London 2012 MegaThread [Part 2]

mobby

I Enjoyed the Olympics. Thought London did a great job. Preferred the opening ceremony but I really enjoyed both. Great TV
The bit with Freddie Mercury appearing in the middle of the stadium on the screens was magic.
Remember that from Wembley all them yeas ago.

robinph

marienbad wrote: »

I am not sure about London 2012 , but previously countries did a lot more targeting of medals to ensure the biggest bang for their buck- the classic example being Denmark and men's lightweight rowing which they have dominated in the olympic catagories since about 1993 and all done with a surprisingly small pool of rowers .

Holland and New Zealand and the former Czech countries have done the same with other events and the classic example is Hungary with watersports ( no - not that one )

While it may be true that only 79 countries got medas, we should be comparing like with like - i.e. other similar sized developed nations and on that basis our record is dismal , and any success we do have seems to be down to individual brilliance and not organisation .

Maybe Boxing at this games is showing the way .

I meant it along the lines of other countries do still send people that have no hope of winning otherwise there wouldn't be more than half of the competing nations going home empty handed. Pretty much everyone send someone to take part in the 100m, but nobody but Jamaica actually expected to be winning.

Ireland should be targeting some other sports than boxing that can be more easily won.

marienbad

robinph wrote: »

I meant it along the lines of other countries do still send people that have no hope of winning otherwise there wouldn't be more than half of the competing nations going home empty handed. Pretty much everyone send someone to take part in the 100m, but nobody but Jamaica actually expected to be winning.

Ireland should be targeting some other sports than boxing that can be more easily won.

I accept what you are saying to a great extent, but some of our neighbours use far more stringent criteria that just A or B qualifiying times before sending an athlete . They must have a resonable chance of a good placing or be on a developmental path. Well it used to be that way- I am not au fait with current practice.

You don't send someone to the Games just to improve their PB's or bestow the title of Olympian on them - at least not on taxpayers money .

And we devalue real achievment by doing so.

Of course those sports that have a rigorous qualifying process are different- boxing being the perfect example- only the very best qualify and look what they can achieve.

Namlub

Saw three Olympics ads during one break earlier, why would they do this to me?!

keith16

Namlub wrote: »

Saw three Olympics ads during one break earlier, why would they do this to me?!

Was it the insurance fraud one? Three times?

Namlub

Well as appealing as that sounds, no, there was one Michael Phelps dandruff ad and two of the P&G ones. For a second it felt like they weren't over

Colmustard

Anyone seen these

Mo Farrah running from things

http://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=newssearch&cd=1&ved=0CCoQqQIwAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dailymail.co.uk%2Fnews%2Farticle-2188192%2FMo-Farah-running-away-things-Olympic-hero-escaping-zombies-Batman.html%3Fito%3Dfeeds-newsxml&ei=zt8qUNyAHoaWhQedh4GYBQ&usg=AFQjCNFOInpG8rLPiEqyHLWdLb6zLBsMGg&sig2=fGIfhMkM9oAQl3LLGayOgQ

It would make a good boards photoshop thread.

sock puppet

marienbad wrote: »

I accept what you are saying to a great extent, but some of our neighbours use far more stringent criteria that just A or B qualifiying times before sending an athlete . They must have a resonable chance of a good placing or be on a developmental path. Well it used to be that way- I am not au fait with current practice.

You don't send someone to the Games just to improve their PB's or bestow the title of Olympian on them - at least not on taxpayers money .

And we devalue real achievment by doing so.

Of course those sports that have a rigorous qualifying process are different- boxing being the perfect example- only the very best qualify and look what they can achieve.

Like I thought, clueless. Only the very best achieve the A standard. The US, China, Russia and GB send athletes with no realistic shot of a final, and sometimes no chance of a semi final. Why shouldn't we?

marienbad

sock puppet wrote: »

Like I thought, clueless. Only the very best achieve the A standard. The US, China, Russia and GB send athletes with no realistic shot of a final, and sometimes no chance of a semi final. Why shouldn't we?

Why the unnecessary insult ?

We are not the US China Russia and GB who are prepared to spend untold sums on the Olympic Games.

We do not have that kind of funds and we should debate if it is just about participation or about success. In can be both to a certain extent, but imho we err on the side of participation and this directly impacts our medal chances.

As for only the very best achieving the A standard - lets compare shall we
800m Men Final - First 1.40.9 ,Last 1.43.7

---

A Standard 1.45.6
400m Men Final - First 43.94 Last 45.14 A Standard 45.30

Even by common consent the worst 1500 in living memory yielded a time of 3.34 and the A Standard is 3.36

We had very few athletes (track) that can be proud of their performances , all the rest was just embarrassing and more of the same excuse ridden stuff.

