[Archived] Olympics 2012

[jim mk2]

Overall signs not looking good for Team GB - three days gone, still no gold medal and swimmers missing out again and Tom Daley taking a leaf out of the men's cycling team's book by blowing it on the big occasion. Bouquet for the gymnasts though.

[adopted scouser]

That answers a lot of questions!

Tremendous

[M-K]

What's the point in football?

Major tournaments and games won and lost by people pretending they were fouled and falling over

People getting sent off for retaliating and then appealing and having an entire game taken off their suspension

Well, quite. Football is dodgy and decidedly un-Olympic in its widespread gamesmanship, but at the end of all the shirt-pulling and face-clutching, not only does the scoreboard show you who won, but your own eyes will tell you. I clearly saw Team A score 1 goal, while Team B scored 0, therefore team A wins.

In gymnastics, they'd have you believe that the judging is so scientific that a team could win by virtue of a 0.001 point difference, but when the officials are challenged to justify the marks they just awarded it could (and just did) change by a factor of 500 times that margin.

Sure it takes skill to compete at, but it's not a sport. They could swap it for Olympic Catwalk Modelling - judge them on the smoothness of the sashay, the difficulty factor of the dress.

[Audax]

Overall signs not looking good for Team GB - three days gone, still no gold medal and swimmers missing out again and Tom Daley taking a leaf out of the men's cycling team's book by blowing it on the big occasion. Bouquet for the gymnasts though.

Lots of time still left, last Summer Olympics, I remember people saying France was doing poor, this time, they've already won 2 golds as of last night.

[Salgado Is A Hero]

What's the point in gymnastics? Somehow they evaluated all that effeminate jumping and prancing, down to one thousandth of a point, and gave Britain's men a silver.

Then the team in fourth place put in an appeal and the judges said, well, actually we were wrong by an entire half a point, so we're going to change all the results around.

They should all appeal again and see what random number comes out of the judges next time. It's no more a 'sport' than Strictly Come Dancing or the X Factor.

I suppose it is all effeminate jumping and prancing after you ignore all the backflips etc as well as the tremendously difficult other disciplines like the rings and parallel bars.

[T4E]

Well, quite. Football is dodgy and decidedly un-Olympic in its widespread gamesmanship, but at the end of all the shirt-pulling and face-clutching, not only does the scoreboard show you who won, but your own eyes will tell you. I clearly saw Team A score 1 goal, while Team B scored 0, therefore team A wins.

In gymnastics, they'd have you believe that the judging is so scientific that a team could win by virtue of a 0.001 point difference, but when the officials are challenged to justify the marks they just awarded it could (and just did) change by a factor of 500 times that margin.

Sure it takes skill to compete at, but it's not a sport. They could swap it for Olympic Catwalk Modelling - judge them on the smoothness of the sashay, the difficulty factor of the dress.

While I understand to an extent, the influence held by judges doesn't stop you or I watching MMA or boxing, does it?

[M-K]

While I understand to an extent, the influence held by judges doesn't stop you or I watching MMA or boxing, does it?

True, although I'm usually a bit disappointed when an MMA bout goes the distance, as it's like the fighters have somehow failed to have a proper fight and they've had to ask somebody's opinion on who won.

It's the precision of these 'artistic sports' scores I have an issue with. In fights they generally give an 8, 9 or 10 to each fighter, and that's as far as they're prepared to go to differentiate the performances. In gymnastics, though, they'll say this performance was worth a 7.375 while that one was only a 7.373. I find it ridiculous, especially when one of the coaches can come along and say 'well you missed the way he did that thing with his foot,' or whatever, and they'll say 'well spotted, in that case it was clearly a 7.982'.

It's nonsense, isn't it? If you're rating something down to three decimal points - more accurate than the timing in the 100m - then you should be absolutely confident in the accuracy of that system. But I doubt two different judging panels would ever give the exact same score to a performance.

[Audax]

I suppose it is all effeminate jumping and prancing after you ignore all the backflips etc as well as the tremendously difficult other disciplines like the rings and parallel bars.

To me it balances out when you see the ones they seem to catch for doping and suspect of doping are usually the sports where the events are the ones where you just basically win by measuring stick or stop watch, track and field, weight lifting, etc. I don't think they usually catch the gymnasts and the figure skaters using dope. As it is, it seems anyone breaking records swimming or running are suspect except for some exceedingly naturally gifted athletes.

[Paul]

Overall signs not looking good for Team GB - three days gone, still no gold medal and swimmers missing out again and Tom Daley taking a leaf out of the men's cycling team's book by blowing it on the big occasion. Bouquet for the gymnasts though.

This is a serious question, not an attempt to catch you out.

Can I ask your view on Paula Radcliffe as I feel she is a comparable athlete to some under discussion?

She has a very strong record over 20 years, won many international and national competitions, been lauded by the press and public as a medal hope. Awarded the MBE, Sports Personality of the Year. Without reopening the cycling debate not dissimilar to Cavendish in some respects.

However at four Olympic Games over 20 years she has not won a medal and was, I think, touted as one of our great hopes. One could even argue given the long term nature of the injury she should have withdrawn from the GB 2012 squad months back to allow another contender a better opportunity. Selfish perhaps?

Would you describe Radcliffe as a failure? If so what does it take to be a successful British athlete, in the broadest sense, as I can't think of many who haven't messed up at some point?

[Paul]

Murray could be another example. Blew it at Wimbledon, out of the Olympics doubles.

Numerous footballers who flop at major tournaments.

Don't know much about boxing but didn't Amir Khan get totally slaughtered recently?

[T4E]

Yesterday was only day 3. By the end of day 3 in Beijing we had 2 golds and 1 bronze. The glut of medals came in the cycling and rowing finals late in the first week. All the signs point towards this being exactly the same.

