London 2012 Megathread [Part 1]

robinph

namloc1980 wrote: »

Moscow is, was and always has been in Russia. Russia was the largest Republic during the Soviet Union era.

Russia have not been a competing IOC recognised country until something like 1994 though. Before that it was Soviet Union and the Russian Empire.

Edit: But it was a stupid question anyway because of things like the multiple Russias and Germanys that have competed in the Olympics over the years will only ever result in confusion and arguments.

Diego Maradona

If there is one thing I will take from this olympics it's this word...."jingoistic".

WumBuster

mike65 wrote: »

The Aussies have decided that silver is the new gold

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/olympics/live-blog-london-2012/live-coverage-london-olympics-day-8-20120804-23mam.html

Im surprised with the Aussies with only one gold so far. They are normally up there in the top four or five. From living there for a time I know how much this would hurt them and how seriously they take their different sports and how high expectations they set for their athletes when they perform at the olympics.

delaad

Colmustard wrote: »

I won't watch the Olympic mens football I don't regard it as an Olympic event, women's yes because they are all amateurs, I have the same attitude to the tennis.

And, what about Athletics?

robinph

Diego Maradona wrote: »

If there is one thing I will take from this olympics it's this word...."jingoistic".

Watch the RTE coverage then.

Jimoslimos

namloc1980 wrote: »

Moscow is, was and always has been in Russia. Russia was the largest Republic during the Soviet Union era.

So, are these current Olympics taking place in;

a) London, GB & NI
b) London, England

namloc1980

Diego Maradona wrote: »

If there is one thing I will take from this olympics it's this word...."jingoistic".

Seriously you can take that from EVERY Olympics. Beijing in 2008 was just one big Chinese nationalistic exhibition. The Yanks in LA in 1984 and in 1996 were sickening...seems like you just have a problem with the Brits having a bit of success.

Pherekydes

Jimoslimos wrote: »

So, are these current Olympics taking place in;

a) London, GB & NI
b) London, England

London, England, the UK, the EU, Europe, NATO, Earth.

namloc1980

Jimoslimos wrote: »

So, are these current Olympics taking place in;

a) London, GB & NI
b) London, England

Both. However the UK is not a federation unlike the USSR.

fryup

el diablo wrote: »

What a difference a year makes, eh. (Almost) this time last year London was on fire with the riots.

and now its on fire in a different sense

Diego Maradona

namloc1980 wrote: »

Seriously you can take that from EVERY Olympics. Beijing in 2008 was just one big Chinese nationalistic exhibition. The Yanks in LA in 1984 and in 1996 were sickening...seems like you just have a problem with the Brits having a bit of success.

WTF?

Pherekydes

delaad wrote: »

And, what about Athletics?

The Olympics have always been the pinnacle of an athlete's career.

What does Roger Federer want more, a Gold medal or one of the four grand slam tournaments?

Which do soccer players want to win? Olympic gold or the Premier League?

Basketballers: NBA or Olympic gold?

mike65

Diego Maradona wrote: »

If there is one thing I will take from this olympics it's this word...."jingoistic".

robinph wrote: »

Watch the RTE coverage then.

namloc1980 wrote: »

Seriously you can take that from EVERY Olympics. Beijing in 2008 was just one big Chinese nationalistic exhibition. The Yanks in LA in 1984 and in 1996 were sickening...seems like you just have a problem with the Brits having a bit of success.

Diego Maradona wrote: »

WTF?

Calm down everyone!

keith16

Diego Maradona wrote: »

WTF?

Listen, lay off Diego. He's just referring to the fact that he has learned this word.

A lot of people jumping in here without knowing the context.

keith16

robinph wrote: »

Russia have not been a competing IOC recognised country until something like 1994 though. Before that it was Soviet Union and the Russian Empire.

Edit: But it was a stupid question anyway because of things like the multiple Russias and Germanys that have competed in the Olympics over the years will only ever result in confusion and arguments.

Stupid question? Bit harsh. I mentioned it as a piece of trivia .. And so what if it results in arguments, is that not part of the essence of discussion boards?

mike65

Someone was banging on about the BBC being partial in its coverage, and no one else getting a mention for their achievements, how others are better blah blah blah - well check this for a front page of Olympic reporting from the USAs paper of record The Washington Post

http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/olympics

Pherekydes

robinph wrote: »

Russia have not been a competing IOC recognised country until something like 1994 though. Before that it was Soviet Union and the Russian Empire.

Edit: But it was a stupid question anyway because of things like the multiple Russias and Germanys that have competed in the Olympics over the years will only ever result in confusion and arguments.

It's not stupid. It's clear-cut. You can reassign Soviet medals here and there and argue over the Germanys till the cows come home, but it won't change the fact that Hungary are top of the gold medal table for non-hosts.

keith16

robinph wrote: »

Watch the RTE coverage then.

Try reading his post.

bob50

WumBuster wrote: »

We are a small country. We only produce probably one or two world class athletes every ten years or so. Roche/kelly in the 80's, Sonia in the 90's, Katie taylor in the noughties to present.

