Mantas 3 Posted October 9, 2010 Author Share Posted October 9, 2010 Obviously someone shite at sport. Link to post Share on other sites
RobBright 35 Posted October 9, 2010 Share Posted October 9, 2010 Oh dear - that age old argument being brought out. Well you can have all your medals in the commonwealth, enjoy them. It's funny - people get excited about the Olympics, World Cup, Ryder Cup etc, but commonwealth games just doesn't seem to have that same shine to them. Link to post Share on other sites
Thundercat 60 Posted October 9, 2010 Share Posted October 9, 2010 Must have something to do with the multitude of below average competitors from third world countries... Link to post Share on other sites
panhead_pete 27 Posted October 9, 2010 Share Posted October 9, 2010 Shouldn't these be run 18 months later and be called by their proper name? The Olympic trials for countries who never did kick the English out? Link to post Share on other sites
HelperElfMissy 42 Posted October 9, 2010 Share Posted October 9, 2010 Well at least it is amusing with moments of brilliance. I think thousands of connies blocking up the dunny pipes is fairly well close to BRILLIANT! Rob...yeah I know the words of Jerusalem are all about England, but it just does-na sit well with me. It's a personal preference thing. You know what they say about ex-smokers? They are the worst critics?? well It sorta holds true for those that are the 1st Gen born outside of the cold old motherland too Link to post Share on other sites
grungy-gonads 54 Posted October 9, 2010 Share Posted October 9, 2010 Originally Posted By: Mamabear .....connies..... Is that an Aussie slang for them? Link to post Share on other sites
Tubby Beaver 209 Posted October 9, 2010 Share Posted October 9, 2010 Does Canada take part in the Commonwealth Games? Link to post Share on other sites
HelperElfMissy 42 Posted October 9, 2010 Share Posted October 9, 2010 Yes at time of posting Canada was 4th on the Tally Link to post Share on other sites
js 0 Posted October 9, 2010 Share Posted October 9, 2010 Originally Posted By: Black Mountain Must have something to do with the multitude of below average competitors from third world countries... Scotland, Wales and Northern Island? The CG's are the third largest sporting event in the world, just behind the Olympics and the World Cup. They're very important to those 'Third World' countries that just happen to hold significant records: athletics = 100m track, marathon, etc, etc. Also, the CG's are an important test bed for competitors in their respective tournaments e.g. cycling, athletics, swimming, boxing, shooting, weightlifting, etc. I suppose many of the youth of today are too busy texting and trolling the Net rather than more wholesome endeavours ... The CG's: It's all good. Link to post Share on other sites
Tubby Beaver 209 Posted October 9, 2010 Share Posted October 9, 2010 Originally Posted By: SubZero Originally Posted By: Black Mountain Must have something to do with the multitude of below average competitors from third world countries... Scotland, Wales and Northern Island? Exactly which Northern island are you referring to? Iceland? Greenland? Skye? Link to post Share on other sites
js 0 Posted October 9, 2010 Share Posted October 9, 2010 Originally Posted By: Tubby Beaver Originally Posted By: SubZero Originally Posted By: Black Mountain Must have something to do with the multitude of below average competitors from third world countries... Scotland, Wales and Northern Island? Exactly which Northern island are you referring to? Iceland? Greenland? Skye? A rare mispelling - Ireland ... though you could also assume it to be the UK in general. Link to post Share on other sites
Thundercat 60 Posted October 9, 2010 Share Posted October 9, 2010 I realize the Commonwealth Games are big... but seriously, what percentage of the countries competing aren't third world? There's maybe 9 countries of 25 (maybe 10 if you want to be generous)... not really much competition to get excited about. I really don't know how anyone can get excited about 4 countries taking home 70% of the medals... (which is how it stands right now... but I imagine will raise to something closer to 4 countries taking home 80% of the medals) Link to post Share on other sites
HelperElfMissy 42 Posted October 9, 2010 Share Posted October 9, 2010 While that assessment is certainly accurate BM, where does it differ from the Olympic Games - IIRC Russia, China and the USA tend to take home the lions share of Gold Medals every time. It doesn't take away from the joy an Aussie will have of picking up a gold in the pool, or a Kenyan over some stupidly long distance on the track. Same holds true for the Comm Games. I also think the smaller pool of competitors allows for countries that would normally not have a team in that event in the Olympics a chance to compete. I watched the Indian girls 4 x 100 freestyle relay tonight - they were WAY off the pace, but they are the best in their country and having the opportunity to compete at that level alone must be a thrill. They would simply not qualify for the Olympic games. Another for me has been the inconsistency in DQs, and way that DQs have been handled. Being DQed for breaking is part of the territory - it happens - it is heartbreaking, but if you are outside the rules you accept your medicine ... BUT there has been significant inconsistency - that is not good in any sport. Link to post Share on other sites
Thundercat 60 Posted October 9, 2010 Share Posted October 9, 2010 Well, the difference for me is that some nations have the resources to field competitive teams while others do not... In the case of the Olympics there are far more countries that can put money into developing their athletes and training systems... I also think a big difference lies in the fact that at the Olympics you are likely to actually see athletes who are the best in the world in their discipline. Link to post Share on other sites
Go Native 70 Posted October 9, 2010 Share Posted October 9, 2010 The winter games are the only ones I even take a slightest interest in. If there's no snow there's no point! Link to post Share on other sites
Thundercat 60 Posted October 9, 2010 Share Posted October 9, 2010 BTW, in the 2008 Olympics the top 4 teams only took home 23% of the total medals... a massive difference from what is happening at the CG where the top 4 have 76%. And if we are talking about only gold medals... Top 4 teams in the Olympics took home 43%... Top 4 teams in the CG currently have 92%. Link to post Share on other sites
Thundercat 60 Posted October 9, 2010 Share Posted October 9, 2010 Originally Posted By: Go Native The winter games are the only ones I even take a slightest interest in. If there's no snow there's no point! I absolutely agree! Are you sure you're not Canadian? Link to post Share on other sites
Go Native 70 Posted October 9, 2010 Share Posted October 9, 2010 Would prefer to be Canadian than Australian. At least Canada gets great snow! Link to post Share on other sites
HelperElfMissy 42 Posted October 9, 2010 Share Posted October 9, 2010 Originally Posted By: Black Mountain Well, the difference for me is that some nations have the resources to field competitive teams while others do not... In the case of the Olympics there are far more countries that can put money into developing their athletes and training systems... I also think a big difference lies in the fact that at the Olympics you are likely to actually see athletes who are the best in the world in their discipline. Surely if your grievance was that some of the nations didn't have the resources to field competitive teams you would demonstrate a better distribution in the Olypmics by showing that the % of medals taken home by 3rd world countries was higher in the Olympics than in the CW Games. You will still see athlete's that are the best in their world in their discipline in the CW Games. But only if they are also a member of the CW nations. Yes - at the Olympic Games you will see MORE worlds best. The fact that at the Olympics there are more nations that can afford an investment in sport (or prioritize sporting achievement - thinking China here) does nothing to actually bring equality to the playing field for the impoverished nations. Not trying to change your mind. And I think the CW Games will be lucky to survive in the future, they are fast becoming a relic - particular when plagued by problems in India. But I don't really understand the points you made. Link to post Share on other sites
Thundercat 60 Posted October 9, 2010 Share Posted October 9, 2010 Originally Posted By: Mamabear Surely if your grievance was that some of the nations didn't have the resources to field competitive teams you would demonstrate a better distribution in the Olypmics by showing that the % of medals taken home by 3rd world countries was higher in the Olympics than in the CW Games. It doesn't have to be 3rd world countries winning the medals. I just prefer not to see such lopsided results. What I mean is that there are a lot more 1st world nations who compete against each other in the Olympics making the events more interesting to watch. Quote: But I don't really understand the points you made. I'm not really trying to make a point (at least I wasn't at first) rather I was simply stating that I don't think the CG are very interesting because of the lopsided results. As an example, if you were to watch any random event at the CG and the competitors are Australia, Canada, England, Nauru, Uganda, Papua New Guinea, Namibia and Ghana you don't need to know anything about that sport to know who the top 3 are going to be... that's not interesting sport to me. Link to post Share on other sites
HelperElfMissy 42 Posted October 9, 2010 Share Posted October 9, 2010 Fair point. I think the lopsided results are still there in the Olympics - just a tad more diluted by there being more nations overall. Link to post Share on other sites
Mantas 3 Posted October 9, 2010 Author Share Posted October 9, 2010 I agree with BM. It's more often not that interesting as a sporting spectacle as the competition is usually lop sided. Still, any opportunity for 70 countries to come together for any reason without shooting at each other is all good news. Also gives me another opportunity to post this. Australia 47 gold England 19 gold Link to post Share on other sites
panhead_pete 27 Posted October 10, 2010 Share Posted October 10, 2010 Originally Posted By: Mantas usually lop sided. Still, any opportunity for 70 countries to come together for any reason without shooting at each other is all good news. Also gives me another opportunity to post this. Australia 47 gold England 19 gold And we beat them in the shooting! Link to post Share on other sites
HelperElfMissy 42 Posted October 10, 2010 Share Posted October 10, 2010 How's about the South African swimmers outburst after the breaking incident...? I heard the interview and while he was clearly ticked off and spoke harshly about the noise makers with a perhaps less than PC choice of words under the circumstances, I failed to see how it became a massive deal with him having to apologize for his racial slurs. News Story Link to post Share on other sites
indosnm 0 Posted October 10, 2010 Share Posted October 10, 2010 Saw that when it happened and knew they would make something of it.. Bad choice of words though. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts