London 2012 Megathread [Part 1]

Cardinal Richelieu

Diego Maradona wrote: »

Gobby Logan

Ex-Rose of Tralee girl is Gabby.

K-9

Diego Maradona wrote: »

Nice piece on the BBC about Katie there, presenter put her foot in it though, "this is like a home olympics for Ireland, we aren't going to have a Dublin olympics are we, or maybe we will, I don't know, I'm going to get letters in now aren't I".

Gay Mitchell will write a strongly worded letter.

A Disgrace

Diego Maradona wrote: »

Nice piece on the BBC about Katie there, presenter put her foot in it though, "this is like a home olympics for Ireland, we aren't going to have a Dublin olympics are we, or maybe we will, I don't know, I'm going to get letters in now aren't I".

They really are terrifed of upsetting us, aren't they? Earlier, they (the BBC) commented about the Telegraph gaff regarding Katie and we're fairly gushing in their response. But we do like to make an auld complaint in fairness.

On the whole though, the BBC are very supportive of our athletes, and treat us with a huge amount of airtime, and respect.

That eejit on Vincent Browne again tonight.:rolleyes:

K-9

Richard Hillman wrote: »

It kinda shows how much people have to walk on eggshells when it comes to Ireland. Earlier in the thread i posted a response to the editor of the Telegraph saying well done to Katie Taylor on twitter. The Irish person sent a tweet to him saying he hopes he gets MS and followed it with that he hopes he gets cancer.

More a reflection on people taking Twitter or youtube or trolls too seriously, rather than a nation.

Jellicoe

K-9 wrote: »

Gay Mitchell will write a strongly worded letter.

Bertie will pop out of his sports cupboard, and Martin and Gerry will wave their toy guns.

Dr.Broccoli

A Disgrace wrote: »

They really are terrifed of upsetting us, aren't they? Earlier, they (the BBC) commented about the Telegraph gaff regarding Katie and we're fairly gushing in their response. But we do like to make an auld complaint in fairness.

On the whole though, the BBC are very supportive of our athletes, and treat us with a huge amount of airtime, and respect.

Yeah it's embarassing to be Irish at times. They always give credit to Ireland when it's due. A little error and the complaints fly in.

sassyj

Richard Hillman wrote: »

It kinda shows how much people have to walk on eggshells when it comes to Ireland. Earlier in the thread i posted a response to the editor of the Telegraph saying well done to Katie Taylor on twitter. The Irish person sent a tweet to him saying he hopes he gets MS and followed it with that he hopes he gets cancer.

Yeah, it seems to me there are a lot of people with chips on their shoulders waiting to be offended

grey_so_what

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

The thing is we're not though, Britain have medaled in a vast amount of different sports. Take away our boxing medals and it doesn't look too good at all. We've implemented a successful boxing programme that's yielding results but we seem to be falling further behind in other disciplines.

Voice of Reason there in my opinion.....:)

Jimmy Iovine

Deleted User wrote: »

There is the thing. 5 out of our 66 athletes have taken medals whereas how many of Team GBs as a percentage and thats in individual efforts? Holland have a small population but their competitive rate is incredible. In my opinion they are the model we should aspire to.

A huge amount of GB's medals came in rowing, canoeing, cycling and equestrian team events so it's difficult to compare to our total. They had 9 multiple medal winners, and about 25/6 individual medal winners. The rest are team winners.

They have 48 medals and 541 athletes partaking in every one of the 26 sports. That works out at around one medal per 11 athletes.

We have 5 medals and 66 athletes. That gives us one medal per 13 athletes.

If you separated the individual athletes on both teams and compared them that way I feel we'd have far less athletes per medals.

ArmaniJeanss

Jimmy Iovine wrote: »

When were the max-contestants brought in do you know?

I noticed there that in 1904 the USA won practically every single event. It helped big time that it was on in America but even still it was ridiculous. They won 239 medals. Germany were second with 13, Cuba in third with 9 and Team GB in 6th place with 2.

Only 12 countries competed in it but the USA had over 500 competitors. No wonder they won so many medals.

I think USA had something like 67% of the particapating athletes in StLouis in 1904, ultimate hometown bias.

Max contestants per event was brought in gradually and is still evolving ; travel became cheaper (and safer) from the 1950s on so countries sent bigger teams around the world, and that was followed by other countries who had never sent athletes suddenly getting involved. So for a while it was a free-for-all with any country basically able to send any athlete it wanted.

So limits had to be put on to control numbers and they were a combination of performance (Olympic 'A' + 'B' standards) and max-contestants-per-country, though the latter varies from event to event with some allowing 3 and others just 1. (Think how unfair it would be if athletics had boxings 1- per-country-per-event rule instead of the 3 per event rule it actually has ; both Blake and Bolt couldn't run in the 100.)

A Disgrace

garv123 wrote: »

She has a point really. We dont have a city for it. some people think Dublin is a big city :pac::rolleyes: but in reality its not at all.
The London Olympics will be the closest we will ever get to a home event and Athletes cant use the climate difference as an excuse either.

It's not really about size of city. Dublin is a moderate size by world standards, but it still counts as a big city (1 million plus), but anyway, anywhere can technically stage the Olympics. If we built the facilities, be it in Dublin or Waterford, we could hold it. The issue is finances, and not the size of the city.

DebDynamite

Dr.Broccoli wrote: »

Yeah it's embarassing to be Irish at times. They always give credit to Ireland when it's due. A little error and the complaints fly in.

They have to find the right balance though... don't give enough credit and the BBC are accussed of being biased towards their own... give too much credit and they're accused of trying to claim our athletes :rolleyes:

Rascasse

Dr.Broccoli wrote: »

We're per head of population, doing better than GB

How?

0 (Irish golds) * 15 (approx population difference) = ?

DebDynamite

Cardinal Richelieu wrote: »

Ex-Rose of Tralee girl is Gabby.

Is she really?

garv123

A Disgrace wrote: »

It's not really about size of city. Dublin is a moderate size by world standards, but it still counts as a big city (1 million plus), but anyway, anywhere can technically stage the Olympics. If we built the facilities, be it in Dublin or Waterford, we could hold it. The issue is finances, and not the size of the city.

Where would they have room in Dublin to build all the stadiums needed?
They would have to build another city with all the facilities outside the city.

Dr.Broccoli

Rascasse wrote: »

How?

0 (Irish golds) * 15 (approx population difference) = ?

Medal table. Who said anything about golds?

A Disgrace

garv123 wrote: »

Where would they have room in Dublin to build all the stadiums needed?
They would have to build another city with all the facilities outside the city.

Well, the outer suburbs for example - the site at Newlands Cross (owned by the IRFU) could easliy accomodate the Olympic stadium and athletes village, and it's close enough to a huge amount of greenfield sites for the rest of it. Maybe the city centre couldn't handle it (unless they reclaimed the land) but it doesn't have to be there anyway. A couple of venues could easily be squeezed into the docklands if needs be too.

Jimmy Iovine

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

I think USA had something like 67% of the particapating athletes in StLouis in 1904, ultimate hometown bias.

Max contestants per event was brought in gradually and is still evolving ; travel became cheaper (and safer) from the 1950s on so countries sent bigger teams around the world, and that was followed by other countries who had never sent athletes suddenly getting involved. So for a while it was a free-for-all with any country basically able to send any athlete it wanted.

So limits had to be put on to control numbers and they were a combination of performance (Olympic 'A' + 'B' standards) and max-contestants-per-country, though the latter varies from event to event with some allowing 3 and others just 1. (Think how unfair it would be if athletics had boxings 1- per-country-per-event rule instead of the 3 per event rule it actually has ; both Blake and Bolt couldn't run in the 100.)

Interesting. I'll have to look into that more.

It'd be ridiculous alright if they limited a country to one entrant for the athletics. It wouldn't be in their interests to do so. Imagine how poor the final for the 100m would have been this year. Possibility of no Blake, no Powell, no Gay/Gatlin and no Bailey.

Sure Bolt would probably lap the other lads in the final :P.

Dr.Broccoli

Google do it again https://www.google.com/doodles/slalom-canoe-2012

keith16

Deleted User wrote: »

That eejit on Vincent Browne again tonight.:rolleyes:

Vincent Browne? Yeah, he's on it every night. It's his show.

A Disgrace

Jimmy Iovine wrote: »

Interesting. I'll have to look into that more.

