Off Topic Olympics

the roofer said:
Canada : 2 gold ...2 silver...5 bronze ......still waiting for our first men's medal .....doh !
Click to expand...

Penny Oleksiak's medal count in Rio included gold in the 100m freestyle and silver in the 100m butterfly and two bronze medals from the 4x100m and 4x200m freestyle relays.

So what you are saying then that this young lady shouldn't be in all the events she has won medals at. She has won almost half your medal haul, bringing home 4 medals up to now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kifflom!
As for the whole greatest Olympian debate, with no criteria being set as in amount of medals, multiple Olympics etc it is quite difficult and Roofs opinion is very valid Ali was an Olympian. However the argument that the Ali is more widely known than the likes of Phelps is flawed in the fact that he is as a boxer and not as an Olympian. Whereas Phelps is synonomous with the Olympics probably more so than the events he has won. That said it is hard to look past Phelps with 5 Olympics and 22 medals is inspiring to say the least (although the guy physically is a freak of nature and was built for swimming). From his double jointed ankles and elbows to his abnormally long arms to height ratio.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/ol...ps-The-man-who-was-built-to-be-a-swimmer.html
 
Jager said:
Penny Oleksiak's medal count in Rio included gold in the 100m freestyle and silver in the 100m butterfly and two bronze medals from the 4x100m and 4x200m freestyle relays.

So what you are saying then that this young lady shouldn't be in all the events she has won medals at. She has won almost half your medal haul, bringing home 4 medals up to now.
Click to expand...
If I had my way jäger , no athlete could enter more than 1 event .
 
the roofer said:
If I had my way jäger , no athlete could enter more than 1 event .
Click to expand...

But that is silly imo, let's take rowing for example, we have 8s, 4s, 2s and single events, so what you are saying is that people who are in the 4s cannot be part of the 8s, so the best athletes cannot take part.

That means it devalues the whole rowing event as teams will have to make a decision on which events to take seriously, so certain countries will send lessor athletes to make up the numbers. The whole ethos of the Olympics would be devalued.

Look at what Phelps has achieved in I think 5 Olympics , that would be lost to the detriment of sport and Olympics, and you'd have to extend it to all events globally, and that would mean far less people would come into it as there would hardly anyone to look up to, for example another Bolt, or my favourite athlete at the moment Farrah.
 
I think there's a stronger argument for stopping team games, as much as I've enjoyed watching them. You could be a sub for the entire tournament and win a gold. The Olympics should be about individual endeavour imo. Maybe draw a line at two competitors, such as syncro diving etc or doubles tennis but that's it. I can see the argument.
 
Kifflom! said:
I think there's a stronger argument for stopping team games, as much as I've enjoyed watching them. You could be a sub for the entire tournament and win a gold. The Olympics should be about individual endeavour imo. Maybe draw a line at two competitors, such as syncro diving etc or doubles tennis but that's it. I can see the argument.
Click to expand...

So you are looking getting rid of rugby 7s, football , basketball, beach volleyball, handball, hockey, most rowing events, sailing etc from the summer games, and quite a few from the winter games. Wouldn't that completely destroy both games?

As for subs for most games, doesn't that happen in football? Dyer coming back to us with a premier league winners medal from Leicester, and all those subs not used in our cup win also got medals.
 
Firstly, I am not "looking at" doing anything of the sort, Jager. I'm saying I can see the argument for it. The Olympics has traditionally been about an individual's athletic prowess but it's now morphed into an international competition between various teams. That may be a good thing but it's definitley not in the spirit of the original Olympian ideal. Years ago we never had all these team games involving loads of participants.

Comparing it to football is facile because by its very nature football is a team sport.

Would the Olympics be diminished if it happened? Yes. Would it result in an Olympics that is closer to what it was meant to be? Yes. Would it be less entertaining? Yes. But that doesn't mean there isn't a valid argument. I don't think anyone should get an Olympic medal without actually participating, but that can and does happen.
 
But it's still about an individual prowess even in team events. But the modern Olympics are completely different from something that was from 2000 years ago. The events now couldn't even be conceived of all those years ago. Let's take cycling for example how can you compare that to anything back then? Well you can't so it's a bit pointless trying to.

The Olympics brings people together it's not just a sporting event, it's about removing barriers for people. I hope other team events actually come into it in future.
 
Cycling was an original event in the first modern Olympics 1896 with 5 events in the velodrome and 1 road event. Tennis and sailing were also original events
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back