Anyone give a shit about the Olympics?

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2004-08-20 06:36pm

Gil Hamilton wrote:
Durandal wrote:God damn, I wanna fuck Carly Patterson.
I don't know, Carly Patterson is nice and doable, but Mohini Bhardwaj is the hotness of the Women's Team this year.

Seriously. She can ride my pommel horse anytime she wants.

mauldooku · Post by **mauldooku** » 2004-08-20 09:53pm

I care about the fencing, of course. The Gold in Women's Sabre was truly amazing: First olympic medal in any fencing event since 1984, first Olympic Gold in any event since 1904!

SpacedTeddyBear · Post by **SpacedTeddyBear** » 2004-08-20 10:04pm

Whoohoo they actually showed the mens 10K in it's entirety. I think the last time that's happened was during the 1964 olympics when Billy Mills pulled off that upset.

As for the Carly Patterson chick; this kinda goes hand in hand with the petite women fetish thread in ARSE.

Post by **RogueIce** » 2004-08-21 03:50am

I have just been made aware...

Walking is an Olympic medal sport.

Yeah. That's it. The Olympics have hit rock bottom for me now.

Post by **fgalkin** » 2004-08-21 04:02am

RogueIce wrote:I have just been made aware...

Walking is an Olympic medal sport.

Yeah. That's it. The Olympics have hit rock bottom for me now.

Its more like a semi-walk semi-jog kind of thing. The official time for the winner is 1:19:40, making his average speed about 9mph, which is a bit fast for a long-distance walk.

And no, I didn't see it, I got the result from here

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2004-08-21 07:15am

RogueIce wrote:I have just been made aware...

Walking is an Olympic medal sport.

Yeah. That's it. The Olympics have hit rock bottom for me now.

Well, yes, but the athlete who won walk/jogged 20km in an hour and a third. That's pretty damn fast and on average fast than most people run.

Post by **Cairber** » 2004-08-21 07:37am

Is anyone suspicious about the judging in the gymnastics? It just seems like two athletes will fall on their ass and one will still get a 9.119 and the other will get an 8.6 even though their routines started with the same difficulty.

2000AD · Post by **2000AD** » 2004-08-21 06:11pm

Darth Wong wrote:
2000AD wrote:And say what you want aboiut gymnastics and over "score based" events but i still think they deserve to be there as physical condition and skill are still the centre of them, just like any other sport. Watching some of the insane shit they pull off you can't help but be impressed.
You could say the same thing about professional wrestling. The point is that it is not a event whose winner is determined via objective means in fair competition.

What's unfair about it? The person that performs the hardest gymnastic feat with the best quality will win (barring some biased judging and even then they can appeal).
It is also objective as performing a triple summersault is a real thing and is harder than performing a double summersault. Just like running 100m in 9.9 seconds is harder than ruinning it in 10s , shooting 10 clay pidgeons is harder than shooting 9, synchronising your diving to your partner is harder than not doing so, or throwing a javelin 75m is harder than throwing it 70m..

As for the comparison of pro-wrestling to gymnastics ... well ..... yeah skill and physical condition are a big part of both, but where as the Olympic gymnasts put their skill and condiition into serious competetion, pro wrestlers put it into acting and entertaining a crowd. There's a huge difference there.

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2004-08-21 09:59pm

The difference between shooting clay pigeons or running 100m in X seconds, and performing a gymnastic move, is that you can objectively measure the difference between two performances in the former two events and not in the second. A triple somersault might be harder, but how much harder? How do you quantify it? Especially on the Olympic level, where the gap between the competitors is so narrow a hundredth of a point can separate a gold medal and not medaling at all. Are you honestly telling me you can objectively say, "That performance was worth 9.567 points but that other one was worth 9.574 points". Obviously you can't, and the sport tacitly acknowledges this by having many judges rating each performance and averaging their score.

The analogy to pro-wrestling still isn't valid, though--in pro-wrestling, the entire "contest" is scripted, whereas in gymnastics, the results are determined subjectively, but they're not determined ahead of time.

SpacedTeddyBear · Post by **SpacedTeddyBear** » 2004-08-21 10:36pm

To quote from the movie Prefontaine;
Pre-" So what's the standard for how long our hair gets before it becomes offensive? It's a completely arbitrary length no matter how long it is."

Bowerman-" So is the length of a meter. Does that make the hundred meter race unfair?"

Pre-" Well, not if everyone here agrees on what length it is."

Bowerman-" Well let's all agree on the length. No one on the Oregon Track Team will have hair longer than his dick, which means everyone gets a haircut except Bob."

Pre- " Why except Bob?"

Bowerman-" God's will"

Anways, with any event that you can measure with a stopwatch, crossbar, and etc. you have an exact measure of how a person performed in that event. Yes there are standard scoring procedures in judged based events, but they are always going to be interperated differently with each judge.

As for race walking; Some of those walkers are pretty damn fast walkers. Some of them walk mid 6-minute mile pace on average.

2000AD · Post by **2000AD** » 2004-08-22 09:40am

RedImperator wrote: A triple somersault might be harder, but how much harder? How do you quantify it?

I suppose you could quantify it, as you would have to jump higher and/or spin faster to perform a triple somersault than a double, just like you have to run that little bit faster to do the 100m in 9.9s instead of 10s .
I personally don't know how to quantify it but i bet there's people who do.

Especially on the Olympic level, where the gap between the competitors is so narrow a hundredth of a point can separate a gold medal and not medaling at all. Are you honestly telling me you can objectively say, "That performance was worth 9.567 points but that other one was worth 9.574 points". Obviously you can't, and the sport tacitly acknowledges this by having many judges rating each performance and averaging their score.

I can look at a gymnastic performance with a totally untrained eye and can pick up the basic objective differences ("that gymnasts landing was less controlled as they had to take another step"), and the judges with a lifeimes experience in the fiield (IIRC a lot of the judges are ex-gymnasts) can pick up things i would miss or wouldn't even know had happened unless a slo-mo replay is shown with a commentator pointing it out.
It might not be as easy to objectively judge as something like the 100m, where we can use equipment to accuratley measure the time, but we can objectively measure it.

The analogy to pro-wrestling still isn't valid, though--in pro-wrestling, the entire "contest" is scripted, whereas in gymnastics, the results are determined subjectively, but they're not determined ahead of time.[/quote]

2000AD · Post by **2000AD** » 2004-08-22 09:43am

Doh. can a mod edit out the pro-wrestling bit at the end of that post, i forgot to delete it.

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2004-08-22 01:10pm

Durandal wrote:[snip]

Bwahahahaha, you sick fuck!

One of the only advantages behind being the seventeen year old male here. I could fuck that and not think twice or have people look at me like a criminal.

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2004-08-22 01:22pm

Well, if I didn't care about the Olympics before, I do now that I've seen the US Womens Beach Volleyball team. They are so loverly... *sighs contentedly*

Perinquus · Post by **Perinquus** » 2004-08-22 03:36pm

Gil Hamilton wrote:Well, if I didn't care about the Olympics before, I do now that I've seen the US Womens Beach Volleyball team. They are so loverly... *sighs contentedly*

Which one? McPeak and Youngs are decent looking. May and Walsh distinctly less so. Walsh is simply not an attractive woman.

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2004-08-22 03:41pm

Perinquus wrote:Which one? McPeak and Youngs are decent looking. May and Walsh distinctly less so. Walsh is simply not an attractive woman.

I liked May and Walsh in the shot of them they showed outside of their play clothes, when they don't have their hair tied up, with sunglasses and covered in sweat and sand.

ArmorPierce · Post by **ArmorPierce** » 2004-08-22 07:38pm

Durandal wrote:God damn, I wanna fuck Carly Patterson.

Your realize that she's 16 and just started going into puberty (all the work that gymansts do delays puberty).

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2004-08-22 08:04pm

ArmorPierce wrote:Your realize that she's 16 and just started going into puberty (all the work that gymansts do delays puberty).

He probably does, since like five people have already told him that.

ArmorPierce · Post by **ArmorPierce** » 2004-08-22 08:15pm

Yes, I realized that after scrolling further down but unfortunately this forum doesn't have a delete post option and I didn't want to make another post to point out the obvious. Anyway, I did bring in information that wasn't mentioned in the other posts pointing out to him that she was 16.

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2004-08-22 08:19pm

ArmorPierce wrote:Yes, I realized that after scrolling further down but unfortunately this forum doesn't have a delete post option and I didn't want to make another post to point out the obvious. Anyway, I did bring in information that wasn't mentioned in the other posts pointing out to him that she was 16.

Except for neoolong and Perinquus, who did in fact point out that she was sixteen.

ArmorPierce · Post by **ArmorPierce** » 2004-08-22 08:35pm

I didn't word the last post the best way

. I meant that those other posts that mentioned that she was 16 didn't mention that puberty was delayed by the life style of olympian level gymnasts (hence her being 4'9" at age 16, which could actually increase her height because she has more time if childhood growth). Anyway we're derailing off the purpose of this thread so to make that this isn't pure spam I'll put my opinion forth on my review of the Olympics

.

IMO, the Olympics needs to be lucritive enough to support the athletes so that we can get the best athletes in the world. The Olympics were originally created to cater to the rich who could support themselves. It was originally created by society elites not wanting to compete with those they considered their underlings (also the fact that they didn't want to be embarrassed competing against those who would have dusted them due to it being their job to do the manual labor). The olympics has its origins as a gentleman sport. As for me, the only thing I watch is some of the Track & field events.

Pu-239 · Post by **Pu-239** » 2004-08-23 01:01am

Did I see the DPRK compete on the women's uneven bars

?

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2004-08-23 07:04am

Pu-239 wrote:Did I see the DPRK compete on the women's uneven bars ?

You weren't seeing things. North Korea sent 27 athletes and 8 of them were gymnasts.

2000AD · Post by **2000AD** » 2004-08-23 02:52pm

Gil Hamilton wrote:
Pu-239 wrote:Did I see the DPRK compete on the women's uneven bars ?
You weren't seeing things. North Korea sent 27 athletes and 8 of them were gymnasts.

Aren't North and South Korea competing together under Korea?

Perinquus · Post by **Perinquus** » 2004-08-23 03:37pm

2000AD wrote:Aren't North and South Korea competing together under Korea?

No.

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Anyone give a shit about the Olympics?

Anyone else profoundly apathetic?