Richard Hillman

Was chatting with a pal today about the stars of Athens, Beijing and London that wont be back, might be back and will be back. It was interesting to see the change of guard but the future is very bright. Im only sticking to Athletics, Swimming and Cycling as they are my relative expertise

Wont be at Rio 2016

Michael Phelps
Victoria Pendleton
Chris Hoy
Felix Sanchez

Maybes
Usain Bolt
Lui Xiang
Ryan Lochte
Fabian Cancellara
Steph Rice
Tyson Gay
Asafa Powell
Mo Farah
Sanya Richards

will be back
Kirani James
David Rudisha
Shelly-Ann Fraser
Laura Trott
Jason Kenny
Yohan Blake
Chad Le Clos
Sun Yang
Missy Franklin
Ye Shiwen
Ruta Meilutyte




Cant wait to see the people who shined at 2012 to become all time greats. There are some serious names amongst the young stars of 2012 that should shine again in 2016. Then there are the newcomers

Jimoslimos

Just a hunch and might be completely wrong but I have a feeling we'll see Usain Bolt in Rio........but not in the 100/200m.

If he's looking for a new challenge, plus making room for Yohan Blake, I reckon he may make the jump up to 400m. Think he started out at this distance when he was younger. David Rudisha, after winning the 800m, expressed a desire to race Bolt over 400m. I'd really love to see that race!

A lot depends on how next years world championships go, he might want to go out on a bang - think setting a very low WR will be the main target in the immediate future.

Beefy78

I'm pretty sure that Mo Farah will be in Rio. Not sure what distance he'll be racing though as he's talking about stepping up to the Marathon.

Kerrydude1981

Roll up roll up

http://memorabilia.london2012.com/allauction/auctionLanding

Jesus Shaves

Ah this thread is like an ex, you know it's over but you still go back a couple of times for more.

kfallon

I hope Allyson Felix's hoop will be in Rio

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-3-YgoR1p87I/T_3qZ0LSn6I/AAAAAAAAAEU/bGx07az-bQY/s1600/Allyson-Felix-on-Nike-Make-Yourself-Team-Campaign.jpg

steve9859

Jesus Shaves wrote: »

Ah this thread is like an ex, you know it's over but you still go back a couple of times for more.

And when you go back, you hope that something will have changed.....that there will be a little more to it. And then disapointed when there is not....

The_Kew_Tour

I had dream that Rob Heffernan got medal after one of the walkers failed drug test.

You know you miss the Olympics bit too much when you have strange strange dreams like that:pac:

el diablo

The celebrations are live in RTÉ1 now. it's all very Oirish though, begorrah.

Des Cahill making an idiot of himself speaking to Darren Sutherland's father. :rolleyes:

Kerrydude1981

This sums up Des

http://www.doomsteaddiner.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Double-facepalm.jpg

DebDynamite

The_Kew_Tour wrote: »

I had dream that Rob Heffernan got medal after one of the walkers failed drug test.

You know you miss the Olympics bit too much when you have strange strange dreams like that:pac:

I had a sex dream about Chris Hoy

Colmustard

Back to reality and news:(

I didn't watch the news while the circus was on, I was definitely happier.

What if I somehow made a decision not to watch or read the news for another 2 weeks. I wonder could I.

mike65

Freesat go bigish for Para games, 3 extra feeds.

http://www.joinfreesat.co.uk/freesat-to-offer-channel-4s-hd-paralympic-channels/

opinion guy

I reckon in future they should amalgamate the olympics and the paralympics. Have one month long sports festival. Have the paralympic events running alongside the olympic events.

Of course it would be a logistic nightmare...and maybe a solid month would be too long for us. But dammit it's awesome to think about

opinion guy

Seriously there is NOTHING on TV worth watching since the olypmics ended

Colmustard

opinion guy wrote: »

Seriously there is NOTHING on TV worth watching since the olypmics ended

Its like when you read a brilliant book any book you pick up after that for a while just seems to second rate to bother:(

opinion guy

Here this might sooth ye're cravings...some fun facts from the Olympics:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19166071

1ZRed

opinion guy wrote: »

Seriously there is NOTHING on TV worth watching since the olypmics ended

I'm actually in withdrawl. Obsolutely loved the Olympics this time and really got into it compared to other years.

TV is pure shite now, better get back to watching porn instead :pac:

sock puppet

marienbad wrote: »

Why the unnecessary insult ?

We are not the US China Russia and GB who are prepared to spend untold sums on the Olympic Games.

