If people are really that upset about the best not being able to compete, then you should be equally upset about it applying to most other sports. I get they are weeded out earlier (back in their countries) but that logic (the best should compete) still applies.
I guess I don't get the outrage in this case and not others. I think people are emotionally involved in this and weren't as much in the trials.
I agree. I also don't think there would have been this level of outrage if it was one of the other US gymnasts who were left out of the all-around.
If people are really that upset about the best not being able to compete, then you should be equally upset about it applying to most other sports. I get they are weeded out earlier (back in their countries) but that logic (the best should compete) still applies.
I guess I don't get the outrage in this case and not others. I think people are emotionally involved in this and weren't as much in the trials.
I agree. I also don't think there would have been this level of outrage if it was one of the other US gymnasts who were left out of the all-around.
Honestly, I disagree. As a competitor, I would be pissed I was competing against the best 2 from every country instead of the best of all Olympians. It would mean less to win. And I would think this was bogus if it was Romania, Russia or whoever cut out of it. Wasn't it in 2000 or 2004 that the Romanians went gold-silver-bronze in the all around? Good for them - they're the best.
I guess I don't get why the Olympian thing makes a difference? Why would you be upset that they were cut in London or in the US? Either way, you arent competeing against the best.
H was 4th best in the world in his event in the paraolympic world. He got 3rd at the trials so he didn't get to go. If they had cut him in Sidney, it would have been the same result: the rest of the swimmers weren't swimming against the best since lower ranked swimmers with slower times in their trials made it because the US could only take two. Either way, you aren't competing against the best.
It makes a difference b/c that's who makes it to the Olympics. You're winning a gold against that group of people, not people who didn't make it past trials. They are the Olympians.
Here's a comparison to what I'm trying to say. Say, your team is in the NCAA tournament. You make it to the final game, but the opposite team's best player can't play and you beat them. Doesn't it feel a little less? I think it does. Maybe arguably, this team you're playing in the final game beat a "better" team to get there - but that doesn't matter b/c you aren't playing that team - you're playing the team who is down a player. You're always going to wonder - "what if."
I'm just saying when you get to the final competition, you want it to be against the best of the available opponents, and I think it's weird to limit it to 2 per country when that knocks out the person ranked #4 of the 24 allowed or whatever it is.
Ok, so the same thing happens if a play has a miscue. If Jordyn had fallen and had not made the top 24, but was still the best in the world, you aren't competing against the best because of one mistake. But then do you argue that you should just take the top ranked gymnasts and not make them compete in a prerec for the all around anyway? With basketball, should you just have the top 4 ranked teams compete in the final around and skip the prelims because they aren't the best? I guess that just happens in sport. (like your injury example). This is the rule. They know that coming in. Jordyn should have made the top two but she didn't because she screwed up.
I get being sad for her. I do. But I don't get the outrage over it.
And with the NCAA example, we already do that in basketball. The best 65 teams don't make it. We have a ton of teams that make it from various conferences that are ranked lower than teams pushed to the NIT.
I get the top 2 thing. I just don't understand why the rule has changed at the Olympics but the qualifiers haven't adjusted. If there are 2 that get to go for the individual all around, have those 2 come out of the US qualifier, build your team accordingly and move on. If that choice isn't made until the game, as a coach it changes the strategy you need to use to build your team. That is the part that is confusing to me. I don't think the IOC thought through the full rule change before implementing it. I didn't mind the sweeps- I thought it was more of a good for them thing.
Ok, so the same thing happens if a play has a miscue. If Jordyn had fallen and had not made the top 24, but was still the best in the world, you aren't competing against the best because of one mistake. But then do you argue that you should just take the top ranked gymnasts and not make them compete in a prerec for the all around anyway? With basketball, should you just have the top 4 ranked teams compete in the final around and skip the prelims because they aren't the best? I guess that just happens in sport. (like your injury example). This is the rule. They know that coming in. Jordyn should have made the top two but she didn't because she screwed up.
I get being sad for her. I do. But I don't get the outrage over it.
But see I think being able to compete without a fall in the Olympics makes you the best in the Olympics, which is why I think this rule is dumb. Every athlete is at risk of an injury or mistake, but how they deal under pressure is all part of being the best competitor for the Gold - it all leads up to that.
I just think it's dumb to not take the top 24. I don't care one way or the other about the American chick who isn't making it. In fact, I find her kind of annoying when she talks, so I'm certainly not personally invested in her. I would be annoyed if it was any gymnast in her position - even non-Americans.
I guess what I'm saying is that every competition feeds into the finals for the all around gold and I think it should be top athletes of those that make it to the Olympics. Not 2 from each country (even if that happens at trials - that's fine and makes sense to me b/c not everyone can go).
And I'm just saying I don't see the difference between last night and the trials in terms of picking the best. We either limit countries so we have more representation or we don't. I don't think one is ok and the other isn't. We are just going in circles because we disagree on that fundamental thing. Thats all
They seemed to be really harsh on Jordyn's floor exercise, though. And the Americans in general had more deductions than pretty big mistakes from the Romanians on floor.
I think the rule doesn't make sense, but I'm not outraged by it.
I thought they were harsh across the board.
I feel bad for Jordyn Wieber that she had a bad day and that she didn't make it but that's what happens when you screw up. This is the Olympics and there's no room for mistakes.
I do think it's dumb that anyone who is a top competitor is left out. I think it's more dumb when that person is already an Olympian competing on the team.
Yes, I am super over Dan Hicks and Rowdy Gains nonstop gibber jabbering. Specifically, I am over NBC airing 10 minutes of commentary on Phelps' frustration and Debbie wanting to whore out her clearly uninterested son for a vacation to Rio instead of airing like any other country besides the US in gymnastics.
This live feed sucks. They keep putting in stupid ads during the good parts.
Seriously!
I mean it's cool I can watch it live, but do they have to cut away to commercial during a dismount??? I would have gladly paid for an app to avoid the commercials.
If people are really that upset about the best not being able to compete, then you should be equally upset about it applying to most other sports. I get they are weeded out earlier (back in their countries) but that logic (the best should compete) still applies.
I guess I don't get the outrage in this case and not others. I think people are emotionally involved in this and weren't as much in the trials.
I don't understand where you're coming from on this. Are you talking about weeding the best out earlier in the trials if they have a bad meet for example?
I have no problem with the Olympics saying each country can only send X amount of competitors. Two for swimming, three for track, one synchronized diving team, two divers, etc. I get they want equal representation, so for the initial start of the games? Ok. Trials are their own separate animal, and that's not the argument here.
Once all of those qualifying athletes get to the Olympics? I have a BIG problem with them limiting who can make finals in an event. To my knowledge, right now gymnastics is the only sport that has a rule like this. Does track? Does beach volleyball? In '08, the US women won gold, silver and bronze in fencing - so apparently they made it through all the prelims and qualifying rounds with no issues and went 1-2-3. Conceivably in track and field a country can go 1-2-3 if their athletes make it through all the prelims and qualifying heats. Beach volleyball? I believe you could see a US Gold/bronze situation. Swimming you can see two athletes from the same country in a final.
So what gives in gymnastics? Why are they suddenly the exception?
Regardless of the sport, I don't care. Excuse my language, but once you make the Olympics, fuck equality. Fuck equal country representation in the medal rounds. If you're working your way through qualifying rounds and such, then it should be the top qualifying scores that make it to finals. Period. The end.
And for the record, I am equally as outraged over the gymnastics selection process for the Olympics. But that's another thread.
Post by AllieHound on Jul 30, 2012 14:18:25 GMT -5
Can someone explain the Phelps stuff to me? I get that he was partying in the off season and generally dicking around, but what's with the Debbie hate? Why the backlash? Why did he wind up swimming the 400IM? Why do he and Lochte hate eachother?
Emily: my point was that those who say that they are upset because the best should get to compete, then they should be upset that countries are only allowed to send 2 people in the first place for many sports. I get that many see trials differently than once you get to the olympics, but the logic of "the best should compete!" isn't enough on its on. If that was really someone's argument, then they would also be anti number restrictions in the first place. Thats all. I was trying to get some to elaborate because the initial comments of "the best should get to compete!" didn't completely explain their position. The view of "once you make it to London, the best should compete" however, does explain it.
Post by eightgoldenmedals on Jul 30, 2012 15:26:54 GMT -5
Eclaires and SBP,
I love you ladies so much. My mom and sisters should really take a page out of your book and stop being so overbearing. I really want to swim hard and enjoy my last Olympics. Thank you for not judging. I really appreciate it. I just need someone to understand me.
If either of you ever want to leave your husbands and help me spend my millions in sponsorship dollars let me know. We can even move to NV and do this Sister Wives style.
I actually get tired of the Phelps hate too. Everybody is so eager to see him fail, and he can't just enjoy the Olympic experience which is all he wants.
He does just seem out of it, like he doesn't want it as much as Lochte. And honestly I can't blame him, how do you top that?
I've generally been on board with Debbie too, but her pushing him to keep going is really bothering me. He's done. Clearly. You wanting to go to Rio does not trump that.
I said the same thing earlier when I heard the 16 year old chick beat Lochte's 50 free time. Um, really? You want to tell me she's not doping? Ok. Right.