It'd be ridiculous alright if they limited a country to one entrant for the athletics. It wouldn't be in their interests to do so. Imagine how poor the final for the 100m would have been this year. Possibility of no Blake, no Powell, no Gay/Gatlin and no Bailey.

Sure Bolt would probably lap the other lads in the final :P.

What do we think of Gerry Keirnan's opinion on African athletes switching aliegance to other countries in the distance events? He's not sure how it can be sorted, but it's an interesting question considering their domininace.

opinion guy

Dr.Broccoli wrote: »

Google do it again https://www.google.com/doodles/slalom-canoe-2012

wow thats hard

Jimmy Iovine

Dr.Broccoli wrote: »

Google do it again https://www.google.com/doodles/slalom-canoe-2012

Jeez that's difficult. I got 29.2 but that was only because I gave up trying to get in between the poles. I suspect that is a pretty garbage score.

johne30

Colmo52 wrote: »

This is the first time since 1980 (Moscow) where we won medals in two different sports.

1980 - Sailing and Boxing
1984 - Athletics
1988 - Nothing
1992 - Boxing
1996 - Swimming
2000 - Athletics
2004 - Nothing
2008 - Boxing
2012 - Equestrian and Boxing.

Great stuff from cian o connor . great mentality , he's a winner , we need more sports people like him . Gavin noble said yesterday after triathlon that he didn't come to olympics for a medal. Why are we sending people like that

Pudsy33

johne30 wrote: »

Colmo52 wrote: »

This is the first time since 1980 (Moscow) where we won medals in two different sports.

1980 - Sailing and Boxing
1984 - Athletics
1988 - Nothing
1992 - Boxing
1996 - Swimming
2000 - Athletics
2004 - Nothing
2008 - Boxing
2012 - Equestrian and Boxing.

Great stuff from cian o connor . great mentality , he's a winner , we need more sports people like him . Gavin noble said yesterday after triathlon that he didn't come to olympics for a medal. Why are we sending people like that

If countries only sent people who believed they could medal, 3 people would have run the triathlon.

K-9

Jimmy Iovine wrote: »

A huge amount of GB's medals came in rowing, canoeing, cycling and equestrian team events so it's difficult to compare to our total. They had 9 multiple medal winners, and about 25/6 individual medal winners. The rest are team winners.

They have 48 medals and 541 athletes partaking in every one of the 26 sports. That works out at around one medal per 11 athletes.

We have 5 medals and 66 athletes. That gives us one medal per 13 athletes.

If you separated the individual athletes on both teams and compared them that way I feel we'd have far less athletes per medals.

For our size we are at British levels of domination at cycling, in boxing. We'll never win 5/6 golds and completely dominate boxing, some people need to catch a grip here.

Our runners have been disappointing but barring Sonia and Ronnie Delaney, 4th from Eamon Coughlan was the best we got. I'm disappointed we didn't get an Olympic finalist in the long distance racing, as we do have a tradition of getting to finals in those. Probably more a sign of African domination than Irish incompetence.

K-9

Jimmy Iovine wrote: »

Not necessarily. There's a big difference between believing you can win and actually winning.

There are plenty of athletes out there who are happy to be there. There are others who believe that they can win a medal, even if they are top-10 at best. That's the kind of mentality that people should have imo.

I'm sure Annalise Murphy came into this believing she could win a medal and she came very close. The same with the boxers, and Cian O'Connor.

It's a waste of time coming over if you're just here for the sake of competing. That kind of attitude should be left behind when you reach 14/15. After that people shouldn't settle for second best, or fourth best in this case.

Might as well just scrap the Olympics so.

Pudsy33

Jimmy Iovine wrote: »

Pudsy33 wrote: »

If countries only sent people who believed they could medal, 3 people would have run the triathlon.

Not necessarily. There's a big difference between believing you can win and actually winning.

There are plenty of athletes out there who are happy to be there. There are others who believe that they can win a medal, even if they are top-10 at best. That's the kind of mentality that people should have imo.

I'm sure Annalise Murphy came into this believing she could win a medal and she came very close. The same with the boxers, and Cian O'Connor.

It's a waste of time coming over if you're just here for the sake of competing. That kind of attitude should be left behind when you reach 14/15. After that people shouldn't settle for second best, or fourth best in this case.

Im sure all our athletes have a winning mentality. They win at European and national level. Should they just not bother going to the Olympics? That's ludicrous. We aren't on a level playing field with the Americans, Jamaicans and Kenyans in terms of athletics, but that's doesn't mean we should deprive our best athletes of the chance to compete at the highest level. It's an invaluable experience for them.

RubyRoss

A Disgrace wrote: »

It's not really about size of city. Dublin is a moderate size by world standards, but it still counts as a big city (1 million plus), but anyway, anywhere can technically stage the Olympics. If we built the facilities, be it in Dublin or Waterford, we could hold it. The issue is finances, and not the size of the city.

It's more than (the huge) finance factor - every man woman and child in the country would have to be called in as volunteers ...leaving no one to attend events never mind keep the country running.

Dublin hosting the Olympics is a loopy idea...a bit like the Casino in the midlands but on a much grander scale of daftness.

London is a great world city and has put on a great show. Irish people should appreciate that our neighbour can do things we can't.

Jimmy Iovine

Pudsy33 wrote: »

Im sure all our athletes have a winning mentality. They win at European and national level. Should they just not bother going to the Olympics? That's ludicrous. We aren't on a level playing field with the Americans, Jamaicans and Kenyans in terms of athletics, but that's doesn't mean we should deprive our best athletes of the chance to compete at the highest level. It's an invaluable experience for them.

Right I was wrong to say that. Every athlete who qualifies deserves to go to it.

I was responding to the comments from Gavin Noble. I've no idea if they were true but it's not the greatest attitude. Of course he had other circumstances that made his mere participation a miracle, but I still think that all of our athletes should aim to do as well as they can.

That need not be aiming for a medal but at least to try and push yourself as high up the standings as possible.

I've probably dug myself into a deeper hole here so I think I'm going to leave it now.

WumBuster

johne30 wrote: »

Great stuff from cian o connor . great mentality , he's a winner , we need more sports people like him . Gavin noble said yesterday after triathlon that he didn't come to olympics for a medal. Why are we sending people like that

I agree with your point about Cian O Connor, he is an outstanding competitior, and he seemed to have his homework done with that horse down to the very last detail. There is few in a small nation like ours that could be that meticulous, dedicated and full of self belief as O Connor and i think his medalling at 2 olympics shows what a true champion he is in his field.

However, I think we should be sending athletes to compete in as much sports as possible, even if some of them or not up to the standard. Just for representation and to give aspiring kids the belief that they could go to the Olympics in that sport too. And law of averages, if we can send more athletes(within reason) we will win more medals

Pudsy33

Jimmy Iovine wrote: »

Pudsy33 wrote: »

Im sure all our athletes have a winning mentality. They win at European and national level. Should they just not bother going to the Olympics? That's ludicrous. We aren't on a level playing field with the Americans, Jamaicans and Kenyans in terms of athletics, but that's doesn't mean we should deprive our best athletes of the chance to compete at the highest level. It's an invaluable experience for them.

Right I was wrong to say that. Every athlete who qualifies deserves to go to it.

I was responding to the comments from Gavin Noble. I've no idea if they were true but it's not the greatest attitude. Of course he had other circumstances that made his mere participation a miracle, but I still think that we should aim to do as well as we can.

That need not be aiming for a medal but at least to try and push yourself as high up the standings as possible.

I've probably dug myself into a deeper hole here so I think I'm going to leave it now.

I think there was misunderstanding from both sides here. I agree we should aim as high as possible, there is no point in doing otherwise. To be fair to Noble, I believe he acquitted himself brilliantly considering what he went through this year.

Some of our athletes, the ones who performed below the level we know they can, need to be looked at. Don't think Noble is one of these however.

Jimmy Iovine

K-9 wrote: »

For our size we are at British levels of domination at cycling, in boxing. We'll never win 5/6 golds and completely dominate boxing, some people need to catch a grip here.

Our runners have been disappointing but barring Sonia and Ronnie Delaney, 4th from Eamon Coughlan was the best we got. I'm disappointed we didn't get an Olympic finalist in the long distance racing, as we do have a tradition of getting to finals in those. Probably more a sign of African domination than Irish incompetence.

I think you misread my final line about the "far less athletes per medals".

I could have phrased it better but the point I was making was that if you looked solely at the individual sports I think we would come out on top with regard to our medal/athlete ratio. A lot of their medals come in the team events, whereas all of ours have come in the individual events. In fact we had almost no competitors in the team events.

If that wasn't the case then you can just ignore this post.

It wasn't me!

Anyone who's been within an ass's roar of elite sport will know that there are a lot more weak and mediocre moments than there are perfect ones. What it takes to get the likes of Bolt to perform at his peak at exactly the right time is incredible, in terms of organisation and structure. We send a relatively small team, with little depth in the field apart from boxing, and the impression is inevitably of weakness, where the reality is we've had some incredible performances.

Annalise Murphy came fourth, which is an incredible result. There's no medal, but to have been fourth best in a regatta of eleven races against the best in the world is unbelievable! She should be walking on air. Gavin Noble placing 23rd, and spending right up until the second transition in a really commanding position, despite injury, should be incredibly proud.

And that's to say nothing of our athletes who have medalled. This has been an incredible success for team Ireland, and maybe some day we'll all wake up and realise the investment required to produce a team with more depth across the events and then support them well enough to produce an even better medal to athlete ratio, but bemoaning people who perform below the standard on the day (which is a lot more common than those who make it on the day) just shows total ignorance of how this works.

And most people going to an Olympic Games are not expecting to medal, so Gavin Noble's perspective was certainly not flawed. He planned to work hard, and his achievement is phenomenal, but we have to be realistic. Performing in that environment is different to anything else, and that means that athletes need to gain experience and build on it. Like I said, anyone who's been around top level sport will understand this. It's not always good. That's what makes the times it does all come together so much more worthwhile.

marienbad

It wasn't me! wrote: »

Anyone who's been within an ass's roar of elite sport will know that there are a lot more weak and mediocre moments than there are perfect ones. What it takes to get the likes of Bolt to perform at his peak at exactly the right time is incredible, in terms of organisation and structure. We send a relatively small team, with little depth in the field apart from boxing, and the impression is inevitably of weakness, where the reality is we've had some incredible performances.

Annalise Murphy came fourth, which is an incredible result. There's no medal, but to have been fourth best in a regatta of eleven races against the best in the world is unbelievable! She should be walking on air. Gavin Noble placing 23rd, and spending right up until the second transition in a really commanding position, despite injury, should be incredibly proud.

And that's to say nothing of our athletes who have medalled. This has been an incredible success for team Ireland, and maybe some day we'll all wake up and realise the investment required to produce a team with more depth across the events and then support them well enough to produce an even better medal to athlete ratio, but bemoaning people who perform below the standard on the day (which is a lot more common than those who make it on the day) just shows total ignorance of how this works.

And most people going to an Olympic Games are not expecting to medal, so Gavin Noble's perspective was certainly not flawed. He planned to work hard, and his achievement is phenomenal, but we have to be realistic. Performing in that environment is different to anything else, and that means that athletes need to gain experience and build on it. Like I said, anyone who's been around top level sport will understand this. It's not always good. That's what makes the times it does all come together so much more worthwhile.

So how come other nations our size consistantly do so much better ?

It wasn't me!

marienbad wrote: »

So how come other nations our size consistantly do so much better ?

Money and infrastructure. Simple as. Until we revisit our funding model (Achieve this result and then we'll give you a certain amount of the money you should have had in order to enable you to achieve it in the first place, but not enough to reach the next mark, obviously), we're fooked, and our athletes are actually way outperforming the system which purports to represent them.

johne30

It wasn't me! wrote: »

Money and infrastructure. Simple as. Until we revisit our funding model (Achieve this result and then we'll give you a certain amount of the money you should have had in order to enable you to achieve it in the first place, but not enough to reach the next mark, obviously), we're fooked, and our athletes are actually way outperforming the system which purports to represent them.

its not only spending that we need but a better attitude to. . the whole sports culture in ireland centres round gaa and english soccer and horse racing . it needs to start in primary school and get kids playing a range of sports. and we also need to put people into sports that suit them when they are young.

It wasn't me!

johne30 wrote: »

its not only spending that we need but a better attitude to. . the whole sports culture in ireland centres round gaa and english soccer and horse racing . it needs to start in primary school and get kids playing a range of sports. and we also need to put people into sports that suit them when they are young.

