168 réponses à ce sujet

[android654]

To be fair, they're all under an immense amount of pressure. Last night, John Orozco from the American Gymnastics team was huffing and puffing hard after missing his landing in an attempt to beat back the tears. You could see it in his face, the anger and pressure of disappointment. But, he just sucked it up and when the rest of his team didn't make it, they just walked out and tried to save face when interviewed after the competition.

I can't begin to imagine the disappointment after decades of dedication to a sport, boiled down to a moment, and then have it slip through your fingers. But in the end, it's just a game and no one can win them all. GBR's still in the top 5 for overall medals earned.

Modifié par android654, 31 juillet 2012 - 06:41 .

[addiction21]

Abraham_uk wrote...

A number of British athletes (who were tipped to win gold medals) have complained about too much pressure being thrusted upon them.

Is this just some lame execuse for failure, or does this much pressure really have a negative impact on performance?
Can the pressure of the crowds and the media also have a positive impact on sporting performances?

This is not so much about Team GB but of crowd pressure and it's impact on sport in general.

It can go either way just depends on the person. Some can feed off the pressure others let it break their concentration. Either way these are professionals. This is not the first time they have been in front of large crowds and media coverageand many compete in the world championships held every 2 years between the olympics and had to qualify in the olympic trials.
You slipped up or just had a bad day. It happens so suck it up.

With that said I understand it is daunting because it is the Olympics and some slack is given to the first times and especially the gymnists. Who are lucky to compete in more then one Olympics so its their first and most likely their only chance to go.

Its what makes the Jordan Wieber thing such a downer. She is the current world champion at the all-around (I think thats what its called) and scored fourth in the qualifiers. But the Olympics only allow two competitors from each country in the finals because they want to prevent a medal sweep by anyone country and allow other countries a chance.
That does not fly with me. You have the best of the best in the world and they do not get to compete for the top honors because what?
Again these are professionals not four year olds in little league. Those other competitors know what they are up against. They have seen them, competeded against them before in other meets, met them. I would feel like a jerk if I got a place I know I did not deserve.

Anyway U.S. soccer teams won and the Great Britian female team is up 1 over Brazil.

Im watching this mens basketball. France and Argentina are going head to head. Good game.

[Gotholhorakh]

android654 wrote...

Gotholhorakh wrote...

They don;t have enough culture to draw upon.

Ok... what am I reading.

You could be forgiven for thinking British history started 100 years ago given the imbecilic pop culture saturation of the opening ceremony, but TBH you could have a good 18 hours of such 'ceremony' and still not run out of British history to make striking imagery from (like many countries tbh).

Your lack of comprehension is forgiven.

There was no lack of comprehension involved, mine was a perfectly fair comment and despite your tone, nothing you said threw any doubt on it at all.

Edit: officially cancelling destructive rampage in favor of sleep.

Modifié par Gotholhorakh, 31 juillet 2012 - 11:03 .

[LTD]

Eh, I can't believe some are dissing the opening ceremony. I found it quite fresh and beautiful. It's nice to see little more cinematic take. Nice to see little less abstract ordeal. It doesn't have to be 2000000 people dancing around with balls and strings and torches every 4 years.

I also liked  it how pop. culture for once got it's place in the sun in an event like this. Them Brits have made some great music over the years to be sure...
...!!HOWEVER!! We got like 5 seconds of David Bowie. Then some **** rapper gets to do his thing for an entire song. **** that.

Also, I don't think belonging in the highly exclusive "We have been a Civilisation since the river valley era woop!!" - club magically quarantees awesome and more cultured opening ceremonies in sports events. Tis ironic how 2012 ceremony was put together by an actual (Hollywood??) movie director and yet it is Bejing that reminds me more of Michael Bay movie. Big colors big explosions big scenes big crowds big money spend  all just for the sake of selling the LOOK HOW BIG IT IS WOAH DUDE to crowd.

Modifié par LTD, 31 juillet 2012 - 10:19 .

[Abraham_uk]

You know I am somewhat interested to see that national reaction if we didn't get a single gold medal.

Morale is already low here in the UK.
Still we'd be one of over a hundred nations not to earn one.
Judging by how many golden opportunities we've missed, it seems likely.

Sigh, we used to be pretty amazing once upon a time...

[Argyle]

The Royal Mail will apparently issue custom stamps for each British gold medal winner. That would be a cool thing to have.

What's up with all those pink backgrounds at the indoor arenas? It makes the video quality look a little strange.

[mupp3tz]

W Team Gymnastics last night was intense. Dat Amanar. Flawless! Although, I did want Team USA to win the gold, I felt so bad for the Russian Federation. It's all fun and games at the beginning, until everyone starts crying near the end.  My heart broke at the end of Afanaseva's floor routine... but, alas, I'm sure they'll be able to get theirs during the individuals.

