Olympics 2024
Comments
-
The sailing is a series of races. Just like a stage race in cycling.
Odd how the winner of the Tour rarely wins the final stage.
And yet again, seemingly half intelligent people on here fail to understand the difference between Olympic sailing (which is dinghies, kite boards, windsurfers) and yachting.
Sure watching the sailing events live won't be the most riveting thing, but a highlights programme with added graphics is a good way to watch. Bit like a transitional flat stage in a stage race not being the most riveting viewing, or a dull nil-nil draw in the football.
0 -
I prefer the sailing approach to the comparative lottery of BMX or some of the kayak racing.
0 -
This is kind of why I made the cost comparison to arts funding. I think arts gets more, but if you add the grass roots funding to elite funding they might be roughly comparable.
There is a pretty good argument in both cases that the output is of no tangible value, but people derive pleasure from it.
Also a good argument in both cases that this is just grant funding for a small part of the UK economy that surrounds sport/arts and draws people to and from within the UK to watch sports/arts. So no different from all manner of other grant funding.
1 -
Can't say that I derive any great satisfaction from knowing I'm seeing competition at the limits of human achievement. I just like watching competition when I have some "investment" in the outcome. It's easy to have this during the OGs, as we tend to support the Team GB competitors, even if we have no knowledge of their sport, or even their existence until they pop up on telly in a potential medal winning position. I get more satisfaction from watching grass roots sport (and via my Swim Dad duties, I've watched zillions of swimming races) as I'm more invested in the outcome, via family involvement and also via wanting team mates, friends etc to do well. (Or, at the Uni swim champs, wanting Loughborough to lose!)
2 -
Fair point. Obviously I have a similar investment in watching brits do well, but I also have equal enjoyment in watching the very best performing at their best (I don't think anyone could watch Bolt's 100m WR and not be amazed). No kids myself but I can completely understand that every parent would enjoy watching their kids thrive and enjoy playing sport. I guess all forms of sport are kind of making their own particular case as there will always be plenty of people enjoying participating and being a spectator.
0 -
Yes, I picked up on your arts comparison. I agree, both probably do not hold much of a tangible value but the cultural value i.e. the pleasure we derive certainly does hold 'value' to us in ways beyond the monetary.
0 -
You didn't make any distinctions about quantity or style of graphics, you said any sport needing TV animations was probably not a great TV sport. Bit of a stupid post really...
- Genesis Croix de Fer
- Dolan Tuono0 -
I never really understood why folk got so committed to "their" football team. But having done the "getting properly invested in the outcome" thing via kids / friends at swimming, I do now. If it's important to you, it's important to you!
0 -
Possibly, just possibly, road cycling isn't a good TV sport either. Personally, I think it is exceptionally dull actually and on further consideration you are correct that absent Sean Kelly, it is not actually possible to determine which group of emaciated men dressed like a cornflake packet are in the lead, or which ones who clearly aren't in the lead really are.
0 -
What channel are you watching to see animations during cycling coverage?
0 -
-
You're not the only one. This is the most interesting part of the TdF:
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Literally the most interesting and tactical racing in the world and he thinks it’s boring hahahahaha
0 -
Yeah I mean I enjoyed watching it and for the amount of money that went into getting the GB athletes there I think it was worth that money. Specially as it all/mainly comes from the national lottery anyway.
1 -
To each their own. I went through a phase, now it don't find it engaging. Perhaps it would be better if they got rid of race radios.
Big claim that it's the "most" of anything though. There's quite a lot of choice and other forms of sport are available.
0 -
"Yeahbut my preferences are better than your preferences."
The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
You do realise that these things are subjective?
Anyway, if you were right then the TdF would be the most watched sporting event, surely?
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
The tour is the most watched sporting event I think. Live at least.
On TV, no, it even close. There are 24 weekends of F1 alone what get higher viewings figures, for one thing.
On which point, if you want "most tactical" then F1 has teams of people with complex algorithms, before the race, who update as they go based on info from people looking at weather radar, track temps, feedback from the drivers, and the position in the race in relation to both people they are racing against and those who are not in competition with, but who might get in the way.
Dunno about you, but that feels more complex to me than deciding if you have a "good feeling" in your legs, and sending Jens up the road half an hour early to bridge up to in a valley when you predictably attack on the penultimate climb of the day.
0 -
I think it is worth it. I remember from Seoul onwards as a kid and seeing a pretty meagre return up until things slowly turned from Sydney/Athens. I think most of us watch primarily to see our own sporting success and no doubt many of the sports utilise funding well.
0 -
This is a cycling forum haha but no, I watch a lot of F1 and cycling is much more tactical.
I appreciate you watched the most boring races in cycling judging by your references (the equivalent of watching the Monaco GP) but there aren’t many sports where the politics of the collective competitors can have such a huge impact on the result.
It’s so common to have to collaborate with rivals you don’t even notice it.
Cycling is a race where the fastest usually doesn’t win. That’s pretty unusual for any kind of racing.
0 -
"This is a cycling forum haha but no, I watch a lot of F1 and cycling is much more tactical."
Well, we are on a multi sport event thread.
And, er, nonsense?
0 -
Meh, GC winners are often the fastest/strongest. One day races are better from that point of view.
0 -
Of course it is. There are only ever 3 variables for f1 tactics. Tyre degradation, gaps for pitting and and track position.
0 -
Funny how they use computers, proprietary algorithms and a team of some of the smartest people in the world to figure it out then in that case.
0 -
-
🤣🤣🤣
The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
I mean, by definition, anyone who wins any bike race is the fastest as they finished quicker than every other competitor.
0 -
If that is your measure, a peloton is more complex than a climate model.
I really must watch more cycling, it sounds very involved.
0 -
-
You should. It has the added advantage that it’s also a genuinely good looking too. Lots of that there countryside that you’re a fan of
0
