Olympic thread ** non cycling. **SPOILERS**

Pross

Atlanta was dire. However, I was on honeymoon at the time in Florida and spent an hour or so queuing to see some USA medallists (but really that man Johnson) being paraded in Disney World (I nearly got removed for explaining to a photographer why turning up at the last minute and positioning themselves in front of me was a bad idea but they moved!). As above he's a real asset in the BBC team and all the more so as he won't go over-the-top in praising a GB performance when it has plainly been below par or talking up the chances of an obvious also ran.

ballysmate

Remember when Darren Campbell claimed he had pulled his hamstring and then announced that he was going to run the next race? Johnson called it as he saw it.
As people have said, a class act and well worth every penny the BBC pay him.


https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2004/ ... athletics4

"Darren told him [Johnson] 'I'm not happy about what you've been saying about me' and Johnson replied 'That's my opinion.' When Darren said 'Let's get this straight. Are you saying I've been lying about my injury?' Johnson responded 'Yes'. Then he walked away."

ballysmate

Lewis Smith visibly gutted at getting silver.
At least it was a honest reaction instead of the usual, "I'm really pleased for........winning gold" guff.

ballysmate

Caster Semanya presents an ethical dilemma. No ovaries and as much testosterone as a man, produced by testes. If any other female athlete had this level of hormone she would be a doper.
Where does she fit in?

http://sportsscientists.com/2016/07/cas ... ya-debate/

awavey

KingstonGraham wrote:

Graeme_S wrote:

Yesterday really was amazing. I remember the Barcelona Olympics in 1992 as being a low point for GB at the Olympics (not sure if that's statistically the case, but I was 11, and my recollection is we were generally rubbish). At Barcelona, we won 5 gold medals during the entire games. We won 5 gold medals yesterday.

Atlanta 1996. A gold medal for Redgrave and Pinsent and that's it. Fifteen other medals in total.

National Lottery funding for elite sport began in 1997.

yep Atlanta was the low point, Barcelona was pretty good AFAICR, the fountain, Des Lynam, Sally Gunnell, Boardman etc etc 5 Golds was considered a pretty successful return given how low key and quite literally amateurish way sport was approached back then.

the lottery funding changed certainly things massively for gymnastics,cycling and the sports often overlooked outside of the olympic cycle, and TeamGB are now reaping the rewards and the success breeds more success which is great

Anonymous

Garry H

Ballysmate wrote:

Lewis Smith visibly gutted at getting silver.
At least it was a honest reaction instead of the usual, "I'm really pleased for........winning gold" guff.

...and better than the last time he got silver, then went into a huff because he thought he was better than the guy who got gold.

Maybe should have spent less time being a "celebrity" and more in the gym.

figbat

laurentian wrote:

Pross wrote:

So, if a cox gets a medal in rowing does the caddy get one in golf?

No they don't but, should a caddy fail a drugs test, the golfer will have his medal withdrawn even if the golfer himself is clean. ( or so I read at the weekend )

No medal for Charlotte Dujardin's horse, Valegro, either and the same applies - he could fail a drugs test and get them both disqualified and he wouldn't have had any involvement in the drug administration at all.

Pross

The horse gets a sash and rosette though.

Seriously though, a golf caddy and rowing cox perform a very similar role, if they were cycling alongside with a megaphone they probably wouldn't get a medal so it seems the reason is because they get to sit in the boat otherwise they would basically be like a coach shouting instructions.

laurentian

ON the boxing front, Nicola Adams starts the defence of her title today, whilst the impressive Josh Buatsi (sp?) fights in his semi final with Joyce to follow.

Does anyone else think that dropping the head guards in the Men's competition has added a different dynamic to the Olympic boxing? I have seen two or three knock outs and stoppages that I can't recall seeing in many recent games.

kingstongraham

figbat wrote:

laurentian wrote:

Pross wrote:

So, if a cox gets a medal in rowing does the caddy get one in golf?

No they don't but, should a caddy fail a drugs test, the golfer will have his medal withdrawn even if the golfer himself is clean. ( or so I read at the weekend )

No medal for Charlotte Dujardin's horse, Valegro, either and the same applies - he could fail a drugs test and get them both disqualified and he wouldn't have had any involvement in the drug administration at all.

