The Olympics

First topic message reminder :

Tee Times RD 3
7:30 a.m. -- Shingo Katayama, Julien Quesne, Wen-Tang Lin

7:41 a.m. -- Miguel Luis Tabuena, Jhonattan Vegas, Espen Kofstad

7:52 a.m. -- Brandon Stone, Anirban Lahiri, Roope Kakko

8:03 a.m. -- Thongchai Jaidee, Rickie Fowler, Gavin Green

8:14 a.m. -- Jaco Van Zyl, Wu Ashun, Siddikur Rahman

8:25 a.m. -- Hao Tong Li, Fabrizio Zanotti, Nino Bertasio

8:41 a.m. -- Ryan Fox, Adilson da Silva, Danny Chia

8:52 a.m. -- David Hearn, Yuta Ikeda, Scott Hend

9:03 a.m. -- Jeunghun Wang, Felipe Aguilar, Rodolfo Cazaubon

9:14 a.m. -- Joost Luiten, S.S.P. Chawrasia, Matteo Manassero

9:25 a.m. -- Danny Willett, Martin Kaymer, Mikko Ilonen

9:36 a.m. -- Padraig Harrington, Soren Kjeldsen, Bernd Wiesberger

9:47 a.m. -- Ricardo Gouveia, Sergio Garcia, Patrick Reed

10:03 a.m. -- Kiradech Aphibarnrat, Jose-Filipe Lima, Bubba Watson

10:14 a.m. -- David Lingmerth, Matt Kuchar, Byeong Hun An

10:25 a.m. -- Seamus Power, Emiliano Grillo, Nicolas Colsaerts

10:36 a.m. -- Cheng Tsung Pan, Thorbjorn Olesen, Alex Cejka

10:47 a.m. -- Graham DeLaet, Danny Lee, Fabian Gomez

10:58 a.m. -- Gregory Bourdy, Justin Rose, Rafa Cabrera Bello

11:09 a.m. -- Marcus Fraser, Thomas Pieters, Henrik Stenson

Mac, I think you have unreasonable expectations about the performance level which is possible over a career. Why would you expect it to get better? In something over such a short distance, there isn't a chance you could run as consistently as you would like.

In terms of %, over the past 8 years it would be easy to see how much different his times have been, bet it is miniscule.

pedro wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Last thing on religion as it's way off topic, but if you're a believer (in any religion), why would you listen to the rantings of such aggressive atheism? That sort of approach is naturally going to make people on the end of the rant simply close ranks and/or ignore any rational reason why they should listen.

well, that should come pretty natural to them then...

That may be so, but if you're hoping to change their minds, ranting and calling them credulous morons is really going to help isn't it?

navyblueshorts wrote:

pedro wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Last thing on religion as it's way off topic, but if you're a believer (in any religion), why would you listen to the rantings of such aggressive atheism? That sort of approach is naturally going to make people on the end of the rant simply close ranks and/or ignore any rational reason why they should listen.

well, that should come pretty natural to them then...

That may be so, but if you're hoping to change their minds, ranting and calling them credulous morons is really going to help isn't it?

They don't listen to reason, but when did anyone say they were trying to change their minds? Mostly they are indoctrinated and even the application of logic would mean they'd still believe their laughable religions in spite of there being no justification for it. They believe because they like it, not because they can prove it to be true.

I don't care what they believe, I just wanted to comment on how stupid and embarrassing the comment from him was, not as if he'd ever be reading here is it? Probably have his nose in a book which condones incest, slavery, genocide etc than engage in a forum.

pedro wrote:I'm afraid that a majority of the worlds population are mentally deficient then.

You mean you hadn't noticed that already?

People that are so anti religion are no different to people that are super religious. Both are boringly vociferous with there views, when in reality very few people actually care.

beninho

I am sure most people don't care about whether an individual is religious or not but some of the biggest public debates of recent times hinge on how seriously the views of religious leader are taken. For example assisted dying legislation, gay marriage, what is taught in schools, religious nutter Blair going on crusades, child sex abuse scandals, having the head of the church as our head of state etc.

I guess we have to try and judge at what level religion is challenged in order to stop the privileging of religion when it comes to making public policy.

Calling a runner a cretin or moron because he holds different views to you is hardly challenging the world order is it?

People are religious its a fact of life. Dont let it weigh heavily on your shoulders because there isnot much you can do about it. A lot of good work comes from religious people and a lot ofcrap happens due to religion. Thats life. Just enjoy yours and not worry about minor things like the beliefs of a saffer runner.

beninho wrote:Calling a runner a cretin or moron because he holds different views to you is hardly challenging the world order is it?

True.

Hypothetical 2-man Team Olympic standings....  based on combined medal score

1 - 548 - SWE - Stenson/Lingmerth
2 - 549 - USA 2 - Kuchar/Reed
3 - 552 - GB - Rose/Willett
4 - 553 - ESP - Cabrera Bello/Garcia
5 - 555 - THA - Jaidee/Aphibarnrat
6 - 556 - ARG - Grillo/Gomez
7 - 558 - BEL - Pieters/Colsaerts
T8 - 560 - GER - Kaymer/Cejka
T8 - 560 - IRE - Harrington/Power
T10 - 561 - AUS - Fraser/Hend
T10 - 561 - USA 1 - Watson/Fowler
12 - 563 - CAN - DeLaet/Hearn
T13 - 564 - DEN - Kjeldsen/Olesen
T13 - 564 - KOR - Ben An/Wang
15 - 565 - ITA - Manassero/Bertasio
T16 - 567 - FIN - Ilonen/Kakko
T16 - 567 - NZL - Lee/Fox
18 - 572 - CHN - Ashun/Li
19 - 573 - JPN - Ikeda/Katayama
20 - 574 - FRA - Bourdy/Quesne
21 - 575 - MAS - Green/Chia
22 - 579 - RSA - Van Zyl/Stone
23 - 583 - IND - Lahiri/Chawrasia
24 - 585 - POR - Lima/Gouveia

beninho wrote:Calling a runner a cretin or moron because he holds different views to you is hardly challenging the world order is it?

People are religious its a fact of life. Dont let it weigh heavily on your shoulders because there isnot much you can do about it. A lot of good work comes from religious people and a lot ofcrap happens due to religion. Thats life. Just enjoy yours and not worry about minor things like the beliefs of a saffer runner.

There's nothing good done by religion, which can't be done without it, so why bother?

My objection to his laughable exaltation was that it showed him to be a self obsessed, egotistical pr1ck.

Enough on the religion thing now I think.

Robo, interesting but not sure a simple two man team would be that interesting, but I was also wrong about golf being in the Olympics so you might be onto something. I still think a multi event mixed comp would be pretty interesting.

Anyone remember when we were bloody awful at the olympics. 1996 was it one gold? Credit to john major, as the national lottery has surely helped massively.

It's incredible how quickly you can get to the top of the world, Cycling, Gymnastics etc were nowhere 20 years ago, and whilst there is some questionable events in there, it's good to see proper funding in there and for it to be producing something.

Going to be a lot of good shouts for Sports Personality this year. About time they added a "Performance of the Year" in there for a one off event where someone might not usually get much credit.

Gymnastics was nowhere 20 years ago?

What planet have you been on? Gymnastics has been a major part of the Olympics since I can remember (1970's) Olga Korbut and Nadia Comaneci. The Eastern Bloc against the Free world. etc.

GPB

I think super means that the UK gymnastics teams were nowhere 20 years ago.

In the last 15 or so years the UK has spent a lot of cash on sports like cycling, swimming, gymnastics, rowing, sailing and athletics. If you are a promising looking athlete you get cash chucked at you but minor failure and the funds dry up, as pointed out in the article shotrock posted earlier.

Yes, given that we were talking about the increase in GB success in the Olympics, it was clear I was talking about GB Gymnastics and Cycling.

Mac, I think it's good that if you don' succeed your funding is withdrawn, we've seen how a cossetted life in Scottish golf has meant no one coming through the SGU system.
We shouldn't reward failure, so it's good to see the GB funding prioritise where it spends.

McLaren wrote:Robo, interesting but not sure a simple two man team would be that interesting, but I was also wrong about golf being in the Olympics so you might be onto something.  I still think a multi event mixed comp would be pretty interesting.

Mac... it was just an exercise to see how it came out.  But even with this you can't really tell how it would have come out. In a team medal competition players might alter their individual strategy from what they might do as individuals. Players further down the standings might not be as apt to "mail it in" once they're out of it individually.

Actually IMO the best Olympic format would be to mirror the NCAA's.  Something like this.

• Select 16 4-man teams based on combined OWGR ranking of top two or three players from each country. (64 players)
• Select 16 more individuals from countries not already represented by teams. (brings total of 80 players)
• The 80 players play 4 rounds of medal play to:
1) Determine an individual Gold, Silver & Bronze
2) Determine 8 teams to advance to team knock-out match play (Seeded per aggregate score in medal)

• Play 4 individual matches in each team match, single elimination. Quarters & Semi's the 1st day... Gold/Silver & Bronze matches the 2nd day.

The pluses are:
• It still gets all the top players in the World involved even if their countries don't have "team depth" (think Lydia Ko from NZL for example)
• It makes the first individual portion a LOT more interesting... not only because of the individual medals, but because players down in the standings may not be able to medal but they're still playing hard to advance their team to the Team portion
• It brings the team element into it... and makes all rounds more important.

The minuses are:
• It takes 6 days to complete, so it's in effect a two week commitment from the players.
• You're beating up the course a lot more with 80 players and 6 rounds... so which ever of the women or men finish 2nd, it could be an issue.
• It was hard enough sell to get 1 medal for each male and female into the Olympics... it might be harder to sell the IOC on two each.

Robo: As you know, I like this format, except I would rather see 2 males and 2 females per team.

But you don't mention the biggest drawback. The conflict of interest that a individual might face.

His team is on the TEAM Bubble, but he is contention for a medal. Does he take a chance to finish on the podium or does he play safe to hold his team's position to make sure that they get to the knockout rounds.

Maybe they should keep individual and team play separate, like they do in other olympic sports. The Individual event would be strokeplay and the team event would be some kind of match play. That would also allow teams to use different players for the team event, eg match play specialists.

GPB wrote:Robo:  As you know, I like this format, except I would rather see 2 males and 2 females per team.  

But you don't mention the biggest drawback.  The conflict of interest that a individual might face.

His team is on the TEAM Bubble, but he is contention for a medal.  Does he take a chance to finish on the podium or does he play safe to hold his team's position to make sure that they get to the knockout rounds.

Of course having an individual competition also deciding team qualification has conflict... well... maybe conflict is not the right word. It might actually be a case of it adding additional interest. And it's not like the the same situation doesn't already exist in the NCAA's or even the World Cup.

And I appreciate what you are trying to accomplish with the mixed team deal... but I'm still not "feeling it". Mixed team isn't without precedent, but its certainly not commonplace in sport either, especially golf. And in the Olympics... other than mixed doubles in Tennis, I sure don't see much of it. To me it's about as interesting as the Wendy's Three Tour Challenge was... NOT VERY. And contrast the huge interest in non-mixed team events like the Ryder, President's & Solheim Cups. Or even the International Crown.

Think there should be both. That would give countries like Fiji who has / had ONE good golfer a chance for a medal in the individual event (and zero chance in the team event) - whereas big nations with many good golfers, like the US or UK, would / should have relatively good chances for a medal in the team event.

Mixed team is not without precedent in golf.  The Junior Ryder Cup and several other Junior events are mixed team.

And conflating my idea with the The Wendy's tournament is IMO out of context.  The Wendy's tournaments was Men vs  Women vs Seniors.  My idea is that Men and Women would be on the same team.  It is more similar to old JC Penney tournament than the Wendy's tournament.

Be that as it may, I like the NCAA format much better than the current format. I would like to see the format change for the same weekly 72 hole stroke play.  (Keep in mind that two six day tournaments would mean Golf would be played on 12 of the 16 Days of the Olympics.)  The mainstream Olympic sports (gymnastics, swimming, Athletics) don't have that many day of competition.

I also think there wouldn't have been as many WDs if it was team play.  because of Peer Pressure.

Some of the sample Mixed Teams (assuming NO Wds)

USA: Spieth, Johnson, Thompson, Lewis
Korea: An, Kim, Park, Kim
GBR: Rose, Willett, Hull, Matthew
Aus: Day, Scott, Lee, Oh
RSA: Grace, Oosty, Pace, Simon
Spain: Sergio, RCB, Munoz, Ciganda
Sweden: Henrik, Lingmerth, Nordqvist, Lindberg

Japan, Thailand, New Zealand, Canada, France, Italy, Germany would also probably fall in the top 16 teams.

Blockbuster American TV ratings for Olympic Golf on NBC... 6.3...  Naturally the John Deere took a huge nosedive from last year with no defending champion Spieth and weaker than normal field up against the Olympics.

http://www.sportsmediawatch.com/2016/08/olympic-golf-ratings-nbc-pga-tour-cbs-overnights/

GPB... I know mixed team has precedent in golf, but as I said, it's a pretty rare bird. I just don't think what works in Jr. golf doesn't mean it's a good format for the Olympics. And my reference to the Wendy's was not intended as an apples to apples format comparison... just that I find mixed competition way down my pecking order of potential interest compared to so many other potential formats.

Now if golf was in a position to have 5 medals in golf like Tennis has Men's and Women's individual and Men's and Women's doubles and then Mixed doubles... sure... maybe a mixed team thing among some of it's lesser players would be a nice add-on... It's just that I'd prefer all single gender competitions of individual or team before I'd go to any mixed team. Just personal preference.

robo/gpb/predro

I like your ideas for the Olympic golf. It was a really good event this time around but to guard against a more mediocre spectacle implementing an event along the lines that you set out above would be pretty cool.

robopz wrote:Blockbuster American TV ratings for Olympic Golf on NBC... 6.3...  Naturally the John Deere took a huge nosedive from last year with no defending champion Spieth and weaker than normal field up against the Olympics.

http://www.sportsmediawatch.com/2016/08/olympic-golf-ratings-nbc-pga-tour-cbs-overnights/

Backing up what robo already pointed out.

Mac... I was pleasantly surprised with the golf tv numbers. Granted it had a great lead in and out with other Olympic events... but still... that rating is 2nd only to the Masters this year. And the best part is I'm betting a good majority of that audience wasn't the traditional golf viewer... so it's probably a lot of new eyeballs here being exposed to golf... and Rose, Stenson & Kuchar gave 'em something worth watching. That's a win-win scenario for golf any way you slice it.

Nice note from Rose saying he'd had a text from Rory congratulating him when he won going on to joke that perhaps Rory had watched it after all!

Judging by the coverage, there were a lot of non-golfers in the crowd. New eyes and positive. Yes some of them used cameras and picked up the balls (!!!) probably due to lack of knowledge and experience, but new to golf. Can only be positive.

TV ratings, again, likely to have a relatively high proportion of new to golf "toe dippers". Any kind of conversion rate and it's a positive to golf.

Hopefully, the rarity value of a gold will add to the allure for the players and improved attitude & participation (akin to the tennis). One medal (depending on format) every 4 years versus 16 majors in the same timeframe hopefully makes it appealing.

Now - I still hold the opinion that pro golfers and the Olympic ideal don't necessarily make ideal bedfellows, but if it's going to be in there (like tennis, basketball, football and others that "shouldn't be there") do it the best you can. It seemed a worthy inclusion as far as a spectacle went and happened to create pretty much exactly the tension and drama other events did/do. Kooooooooooch's charge into a medal position and tense wait to see if it would be good enough to win/medal (like the gymnastics) and a great battle between 2 of the top performers in the world for the top spot.

Peter Dawson on potential format changes for Olympic Golf 2020 in Tokyo...

"It is a necessary conversation. I've no doubt that the 72 hole strokeplay format is golf's way of determining a champion and I'm sure that will continue to have a place in the Olympic Games. It would be crazy to have a format at the Olympics that wasn't one that chose champions in the wider game. So it is a question of can we add to it, can we modify? Not can we totally change."

Well said and I agree... if stroke play is the way we determine major champions, then it's good enough for the Olympics... But like Dawson said.  "So it is a question of can we add to it..."  And to that end I'd think YES; find a way to add a team element onto the already successful stroke play element.

Ian Carter's take on BBC:  Rio 2016 Olympics: Britain's Justin Rose the 'perfect winner' on golf's return to Games  http://www.bbc.com/sport/37089718   One thing Ian said caught me: "It is not a parochially British observation to say that Rose was the perfect winner because no one embraced the Olympic project more enthusiastically."  This American agrees. Rose wasn't necessarily the only potential "perfect winner"... but he was certainly one of those who fully embraced golf in the Olympics, and one of those was who I was rooting for.

robopz wrote:Peter Dawson on potential format changes for Olympic Golf 2020 in Tokyo...

"It is a necessary conversation. I've no doubt that the 72 hole strokeplay format is golf's way of determining a champion and I'm sure that will continue to have a place in the Olympic Games. It would be crazy to have a format at the Olympics that wasn't one that chose champions in the wider game. So it is a question of can we add to it, can we modify? Not can we totally change."

Well said and I agree... if stroke play is the way we determine major champions, then it's good enough for the Olympics... But like Dawson said.  "So it is a question of can we add to it..."  And to that end I'd think YES; find a way to add a team element onto the already successful stroke play element.

Ian Carter's take on BBC:  Rio 2016 Olympics: Britain's Justin Rose the 'perfect winner' on golf's return to Games  http://www.bbc.com/sport/37089718   One thing Ian said caught me: "It is not a parochially British observation to say that Rose was the perfect winner because no one embraced the Olympic project more enthusiastically."  This American agrees. