Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Beijing 2008 Olympic Games - Caution, may contain results!
- Thread starter scotthayes
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
To be honest, I think the way UK sport has managed this is fantastic. They already had the money secured for 2012 so didn't have to divert any from these Olympics to 2012.
There are also a large number of teamGB who are in Beijing to gain experience of the Olympics so that when they get to London they know what the Olympics are all about.
Yo guys, it doesn't work that way. Usually there are a limited number of spots no matter how many of the "population" try out for the team.
And that doesn't count the number of Mexicans in the USA.
Yo guys, it doesn't work that way. Usually there are a limited number of spots no matter how many of the "population" try out for the team.
And that doesn't count the number of Mexicans in the USA.
That's true, but a larger population should mean a larger pool of athletically superior specimins to choose from leading to a better team. In addition it gives a larger chance of enough of the population participating in a given sport or discipline to actually have world-class competitors to choose from. Team GB are not competing in a large number of sports due to us not having anyone good enough to compete.
In short a larger population is definitely an advantage.
Heh, true too, but I think what counts a lot more is where the money is at. Given specimins of near quality, the one that's cultivated in the better laboratory will often turn out to be the superior product.
And that's probably why we've overtaken Australia in the table. We're currently putting a lot more money in: enough to tempt Australian coaches over to the UK as they can earn a lot more here...
NBC has a poll on their medals page asking whether total medals or gold metals are more important. Vote and maybe they'll see the light:
http://www.nbcolympics.com/medals/index.html
http://www.nbcolympics.com/medals/index.html
I actually think that the gold/total debate is pretty pointless. When you get right down to it, what's the real difference between the best and the third-best? Not much. I just don't understand why people seem to put so much energy into caring. The USA has always ranked by total medals, as long as I can remember. Who cares?
Probably because it's not the official method (look at the official site). If every country starts altering the table to suite themselves what's the point?
I don't have the figures to hand, but it was mentioned on the telly the other night that the US and Chinese teams both have about double the amount of athletes than the British team they had 600-and-something, we only had 300-and something. I suppose it's fair to say that the more entrants you have the better your chances, though of course they have to be very good to challenge for the medals.
Voted for gold, of course. I don't know why anyone would give Gold and Bronze the same weighting when one is clearly the "winner", and the others are not.
Besides, you don't really 'win' silver. You lose gold. And sometimes, in sports where only 2 teams or athletes can participate simultaneously, competing for bronze means you weren't even in contention for gold in that last match. You weren't even competing for 'top loser'. These other medals are OK for competitions such as the marathon, rowing, gymnastics, etc. However, in certain sports like volleyball, beach volleyball, basketball, water polo, table tennis, etc, competing for bronze would be pretty disappointing. You'd want to be in the last match competing for gold.....the match of actual significance.
The athletes care for one thing. Not only does it make a personal impact, it also makes a difference between a potential million dollar endorsement, or just a few school appearances.
Couldn't disagree with you more. When you have up to several dozen of the world's best athletes competing in an event, Silver isn't 'losing.' Ask athletes who place 4th if they think having won the Bronze would have been 'losing.' Many athletes go to the games not even expecting to medal, and getting the Bronze is the highlight of their lives. Getting a medal, ANY medal, is a major victory and reward for the vast majority of athletes. And countries, by the way. Small countries often celebrate when they have just one athlete pull off a Bronze or Silver (or Gold, of course). The only time a Silver or Bronze is losing is when you're talking about the best athlete in the world in their event and they fail to live up to it. But that's the exception.
I always thought a fair(ish) system would be to give points three for a gold, two for a silver and one for a bronze. Using this method, the top of the table (at the time of posting) would be...
China (176 points)
United States (157 points)
Russia (76 points)
Great Britain (74 points)
Australia (69 points)
Some or all of my maths may be totally incorrect.
China (176 points)
United States (157 points)
Russia (76 points)
Great Britain (74 points)
Australia (69 points)
Some or all of my maths may be totally incorrect.
That actually sounds like a remarkably sane system.I always thought a fair(ish) system would be to give points three for a gold, two for a silver and one for a bronze. Using this method, the top of the table (at the time of posting) would be...
China (176 points)
United States (157 points)
Russia (76 points)
Great Britain (74 points)
Australia (69 points)
Some or all of my maths may be totally incorrect.
The report I found (the picture was posted on another forum with no explanation) said he was uninjured!
I just love the mindset of some of the competitors. Tough as nails! Here are some great quotes by American Wrestling Gold-Medalist Henry Cejudo... before he won:
So are you planning on competing until you get an Olympic gold medal?
"Yeah, I'm going to be there soon (laughs)."
If not Beijing, then 2012?
"No it better be Beijing. I can't be thinking any less."
Now when you're in Beijing, will you try to meet any of the other Olympians, like LeBron James or Michael Phelps?
"It doesn't really interest me. It doesn't really spark me. Just because I know how tough wrestling is. We're the real athletes, we're the real warriors. That's the way I look at it. Our sport isn't as flashy as throwing a ball or doing 10 back flips. It's the toughest sport out there. Pound for pound, it's the toughest sport out there."
So are you planning on competing until you get an Olympic gold medal?
"Yeah, I'm going to be there soon (laughs)."
If not Beijing, then 2012?
"No it better be Beijing. I can't be thinking any less."
Now when you're in Beijing, will you try to meet any of the other Olympians, like LeBron James or Michael Phelps?
"It doesn't really interest me. It doesn't really spark me. Just because I know how tough wrestling is. We're the real athletes, we're the real warriors. That's the way I look at it. Our sport isn't as flashy as throwing a ball or doing 10 back flips. It's the toughest sport out there. Pound for pound, it's the toughest sport out there."
Someone was talking about possibly having the rugby sevens as an exhibition sport in London but I figured the same issue would likely come up there - although I guess it would depend whether the rugby authorities are as inflexible as FIFA.
Until this discussion, that's what I thought happened!
Well the British & Irish Lions don't seem to effect our ability to keep playing as individual nations so I think it would be OK...
But both egg-chasing codes do field British sides on occasion, so surely there wouldn't be any obstacle to this?