Olympics 2008 - Page 16

Ghoulish Delight · 08-10-2008, 03:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blueerica

I'm wondering if there will be any challenges to this increasingly subjective style of judging.

It's not so much subjectivity that's a problem as subjectivity masquerading as objectivity. They introduce these fancy systems to supposedly make it less subjective when, unless there is a knockout, subjectivity will always be a part of it. In non-Olympic boxing they make no bones about the fact that the decision is subjective and it's not like anyone's trying to change that.

swanie · 08-10-2008, 07:58 PM

If you add up the "true" ages of the girls on the Chinese Women's Gymnastics team..I doubt even then that you'd come close to 16.

16 years old my a$$.

BarTopDancer · 08-10-2008, 08:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by swanie

If you add up the "true" ages of the girls on the Chinese Women's Gymnastics team..I doubt even then that you'd come close to 16.

16 years old my a$$.

Wouldn't that be a scandal. Forged passports and other government documents too (they said the IOC verified ages using passports).

Cadaverous Pallor · 08-10-2008, 11:04 AM

The range of games played at the Olympics is part of the multiculturalism of it. It recognizes that it is all subjective, and to get billions of people to care, they have to cover a wide range. I tend to feel inclusive in this regard because the whole concept is to include everyone. Chopping out either the "less athletic" or "split second" events would exclude those that like them, and eventually would undermine the rest of the games.

Alex · 08-10-2008, 11:40 AM

True. I don't really have a problem with those being in the Olympics, they are just of very little interest to me. In fact, I would be much more interested if they did include more regional events than they currently do. Even if I still didn't watch them.

Though I wouldn't mind seeing a return to a principal of amateurism. I would be fine with rules saying that if you make your living being paid to perform your sport then you're not in the Olympics.

scaeagles · 08-10-2008, 11:41 AM

A bit of a departure from the current train of thought in this thread....with China being a relatively closed society with control over the media, I was reminded of a story from something BTD had posted regarding athletes who don't win gold failing to bring honor to China.

I have an acquaintance named Charlie Hickcox (I used to coach his kid in basketball) who won several swimming medals (3 gold and a silver) in the Mexico City 1964 Olympics. He told me once the US swim team had a two country meet with the Soviets in Moscow shortly thereafter, and the US team beat them rather handily. The press in the Soviet Union reported that in the international meet, the Soviets took second and the US placed next to last.

I thought that was pretty creative spin. Might be tough for China to spin the media that much in this day and age.

scaeagles · 08-10-2008, 12:27 PM

I watched a lot of the USA-China basketball game. I think the US could struggle when they play against teams that know how to control tempo. From what I saw, the US struggled in the half court offense - they scored a very high percentage of their points off the break off of turnovers.

Also, China got many, many outside shots and just didn't hit them. The US will need to D up better than that on shooters.

Ghoulish Delight · 08-10-2008, 12:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scaeagles

I watched a lot of the USA-China basketball game. I think the US could struggle when they play against teams that know how to control tempo. From what I saw, the US struggled in the half court offense - they scored a very high percentage of their points off the break off of turnovers.

I watched that game, and all I could think was how totally different world basketball is from the days of the Dream Team. The US beat China, by a lot in the end. As they should have. But it wasn't because China sucked. China played a great game in the first half. They let the US go on one big run, outside of that they played them even. They just don't have the conditioning to keep up with the intensity that the US can maintain for the whole game, especially since the game is 1/6 shorter than what they're used to playing. But China didn't look foolish out there, they looked like a somewhat outmatched team. LOVED Yao cheering them on for good plays, even when down by 27.

The difference between this team and the '04 team is that they're actually taking it seriously. The world snuck up on them in '04 and they learned they can't just phone it in. They've put a lot more work in than the '04 team did and it shows. Even the loose defense they showed in today's game would have been beyond that '04 team.

Of course, the other teams have progressed too, but I'm betting the US takes it.

scaeagles · 08-10-2008, 01:03 PM

Yeah, China didn't suck, but they didn't have any real shooting threats either. The US should indeed take it, but the European teams, and probably Brazil and Argentina will have much better perimeter shooting.

I have tremendous confidence in Krzyzewski.

Ghoulish Delight · 08-10-2008, 01:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scaeagles

Yeah, China didn't suck, but they didn't have any real shooting threats either. The US should indeed take it, but the European teams, and probably Brazil and Argentina will have much better perimeter shooting.

I have tremendous confidence in Krzyzewski.

No doubt. But as long as they actually play and don't get sloppy, they'll win easily. And they've at least done a good job of making it appear like they've put the preparation in to make sure they don't get sloppy so we'll see.

08-10-2008, 07:58 PM	#2
swanie Wiiiiiiiiiiiiid Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 321	If you add up the "true" ages of the girls on the Chinese Women's Gymnastics team..I doubt even then that you'd come close to 16. 16 years old my a$$. __________________ "The miracle isn't that I finished. The miracle is that I had the courage to start." - John J. Bingham
	Submit to Quotes

08-10-2008, 11:04 AM	#4
Cadaverous Pallor ohhhh baby Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Parental Bliss Posts: 12,364	The range of games played at the Olympics is part of the multiculturalism of it. It recognizes that it is all subjective, and to get billions of people to care, they have to cover a wide range. I tend to feel inclusive in this regard because the whole concept is to include everyone. Chopping out either the "less athletic" or "split second" events would exclude those that like them, and eventually would undermine the rest of the games. __________________ The second star to the right shines in the night for you
	Submit to Quotes

08-10-2008, 11:40 AM	#5
Alex . Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,354	True. I don't really have a problem with those being in the Olympics, they are just of very little interest to me. In fact, I would be much more interested if they did include more regional events than they currently do. Even if I still didn't watch them. Though I wouldn't mind seeing a return to a principal of amateurism. I would be fine with rules saying that if you make your living being paid to perform your sport then you're not in the Olympics.
	Submit to Quotes

08-10-2008, 11:41 AM	#6
scaeagles I LIKE! Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,819	A bit of a departure from the current train of thought in this thread....with China being a relatively closed society with control over the media, I was reminded of a story from something BTD had posted regarding athletes who don't win gold failing to bring honor to China. I have an acquaintance named Charlie Hickcox (I used to coach his kid in basketball) who won several swimming medals (3 gold and a silver) in the Mexico City 1964 Olympics. He told me once the US swim team had a two country meet with the Soviets in Moscow shortly thereafter, and the US team beat them rather handily. The press in the Soviet Union reported that in the international meet, the Soviets took second and the US placed next to last. I thought that was pretty creative spin. Might be tough for China to spin the media that much in this day and age.
	Submit to Quotes

08-10-2008, 12:27 PM	#7
scaeagles I LIKE! Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,819	I watched a lot of the USA-China basketball game. I think the US could struggle when they play against teams that know how to control tempo. From what I saw, the US struggled in the half court offense - they scored a very high percentage of their points off the break off of turnovers. Also, China got many, many outside shots and just didn't hit them. The US will need to D up better than that on shooters.
	Submit to Quotes

08-10-2008, 01:03 PM	#9
scaeagles I LIKE! Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,819	Yeah, China didn't suck, but they didn't have any real shooting threats either. The US should indeed take it, but the European teams, and probably Brazil and Argentina will have much better perimeter shooting. I have tremendous confidence in Krzyzewski.
	Submit to Quotes