We do not have that kind of funds and we should debate if it is just about participation or about success. In can be both to a certain extent, but imho we err on the side of participation and this directly impacts our medal chances.

As for only the very best achieving the A standard - lets compare shall we
800m Men Final - First 1.40.9 ,Last 1.43.7

---

A Standard 1.45.6
400m Men Final - First 43.94 Last 45.14 A Standard 45.30

Even by common consent the worst 1500 in living memory yielded a time of 3.34 and the A Standard is 3.36

We had very few athletes (track) that can be proud of their performances , all the rest was just embarrassing and more of the same excuse ridden stuff.

Hold on. You said only the very best boxers qualify for the Olympics and have now defined that as top 8. So are we to assume that every single European boxer made it to at least the quarter finals?

If Irish athletes are underperforming then maybe it's time to look at cutting athletes' funding. But not sending A standard athletes is just ****ing stupid.


Also the US don't fund their Olympic team at all. Don't know where you got the idea that they spend "untold sums" on it.

marienbad

sock puppet wrote: »

Hold on. You said only the very best boxers qualify for the Olympics and have now defined that as top 8. So are we to assume that every single European boxer made it to at least the quarter finals?

If Irish athletes are underperforming then maybe it's time to look at cutting athletes' funding. But not sending A standard athletes is just ****ing stupid.


Also the US don't fund their Olympic team at all. Don't know where you got the idea that they spend "untold sums" on it.

Lets take the last first - are you looking for an argument or a discussion ? If it is an argument I am not interested.

It was you brought up the US China etc ,- they do spent untold sums on it- I don't understand your point on where it comes from and why that is relevant.

The relevance of the boxing selection criteria is that only the very best get to go - not solely the very best per country- and the medal haul shows the efficacy of this method.

Why should someone go just because they get the A standard ? This is not about helping someone funfill their dreams ( or it should'nt be) on taxpayers money .

And the carry-on of some of them after truly mediocre performances was imho cringe-inducing and devalued the term olympian.

sock puppet

marienbad wrote: »

Lets take the last first - are you looking for an argument or a discussion ? If it is an argument I am not interested.

It was you brought up the US China etc ,- they do spent untold sums on it- I don't understand your point on where it comes from and why that is relevant.


The relevance of the boxing selection criteria is that only the very best get to go - not solely the very best per country- and the medal haul shows the efficacy of this method.

Why should someone go just because they get the A standard ? This is not about helping someone funfill their dreams ( or it should'nt be) on taxpayers money .

And the carry-on of some of them after truly mediocre performances was imho cringe-inducing and devalued the term olympian.

The US spent nothing on their Olympic team, surely that correction is relevant in the Olympics thread no?

And no, athletics is not solely the best per country, which you obviously know. They have to achieve the A standard, a time which few athletes achieve.

opinion guy

sock puppet wrote: »

Also the US don't fund their Olympic team at all. Don't know where you got the idea that they spend "untold sums" on it.

You can't really compare with the US in that way - their model of massive university investments and scholarships is just so different and wouldn't work here - mainly given as their universities are private and ours aren't

sock puppet

opinion guy wrote: »

You can't really compare with the US in that way - their model of massive university investments and scholarships is just so different and wouldn't work here - mainly given as their universities are private and ours aren't

I didn't compare them. It was a sidenote

dxhound2005

sock puppet wrote: »

The US spent nothing on their Olympic team, surely that correction is relevant in the Olympics thread no?

And no, athletics is not solely the best per country, which you obviously know. They have to achieve the A standard, a time which few athletes achieve.

They don't necessarily have to achieve the A standard or even the B standard. Which is why you see for instance sprinters in the mens 100 metres heats coming in at over 11 seconds.

A National Olympic Committee (NOC) may enter up to 3 qualified athletes in each individual event if all athletes meet the A standard, or 1 athlete per event if they meet the B standard. An NOC may also enter a maximum of 1 qualified relay team per event. NOCs may enter athletes regardless of time (1 athlete per sex) if they have no athletes meeting the qualifying A or B standards. This makes it possible for every nation to have a minimum of two representatives in the sport.

marienbad

Sorry replying too wrong poster

opinion guy wrote: »

You can't really compare with the US in that way - their model of massive university investments and scholarships is just so different and wouldn't work here - mainly given as their universities are private and ours aren't

Yeah , I fully agree with that, but I did'nt bring up these countries- you did.

I am just saying that sending athletes to realize their own personal dreams just is'nt on, not when the taxpayer is paying for it , particularly in a recession.

I am sick of the justification of long hours training/no social life/blah blah so I deserve it school of thought. No you don't .

It is time we targeted sports that we can be great at , and at the same time keeping an eye out for and nurturing those unique talents that just come out of nowhere

sock puppet

marienbad wrote: »

I am sick of the justification of long hours training/no social life/blah blah so I deserve it school of thought. No you don't .

Nope, they deserve it because they qualified, same as everyone else.

I find the whole "targetting" of medals to be a total loser attitude. If everyone thought like you the mens 100m would have had 1 competitor, potentially 2 in the 200m.

marienbad

sock puppet wrote: »

Nope, they deserve it because they qualified, same as everyone else.

I find the whole "targetting" of medals to be a total loser attitude. If everyone thought like you the mens 100m would have had 1 competitor, potentially 2 in the 200m.

That is just an argument in a vacuum- sure no problem if having ''qualified'' as you say, when a non accountable body defines what qualifying means , then off you go - but at your own expense.

It is when taxpayers money come into the equation that we can question the who why and what of the process and what the returns are.

As for the targeting of medals - why is that a ''total loser'' attitude ? And it seems quite a few do think like me and have the success to prove it and not a endless list of PB's that would'nt hack it in nowheresville arizona never mind the olympics.

sock puppet

marienbad wrote: »

That is just an argument in a vacuum- sure no problem if having ''qualified'' as you say, when a non accountable body defines what qualifying means , then off you go - but at your own expense.

Non accountable? They're completely accountable to the people who matter. Do you think the IOC want 400 people competing in one event in 2016?

It is when taxpayers money come into the equation that we can question the who why and what of the process and what the returns are.

As for the targeting of medals - why is that a ''total loser'' attitude ? And it seems quite a few do think like me and have the success to prove it and not a endless list of PB's that would'nt hack it in nowheresville arizona never mind the olympics.

It's defeatist. "I can't win therefore I won't try" is your motto.

And how can you be insulted at me calling you clueless given your last comment? How many Irish athletes ran PBs? How can you possibly think that NCAA standards are higher than Olympic standards?

steve9859

Mareinbad, you are missing the whole point of elite sport. It doesn't exist for its own sake....it is rather the top of the iceberg for the whole that sport.

I trialled for an Olympic squad a few years ago, having been a senior athlete in my sport. I wanted desperately to emulate those that were going (none of which won medals, and would fall into the 'why are we sending them' debate that is going on)

But if there had not been that opportunity to get to the olympics,I would not have carried on for as long as I did. Then the many younger people who were trying to emulate my success at domestic and european level would not have been incentivised to carry on. And so on and so forth all the way down to the newbies, with a multiple of the number of participants at each level.

Take away the top, and you rip the heart out of the sport. That is why people should go to the Olympics, as long as they make the standard, even if they have no chance of medalling. That is why swimming, for example, in the UK should not get its funding cut for the elite squad, despite the poor performances, as the participation numbers as you go down that pyramid is so large

marienbad

sock puppet wrote: »

Non accountable? They're completely accountable to the people who matter. Do you think the IOC want 400 people competing in one event in 2016?



It's defeatist. "I can't win therefore I won't try" is your motto.

And how can you be insulted at me calling you clueless given your last comment? How many Irish athletes ran PBs? How can you possibly think that NCAA standards are higher than Olympic standards?

I don't think you are following my argument- none of the above is relevant to what I am saying.

marienbad

steve9859 wrote: »

Mareinbad, you are missing the whole point of elite sport. It doesn't exist for its own sake....it is rather the top of the iceberg for the whole that sport.

I trialled for an Olympic squad a few years ago, having been a senior athlete in my sport. I wanted desperately to emulate those that were going (none of which won medals, and would fall into the 'why are we sending them' debate that is going on)

But if there had not been that opportunity to get to the olympics,I would not have carried on for as long as I did. Then the many younger people who were trying to emulate my success at domestic and european level would not have been incentivised to carry on. And so on and so forth all the way down to the newbies, with a multiple of the number of participants at each level.

Take away the top, and you rip the heart out of the sport. That is why people should go to the Olympics, as long as they make the standard, even if they have no chance of medalling. That is why swimming, for example, in the UK should not get its funding cut for the elite squad, despite the poor performances, as the participation numbers as you go down that pyramid is so large

No Steve I don't think I am missing the point about elite sport at all , in fact your post is supporting my argument.

The point about elite sport is that it is elite. And devaluing that elitism helps no one and in noway impinges on sport all the way down the pyramid.

I too have some experience of elite sports people - though not as a participant - and everyone of them ( like you I presume) wanted to be the best and not just the best that you can be.

