...are you happy because you're one of the best eight canoeists in the world, or miserable because you're last?
They are always unhappy at coming in last. Whereas I am sitting at home saying: "Out of 7 billion people, you are 8th!" It seems exponentially more nonsensical as they approach gold, where you have people being unhappy that they are only the 2nd fastest in the whole wide world...
"There is no great invention, from fire to flying, which has not been hailed as an insult to some god." J. B. S. Haldane
t seems exponentially more nonsensical as they approach gold, where you have people being unhappy that they are only the 2nd fastest in the whole wide world...
It's getting worse now that the UK is having its most successful year since descending from the trees - those that don't get gold think they've failed.
The rowers who came second were devastated and apologised for letting everyone down. Bonkers.
Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
You should have seen the Singaporean guy who got silver in the men's singles badminton. He looked like his mum had just died.
However, I take exception to this:
the UK is having its most successful year since descending from the trees
You seem to be forgetting the days when we ruled the world, and most countries were unable to or uninterested in competing. At the first London Olympics, in 1908, Team GB got 56 golds.
You seem to be forgetting the days when we ruled the world, and most countries were unable to or uninterested in competing. At the first London Olympics, in 1908, Team GB got 56 golds.
Ah the glory days of empire.
According to a historian on the radio just now, the 1904 Olympics only had 22 countries (cf 200+ for 2012) and the UK fielded so many contestants that it was impossible to lose some events. One guy ran a race on his own.....and surprisingly, won gold. (And silver and bronze too?)
Tug-of-war should still be an Olympian sport imho.
Anyhoo, his (the historian's) opinion is that the UK's efforts this year far and away outclass those of 1904.
Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
So, when you're the Kazakh guy in the final of the men's canoe sprint, and you cross the line long after everyone else has finished, are you happy because you're one of the best eight canoeists in the world, or miserable because you're last?
I'm pretty sure the Kazakh guy is not the 8th best in the world. He's just one of the best rowers in Kazakhstan. There are probably many more (say) Brits that can beat him than just 8.
According to a historian on the radio just now, the 1904 Olympics only had 22 countries (cf 200+ for 2012) and the UK fielded so many contestants that it was impossible to lose some events. One guy ran a race on his own.....and surprisingly, won gold. (And silver and bronze too?)
1904 was St. Louis when Americans won almost everything because most events only had American competitors. London 1908 was a bit more diverse than that, and the guy only ran the race on his own because the two other entrants (both Americans) threw a mardy about the rules, but I get your point.
I'm pretty sure the Kazakh guy is not the 8th best in the world. He's just one of the best rowers in Kazakhstan. There are probably many more (say) Brits that can beat him than just 8.
I got confused - it was final B I was watching, so that actually puts him in 16th place. But are you only allowed one entrant per nation in canoeing? That seems odd. Most events where you compete as an individual or a couple allow multiple entrants from the same nation - China seemed to get silver and gold in most of the table tennis, after all.
But are you only allowed one entrant per nation in canoeing? That seems odd. Most events where you compete as an individual or a couple allow multiple entrants from the same nation - China seemed to get silver and gold in most of the table tennis, after all.
In canoeing I believe it is one boat per country per event, though I might be wrong. I don't know how one qualifies to canoe for one's country, but I suspect it involves a minimum time or position in a certain championship (as courses vary, so too will times).
There are also two places that can be handed out at the discretion of the relevant sporting body.
The sport I am most familiar with is Track sprints. In the 100m for example, you have an A-standard qualification time (10.18s), but there's also a B-standard which is about 10.24 along with a bunch of wildcards for countries that simply lack athletes that can get those kinds of times.
So it's possible for a small or non-sprinting country to have someone with a SB of 10.3 get selected to compete, even though they'd be nearly a second slower than the winners. Take for example J'maal Alexander from British Virgin Islands who only just managed to sneak under 11s in qualifying - and that was a pretty good run from him (just over a 1/10th of a second slower than his best). In the UK, I've raced against people that fast (and lost, incidentally) - and I'm hardly an elite athlete.
That doesn't make them 85th fastest in the world. There are probably a a crapload of Americans that can get under 10.8, but they don't get selected because they have three athletes that can run under 10s and that's as many as they can send I believe.
London 1908 was a bit more diverse than that, and the guy only ran the race on his own because the two other entrants (both Americans) threw a mardy about the rules, but I get your point.
I've only ever heard people that live north of Birmingham use the word 'mardy'. Where did you pick that up from?
So it's possible for a small or non-sprinting country to have someone with a SB of 10.3 get selected to compete, even though they'd be nearly a second slower than the winners. Take for example J'maal Alexander from British Virgin Islands who only just managed to sneak under 11s in qualifying - and that was a pretty good run from him (just over a 1/10th of a second slower than his best). In the UK, I've raced against people that fast (and lost, incidentally) - and I'm hardly an elite athlete.
That doesn't make them 85th fastest in the world. There are probably a a crapload of Americans that can get under 10.8, but they don't get selected because they have three athletes that can run under 10s and that's as many as they can send I believe.
Many people get to come and compete at the Olympics without being the best, but they won't be in the final. In the 100m sprint, they'd have to makes it through the preliminaries by beating the other slow runners, then qualify from the heats, and then from the semi-final, which nobody there on a wildcard is going to do (unless they've been hiding some considerable talent). Sure, it's unlikely that the eight guys in the final are going to be literally the eight best in the world, but I think at that point it's an acceptable pretence.
I've only ever heard people that live north of Birmingham use the word 'mardy'. Where did you pick that up from?
In the 100m sprint, they'd have to makes it through the preliminaries by beating the other slow runners, then qualify from the heats, and then from the semi-final, which nobody there on a wildcard is going to do (unless they've been hiding some considerable talent).
Absolutely.
Sure, it's unlikely that the eight guys in the final are going to be literally the eight best in the world, but I think at that point it's an acceptable pretence.
Maybe, but there's wiggle room. As I say, in an event like canoeing you'll probably find some countries have a lot of talent that eclipses our Kazakh friend. In the 100m sprint for example, we were missing Mike Rodgers, Darvis Patton and Nesta Carter - all arguably faster than Churandy Martina (who came 6th). But sure, its certainly the cream of the crop.
To answer your question directly
quote: are you happy because you're one of the best eight canoeists in the world, or miserable because you're last?
You are probably happy when you qualify for the final, but a bit dejected at coming last.
It all depends how you get there though really, if getting to the final is achievement enough, the position is less important. But if you are looking for Gold and you get 6th, that hurts a thousand times more.
Sometimes a Bronze is the best thing ever, other times it represents abject failure.
I've only ever heard people that live north of Birmingham use the word 'mardy'.
Usain Bolt did not run 100m in 9.63s (according to Bolt)
Of course, the time was rounded down (it was initially recorded as 9.64) so it was probably 9.634 or something. That's kind of picky, but then so is the video
Sorry - very off-topic, but you just made me look up John McCain's place of birth, and I was astounded to learn that the man's mother is still alive. Wow!
™ Version 4.2
(1)
