited at 11:26
In reply to MG:
It is, it also isn't the manner in which most Olympic boxing matches are decided. Every Olympics there are a number of highly controversial judges decisions in boxing.
> Why? - knockout is pretty objective.
It is, it also isn't the manner in which most Olympic boxing matches are decided. Every Olympics there are a number of highly controversial judges decisions in boxing.
In reply to The New NickB:
I think with a little more effort we can reduce the whole Olympics to one event that measures the pinnacle of overall human physical greatness - perhaps a fully open pentathlon. Then it could be done and dusted in a couple of days at a fraction of the cost.
I think with a little more effort we can reduce the whole Olympics to one event that measures the pinnacle of overall human physical greatness - perhaps a fully open pentathlon. Then it could be done and dusted in a couple of days at a fraction of the cost.
In reply to Martin Hore:
I quite like what is done with the footy and rugby where they change the format for the olympics. Football is under 23 so you could argue that it is the most prestigious award for a team up to that level. For rugby, I think the sevens was a great success and it would be hard to persuade any Fijian that their gold medal wasn't their greates sporting achievement ever.
> Agree - always have done. If a sport isn't prepared to rate the Olympics as the most prestigious event in it's world programme then it shouldn't be at the Olympics. Football and golf out for sure - most of the top competitors aren't even there. Tennis is at least making an effort with the top competitors present and the gold medal going to one of the top three.
> Martin
I quite like what is done with the footy and rugby where they change the format for the olympics. Football is under 23 so you could argue that it is the most prestigious award for a team up to that level. For rugby, I think the sevens was a great success and it would be hard to persuade any Fijian that their gold medal wasn't their greates sporting achievement ever.
In reply to MG:
Rare, though perhaps less so now that they no longer wear head guards.
Anyone know why this change has been made ? Anyone care to explain why causing brain damage is acceptable in sport ? We don't allow the fencers to fight for real
> Why? - knockout is pretty objective.
Rare, though perhaps less so now that they no longer wear head guards.
Anyone know why this change has been made ? Anyone care to explain why causing brain damage is acceptable in sport ? We don't allow the fencers to fight for real
Post edited at 11:47
2
In reply to yer maw:
I was pretty surprised when I looked at the medal tally availability by sport. Some highlights for me:
18 in cycling, 18 in wrestling, 16 in canoing, 14 in Judo, 15 in shooting, 14 in rowing, 10 in sailing, 8 in diving
I was pretty surprised when I looked at the medal tally availability by sport. Some highlights for me:
18 in cycling, 18 in wrestling, 16 in canoing, 14 in Judo, 15 in shooting, 14 in rowing, 10 in sailing, 8 in diving
In reply to GrahamD:
4 different sports in the cycling, so for fair comparison it's 40 in boating and 32 in aggressive cuddling
> 18 in cycling, 18 in wrestling, 16 in canoing, 14 in Judo, 15 in shooting, 14 in rowing, 10 in sailing, 8 in diving
4 different sports in the cycling, so for fair comparison it's 40 in boating and 32 in aggressive cuddling
1
In reply to GrahamD:
I thought this was quite interesting, if a bit of a flawedway of judging sporting worth, it compares popularity of sports by estimated viewing figures to the number of medals they award:
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/which-countries-medal-in-the-sports-tha...
I thought this was quite interesting, if a bit of a flawedway of judging sporting worth, it compares popularity of sports by estimated viewing figures to the number of medals they award:
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/which-countries-medal-in-the-sports-tha...
In reply to Chris the Tall:
Hi Chris, my point was more about how the comparison looks. I'm a cycling fan so I'd argue that the same number available as in wrestling is disproportionate to the sports significance and Judo the same as rowing is also disproportionate (again in my view). Maybe if I was in Uzbekistan I'd have a different view.
Hi Chris, my point was more about how the comparison looks. I'm a cycling fan so I'd argue that the same number available as in wrestling is disproportionate to the sports significance and Judo the same as rowing is also disproportionate (again in my view). Maybe if I was in Uzbekistan I'd have a different view.
In reply to Lemony:
Its interesting but obviously somewhat flawed as research. It'll depend on what and how much different TV companies chose to show, viewing must be dependent on socio economic factors and finally it has to depend on what time zone the olympics is.
Sailing, for instance, is hard to televise - especially live and is not a goodwatch even for people who love sailing. Table tennis by contrast gets a result in a short space of time and is easily televised.
Its interesting but obviously somewhat flawed as research. It'll depend on what and how much different TV companies chose to show, viewing must be dependent on socio economic factors and finally it has to depend on what time zone the olympics is.
Sailing, for instance, is hard to televise - especially live and is not a goodwatch even for people who love sailing. Table tennis by contrast gets a result in a short space of time and is easily televised.
In reply to GrahamD:
Hi Chris, my point was more about how the comparison looks. I'm a cycling fan so I'd argue that the same number available as in wrestling is disproportionate to the sports significance and Judo the same as rowing is also disproportionate (again in my view). Maybe if I was in Uzbekistan I'd have a different view.
Aren't there weight classes in Wrestling and Judo?
Therefore, the medal availability is actually a lot less than your numbers imply.
Hi Chris, my point was more about how the comparison looks. I'm a cycling fan so I'd argue that the same number available as in wrestling is disproportionate to the sports significance and Judo the same as rowing is also disproportionate (again in my view). Maybe if I was in Uzbekistan I'd have a different view.
Aren't there weight classes in Wrestling and Judo?
Therefore, the medal availability is actually a lot less than your numbers imply.
In reply to MG:
One that combines bouldering, leading and speed perhaps?
> I think with a little more effort we can reduce the whole Olympics to one event that measures the pinnacle of overall human physical greatness
One that combines bouldering, leading and speed perhaps?
2
In reply to FactorXXX:
Depends how you define medal availability. A single person can will a lot of medals in swimming or gymnastics, but if a country is good at water polo they can win a maximum of two medals, if another country is good at wrestling, they an win lots of medals.
> Hi Chris, my point was more about how the comparison looks. I'm a cycling fan so I'd argue that the same number available as in wrestling is disproportionate to the sports significance and Judo the same as rowing is also disproportionate (again in my view). Maybe if I was in Uzbekistan I'd have a different view.
> Aren't there weight classes in Wrestling and Judo?
> Therefore, the medal availability is actually a lot less than your numbers imply.
Depends how you define medal availability. A single person can will a lot of medals in swimming or gymnastics, but if a country is good at water polo they can win a maximum of two medals, if another country is good at wrestling, they an win lots of medals.
In reply to Chris the Tall:
It's supposed to reduces concussion, though I'm doubtful of the reasoning behind it.
"the theory is that opponents don't apply so much force if the head is unprotected." which I doubt.
Another alternative, which might be more true, "headgear can obscure peripheral vision, making it harder to see when a blow is being aimed at the side of the head. Indeed, research has shown that a lack of headgear actually reduces the risk of concussion."
Any one who knows about boxing knows it's not about knocking someone out, although that can be a quick way to end a fight. These are rare in ameteur boxing, because usually boxers are matched not only for weight but in skill terms. Weights can only vary by half a stone, until you get to the heavy weights, so a good pie and a couple of pints can put you over.
There's a problem in lots of sport with brain damage, rugby is another example where concussion is a major concern.
If you're going to ban all sports which may cause concussion there might not be many contact sports left.
If the athlete is informed enough, then surly it's their choice, and it does boil down to the purest of competitions, you against them, that simple, that raw. There is a real art to boxing, not everyone thinks this I know but, one of the best fights I've seen was one in which no one hit the other for three rounds, they were both great boxers and slipped and dived each other punches for that long.
After saying that I don't like cage fighting, so I guess I'm not 100% for all combat sports to be OK. Life's a complicated thing.
> Rare, though perhaps less so now that they no longer wear head guards.
> Anyone know why this change has been made ? Anyone care to explain why causing brain damage is acceptable in sport ? We don't allow the fencers to fight for real
It's supposed to reduces concussion, though I'm doubtful of the reasoning behind it.
"the theory is that opponents don't apply so much force if the head is unprotected." which I doubt.
Another alternative, which might be more true, "headgear can obscure peripheral vision, making it harder to see when a blow is being aimed at the side of the head. Indeed, research has shown that a lack of headgear actually reduces the risk of concussion."
Any one who knows about boxing knows it's not about knocking someone out, although that can be a quick way to end a fight. These are rare in ameteur boxing, because usually boxers are matched not only for weight but in skill terms. Weights can only vary by half a stone, until you get to the heavy weights, so a good pie and a couple of pints can put you over.
There's a problem in lots of sport with brain damage, rugby is another example where concussion is a major concern.
If you're going to ban all sports which may cause concussion there might not be many contact sports left.
If the athlete is informed enough, then surly it's their choice, and it does boil down to the purest of competitions, you against them, that simple, that raw. There is a real art to boxing, not everyone thinks this I know but, one of the best fights I've seen was one in which no one hit the other for three rounds, they were both great boxers and slipped and dived each other punches for that long.
After saying that I don't like cage fighting, so I guess I'm not 100% for all combat sports to be OK. Life's a complicated thing.
In reply to krikoman:
Big difference between risking concussion yourself and trying to cause it to an opponent - in any other sport the latter is very much forbidden, whilst reasonable steps are taken to avoid the former.
Thanks for the explanation though and I can see that helmets may not actually be safer (and where else have we had that debate!), but am I right in thinking that they are in for some bouts and not for others, and if so why ?
> If you're going to ban all sports which may cause concussion there might not be many contact sports left.
Big difference between risking concussion yourself and trying to cause it to an opponent - in any other sport the latter is very much forbidden, whilst reasonable steps are taken to avoid the former.
Thanks for the explanation though and I can see that helmets may not actually be safer (and where else have we had that debate!), but am I right in thinking that they are in for some bouts and not for others, and if so why ?
In reply to Pete Pozman:
"And... no stuff about points for style "
Except there is, you aren't allowed to do freestyle in the backstroke.
"And... no stuff about points for style "
Except there is, you aren't allowed to do freestyle in the backstroke.
In reply to DancingOnRock:
The swimming has finished already ie it isn't about filling it for 2 weeks
The swimming has finished already ie it isn't about filling it for 2 weeks
In reply to Graeme Alderson:
There must be some financial payback on TV rights vs amount of TV time. Presumably not all heats are televised. Maybe there is scope for more swimming rather than less?
> The swimming has finished already ie it isn't about filling it for 2 weeks
There must be some financial payback on TV rights vs amount of TV time. Presumably not all heats are televised. Maybe there is scope for more swimming rather than less?
In reply to Chris the Tall:
I thought they were going to be optional, i.e. the boxer decided but I can't find a reference to this. Women boxers still HAVE to wear them AFAIK.
The Olympic reasoning was always a bit shambollick to be honest. I read it was originally to encourage professional boxers to fight in the Olympics (money again I suppose), but I don't think there's been any pros that signed up. Rightly so really because they are very different the amateur game has always been different from the pro scene.
> Thanks for the explanation though and I can see that helmets may not actually be safer (and where else have we had that debate!), but am I right in thinking that they are in for some bouts and not for others, and if so why ?
I thought they were going to be optional, i.e. the boxer decided but I can't find a reference to this. Women boxers still HAVE to wear them AFAIK.
The Olympic reasoning was always a bit shambollick to be honest. I read it was originally to encourage professional boxers to fight in the Olympics (money again I suppose), but I don't think there's been any pros that signed up. Rightly so really because they are very different the amateur game has always been different from the pro scene.
In reply to yer maw:
34 golds in swimming , 16 won by USA
> Gets on my nerves that Katherine Granger won her medals over many Olympics to finally be hailed as the greatest British female Olympian when Rebacca Adlington won 4 golds over two Olympics. Swimmers seem to be able to win over many more disciplines than athletes or other sportspeople do. They need to stretch out the distances and have a heptathlon style swimming event for the all rounders. There's just not enough variation in swimming events to justify the amount of medals.
34 golds in swimming , 16 won by USA
Post edited at 18:31
In reply to tim000:
The flip side of that is that the Aussies are having a stinker.
> 34 golds in swimming , 16 won by USA
The flip side of that is that the Aussies are having a stinker.
1
In reply to The New NickB:
my wife has a friend in oz who was taking the piss last week when we hadn`t won a gold . gone very quiet now since I pointed out we have more golds than they have gold and silver put together
my wife has a friend in oz who was taking the piss last week when we hadn`t won a gold . gone very quiet now since I pointed out we have more golds than they have gold and silver put together
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...