Yes agree except Sonia Ok she won silver in Sydney in 2000 but thats all

But why are we sending Athletes to the olympics ?? who are never going to get anywhere i.e swimmers excepting our finest Michelle Smith Athletics even equestrian where we have fantastic horses we just arent at the races excuse the pun

LordSutch

Is Katie Taylor the hot favourite for Gold on Monday, or would it be the case that any colour medal would do? is she the fave to win?

johnmcdnl

bob50 wrote: »

Yes agree except Sonia Ok she won silver in Sydney in 2000 but thats all

But why are we sending Athletes to the olympics ?? who are never going to get anywhere i.e swimmers excepting our finest Michelle Smith Athletics even equestrian where we have fantastic horses we just arent at the races excuse the pun

If countries only sent in their gold medal contenders the Olympics would be ****e..

4-5 lads lining up for every event.. would be great craic so it would be - also if Sonia and the likes who actually do achieve never went to any major competitions to compete would they ever get the experience they need to help them along on their way to actually win and do well.

fryup

yep she's the fav in the novelty sport of women's boxing

she only has to win one match to win a medal, which is bit of a joke really

My name is URL

LordSutch wrote: »

Is Katie Taylor the hot favourite for Gold on Monday, or would it be the case that any colour medal would do? is she the fave to win?

She's by far the favorite. Odds of about 1/4 with most bookies

Second favorite is Sofya Ochigava (RUS) with odds of about 5/1

Wilberto

bob50 wrote: »

Yes agree except Sonia Ok she won silver in Sydney in 2000 but thats all

But why are we sending Athletes to the olympics ?? who are never going to get anywhere i.e swimmers excepting our finest Michelle Smith Athletics even equestrian where we have fantastic horses we just arent at the races excuse the pun

Why do we send Athlete's to the Olympics?? Because, as mentioned already, the Olympics is the pinnacle of an athletes career. And ya, our track and field athletes, and swimmers, aren't great but do you honestly think that pulling them from the Olympics is the way forward??

And also, bringing Michelle De Bruin into this debate is opening up a whole new can of worms......

Also, Sonia was a superb athlete in fairness. I know it's hard to look past my own bias regarding her but she was.

Diego Maradona

fryup wrote: »

yep she's the fav in the novelty sport of women's boxing

she only has to win one match to win a medal, which is bit of a joke really

Can't be anymore of a novelty event as trampolining.

steelcityblues

Diego Maradona wrote: »

Can't be anymore of a novelty event as trampolining.

Keirin in cycling looks silly, too.

decies

Am listening to five live am sensing a rise in popularity for the BNP in next election!!!

Wilberto

fryup wrote: »

yep she's the fav in the novelty sport of women's boxing

she only has to win one match to win a medal, which is bit of a joke really

I think Womens boxing is still a relatively new sport really, especially in terms of the Olympics (obviously). But with ambassadors like Katie Taylor promoting the sport I have no doubt that it will continue to grow (especially now that it's an Olympic event).


Either that or most Irish fans are looking at the sport through rose-tinted glasses because we have the number 1 ranked competitor (and by a big margin).

ArmaniJeanss

fryup wrote: »

yep she's the fav in the novelty sport of women's boxing

she only has to win one match to win a medal, which is bit of a joke really

Think of it as a sport in which the earlier rounds have taken place at a different venue ; she had to win 3 fights in the prelims (World Championships) in order to get to the situation that she only needs to win 1 fight here to get a medal.

robinph

Pherekydes wrote: »

It's not stupid. It's clear-cut. You can reassign Soviet medals here and there and argue over the Germanys till the cows come home, but it won't change the fact that Hungary are top of the gold medal table for non-hosts.

Completely agree.

But the question just allows for too many holes to be picked in it for a late night argument about if black is actually white.

marco_polo

fryup wrote: »

yep she's the fav in the novelty sport of women's boxing

she only has to win one match to win a medal, which is bit of a joke really

Looks like the exact same same sport as mens boxing to me.

Richard Hillman

decies wrote: »

Am listening to five live am sensing a rise in popularity for the BNP in next election!!!

The BNP was trending on twitter tonight because of people mocking them. GB had a black girl and a black immigrant win for them tonight.

Tonight was a disaster, for the BNP, EDL and Irish screwjob Republicans

Jimoslimos

Pherekydes wrote: »

It's not stupid. It's clear-cut. You can reassign Soviet medals here and there and argue over the Germanys till the cows come home, but it won't change the fact that Hungary are top of the gold medal table for non-hosts.

True, but then again Hungary have competed in 20 more Olympic games compared to Russia.

Pherekydes

decies wrote: »

Am listening to five live am sensing a rise in popularity for the BNP in next election!!!

WTF?

Nodin

decies wrote: »

Am listening to five live am sensing a rise in popularity for the BNP in next election!!!

...how/why?

fryup

jingoism

i tell ya...the british empire part 2 is on its way

sharpen your pitch forks folks

bob50

Wilberto wrote: »

Why do we send Athlete's to the Olympics?? Because, as mentioned already, the Olympics is the pinnacle of an athletes career. And ya, our track and field athletes, and swimmers, aren't great but do you honestly think that pulling them from the Olympics is the way forward??

And also, bringing Michelle De Bruin into this debate is opening up a whole new can of worms......

Also, Sonia was a superb athlete in fairness. I know it's hard to look past my own bias regarding her but she was.

Hi Willberto, i know what your saying about Olympics being the pinacle, Although i do get the feeling because they have put in a qualfiing time they can go to Also its a free holiday for them but shurely our council should just concentrate on events we have a chance in boxing , equestrian, maybe sailing heres hoping for annalise murphy and not bother with the other events and put the money and time into those sports and forget the rest

KeithM89_old

fryup wrote: »

yep she's the fav in the novelty sport of women's boxing

she only has to win one match to win a medal, which is bit of a joke really

Mod:
Less of that please.

Jimoslimos

KeithM89 wrote: »

fryup wrote: »

yep she's the fav in the novelty sport of women's boxing

she only has to win one match to win a medal, which is bit of a joke really

Mod:
Less of that please.

I think it's a perfectly valid opinion, and this thread is an appropriate place to voice it.

Just because we have an Irish medal hope doesn't mean the sport should be above criticism.

KeithM89_old

Jimoslimos wrote: »

I think it's a perfectly valid opinion, and this thread is an appropriate place to voice it.

Just because we have an Irish medal hope doesn't mean the sport should be above criticism.

"yep she's the fav in the novelty sport of women's boxing" isnt acceptable and next time you have a problem, PM me instead.

Pudsy33

Jimoslimos wrote: »

KeithM89 wrote: »

fryup wrote: »

yep she's the fav in the novelty sport of women's boxing

she only has to win one match to win a medal, which is bit of a joke really

Mod:
Less of that please.

I think it's a perfectly valid opinion, and this thread is an appropriate place to voice it.

Just because we have an Irish medal hope doesn't mean the sport should be above criticism.

Why is womens boxing a novelty sport, when mens is not? It's has the same rules, doesn't it?

steelcityblues

Jimoslimos wrote: »

I think it's a perfectly valid opinion, and this thread is an appropriate place to voice it.

Just because we have an Irish medal hope doesn't mean the sport should be above criticism.

It is new to the Olympics, and it will get more competitive in the years to come. Can't blame Katie Taylor for that, in fact she could be the catalyst for something special.

Mars Bar

It's neck and neck between Serbia and Brazil in the volleyball.

steelcityblues

Mars Bar wrote: »

It's neck and neck between Serbia and Brazil in the volleyball.

Are they in the knockouts now?

Jimoslimos

Pudsy33 wrote: »

Why is womens boxing a novelty sport, when mens is not? It's has the same rules, doesn't it?

Novelty might have been the wrong word to use, although it is a novel sport in that it is new in the Olympics.

Exhibition might be more appropriate, given that the number of competitors.

I do know that this wasn't necessarily the fault of the female boxing organisations, moreso the Olympic organisers would only allocate a certain amount of competitions/rounds to women.

Still the fact that a fighter has to win ONE fight to medal is a bit of a joke, Murray in the tennis has had to win 5 matches to reach a final.

Mars Bar

steelcityblues wrote: »

Are they in the knockouts now?

I don't know to be honest. Wasn't really following it up until now.

Wilberto

bob50 wrote: »

Hi Willberto, i know what your saying about Olympics being the pinacle, Although i do get the feeling because they have put in a qualfiing time they can go to Also its a free holiday for them but shurely our council should just concentrate on events we have a chance in boxing , equestrian, maybe sailing heres hoping for annalise murphy and not bother with the other events and put the money and time into those sports and forget the rest

Fair point but, in order for us to be serious contender for gold (or even just medals) in specific events we need a real significant investment in those sports. GB is the classic example, they have invested heavily in cycing and rowing (cycling in particular) and now it's paying off for them with their successes.

But I don't see how we can make as significant an investment in any event as they have, meaning we're not going to achieve success in the same way which they have. Our rise to success, if there ever is to be one, will have to be a much more gradual one, with smaller but more strategic investments in the right areas.

But I strongly disagree with the notion simply dropping/cut the (rather limited) funding of some events altogether.

steelcityblues

Mars Bar wrote: »

I don't know to be honest. Wasn't really following it up until now.

Looked it up - final group match, Brazil through if they win.

darced

This post has been deleted.

Pudsy33

Jimoslimos wrote: »

Pudsy33 wrote: »

Why is womens boxing a novelty sport, when mens is not? It's has the same rules, doesn't it?

Novelty might have been the wrong word to use, although it is a novel sport in that it is new in the Olympics.

Exhibition might be more appropriate, given that the number of competitors.

I do know that this wasn't necessarily the fault of the female boxing organisations, moreso the Olympic organisers would only allocate a certain amount of competitions/rounds to women.

Still the fact that a fighter has to win ONE fight to medal is a bit of a joke, Murray in the tennis has had to win 5 matches to reach a final.

They are fair points, the sport in itself is serious, just seems badly organised this time around. Katie is in an advantageous position as she is world champion however, most other competitors will have an extra fight to go through.