If I am coming across as saying we should only send competitors that will win or compete for only gold silver bronze - apologies- that is not my intention ( put it down to the short hand required on a forum), but unless athletes had a genuine chance of a say a semi spot or were on a development path I just don't see the point.

Where there are finite funds - taxpayers funds- then we are entitled evaluate how to spend those funds and not just sent people because we can.

And on top of that can we continue to fund people that have had more than one chance and never delivered ? Never mind the debacle of athletes clearly injured before the games and still going ? Who does that inspire ?

Think of all that you could have done at your local club with all the dosh spend on those participants.

tayto lover

Really enjoyed this Olympics, the BBC coverage, the banter on this thread and the elation of watching records tumble and medals being won.

As for the Irish I think we achieved our best results ever with 1 Gold, 1 Silver and 3 Bronze.

The last word I will leave to the old lad in the pub the other night who stated that
" Ireland won medals in the two things we are really good at, fighting and riding"


Cheers

Tayto Lover.

It wasn't me!

marienbad wrote: »

And on top of that can we continue to fund people that have had more than one chance and never delivered ? Never mind the debacle of athletes clearly injured before the games and still going ? Who does that inspire ?

Think of all that you could have done at your local club with all the dosh spend on those participants.

Yes, absolutely, 100%. As I've said before, shooting is my main sport, and the one I compete in. This year, a sixteen-year old world and Olympic record was broken for the first time, having been set in Atlanta, by a 44 year old shooter whose first Olympics was in Seoul. While he's been consistently the best prone shooter of the last decade, certainly, he's had two bronze medals, despite multiple world championships and a myriad world cups. It took him thirty years to eventually win the gold, pulling out a truly stunning performance right when it counted. In light of that, people going for their second Olympics, or even their third, certainly can't be viewed as no-hopers. You can't force a performance. If you could, Bolt would break his own previous world record every day, but it only comes together perfectly at rare moments. Absolutely, increase funding and implement stronger and more progressive structures across the board at development level (and this is our major, major failing - if we invested our funds in developmental level sports the pressure generated would create much more competition at the top echelons of Irish sport and would breed better athletes as well as more of them) but keep pumping money into high performance as well, and more of it. Create the competitive field and then stimulate it. The bigger the field, the better the performances will get.

sock puppet

marienbad wrote: »

I don't think you are following my argument- none of the above is relevant to what I am saying.

I follow you perfectly well. Even disregarding arguments over who deserves to go you're not making any sense. You say we should only select athletes with a good chance of at least making a semi-final, and not athletes who merely make the A standard. The fact is an athlete who can pull of an A standard time at the Olympics is almost guarenteed a place in the semis. They've a decent chance of making the final and in some events everyone ran slower than the A standard.

And again I'll ask, which Irish athletes went and ran PBs that wouldn't be good enough for NCAA?

marienbad

sock puppet wrote: »

I follow you perfectly well. Even disregarding arguments over who deserves to go you're not making any sense. You say we should only select athletes with a good chance of at least making a semi-final, and not athletes who merely make the A standard. The fact is an athlete who can pull of an A standard time at the Olympics is almost guarenteed a place in the semis. They've a decent chance of making the final and in some events everyone ran slower than the A standard.

And again I'll ask, which Irish athletes went and ran PBs that wouldn't be good enough for NCAA?

Not making any sense to you perhaps , you seem to think that just because an athlete makes the A standard they have an automatic right to go to the games on taxpayers money - would that be a fair summation ?

And selective points like ''everone ran slower that the A standard'' is meaningless as you well know. When you get to a certain level tactics play a part but to have the ability to run faster then the A time is an essential part of those tactics.

Furthermore you just seem to be concerned with athletics where as my argument is about selection in general. Would you agree that over a number of olympiads track & field have underperformed compared to other countries of similar size and wealth ? And if you do how can we correct that ?

westendgirlie

I'm bored

kfallon

westendgirlie wrote: »

I'm bored

This thread is not as much fun as it used to be

westendgirlie

I know. Other threads just don't have the same appeal anymore.

Hopefully, things will pick up again for the paralympics. May even do a medals table again.

racso1975

the best of "downtown"

http://www.balls.ie/2012/08/16/the-best-of-timmy-mccarthys-olympic-basketball-final-commentary/

If anybody can embed it work away

kfallon

westendgirlie wrote: »

I know. Other threads just don't have the same appeal anymore.

Hopefully, things will pick up again for the paralympics. May even do a medals table again.

Don't count me in :pac:

westendgirlie

racso1975 wrote: »

the best of "downtown"

http://www.balls.ie/2012/08/16/the-best-of-timmy-mccarthys-olympic-basketball-final-commentary/

If anybody can embed it work away

Good Times