Page 18 of 19
Re: The 2016 Olympic Games
Posted: Mon Aug 22, 2016 12:35 am
by Lizard
So final results are in. We got our largest ever medal haul of 18, but only 4 were gold (behind 1984's 8 and 6 in 2012). Gallingly, we got 4th in 9 events!
Re: The 2016 Olympic Games
Posted: Mon Aug 22, 2016 9:18 am
by Which Tyler
Surely, you should be looking at 4ths per capita...
Re: The 2016 Olympic Games
Posted: Mon Aug 22, 2016 11:10 am
by WaspInWales
It has been an excellent Olympics from a British perspective. The team has excelled themselves so full credit to athletes, coaches, support team, funding and anyone else involved. The hard work has to continue as we've set the bar rather high for Tokyo.
The games themselves have been a bit mixed though.
We've had (in no particular order):
Empty seats-gate
Watergate
Lochte-gate
Ticket-gate
Boxing-gate
Grindr-gate
Handshake-gate
Rape-gate
Dope-gate
Bullet-gate, well Bullet-wall
Zika-gate
Road race-gate
I'm sure there's been other gates too.
Re: The 2016 Olympic Games
Posted: Mon Aug 22, 2016 11:58 am
by fivepointer
Overall very enjoyable. Most of the sport has been first class. Our team have delivered in great style. This might be the high water mark as maintaining this level of success may not be possible.
Plenty of standouts. The cycling team were quite brilliant. We're very good at water based sports too!
Crowds a little disappointing at some events.
Re: The 2016 Olympic Games
Posted: Mon Aug 22, 2016 1:19 pm
by Sandydragon
Nice to see the boxing judges maintaining their high standards with the Joyce final. At least he got far enough to get a medal I suppose which is better than some.
In other news, its being reported that Bolt managed to pick up a local girl at a night club and she posted several images on Instagram as a result. He may need to get his excuses in order when he gets back to Jamaica!
Overall, very satisfied with the Olympics and, probably as a result of Britain doing well, Ive been more engaged with sports I don't normally follow than usual. On the down side, it looks like the Paralympics could have some real issues unless someone can find some cash and quickly. That would be a huge shame given how far they have come recently.
Re: The 2016 Olympic Games
Posted: Mon Aug 22, 2016 5:28 pm
by skidger
The Beeb coverage was very good overall. Some of the experts really know their onions. Also in this day and age of dolly birds on tv its nice to see Claire Balding has a job.
Re: The 2016 Olympic Games
Posted: Mon Aug 22, 2016 8:41 pm
by Sandydragon
skidger wrote:The Beeb coverage was very good overall. Some of the experts really know their onions. Also in this day and age of dolly birds on tv its nice to see Claire Balding has a job.
I think show on of the best presenters going. I'd rather she covered th six nations than invertw@.
Re: The 2016 Olympic Games
Posted: Mon Aug 22, 2016 8:58 pm
by BBD
I thought the coverage was mixed
Morning - Olympic Breakfast was utter rubbish, as I said earlier on thread, it had little shape as a programme and once you'd heard that X & Y had won a medal in something they showed a 30 second clip of their success with little context or build up, it was an opportunity missed and we ended up watching pointless interviews with people who knew the athlete whilst kids performed the sport behind them
Olympic catch up on last night was good,
Afternoon & Evening coverage of live sports was excellent, admittedly the athletics & swimming seemed to pass me by a bit as it was on so late and I couldn't stay up til the early hours every night, but the cycling and rowing were excellent, the gymnastics was intermittent as the coverage cant be everywhere at once
the BBC Sport website was great once you managed to find out what was on, the navigation on the site was often vague I found
Re: The 2016 Olympic Games
Posted: Tue Aug 23, 2016 12:21 am
by WaspInWales
Track cycling coverage was first rate. The atmosphere was electric which no doubt helped...along with Team GB success, but SCH and Baldwin went well although I still struggle to warm to the latter. The commentators and guests experts/analysts were great too.
I thought the road race coverage was dire.
Re: The 2016 Olympic Games
Posted: Tue Aug 23, 2016 12:22 am
by WaspInWales
Sandydragon wrote:skidger wrote:The Beeb coverage was very good overall. Some of the experts really know their onions. Also in this day and age of dolly birds on tv its nice to see Claire Balding has a job.
I think show on of the best presenters going.
I'd rather she covered th six nations than invertw@.
Not a fan of hers but I agree!
Re: The 2016 Olympic Games
Posted: Wed Aug 24, 2016 8:58 am
by Galfon
Sally Gunnell was on brekkie-telly the other day talking a lot of sense about making sure there's enough grass-roots support at local clubs
( coaches, volunteers etc. ) to capture the surge of interest from young'ns, and what great role models these champions can be if they are seen as normal hardworking but very determined folk.
Gunnell herself funded her training by working part-time in an office, travelling twice a week to London to stay in the mix.
Re: The 2016 Olympic Games
Posted: Wed Aug 24, 2016 9:12 am
by Galfon
On a lighter note, this was hilarious..
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/702716 ... B-27-Golds
someone replied with a comment that the old British Empire won more than EU, and China official media has rejoiced second place on the 'total medals won' method.
( no mention of per-capita yet, strangely )
Re: The 2016 Olympic Games
Posted: Thu Aug 25, 2016 6:59 am
by canta_brian
Britain's success has been impressive. However I wonder of it helps with one of the stated goals which is to increase participation in sport in the wider population. Take cycling. Will all the golds encourage further participation more than the treatment of Jess Varnish might put people off? Britain seems to be shaking off the "it's the taking part that counts" attitude. Could that lead to some people saying sport isn't for them as they will never compete at the elite level.
Re: The 2016 Olympic Games
Posted: Thu Aug 25, 2016 8:00 am
by BBD
That's brilliant! I've never tried that particular excuse before but it's genius
BBD at home - I'm not going for a bike ride darling as I'll never compete at an elite level, so I'll just sit here on the sofa, put the kettle on will you love, I'm gasping
Re: The 2016 Olympic Games
Posted: Thu Aug 25, 2016 9:48 am
by Stones of granite
BBD wrote:That's brilliant! I've never tried that particular excuse before but it's genius
BBD at home - I'm not going for a bike ride darling as I'll never compete at an elite level, so I'll just sit here on the sofa, put the kettle on will you love, I'm gasping
I think we need to take this further out of the narrow context of sport.
SoG at home - I'm sacking off work today darling as I'll never be a business leader like Richard Branson, so I'll just sit here on the sofa and maybe pop down the benefits office later.
Re: The 2016 Olympic Games
Posted: Thu Aug 25, 2016 10:34 am
by canta_brian
I see your points. However I simply wonder if seeing a sport like cycling celebrate its successes is great, but also seeing the utter ruthlessness with which they get rid of anyone who doesn't come up to the standard may take away from that positive image.
Re: The 2016 Olympic Games
Posted: Thu Aug 25, 2016 11:17 am
by Mellsblue
I worry that UK Sport will take Lizard's per capita medal table to heart and start culling those who participate in Olympic sports but aren't podium prospects.
If this were to happen, and I think it is the next logical step once we top the table in Tokoyo, then nobody would dare take up cycling.
Re: The 2016 Olympic Games
Posted: Thu Aug 25, 2016 11:25 am
by Stones of granite
To be honest, I see the opposite effect.
Our triathlon club ran an event aimed primarily at beginners at the weekend. It was sold out in record time. Now, I would say that some of the sights on show weren't pretty, but I'd far rather see some heffalumps in tri-suits at least getting out and doing something in an encouraging atmosphere than them filling their geggies at Greggs.
I overheard a number of them, and their family/supporters also saying that they were going to have a go at the introductory sessions at the velodrome in Glasgow.
And in an absolutely gob-smacking turn of events, my wife has even confessed that she has started the couch-to-5k programme. This has come from watching the olympics too and at 54 she sure as hell ain't gonna be the next Paula Radliffe.
Edited to add:
I'm a curler (I play with my granite stones), and we made a big effort at the curling club in Houston during the Winter Olympics to get first timers down to the ice rink to try it out. We were overwhelmed, and had to run many sessions. We increased the club membership by about 30% following this and most of them are still playing now. In fact some of them have become part of the core of the club as club officials and coaches.
Re: The 2016 Olympic Games
Posted: Thu Aug 25, 2016 12:29 pm
by canta_brian
Good to hear. I hope I am completely wrong. I just don't want all sport to be judged purely on success. Don't want to see things like Scottish rugby disappear completely just because they never win anything.
Re: The 2016 Olympic Games
Posted: Thu Aug 25, 2016 2:27 pm
by Numbers
canta_brian wrote:I see your points. However I simply wonder if seeing a sport like cycling celebrate its successes is great, but also seeing the utter ruthlessness with which they get rid of anyone who doesn't come up to the standard may take away from that positive image.
I don't think they "got rid of her" she just wasn't selected and then threw her toys out of the pram.
Re: The 2016 Olympic Games
Posted: Thu Aug 25, 2016 3:41 pm
by Sandydragon
canta_brian wrote:Britain's success has been impressive. However I wonder of it helps with one of the stated goals which is to increase participation in sport in the wider population. Take cycling. Will all the golds encourage further participation more than the treatment of Jess Varnish might put people off? Britain seems to be shaking off the "it's the taking part that counts" attitude. Could that lead to some people saying sport isn't for them as they will never compete at the elite level.
I had to google that name because her being dropped didn't instantly spring to mind. whereas the games has generated real enthusiasm for our more successful sports. I think on balance it will be a good thing to have that level of publicity. I suspect that the majority of those who do try a new sport will probably realize that they won't make the Olympics, but if they enjoy it then some benefit is incurred.
Getting dropped is a professional hazard for any sportsman, you would hope that a pro sportswoman would deal with it a bit better.
Re: The 2016 Olympic Games
Posted: Fri Aug 26, 2016 9:34 am
by Stones of granite
canta_brian wrote:Good to hear. I hope I am completely wrong. I just don't want all sport to be judged purely on success. Don't want to see things like Scottish rugby disappear completely just because they never win anything.
Scottish rugby is inexorably on that road, but it is nothing to do with funding.
Actually, it won't disappear completely as long as we have private schools feeding the academies, and a substantial middle-class stumping up stupid prices at Murrayfield 5/6 times a year, but without a doubt, the grassroots game is on the "at risk" list.
Re: The 2016 Olympic Games
Posted: Fri Aug 26, 2016 11:53 pm
by kk67
canta_brian wrote:Britain's success has been impressive. However I wonder of it helps with one of the stated goals which is to increase participation in sport in the wider population. Take cycling. Will all the golds encourage further participation more than the treatment of Jess Varnish might put people off? Britain seems to be shaking off the "it's the taking part that counts" attitude. Could that lead to some people saying sport isn't for them as they will never compete at the elite level.
You would not believe the increase in London commuter cycling in the last 20 years. All the movers and shakers who can't afford to live up close are cycling in from the suburbs. It's not surprising that the mainstream are complaining that cyclists : 'think they own the world'. They're about to.
I'm a native Londoner,......and it is starting to look like a fantastic revolution. And the most impressive thing is that it's no longer weather dependant when companies provide showers and changing areas. Exercise before work is good for everyone.
Re: The 2016 Olympic Games
Posted: Fri Sep 09, 2016 11:10 am
by Which Tyler
Well played Sarah Storey - fantastic race for her 12th olympic gold; in her 3rd games as a cyclist (previous 4 as a swimmer).
Kadeena Cox the big one to look out for - realistic chance at gold in both cycling and athletics this year.
Great day for the Brits all round on the medals table - 11 in all (up 4 from London and Beijing 1st days) with 4 golds.
Pity the US doesn't seem to take these games seriously at all.
ETA: Oh, and Kudos to C4 for using the BBC journalists already there; with just a few of their own added in (last leg crowd, and a few ex-paralympians)
Re: The 2016 Olympic Games
Posted: Fri Sep 09, 2016 1:14 pm
by Eugene Wrayburn
Which Tyler wrote:Well played Sarah Storey - fantastic race for her 12th olympic gold; in her 3rd games as a cyclist (previous 4 as a swimmer).
Kadeena Cox the big one to look out for - realistic chance at gold in both cycling and athletics this year.
Great day for the Brits all round on the medals table - 11 in all (up 4 from London and Beijing 1st days) with 4 golds.
Pity the US doesn't seem to take these games seriously at all.
ETA: Oh, and Kudos to C4 for using the BBC journalists already there; with just a few of their own added in (last leg crowd, and a few ex-paralympians)
Storey has been exceptional. What a race in the final.
Maybe with the Invictus Games the US will start doing more. There are some exceptional US Paralympians but they don't seem to send a very big team.