@addition21

The two qualifiers per country rule is far from being "absurd."  The entire point of the rule is to prevent a monopoly.. else, the all around competition would consist of just a handful of countries, as opposed to a more international medley.  Isn't goodwill and international spirit the entire point of the Olympics?  I suppose it depends on whether or not you see the Olympics as a way to bring all the nations together to compete or as a way to identify the BEST possible athlete in each sport... i.e. focus more on country representation vs. the individual athlete.

While I can definitely see why the two-per rule is frustrating in some regards..I think we should be real. This is only an outrage because the WC didn't make the Olympics all around.  The rule has been in place the last two games (and other int. events -- i.e. the WC) and there's hardly anything shocking or new about it.  No one cried foul when three out of the five team USA top 8 placers were booted out of the WC all around because of the rule.  That's because everyone knows how the selection process is handled.  While the arguments do have merit, don't be fooled.  This controversy is just a case of the golden girl not performing as expected.  It also doesn't help that NBC decides to zoom in on the poor girl's face as the scores appear AND framing her in the background (crying) while they interview Raisman.

At the end of the day, these girls are professionals.  They knew what was up when they gave it their all.  The Olympics doesn't have an "automatic in" just because you performed well in a past event.  That's the entire point of qualifications.

Modifié par M U P P 3 T Z, 01 août 2012 - 06:31 .

[Alpha-Centuri]

A rule with 1 automatic bid for the team leader, and all other spots qualify on their best scores would be better. Kinda like swimming where only the winner of the heat is guaranteed.

[mupp3tz]

Yeah, the two per country rule obviously is not the best.. but what's going on with the Wieber fiasco is just sour grapes. When Romania and Russia were dominating gymnastics in the 80s and 90s (with four out of five per team qualifying for top ten)... who was the one pushing for a restriction to the amount of individuals per country allowed into AA? The rule wasn't even implemented until Romania took 1, 2, and 3 and the US (among others) complained about how "unfair" and "skewed" the competition was.  Without the rule, Western countries didn't even stand a chance against these two powerhouses... and, so, they argue for the rule in guise of having international goodwill.

Now, all of a sudden, when it's our own being disadvantaged by the rule... its presence somehow transforms into an outrage. It's got a lot to do with the marketing prior to the Olympics and the fact that Jordyn's coach is also the head of Team USA. No doubt that she's amazing, but... c'mon: So is Alexandra.  This is an important time for her too.  Instead of congratualting her, the media decides to take the sensationalist perspective with more than a few making it out like Aly is a theif and undeserving of the spot. 

Modifié par M U P P 3 T Z, 01 août 2012 - 07:28 .

[Elhanan]

^ AFAIK, the rule has only been in place for the past two games, so the rest is speculation at best.

[mupp3tz]

It's a fact that the USA was one of the main proponents of the two per country rule. It's also fact that the Eastern block dominated gymnastics for a good decade or two and many were calling it unfair.  So, instead of whoever qualifies for the top spot gets to AA finals... they implement three per country.  Then Romania sweeps the 2000 Sydney AA medals... which, obviously, causes those who got shafted to argue that three is too much.  Two is the golden number, so it guarantees that at least two countries get medals.  The USA supported this... until our very own WC is in the crosshairs.  I don't know about you, but this looks like a big temper tantrum to me.

Last time I checked, once the rules were changed in post 2000 Olympics... it went in effect by the 2002 WC.  So, this has been here for the last 11 years - 2 games and 8 WCs.  There rules were there before anyone had even heard of Wieber and Raisman.  Strange how it wasn't a national outrage when it was happening to the Romanians (devious tactics to get around it aside.)  Not to mention the fact that two per team is also in effect with swimming, athletics, and table tennis, yet no one complains about that.  It's sensationalism, at best.  The "rule" may suck, but you knew what the rule was going into the competition.  As far as I know, the two best competitors are going in based on qualifications. 

The only speculation is Geddert's motives.  And, honestly, he's not the most impartial person to voice an opinion.  The combination of the pre-Olympic marketing (Wieber and Douglas as the new Johnson and Liukin), NBC footage, Geddert's comments, and Wieber mom's blog made this a big scandal.  The thing with Geddert, though, is that I feel like his comments were made speaking as Wieber's personal coach, and not as team coach.

At the end of the day:

Wieber isn't the first person to get bumped because of the rule. It's only a big deal because NBC decided to spin on it.  If you're going to put the blame on anyone, it's probably the judges and scoring.  Wieber still has a chance to capture gold.  If the USA didn't rotate it's gymnasts every game and allow veterans to remain (given that they prove themselves), then maybe it wouldn't be such a 'catastrophe.'

Modifié par M U P P 3 T Z, 01 août 2012 - 09:31 .

[Kaiser Arian XVII]

I watched this Basketball match today: USA 120 - 61 Tunis today (or it was 62?). Poor Tunisians were owned by Americans!

Looking forward to watch more fighting games. Like Boxing and Karate. Next week will be more exciting.

[Abraham_uk]

First Gold Medal!

Helen Glover and Heather Stanning !

Amazing. Very little experience in the actual sport, but still came out on top.

As for Helen Glover: Wow. Did a bit of hockey, then cross country running and then settled for rowing in 2008. People have been doing this sport since the age of 4 and have achieved nothing. She and her partner achieves gold in only 4 years!

Good luck in the army.

[Abraham_uk]

Maybe just maybe if I deliberately lose, I can go against an easier opponent in the next round! Hell yeah!

Uh oh, I've been found out! What do I do?
The IOC are going down hard on me.



What were you thinking? Play to win for crying out loud!

[addiction21]

I have'nt watched this much gymnastics every and knew nothing about the rule (3 broke bones in my foot so I'm not getting around too much right now) but at least for me it's not about an American getting burned I just do not like the rule.
If only two are allowed to compete for the medals then I would prefer a rule that only two could go into the qualifiers and leave up to the coachs to decide who goes. If your going to allow everyone to compete then allow those who do the best to move on.
And lets be fair, she did not screw up she was fourth. Lets just agree to disagree.

I also not a big fan of NBC's coverage but since they are the only show in town

Imperial Sentinel Arian wrote...

I watched this Basketball match today: USA 120 - 61 Tunis today (or it was 62?). Poor Tunisians were owned by Americans!

First half was great. U.S.A. made some adjustments then just blew them away in the second half.

And grats on the gold. As I understand rowing is a big thing over there.

Modifié par addiction21, 01 août 2012 - 01:12 .

[RedArmyShogun]

I find it funny how politically charged some of the events have turned out, while the olympics committee keep saying the same "peaceful international events" with a straight face. I suspect many of them are lawyers in day to day work lulz. Its basically a meassuring stick contest for most of the nations there.

Modifié par Confess-A-Bear, 01 août 2012 - 01:44 .

[Abraham_uk]

Confess-A-Bear wrote...

I find it funny how politically charged some of the events have turned out, while the olympics committee keep saying the say "peaceful international events" with a straight face. I suspect many of them are lawyers in day to day work lulz. Its basically a meassuring stick contest for most of the nations there.

It's just nice to see loads of nations taking part in a huge variety of sporting events. (Sadly darts, pool. ultimate frisbee, finswimming and snooker didn't make the cut)

Nevertheless for me it's about seeing the very best that humanity has to offer regarding sport.

[Druss99]

Abraham_uk wrote...

You know I am somewhat interested to see that national reaction if we didn't get a single gold medal.

Morale is already low here in the UK.
Still we'd be one of over a hundred nations not to earn one.
Judging by how many golden opportunities we've missed, it seems likely.

Sigh, we used to be pretty amazing once upon a time...

What national reaction? Outside the media, people simply won't care. Who care's about the long jump or swimming outside the Olympics? Once this is over it will all be forgotten again, except for the winners getting some nice endorsements keeping them in the public eye. I don't see how it affects morale at all, is someone going to say "I'm broke and have no hope of a job but it's ok because Jessica Ennis won a race!!"?

[Abraham_uk]

Druss99 wrote...

Abraham_uk wrote...

You know I am somewhat interested to see that national reaction if we didn't get a single gold medal.

Morale is already low here in the UK.
Still we'd be one of over a hundred nations not to earn one.
Judging by how many golden opportunities we've missed, it seems likely.

Sigh, we used to be pretty amazing once upon a time...

What national reaction? Outside the media, people simply won't care. Who care's about the long jump or swimming outside the Olympics? Once this is over it will all be forgotten again, except for the winners getting some nice endorsements keeping them in the public eye. I don't see how it affects morale at all, is someone going to say "I'm broke and have no hope of a job but it's ok because Jessica Ennis won a race!!"?

No, they'd look at how much of tax payers money and lottery money went towards the olympics and then shed a few tears before declaring they're broke.

[android654]

Druss99 wrote...
What national reaction? Outside the media, people simply won't care. Who care's about the long jump or swimming outside the Olympics? Once this is over it will all be forgotten again, except for the winners getting some nice endorsements keeping them in the public eye. I don't see how it affects morale at all, is someone going to say "I'm broke and have no hope of a job but it's ok because Jessica Ennis won a race!!"?

Perhaps not, but who's gonna look at that

while running and complain?

I'll tell you who, people's who's problems are beyond repair.

[mupp3tz]

addiction21 wrote...

I have'nt watched this much gymnastics every and knew nothing about the rule (3 broke bones in my foot so I'm not getting around too much right now) but at least for me it's not about an American getting burned I just do not like the rule.
If only two are allowed to compete for the medals then I would prefer a rule that only two could go into the qualifiers and leave up to the coachs to decide who goes. If your going to allow everyone to compete then allow those who do the best to move on.
And lets be fair, she did not screw up she was fourth. Lets just agree to disagree.

I also not a big fan of NBC's coverage but since they are the only show in town

It really comes down to whether you see the Olympics as an absolute competition or more of a "Let's get together and compete!" type of deal.  Two-per really isn't that great of a rule, but I just hate the motivations behind the recent coverage.  It's self serving at its worst.  The whole "WHAT IS THIS NONSENSE?!" is just hilarious.  The biggest mouths in this are just losing so much credibility cause they were mum about it prior Wiebergate.  In the end, who knows.  Maybe it'll get it lifted and we'll be able to see the top of the top again.

Personally, I like the solution a couple of people are presenting: Allow top X (Top 8-10) qualifiers in automatically, then apply the two-per rule afterwards.  I.E: USA only has one in top 10, then they get someone else to represent.  If they have anywhere between 2-5, then they don't get any more representatives.  In this scenario, all three of the girls would have gone in.

We'll see how it goes down.  For all we know, Geddert might follow in the steps of Romania and Russia and pull one of the top two qualifiers, so that the next up (Wieber) gets to AA finals.  Been done before!

[Elhanan]

M U P P 3 T Z wrote...

It's a fact that the USA was one of the main proponents of the two per country rule. It's also fact that the Eastern block dominated gymnastics for a good decade or two and many were calling it unfair.  So, instead of whoever qualifies for the top spot gets to AA finals... they implement three per country.  Then Romania sweeps the 2000 Sydney AA medals... which, obviously, causes those who got shafted to argue that three is too much.  Two is the golden number, so it guarantees that at least two countries get medals.  The USA supported this... until our very own WC is in the crosshairs.  I don't know about you, but this looks like a big temper tantrum to me.

Last time I checked, once the rules were changed in post 2000 Olympics... it went in effect by the 2002 WC.  So, this has been here for the last 11 years - 2 games and 8 WCs.  There rules were there before anyone had even heard of Wieber and Raisman.  Strange how it wasn't a national outrage when it was happening to the Romanians (devious tactics to get around it aside.)  Not to mention the fact that two per team is also in effect with swimming, athletics, and table tennis, yet no one complains about that.  It's sensationalism, at best.  The "rule" may suck, but you knew what the rule was going into the competition.  As far as I know, the two best competitors are going in based on qualifications. 

The only speculation is Geddert's motives.  And, honestly, he's not the most impartial person to voice an opinion.  The combination of the pre-Olympic marketing (Wieber and Douglas as the new Johnson and Liukin), NBC footage, Geddert's comments, and Wieber mom's blog made this a big scandal.  The thing with Geddert, though, is that I feel like his comments were made speaking as Wieber's personal coach, and not as team coach.

At the end of the day:

Wieber isn't the first person to get bumped because of the rule. It's only a big deal because NBC decided to spin on it.  If you're going to put the blame on anyone, it's probably the judges and scoring.  Wieber still has a chance to capture gold.  If the USA didn't rotate it's gymnasts every game and allow veterans to remain (given that they prove themselves), then maybe it wouldn't be such a 'catastrophe.'

Help an old man out with some links to these facts; have been unable to find much of anything speaking of the rule change, it's history, who supported what, etc. Thanks!

As for outrage, finding those that have been shafted over gymnastic rules has been less difficult.. And it would seem that the recent uproar is helping bring to light:

The important thing in the Olympic Games is not to win but to take part, the important thing in life is not the triumph but the struggle. The essential thing is not to have conquered but to have fought well.

These supposed rules of fairness appears to deny the the importance of taking part.

[RedArmyShogun]

android654 wrote...

Druss99 wrote...
What national reaction? Outside the media, people simply won't care. Who care's about the long jump or swimming outside the Olympics? Once this is over it will all be forgotten again, except for the winners getting some nice endorsements keeping them in the public eye. I don't see how it affects morale at all, is someone going to say "I'm broke and have no hope of a job but it's ok because Jessica Ennis won a race!!"?

Perhaps not, but who's gonna look at that
*snip*
while running and complain?

I'll tell you who, people's who's problems are beyond repair.

So most of the UK?

[android654]

If you can look at her and find a reason to be upset, then you are quite literally beyond help.

For the spectators, the olympics should be about having fun while watching people compete. There's no b*tching allowed from the audience over the games.