Well, yes, but attitude is dependent on structure. If you have an organisation with support mechanisms that will take someone starting out at eight to twelve and progress them, constantly in contact, to their early twenties and their Olympic debut, and can get the sports council to start putting real money into that sport, you will, over a couple of cycles, have a real chance of producing an Olympic champion, provided you attract enough people to stimulate real depth and intensity of competition at all levels throughout the sport. This means of course that sports simultaneously require strong structures and much bigger exposure as well as financial investment. This is an extremely difficult gap to bridge. Without the numbers which you don't have through a lack of exposure, you don't have the volunteer base to provide structure (and ultimately, while the backbone of grassroots sport, at elite sport level, you need a professional infrastructure), and without actually being a real sporting presence, you won't get the exposure to generate your numbers. And without it all, you can't squeeze money out of the sports council to do anything anyway.

You'd think I'm a pessimist really, but it's just a matter of individual sports bridging the gap, gaining media exposure (which most are utterly shíte at, and they could certainly do a lot more if they tried), gaining participants and building hard on a larger grassroots structure to get the level of competition to the point where a professional infrastructure has to be engaged. For most sports, I reckon it's the work of a couple of cycles to get somewhere really good, but that means people with vision and initiative working hard for the next decade or so.

johne30

It wasn't me! wrote: »

Well, yes, but attitude is dependent on structure. If you have an organisation with support mechanisms that will take someone starting out at eight to twelve and progress them, constantly in contact, to their early twenties and their Olympic debut, and can get the sports council to start putting real money into that sport, you will, over a couple of cycles, have a real chance of producing an Olympic champion, provided you attract enough people to stimulate real depth and intensity of competition at all levels throughout the sport. This means of course that sports simultaneously require strong structures and much bigger exposure as well as financial investment. This is an extremely difficult gap to bridge. Without the numbers which you don't have through a lack of exposure, you don't have the volunteer base to provide structure (and ultimately, while the backbone of grassroots sport, at elite sport level, you need a professional infrastructure), and without actually being a real sporting presence, you won't get the exposure to generate your numbers. And without it all, you can't squeeze money out of the sports council to do anything anyway.

You'd think I'm a pessimist really, but it's just a matter of individual sports bridging the gap, gaining media exposure (which most are utterly shíte at, and they could certainly do a lot more if they tried), gaining participants and building hard on a larger grassroots structure to get the level of competition to the point where a professional infrastructure has to be engaged. For most sports, I reckon it's the work of a couple of cycles to get somewhere really good, but that means people with vision and initiative working hard for the next decade or so.

But mentality is important, you got to believe in your self which is a problem in ireland , with our parish way of running sport, . C o connor . p harrington and munster and lenster . they all have huge self belief and they regularly deliver . Spending required to but we have to move away from the parish mentality which even the community games espouses to. We need more national competition for kids in various sports and then step up to international . Funny but all the above mentioned sports have a very good national structure at a young age.

Colmustard

It depends I like GAA sport and admire its organisation, but I love sport and being Irish. I can't imagine this country without the GAA.

The Olympics are great, I think from my contributions to this thread it is obvious I love them and sport, but I would not give up the GAA for them.

So we could settle into Olympic sports and enjoy it every 4 years OR watch some Dub matches yearly..I know what I would choose.

Every parish and town has a GAA club and us Irish punch way and way above our weight in international sport, this Olympics per head of population may turn out to be the best in the world.

We may not get a track athlete result, but so what, will China or India? and that puts that competition in perspective.

Remember most Olympic games and events were invented in Briton so fair Fs for them doing well. Perhaps when Ireland conquer half the world the GAA will be an Olympic sport.


But I would never give it up, I love GAA sport, I hate premiership soccer, its so boring and lacks passion. The GAA is what an amature passionate game should be. Highly meaninful to where they are from.

Does anyone On MU come from MU/

johne30

Colmustard wrote: »

It depends I like GAA sport and admire its organisation, but I love sport and being Irish. I can't imagine this country without the GAA.

The Olympics are great, I think from my contributions to this thread it is obvious I love them and sport, but I would not give up the GAA for them.

So we could settle into Olympic sports and enjoy it every 4 years OR watch some Dub matches yearly..I know what I would choose.

Every parish and town has a GAA club and us Irish punch way and way above our weight in international sport, this Olympics per head of population may turn out to be the best in the world.

