Conquer Club

I don't want to talk about doping. Everyone knows some sports have this problem and fights with it. I mean outright cheating. I just watched heavyweight boxing and in the last match there is no bloody way on Earth that Brith Joshua has defeated Cuban Savon. It is just that the Uzbek and Kazakh refs has decided to help the home boxer. Why? What are they trying to achieve? Boxing in the last Olympic was a disgrace and it is going to be a disgrace in London... IMHO, it is nearly as bad as figure skating

I understand the argument to remove all judged sports from the Olympics.

How about soccer? (Football if Europeans are going to get predictably pissy about it)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstop ... -play.html
I demand illiterate refs!

Timminz wrote:I understand the argument to remove all judged sports from the Olympics.

No, why? I think diving is quite reasonable. To be honest, I have little clue what is going on but I can see all the points the commentators mention in the slow motion. Moreover, I do not remember any scandals or controversies in diving...

It is all the attitude of the sporting bodies. Good job badminton disqualified 8 players today. I hope table tennis shows some guts and disqualifies the italian ref who was in the charge of the women's final today.

/ wrote:How about soccer? (Football if Europeans are going to get predictably pissy about it)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstop ... -play.html
I demand illiterate refs!

OK, I am adding it but I don't think it is that corrupt. It just has too few goals, so penalty and goal decisions have too much weight on the game. Thus, the scope for corruption is immense but the situation is reasonable overall...

Pope Joan wrote:

Timminz wrote:I understand the argument to remove all judged sports from the Olympics.

No, why? I think diving is quite reasonable. To be honest, I have little clue what is going on but I can see all the points the commentators mention in the slow motion. Moreover, I do not remember any scandals or controversies in diving...

It is all the attitude of the sporting bodies. Good job badminton disqualified 8 players today. I hope table tennis shows some guts and disqualifies the italian ref who was in the charge of the women's final today.

Speaking of the badminton thing...there's something I don't understand about that. From what I understand, competitors were trying to lose matches so that they'd get a more favorable opponent later in the tournament, right? That makes zero sense to me...pool play is designed to set up the "seedings" such that the best player in one pool will play the worst player in another pool. So why wouldn't the best record be playing the worst record? And if that is true, then...losing does not at all help someone get a more favorable later opponent. So...what obvious thing am I missing here? Does badminton do something really stupid in their seedings?

Woodruff wrote:

Pope Joan wrote:

Timminz wrote:I understand the argument to remove all judged sports from the Olympics.

No, why? I think diving is quite reasonable. To be honest, I have little clue what is going on but I can see all the points the commentators mention in the slow motion. Moreover, I do not remember any scandals or controversies in diving...

It is all the attitude of the sporting bodies. Good job badminton disqualified 8 players today. I hope table tennis shows some guts and disqualifies the italian ref who was in the charge of the women's final today.

Speaking of the badminton thing...there's something I don't understand about that. From what I understand, competitors were trying to lose matches so that they'd get a more favorable opponent later in the tournament, right? That makes zero sense to me...pool play is designed to set up the "seedings" such that the best player in one pool will play the worst player in another pool. So why wouldn't the best record be playing the worst record? And if that is true, then...losing does not at all help someone get a more favorable later opponent. So...what obvious thing am I missing here? Does badminton do something really stupid in their seedings?

I'm not entirely sure as to why the badminton teams wanted to lose, but I understand in American team sports why it's big. Sports isn't necessarily who's better than who but pure matchups. Maybe they thought they had a better chance against a higher seed which I can definitely see happening (think about like when an 8-8 team in football can win their division and are automatically the fourth seed while wild card teams, regardless of their record, are automatically fifth and sixth).

Woodruff wrote:

Pope Joan wrote:

Timminz wrote:I understand the argument to remove all judged sports from the Olympics.

No, why? I think diving is quite reasonable. To be honest, I have little clue what is going on but I can see all the points the commentators mention in the slow motion. Moreover, I do not remember any scandals or controversies in diving...

It is all the attitude of the sporting bodies. Good job badminton disqualified 8 players today. I hope table tennis shows some guts and disqualifies the italian ref who was in the charge of the women's final today.

Speaking of the badminton thing...there's something I don't understand about that. From what I understand, competitors were trying to lose matches so that they'd get a more favorable opponent later in the tournament, right? That makes zero sense to me...pool play is designed to set up the "seedings" such that the best player in one pool will play the worst player in another pool. So why wouldn't the best record be playing the worst record? And if that is true, then...losing does not at all help someone get a more favorable later opponent. So...what obvious thing am I missing here? Does badminton do something really stupid in their seedings?

Well, the crux of the Black Cocks scandal is that there were two Chinese teams, ranked 1 and 2. Chinese team #1 (the team that was disqualified) wanted to avoid playing its countrymen as long as possible, so as to maximize the medal odds for the motherland. Winning the game against South Korea, while it would have given them a higher seeding, would have put them and the other Chinese team on a course to collide before the finals. South Korea caught on to the Chinese ruse, and also wanted to avoid playing the other Chinese team, but for the less noble rationale that the other Chinese team is really good and would probably beat them. I haven't quite figured out why the other two teams also tried to throw the game, but my gut is that Indonesians are copycats.

spurgistan wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

Pope Joan wrote:

Timminz wrote:I understand the argument to remove all judged sports from the Olympics.

No, why? I think diving is quite reasonable. To be honest, I have little clue what is going on but I can see all the points the commentators mention in the slow motion. Moreover, I do not remember any scandals or controversies in diving...

It is all the attitude of the sporting bodies. Good job badminton disqualified 8 players today. I hope table tennis shows some guts and disqualifies the italian ref who was in the charge of the women's final today.

Speaking of the badminton thing...there's something I don't understand about that. From what I understand, competitors were trying to lose matches so that they'd get a more favorable opponent later in the tournament, right? That makes zero sense to me...pool play is designed to set up the "seedings" such that the best player in one pool will play the worst player in another pool. So why wouldn't the best record be playing the worst record? And if that is true, then...losing does not at all help someone get a more favorable later opponent. So...what obvious thing am I missing here? Does badminton do something really stupid in their seedings?

Well, the crux of the Black Cocks scandal is that there were two Chinese teams, ranked 1 and 2. Chinese team #1 (the team that was disqualified) wanted to avoid playing its countrymen as long as possible, so as to maximize the medal odds for the motherland. Winning the game against South Korea, while it would have given them a higher seeding, would have put them and the other Chinese team on a course to collide before the finals.

Ah! Ok, that makes a lot of sense. Trying to avoid one specific team is a good rationale for trying what they did. Somehow, I had missed that as being a part of it, though it seems obvious to me now.

spurgistan wrote:South Korea caught on to the Chinese ruse, and also wanted to avoid playing the other Chinese team, but for the less noble rationale that the other Chinese team is really good and would probably beat them. I haven't quite figured out why the other two teams also tried to throw the game, but my gut is that Indonesians are copycats.

This made me laugh out loud. I have visions of "Hmmm...that team is REALLY STRONG, and they obviously think this is a good tactic. So we should do this too."

it is possible to corrupt any sport. if you remove every sport that it is possible to corrupt then you will be left with 0 ;_;

yang guize wrote:it is possible to corrupt any sport. if you remove every sport that it is possible to corrupt then you will be left with 0 ;_;

full contact chess

Timminz wrote:I understand the argument to remove all judged sports from the Olympics.

In my world... if it's not objective, it's not a sport.

Gymnasts may be athletic... but Gymnastics is NOT a sport.
How about an obstacle course for gymnasts... that could be timed and be objective.

Boxing should have NO judges.

Two guys should enter a ring... and the rounds should go on and on till one of them falls or relents.

I actually agree, I have seen a couple of controversial decisions for us in the boxing. I think the problem is beyond the Olympics in boxing though, so often the big money fighter wins a controversial decision.

Speaking of controversy I thought we should have been DQ'd in the men's cycling today, as much as I like Sir Chris, his team mate clearly fell deliberately to gain a restart unfairly.

jimboston wrote:

Timminz wrote:I understand the argument to remove all judged sports from the Olympics.

In my world... if it's not objective, it's not a sport.

Gymnasts may be athletic... but Gymnastics is NOT a sport.
How about an obstacle course for gymnasts... that could be timed and be objective.

Boxing should have NO judges.

Two guys should enter a ring... and the rounds should go on and on till one of them falls or relents.

That kinda just shows you dont really know anything about the sports in question.

