


Moderator: Community Team
Timminz wrote:I understand the argument to remove all judged sports from the Olympics.
/ 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!
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.
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?
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?
Mr_Adams wrote:You, sir, are an idiot.
Timminz wrote:By that logic, you eat babies.
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.
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.
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 ;_;
Timminz wrote:I understand the argument to remove all judged sports from the Olympics.
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.
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.
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)
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
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
Users browsing this forum: No registered users