ManicJack
BANNED
- Apr 4, 2023
- 1,253
- 1,632
- 5,680
🙄Who knew some light-hearted fun about the fragile egos of some big nations' press would be such a controversial take?
🙄Who knew some light-hearted fun about the fragile egos of some big nations' press would be such a controversial take?
But then it wouldn't be artistic gymnastics, it would just be tumbling.I do wish that the women's floor exercise didn't have so much artistic interpretation on the music and dance elements and was purely on the tumbles etc. like the men's is. I know that there are some who would rather the men's be more like the women's to introduce more showmanship and expression and make it less dry as a spectacle too, but it does feel like one of the few remaining gender divides and unlike the historic differences in apparata, it feels like a completely needless one too.
Don't know if this has been written yet, but the United States is the Wout van Aert of this Olympics, so far. We're killing the minor placings.
Gold is at about $78 per gram and silver at $0.90 per gram, so they really shouldn’t be close in value on medal/metal chartDon't worry, they have also made a very understandable graph that clearly explains their placing in the medal table as a function of how much higher you rank a gold than a silver and a silver than a bronze.
View: https://x.com/_ThomasHarvey_/status/1818497819142934609
As I say, I understand if people disagree and like the addition of the interpretive part, but I do feel it's a gender divide that doesn't need to be there. I don't mind if they were to make the women's event a silent, "purer" contest, or if they were to make the men's competition interpretive/musical, but it ought to be the same for both, I feel. I'm always a bit of a purist and would prefer the former but I do understand why others would prefer the latter.But then it wouldn't be artistic gymnastics, it would just be tumbling.
I like the artistry in women's gymnastics and you can tell which gymnasts actually enjoy the artistic part and those who are just trying to get it over. But, what I don't like is when the dance moves are all cutesy like they were being performed by a 5yr. old... that may have been cute and worked for Nadia or the entire '96 US Olympic team, but I much more prefer the more elegant and adult choreography.
Yesterday I was kinda salty when Quadarella faded on the last 100m and finished 4th.
That said, looking at the times she would have needed nearly a PB to get a medal, so yeah...
I can appreciate men's gymnastics and the difficulty of it, but it's always struck me as very stiff and dry. I would not want to see this in women's gymnastics, so...As I say, I understand if people disagree and like the addition of the interpretive part, but I do feel it's a gender divide that doesn't need to be there. I don't mind if they were to make the women's event a silent, "purer" contest, or if they were to make the men's competition interpretive/musical, but it ought to be the same for both, I feel. I'm always a bit of a purist and would prefer the former but I do understand why others would prefer the latter.
Yes, like I said, Quadarella would have needed nearly a PB to finish 3rd, let alone 2nd.Yeah, Ledecky did her thing. but the pace behind was quite fast as well.
Yes, like I said, Quadarella would have needed nearly a PB to finish 3rd, let alone 2nd.
I don't hate the US. This is a fallacy that has arisen because of a few key athletes I dislike who I have been vocal about, and especially regards their media portrayal (in Jess Diggins' case, not even by the American media, but by British media personalities commentating for a British - and rebroadcast for an international - audience. If you dig into the XC skiing thread you'll find me cheerleading Sophia Laukli, for example, but that doesn't come up as often nor does it spark as much discussion as my more negative reactions to Diggins). I accept that the amount of races I've done in Latin America in the Race Design Thread has led to a lot of comments on US foreign policy in the region which has had an overwhelmingly negative bent, but that's because in all honesty US foreign policy in Latin America has deserved every bit of criticism that has come its way and more, and much of it is understandably whitewashed to the home audience just like other superpowers, colonists and imperial powers did in the past and continue to do in the present.
However, what I do view with wariness and have an overwhelming tendency to reject, is jingoism. Much of Europe has a fraught history with nationalism and a very terse relationship with it, and fear of its periodic sticking of its head above the parapet and the electoral success that it has leads excessive patriotism to be viewed with concern or even fear. This concern is not something that America can really relate to, but it does mean that much of the "USA! USA!" cheerleading and appeal to national symbols and obsession with the flag that has no real stigma in America is viewed by many as being vulgar or worthy of contempt. However, much of the time it is not American people (though admittedly sometimes it can be) propagating this stereotype, but the US media. While bias in favour of one's home athletes is to be expected, where this is to the detriment of the coverage of the overall event I will be critical, and have indeed slated the British commentary and the French TV direction for this already in this thread. It is by no means unique to the Americans, but this particular example of multiple US news sources rewriting the rules to favour themselves is a funny example of the US press' fragile egos and need to continually portray themselves as #1 to their readership/viewership/listenership. Like it's not enough for those news outlets to make sure that America isn't portrayed in a negative light, they have to make sure nobody else can be portrayed in a more positive light than America either.
The fact of the matter, however, is that the medal table as stipulated by the IOC is ranked based on the number of golds 1st, then the number of silvers, then the number of bronzes, and the total medal count is secondary to that as a tie break (which is why, yes, France are ahead of Japan). Every country that publishes a medal table is publishing based on these rules, except for multiple sources that have been provided, all of which are in one nation, which is changing the rules to put themselves at the top even though they'll probably be at the top legitimately by the end of the Games anyway. This is viewed with derision and ridiculed because it is a further example of the exceptionalism that is a large part of why both perceived and real anti-American sentiment is generated, and the fact that we now have people coming to the defence of this exceptionalism by creating a complex and entirely unnecessary mathematical explanation for why it's not ridiculous is having fun poked at it with good reason.
I would love to see a graph lets say looking at US w population of 340,000,000 and Australia w estimated population of 27,000,000( California is 39million!!!) love to see ratios of medals proportional to population, and money spent on Olympic development!! There are lots of smaller countries for sure, but I personally have always been impressed with the number of awesome, champion level sports people that come out of Australia!! Sort of inevitable that China and US will have lots of winners just from playing the odds of percentage of population participating..Who knew some light-hearted fun about the fragile egos of some big nations' press would be such a controversial take?
This thread is so confusing!
It's swimming, and gymnastics, and how-to-do-medal-ranking, and some tennis, all mixed together in a nice soup.
But the posts that I have made in the Race Design Thread where the locations have meant that I have delved into US foreign policy when discussing them - which is what I was referring to there as they form part of the reason I was being perceived as hating the US - have largely been about that part of the world.It’s not just Latin America…
The German Rowing Eight had a case of sickness before their repechage, but they asked J. Christ for help and he helped put them through into the finals.
I would love to see a graph lets say looking at US w population of 340,000,000 and Australia w estimated population of 27,000,000( California is 39million!!!) love to see ratios of medals proportional to population, and money spent on Olympic development!! There are lots of smaller countries for sure, but I personally have always been impressed with the number of awesome, champion level sports people that come out of Australia!! Sort of inevitable that China and US will have lots of winners just from playing the odds of percentage of population participating..
Australia is a sports loving country and we know we are small so we love to beat the big guys. After hosting the 1956 Olympics Australia became complacent about results and sports funding didn't keep up with the rest of the world. In 1976 Australia hit a low ebb - the public demanded better. The Australian government then set up the Australian Institute of sport. From 1980 onwards Australia's Olympic results steadily improved. Australia do pretty well in cycling too for a country on the other side of the planet. Phil Anderson was a pioneer.I would love to see a graph lets say looking at US w population of 340,000,000 and Australia w estimated population of 27,000,000( California is 39million!!!) love to see ratios of medals proportional to population, and money spent on Olympic development!! There are lots of smaller countries for sure, but I personally have always been impressed with the number of awesome, champion level sports people that come out of Australia!! Sort of inevitable that China and US will have lots of winners just from playing the odds of percentage of population participating..
