The Olympic Games 2008 (sport topic)

I watched that movie.  It was kinda funny! 

The dude that fell in the beer vat and tried to drink himself out of it.

I want to see an international circle of beer drinkers trying to play 'fuzzy duck'!
 
Seems I don't have to worry about Phelps when we talk about the 100 meter freestyle, because he won't compete on this discipline!  :innocent:


Forostar said:
...So let Phelps win it all, but not the 100. :)
Click to expand...
 
I wasn't sure which competitions he was competing in.  I saw that he has his 3rd gold, he has 3 more individual events, and 2 relays.  And he seems faster this year than the last Olympics!
 
NigelTufnel said:
There is a reason that the Olympics are only held every four years. These are sports that are really boring and no one else would care about, save a few, which are Gymnastics. The only reason swimming is covered so heavily is that Michael Phelps will probably win 6 or seven gold medals.
Click to expand...

You're entitled to your opinion, but I have to disagree with all of this...

First of all, the modern Olympics were started in imitation of the ancient Greek Olympics. It was the ancient Greeks who established their games every 4 years. That's why Olympics are held every 4 years today. I know your statement was likely facetious, but I thought I'd be an annoying nitpicker and point this out.

Second, the other sports may be boring to you, but not to everyone. I would specify track and field in particular as the real heart of the games.

Here's the way I think of it: the games are a test of athletic ability. This is why gymnastics are important: they test strength and balance. Beyond those attributes, what are the skills that are important in many other sports? Running, jumping and throwing. Track and field tests those skills in a pure way that few other sports do. I'll grant that the tests for throwing aren't perfect, as those events mainly test distance and not accuracy. But overall, I think that the track and field events are the best of the games.

That's why I haven't watched much of the Olympics yet this year - the track and field events just started. I'll be watching over the next week as those are contested.

Finally, heavy coverage of swimming is nothing new. It may be a bit heavier this year because of Phelps, but it has always been featured heavily.
 
Well, Canada is doing a little better now, with some medals in women's trampolining, a gold in men's rowing eights w/cox, and even a distance swimming medal in the 1500m.  So, not a wasted game.

Though, I am confused as to how the hell we can be so terrible at field hockey...can't we just give Sidney Crosby sneakers?
 
There are some sports that really want to make me scratch my head and say what the f*ck is that? Like the indoor bike race. Maybe we can include Olympic Texas Hold 'Em. Daniel Nograneau can represent Canada so LC can have someone to cheer for. ;)
 
Hey, you leave cycling alone.  It's a hell of a good sport.  I don't think there's any competition there is no merit to, really.
 
Tour de France cycling, yes it is ok. But the indoor, it looks like they are racing inside a gymnasium. But I thought cycling is when you throw the puck in the corner and have your forwards  keep moving it between themselves and then throwing it back to the corner.
 
Aha, yeah, something like that.  Indoor cycling though is exactly that - track w/cycling.  It's so it can be regulated.
 
Indoor cycling is something I might bear to watch. But something like the Tour de France is just sheer boredom to me.
 
The TdF is so rarely competitive.  I recognize that it takes a lot of skill to compete and win.  But that doesn't mean I want to watch it.
 
Cycling might be alright to watch if they filmed the surroundings of the course instead of the actual cycling. Some of the environments are fairly pretty. But no, they just show a cluster of people riding their bikes for five hours.

So far, I've felt no compulsion to head for the TV. I watched some running and tennis, but overall the Olympics have completely failed to excite me.
 
It's not the competition or lack thereof I find boring with the Tour de France. Fact is, when it's on TV, it's literally hours of showing people riding their bikes. What's supposed to be interesting about that?
 
As pointed out by SMX, track, which is underway, is too me the core of the games and there have been quite the storylines.

For example, the Chinese favorite was hurt, but was going to run anyway, after a false start noticed he wasn't going to be able too and left the track... didn't run AT ALL

The Mexican runner for the 1500 missed his preliminary run because he overslept (joke away, I've made some already :) )

Powell and Gay (Jamaica, USA) who were favorites to Medal in the 100 disapointed, Powell choked yet again (he did in the worlds and last olympics) and Bolt... a 200m runner got the gold in record time

For the Women's 100 the American didn't medal and Jamaica swept with two runners TYING for silver

Back to men's the Lost Boy of Sudan didn't qualify and neither did the Nation hoping Kenyan who had won it twice for Kenya, yet faild to qualify for the finals for the US in these games...
 
Perun said:
It's not the competition or lack thereof I find boring with the Tour de France. Fact is, when it's on TV, it's literally hours of showing people riding their bikes. What's supposed to be interesting about that?
Click to expand...

I have a similar reaction to watching the marathon.  In the U.S., they televised virtually the entire women's marathon.  I have the utmost respect for marathon runners, and I think it is one of the more important events, but frankly, until the end, watching it is no more exciting than watching paint dry.  Except in 2004 when that crazy Irish "priest" tackled the Brazilian runner, probably costing him the gold medal -- that would have been interesting to see:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cx1TDFV5Vhk

EDIT:  One Olympic sport I very much enjoy watching is indoor volleyball.  Often it's pretty exciting, upsets are not uncommon, and most of those folks are ridiculously good athletes.  Plus, it is not subject to judges' scoring.  Leaving aside the ridiculously high marks given to the ridiculously underage Chinese women's gymnasts, or the inexplicable and indefensible Olympic boxing scoring system, each which is worthy of a criminal investigation, ANY sport that relies on a judge's "marks" is fairly uninteresting to me.  Figure skating is probably the worst culprit -- what the hell does "artistic merit" mean?  That's why I like races and games like volleyball (or basketball or baseball or badminton, etc.).  No subjective scoring.  Yes, they can be influenced -- possibly greatly -- by a referee or umpire.  But, ultimately the players themselves, not the judges, decide the outcome. 

Two final comments about the Chinese gymnasts.  Are we really expected to believe the word of the Chinese government that a girl who looks no older than my four-year-old and is losing her baby teeth is actually sixteen years old?  And are we really expected to believe that the Chinese gymnast competing in the vault who literally fell down on her landing should win a silver medal ahead of the German and American gymnasts who actually remained standing when they landed?  I realize that you have to factor in difficulty, but give me a break. 
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top