I don't think we'll get 19 golds again, but we may get more medals in total than last time.

[LeChuck]

Murray could be another example. Blew it at Wimbledon, out of the Olympics doubles.

Murray got further than any Brit since the thirties. Being beaten by the greatest player of all time on his favourite surface doesn't mean Murray blew it! And he's not a doubles player, so that's a bit irrelevant.

(Unless that was all tongue in cheek, in which case I apologise unreservedly )

[Salgado Is A Hero]

Murray could be another example. Blew it at Wimbledon, out of the Olympics doubles.

Numerous footballers who flop at major tournaments.

Don't know much about boxing but didn't Amir Khan get totally slaughtered recently?

Yea I don't think there's many athletes worldwide who haven't messed up at least once......and neither Murray, Cavendish or Daley were favourites.

And yea Khan got pretty comprehensively beaten but his chin is suspect and he isn't an elite fighter.....he was talking about fighting the best who wouldn't fight him because it wouldn't be a real challenge because it would be a first round knockout guaranteed.

Don't go overboard, jim. Daley & Waterfield were ranked about eighth, so how they were they "blowing it" yesterday? Cavendish not getting the gold was not, despite what the too jingoistic British press were saying, such a huge surprise either. The major disappointment was probably Adlington, who has the pedigree and was expected to do better than a bronze.

Team GB is not far off expections so far. However, the Equestrianism today needs to result in medals. Saturday should be the big day for the Team this week, they should be shooting up the medals table then.

I could be wrong in saying this but I don't think that was Adlington's strongest event.

And after a few days nobody can call our team failures because there is many more events to come including ones we're good at like sailing, rowing and cycling.

[HemelRover]

Yea I don't think there's many athletes worldwide who haven't messed up at least once......and neither Murray, Cavendish or Daley were favourites.

And yea Khan got pretty comprehensively beaten but his chin is suspect and he isn't an elite fighter.....he was talking about fighting the best who wouldn't fight him because it wouldn't be a real challenge because it would be a first round knockout guaranteed.

I could be wrong in saying this but I don't think that was Adlington's strongest event.

Yep, the 800m is her real event. It was a surprise when she won the 400m at Beijing.

[SouthAussieRover]

FLB is an historian??

He needs to study current events

[adopted scouser]

Women's volleyball. No funding whatsoever and we beat beat Algeria

[SAS]

Silver or Bronze in the team equestrian. Disappointing but at least its a medal.

[jim mk2]

Don't go overboard, jim. Daley & Waterfield were ranked about eighth, so how they were they "blowing it" yesterday?

They were in gold medal position and screwed up on one dive - the Chinese didn't. That's blowing it.

Comparing Cavendish with Murray as some people have is silly for a whole host of reasons mentioned previously but Radcliffe, while remaining one of the greatest this country has produced, like Cavendish can also be regarded as an Olympic failure that will remain a blot on her career.

Dave Bedford was another while going back a few generations Ron Clarke also came up short in the Olympics. Touchy cycling enthusiats continue to defend their hero but I bet Cavendish would swap any of his Tour de France stage wins for the medal British Cycling led us to believe was in the bag last weekend.

[Audax]

I am not positive but I thought they cut down on some of the cycling competitions from last Olympics as well.

Medal Counts are important but in general, I just like the spectacle of the games.

[Paul]

Murray got further than any Brit since the thirties. Being beaten by the greatest player of all time on his favourite surface doesn't mean Murray blew it! And he's not a doubles player, so that's a bit irrelevant.

(Unless that was all tongue in cheek, in which case I apologise unreservedly )

No it wasn't tongue in cheek but I think you missed the context. Jim has been arguing some of our athletes have failed in an Olympic context making a particular point they have let the nation down.

Using Radcliffe as the main example I was asking how would he categorise success. I also wondered if Murray was a failure for letting down the entire country by losing to Federer.

I don't subscribe to these views but I was trying to ask Jim where the line is drawn and also to put the Cavendish "failure," in Jim's view, into perspective.

The reality is athletes lose on occasions, this doesn't make them failures just losers in that particular competition is how I see it.

[M-K]

I also wondered if Murray was a failure for letting down the entire country by losing to Federer.

I was glad he lost. He has a horrible adam's apple - it's really offputting. Plus the 'entire country' in Murray's case is just Scotland, since he's on record as a confirmed hater of England.

[jim mk2]

The Cavendish effect is spreading right through Team GB. Athletes failing to qualify or failing to medal in sport after sport today all with various excuses. These athletes have had 7 years to prepare for their home Olympics, a once-in-a-lifetime chance to grab their moment of glory yet they are just not good enough. The Sun had a plaintiff front page headline this morning desperately appealing for a GB gold - at this rate we are not going to get any.

[M-K]

We just need a massive state-sponsored doping system and hothouse training schemes for pre-schoolers, like China.

[ABBEY]

They were in gold medal position and screwed up on one dive - the Chinese didn't. That's blowing it.

Comparing Cavendish with Murray as some people have is silly for a whole host of reasons mentioned previously but Radcliffe, while remaining one of the greatest this country has produced, like Cavendish can also be regarded as an Olympic failure that will remain a blot on her career.

Dave Bedford was another while going back a few generations Ron Clarke also came up short in the Olympics. Touchy cycling enthusiats continue to defend their hero but I bet Cavendish would swap any of his Tour de France stage wins for the medal British Cycling led us to believe was in the bag last weekend.

how many Olympic golds have you? National championships? Have you represented GB ?

[jim mk2]

how many Olympic golds have you? National championships? Have you represented GB ?

Abbey, I don't claim to be top-level international athlete.

I notice one of our canoeists (the world No 1) sank without trace today. I blame the Tories.