I can kind of agree on the boxing thing, but the rest of your post is just un-informed dribble. A gymnastics obstacle course?

As Yang says every sport is open to corruption (and related: officals human error). Even in your boxing example the ref could miss a low blow that throws one of the competitors off his game which would mean he unjustly loses - its just inherent in competitive sports.

To say Gymnastics isnt a sport just because you dont think the competition is objective is beyond retarded.

Fun fact: The Japanese guy who won individual mens, funnily enough, was the best gymnst on the night; who'd a thunk it?!?!

Lootifer wrote:That kinda just shows you dont really know anything about the sports in question.

To say Gymnastics isnt a sport just because you dont think the competition is objective is beyond retarded.

It is not a sport (IMHO) because there is no objective measurement to determine a winner.

IMHO this is one requirement for what makes a sport... and it is true for many Olympic Events.

Are these people great atheletes? Yes!
Are the things they can make thier body do amazing and impressive? Yes!
Is it physically demanding? Yes!
Can I duplicate any of the things these gymnasts or divers do? No!

That doesn't make it a sport... IMHO.

The same can be said for cheerleading, ballet dancing (or dancing in general)... it can also be said for piano playing (or any musical instrument)... stunts (stunt driving, movie stunts, stunt bicycling, stunt boarding, etc.)... the list goes on.

None of these are a sport to me.

They may be fun to watch... that doesn't make it a sport.

You will always have controversy with subjective measurements of who is the "winner" and "loser"... just like we could debate endlessly over the greatest living guitar player.

I can accept that, I completely disagree, but I can understand where you're coming from.

Apologies for rudeness in earlier post.

I was thinking of a good definition of a sport and really what I think are absolute necessities for a sport to be a sport is the ability for opponents to physically affect your playing of the game, and, like jboston said, objectivity in the scoring.

Even though I think this is really the best requirements for "sports" it's disappointing that this definition allows for the inclusion of NASCAR and chess (which I fucking hate) and keeps golf out (which makes sense. As much as I love golf, it's very one-dimensional).

if it is done to music then it is a performance not a sport.

at the olympics they are playing music whenever the soccer players score. maybe soccer is a performance and not a sport (performance is certainly a good word when they are winning penalties)

greenoaks wrote:if it is done to music then it is a performance not a sport.

yang guize wrote:at the olympics they are playing music whenever the soccer players score. maybe soccer is a performance and not a sport (performance is certainly a good word when they are winning penalties)

No. That's just plain bad interpretation of what greenoaks was saying. Or you're trolling

QoH wrote:

greenoaks wrote:if it is done to music then it is a performance not a sport.

yang guize wrote:at the olympics they are playing music whenever the soccer players score. maybe soccer is a performance and not a sport (performance is certainly a good word when they are winning penalties)

No. That's just plain bad interpretation of what greenoaks was saying. Or you're trolling

I can't imagine why a blatant multi would be trolling, of course...

QoH wrote:

greenoaks wrote:if it is done to music then it is a performance not a sport.

yang guize wrote:at the olympics they are playing music whenever the soccer players score. maybe soccer is a performance and not a sport (performance is certainly a good word when they are winning penalties)

No. That's just plain bad interpretation of what greenoaks was saying. Or you're trolling

Or maybe he has watched soccer and considers it a performance every time a player pretends to be injured.

i think my response was of appropriate seriousness.
he said that something is not a sport if it is done to music. the olympics sport in question was gymnastics. of the gymnastics events, floor uses music while rings, even bars, uneven bars, horse and vault do not. therefore he is entering the conversation to dismiss a sport based on a very small part of its overall content.

every sport has 'objective' elements if you really feel like using that word. 8 badminton players were just disqualified for throwing the match. that is not an 'objective' decision. can you show me a mathematical formula for quantifying 'match throwing' vs. 'not match throwing'? no. that was the referee's subjective decision.

This seems like an appropriate article:
http://1045theteam.com/american-tv-neglected-the-saddest-story-in-the-olympics/

juratoni vs atoev in boxing is a perfect example of stupid refs and/or corruption.
atoev got a better start and was leading 6-4 after round 1 but then juratoni started pummelling him and atoev spent rounds 2 and 3 eating punches or running away.
yep literally running away in circles trying to avoid getting hit.
he was declared a winner in a choir of "boos" coming from the audience.