The interview with Valegro's parents on the radio this morning brought a tear to the eye.

DeVlaeminck

That marathon swimming judging is a bit odd, result changing several times when it is pretty clear on the video what the actual result was. At this moment they have the first 4 right now at least. GB swimmer DQed from 5th, from what you can tell on TV pictures unfairly and he was raging about it.

Pross

laurentian wrote:

ON the boxing front, Nicola Adams starts the defence of her title today, whilst the impressive Josh Buatsi (sp?) fights in his semi final with Joyce to follow.

Does anyone else think that dropping the head guards in the Men's competition has added a different dynamic to the Olympic boxing? I have seen two or three knock outs and stoppages that I can't recall seeing in many recent games.

I think the change to the points system has changed things too. It's no longer about simply landing punches and getting a stoppage is a sure fire way to win, especially if you've dropped a round. It didn't seem to suit the British teams' style in the earlier categories.

Pross

The ref and corner man for the Uzbek fighter are lucky he didn't get seriously injured there, really should have been stopped by one of them. Joyce looking seriously impressive.

mrfpb

laurentian wrote:

ON the boxing front, Nicola Adams starts the defence of her title today, whilst the impressive Josh Buatsi (sp?) fights in his semi final with Joyce to follow.

Does anyone else think that dropping the head guards in the Men's competition has added a different dynamic to the Olympic boxing? I have seen two or three knock outs and stoppages that I can't recall seeing in many recent games.

I didn't like boxing before, dislike it even more now. Regular blows to the unprotected head is just wrong.

DeVlaeminck

mrfpb wrote:

laurentian wrote:

ON the boxing front, Nicola Adams starts the defence of her title today, whilst the impressive Josh Buatsi (sp?) fights in his semi final with Joyce to follow.

Does anyone else think that dropping the head guards in the Men's competition has added a different dynamic to the Olympic boxing? I have seen two or three knock outs and stoppages that I can't recall seeing in many recent games.

I didn't like boxing before, dislike it even more now. Regular blows to the unprotected head is just wrong.

They dropped the head guards because there was no evidence they actually protected the head - they actually make it a bigger target. The gloves are only really there to protect the face and presumably the hands rather than the brain.

I do share some of your reservations about a sport in which the aim is to hit and hurt the opponent though - especially since attending a live boxing show some years back and more so since suffering a head injury myself. For all that I can see the upsides to the sport and if people want to take part I wouldn't ban it I just wouldn't encourage my own kids into it - the same goes for riding motorbikes and a few other risky activities though.

Anonymous

Not really. The main effort in boxing is to render your opponent to a pulp. Not many (any?) sports have the same main effort. Injury may be a risk, but not the intention

kingstongraham

coriordan wrote:

Not really. The main effort in boxing is to render your opponent to a pulp. Not many (any?) sports have the same main effort. Injury may be a risk, but not the intention

Agree - the previous incarnation of Olympic boxing scoring moved the skill required away from hitting someone hard until their brain is injured, to getting through the defence and landing punches. It was also a lot less open to accusations of corruption.

bompington

Some testosterone fuelled remarks flying about??

crispybug2

They dropped the head guards because there was no evidence they actually protected the head - they actually make it a bigger target. The gloves are only really there to protect the face and presumably the hands rather than the brain.


I remember talking to a boxing trainer a fair few years ago and his contention was that for all the blood it spilled bare knuckle boxing was the safest way to go as you couldn't punch your opponents head with anything close to the same PSI if you were wearing gloves because you would break all your fingers!! It'll never happen of course but it's an interesting argument!

tangled_metal

That is actually born out by considering the number of knockouts before gloves were introduced and after. Look at what IIRC is called boxer's finger, it's a break in the knuckle of the little finger often seen when drunken revellers have been in a punch up. The punch connects with the head and the outside of the fist contacts most. The fingers can give but the knuckle can't. It breaks.

So there's some truth about the bare knuckle fighting. One more point, bare knuckle fighting also leads to more cuts. If boxers get punches to the head resulting in cuts fight over quicker.

At least that was the gist of what I once read about it. Interesting how what was considered the least safe could be the safest.

DeVlaeminck

coriordan wrote:

Not really. The main effort in boxing is to render your opponent to a pulp. Not many (any?) sports have the same main effort. Injury may be a risk, but not the intention

Think you may have skim read my post and got the wrong end of the stick unless you were replying to someone else.

Garry H

Tangled Metal wrote:

That is actually born out by considering the number of knockouts before gloves were introduced and after. Look at what IIRC is called boxer's finger, it's a break in the knuckle of the little finger often seen when drunken revellers have been in a punch up. The punch connects with the head and the outside of the fist contacts most. The fingers can give but the knuckle can't. It breaks.

So there's some truth about the bare knuckle fighting. One more point, bare knuckle fighting also leads to more cuts. If boxers get punches to the head resulting in cuts fight over quicker.

At least that was the gist of what I once read about it. Interesting how what was considered the least safe could be the safest.

The variety of punches was also fewer, mostly limited to the face and torso and less to the head as a whole.

ballysmate

Brownlee bros? If I had a hat, I'd take it off.

DeVlaeminck

Never in doubt once the danger man got dropped on the swim but Christ that sport is boring - wish they'd stick the bike leg last it would make it a much better watch.

Pross

The women's 4 x 100m relay heat was a bit of a farce with the Yanks having the baton knocked out of their hand and so having to run a time trial to see if they got a place in the final at the expense of the Chinese. Is the Olympic stadium a new build or a re-fit? I thought modern athletics tracks tended to have a 9th lane to allow for issues like that.

Pross

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Never in doubt once the danger man got dropped on the swim but Christ that sport is boring - wish they'd stick the bike leg last it would make it a much better watch.

That would seem sensible but in reality you would probably just get bunches of runners who then try to ride away at the end of the cycle leg instead. The best thing would be to stop drafting as in longer events or failing that do something with the swim to try to get more gaps at the start of the bike leg. That's not intended as a criticism of the sport or the athletes who are incredible but it has become so run biased, not many people get dropped on the cycling leg.

awavey

Pross wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Never in doubt once the danger man got dropped on the swim but Christ that sport is boring - wish they'd stick the bike leg last it would make it a much better watch.

That would seem sensible but in reality you would probably just get bunches of runners who then try to ride away at the end of the cycle leg instead. The best thing would be to stop drafting as in longer events or failing that do something with the swim to try to get more gaps at the start of the bike leg. That's not intended as a criticism of the sport or the athletes who are incredible but it has become so run biased, not many people get dropped on the cycling leg.

make the cycling leg harder or longer, 40k, which was basically just x many laps of a fairly flat circuit, just isnt enough distance or time to try and put breaking gaps in, and why arent triathlons run to the same distances anyway?

morstar

The Olympics is the reason triathlons are drafting events as they didn't think the audience liked the TT format.

Yesterdays was a good course and on such a course, the argument that it's all about the run are completely innaccurate. The bike drafting makes the swim and bike hugely critical. You have to get out the swim near the front to get the lead group on the bike. Brownlees absolutely hammer the pace at the start of the bike leg to get away from the likes of Mola and Gomez who can live with them on the run.
In Leeds, Gomez was 50 metres behind at the start of bike leg but just missed bridging, hugely critical moment as the Brownlees extended the gap on the bike. To win, you absolutely have to be near the front of the swim. The main rival to the Brownlees yesterday was Mola, he finished the swim something like 18 seconds down but started the run about a minute and a half down because the chase group was less organised than the lead group. The lead group always works hardest as are you are severely enhancing your medal chances.

I personally would go non-drafting as I do think the dynamics of the event are wrong at present. On a technical bike course, it's the swim to bike transition that is too important as a result of drafting though, not the run.

However, on an easy bike course, the whole thing can come together on the bike and then it is all about the run.

morstar

and why arent triathlons run to the same distances anyway?

Not sure what you mean by this. Olympic (or standard distance) triathlons are always the same distance, 1,500m, 40K, 10K. Other events distances are available as with any sport.