We may not get a track athlete result, but so what, will China or India? and that puts that competition in perspective.

Remember most Olympic games and events were invented in Briton so fair Fs for them doing well. Perhaps when Ireland conquer half the world the GAA will be an Olympic sport.


But I would never give it up, I love GAA sport, I hate premiership soccer, its so boring and lacks passion. The GAA is what an amature passionate game should be. Highly meaninful to where they are from.

Does anyone On MU come from MU/

No the gaa is wasting our time , we just have to get over this parish nonsense and start competing internationally like other similar sized countrys n zeland and norway and switerzland always win a haul of medals so we are not punching really , Look even the parish rule is runing hurling it s self . because it really is only a regional game played properly in 10 or 12 counties . And friend the gaa will never be an olympic sport because the are basically to violent for a global audience.

johne30

Colmustard wrote: »

It depends I like GAA sport and admire its organisation, but I love sport and being Irish. I can't imagine this country without the GAA.

The Olympics are great, I think from my contributions to this thread it is obvious I love them and sport, but I would not give up the GAA for them.

So we could settle into Olympic sports and enjoy it every 4 years OR watch some Dub matches yearly..I know what I would choose.

Every parish and town has a GAA club and us Irish punch way and way above our weight in international sport, this Olympics per head of population may turn out to be the best in the world.

We may not get a track athlete result, but so what, will China or India? and that puts that competition in perspective.

Remember most Olympic games and events were invented in Briton so fair Fs for them doing well. Perhaps when Ireland conquer half the world the GAA will be an Olympic sport.


But I would never give it up, I love GAA sport, I hate premiership soccer, its so boring and lacks passion. The GAA is what an amature passionate game should be. Highly meaninful to where they are from.

Does anyone On MU come from MU/

i could picture ireland without gaa. we would have topclass rugby and cricket teams , have a proper pro soccer set up , Our girls would be playing hockey and volleyball and net ball on the international set up . we would have tennis and golf champions and loads of good athletes to pick from. There would also be watersports, motorsports, and horse sports goin on . we would have a number of proffessional or semi pro sports and there would be great opportunities for children to have a career in a sport without leaving ireland. it would be a diverse sporting culture and succesful too. But with the gaa none of this will ever become possible.

Jimoslimos

johne30 wrote: »

No the gaa is wasting our time , we just have to get over this parish nonsense and start competing internationally like other similar sized countrys n zeland and norway and switerzland always win a haul of medals so we are not punching really , Look even the parish rule is runing hurling it s self . because it really is only a regional game played properly in 10 or 12 counties . And friend the gaa will never be an olympic sport because the are basically to violent for a global audience.

johne30 wrote: »

i could picture ireland without gaa. we would have topclass rugby and cricket teams , have a proper pro soccer set up , Our girls would be playing hockey and volleyball and net ball on the international set up . we would have tennis and golf champions and loads of good athletes to pick from. There would also be watersports, motorsports, and horse sports goin on . we would have a number of proffessional or semi pro sports and there would be great opportunities for children to have a career in a sport without leaving ireland. it would be a diverse sporting culture and succesful too. But with the gaa none of this will ever become possible.

Yawn. Stop stirring and take it elsewhere.

pc7

Time to rise and shine spent the night dreaming about boxing! So excited, come on Katie.

Rascasse

Theres Deidre Ryan in the high jump at 9.30 this morning too.

Its a shame Katies fight is so early in the day. Theres some big athletics finals this evening so I guess they get top billing. Would have been nice to watch it in the pub with a crowd though.

patmac

A nation holds it breath! Good luck today Katie.
On the religion side of things, I used to dislike Holyfield for his praising of God before and after entering the ring and trying to maim someone. Doesn't bother me now, whatever rocks your boat and if it gets Ireland a gold medal, great!

keano_afc

I genuinely cant believe people are bringing Taylor's faith into this. But then again this is After Hours. Are you going to support her less because she believes in God? Grow up FFS.

gabsdot40

BMX would be a good sport to invest in. Build a few tracks, kids will get their own bikes, and it looks like loads of fun.

jaykay74

gabsdot40 wrote: »

BMX would be a good sport to invest in. Build a few tracks, kids will get their own bikes, and it looks like loads of fun.

With the obesity problems maybe shot putt is a better bet.