The Official Rio Olympics 2016 thread

[popeyewhite]

Rosscow said:

Permanently held in Greece? I think that's an awful idea. The magic of the Olympics is it going to different continents and cities for every rotation.

I disagree. The magic is the sport.

Rosscow said:

Sure, there have been some poor decisions/management and it costs the host country a lot of money.

It costs rather more than 'a lot', and that money could be spent much better elsewhere for the benefit of the people rather than an international TV audience or notional and unproven long lasting health benefit to the host country.

Rosscow said:

But take that away and it would become stagnant and people around the world would lose interest. Not to mention that it just wouldn't be fair!

Fair?

[popeyewhite]

Leithen said:

Sorry, I'd beg to differ. Any such stats are very interesting for a whole host of different reasons. Across individual sports, types of sport, gender, age groups, economic groups, nations etc etc.

For example, how relevant is the current Olympic spread of sports to India?

Who cares? They're not relevant to cheese-chasing in Bradford either. We move further and further away from the core sports of the Olympics if we try to make them totally inclusive. You could change the name to 'World Games' I suppose and include absolutely every sport with a participation figure over a pre-agreed amount. Hold the games for 4 weeks or longer...then with the following paralympics (which next to no one actually watches), the games could stretch to 2 months!

[944fan]

Leithen said:

944fan said:

So Tokyo then.

Pyeongchang first.

Oh yeah. Really enjoyed the last Winter games so will be watching this.

[FourWheelDrift]

Rosscow said:

Surely there should be cricket as well, then! Must be well up the rankings...?

Undefeated Olympic champions, we beat the French (again) - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cricket_at_the_1900_...


FYI we are the leading medal holders in:

Sailing
Polo
Rackets
Tug of war
Triathlon
Water motorsports
Cricket.

Edited by FourWheelDrift on Monday 22 August 11:48

[Rosscow]

popeyewhite said:

Rosscow said:

Permanently held in Greece? I think that's an awful idea. The magic of the Olympics is it going to different continents and cities for every rotation.

I disagree. The magic is the sport.

Rosscow said:

Sure, there have been some poor decisions/management and it costs the host country a lot of money.

It costs rather more than 'a lot', and that money could be spent much better elsewhere for the benefit of the people rather than an international TV audience or notional and unproven long lasting health benefit to the host country.

Rosscow said:

But take that away and it would become stagnant and people around the world would lose interest. Not to mention that it just wouldn't be fair!

Fair?

Yes, I agree with your first point. But visiting different parts of the globe does bring its own magic.

Yes, it does cost rather more than a lot - which is what I was alluding to with 'poor decisions/management.'
There are fabulous cities all over the world that could host an Olympic Games next year, we need to use venues that need minimal tweaking not complete makeovers. The same can be said for the World Cup in football.

Yes, fair. Fair for the competitors and fair for the spectators. Why should Greek athletes have home advantage every time, and why should Greek spectators get to have 'the greatest show on Earth' every 4 years?

The majority of athletes will never get to experience a 'Home Games,' but every 4 years a lucky few do.

I stayed up to watch Mo win the 5000m gold the other night at 2am. Next time, it'll be a much more convenient late morning/early afternoon time slot.

It's a bit like the argument we have in our own country - why does everything get biased towards London?

Edited by Rosscow on Monday 22 August 11:57

[ben5575]

FourWheelDrift said:

Has this been posted? Usain Bolt late Saturday night in a nearly empty stadium practising his new event for Tokyo. The javelin. He threw 55m

https://youtu.be/po4l0J_88YM

Needs a faster run up...

[rover 623gsi]

I think one thing that would make hosting the olympics less costly to stage would be if it was awarded to a country, rather than a city. At the very least, the IOC should be more relaxed about sports being held away from the main area.

[Antony Moxey]

popeyewhite said:

There's easily enough sports - probably too many - featured during the modern Olympics. No more are needed. Ones for the axe: Beach volleyball, tennis (Murray's already played in another comp and lost), golf, taekwondo, mountain biking... there's a few more. Hold the Olympics every 4 years in a purpose built stadium in Greece and keep to the core sports of track/field/water.

Why mountain biking?

[FourWheelDrift]

ben5575 said:

FourWheelDrift said:

Has this been posted? Usain Bolt late Saturday night in a nearly empty stadium practising his new event for Tokyo. The javelin. He threw 55m

https://youtu.be/po4l0J_88YM

Needs a faster run up...

He could run ahead and catch it before it lands.

[Randy Winkman]

popeyewhite said:

Leithen said:

Sorry, I'd beg to differ. Any such stats are very interesting for a whole host of different reasons. Across individual sports, types of sport, gender, age groups, economic groups, nations etc etc.

For example, how relevant is the current Olympic spread of sports to India?

Who cares? They're not relevant to cheese-chasing in Bradford either. We move further and further away from the core sports of the Olympics if we try to make them totally inclusive. You could change the name to 'World Games' I suppose and include absolutely every sport with a participation figure over a pre-agreed amount. Hold the games for 4 weeks or longer...then with the following paralympics (which next to no one actually watches), the games could stretch to 2 months!

My understanding is that what the IOC is interested in is the number of nations that have a national federation for that sport and can field teams/individuals that can participate at a competitive level. That's why I questioned cricket.

[bexVN]

Otispunkmeyer said:

aeropilot said:

Baseball......WTF!!

Japan are baseball mad, they love it!

Quite happy about surfing. It's better than golf. But then I'm a water person so...

This, initially when I saw baseball I thought why!!? Then remembered how much Japan loves the game. Makes sense for them to include it.

Edited by bexVN on Monday 22 August 13:34

[boyse7en]

Antony Moxey said:

popeyewhite said:

There's easily enough sports - probably too many - featured during the modern Olympics. No more are needed. Ones for the axe: Beach volleyball, tennis (Murray's already played in another comp and lost), golf, taekwondo, mountain biking... there's a few more. Hold the Olympics every 4 years in a purpose built stadium in Greece and keep to the core sports of track/field/water.

Why mountain biking?

I'll disagree with Beach Volleyball, taekwondo and MTB in your list. But agree on Golf and Tennis.

My simplistic criteria is whether winning an Olympic Gold is the ultimate pinnacle of achievement in a sport. If its not, then the sport shouldn't be part of the Olympics. So Tennis, the pinnacle is one of the Grand Slams, Golf is the Open etc...

[anonymous-user]

boyse7en said:

Antony Moxey said:

popeyewhite said:

There's easily enough sports - probably too many - featured during the modern Olympics. No more are needed. Ones for the axe: Beach volleyball, tennis (Murray's already played in another comp and lost), golf, taekwondo, mountain biking... there's a few more. Hold the Olympics every 4 years in a purpose built stadium in Greece and keep to the core sports of track/field/water.

Why mountain biking?

I'll disagree with Beach Volleyball, taekwondo and MTB in your list. But agree on Golf and Tennis.

My simplistic criteria is whether winning an Olympic Gold is the ultimate pinnacle of achievement in a sport. If its not, then the sport shouldn't be part of the Olympics. So Tennis, the pinnacle is one of the Grand Slams, Golf is the Open etc...

Football should go too.

[Randy Winkman]

garyhun said:

boyse7en said:

Antony Moxey said:

popeyewhite said:

There's easily enough sports - probably too many - featured during the modern Olympics. No more are needed. Ones for the axe: Beach volleyball, tennis (Murray's already played in another comp and lost), golf, taekwondo, mountain biking... there's a few more. Hold the Olympics every 4 years in a purpose built stadium in Greece and keep to the core sports of track/field/water.

Why mountain biking?

I'll disagree with Beach Volleyball, taekwondo and MTB in your list. But agree on Golf and Tennis.

My simplistic criteria is whether winning an Olympic Gold is the ultimate pinnacle of achievement in a sport. If its not, then the sport shouldn't be part of the Olympics. So Tennis, the pinnacle is one of the Grand Slams, Golf is the Open etc...

Football should go too.

I agree on football and also agree the point about an Olympic gold being the pinnacle. That should be the main issue, alongside the need for a number of countries being able to field competitive teams/individuals. Though I also think it's the case that host nations are also allowed to include a couple of sports that are of particular significance to them for that games. I don't have a problem with that.

[popeyewhite]

Rosscow said:

Yes, fair. Fair for the competitors and fair for the spectators. Why should Greek athletes have home advantage every time, and why should Greek spectators get to have 'the greatest show on Earth' every 4 years?

Home advantage doesn't seem to have benefited the Brazilians particularly and anyway home advantage can be easily offset.

Rosscow said:

It's a bit like the argument we have in our own country - why does everything get biased towards London?

It doesn't.. other than weather reports. The London thing - as far as I'm concerned up here in Manchester - concerns London making decisions that affect different parts of the country.

[popeyewhite]

Antony Moxey said:

Why mountain biking?

...essentials of track/field/water only

[Rosscow]

popeyewhite said:

Rosscow said:

Yes, fair. Fair for the competitors and fair for the spectators. Why should Greek athletes have home advantage every time, and why should Greek spectators get to have 'the greatest show on Earth' every 4 years?

Home advantage doesn't seem to have benefited the Brazilians particularly and anyway home advantage can be easily offset.

Rosscow said:

It's a bit like the argument we have in our own country - why does everything get biased towards London?

It doesn't.. other than weather reports. The London thing - as far as I'm concerned up here in Manchester - concerns London making decisions that affect different parts of the country.

Rio 2016 has been Brazil's most successful Olympics of all time, for amount of gold medals and overall amount of medals.

Doesn't it? Fair enough.

[popeyewhite]

Rosscow said:

Rio 2016 has been Brazil's most successful Olympics of all time, for amount of gold medals and overall amount of medals.

Didn't they finish 13 behind Hungary in totals? I suppose relatively speaking this could reflect some home advantage though.

[Rosscow]

popeyewhite said:

Rosscow said:

Rio 2016 has been Brazil's most successful Olympics of all time, for amount of gold medals and overall amount of medals.

Didn't they finish 13 behind Hungary in totals? I suppose relatively speaking this could reflect some home advantage though.

Finished 13th - their highest ever finish with over double the amount of gold medals won in both 2012 and 2008.

[Rosscow]

Didn't realise until just now that we achieved a larger medal haul than London 2012 with 175 less athletes than we had at London 2012!

So almost as many golds, and more medals in total but with over 32% less athletes. Remarkable!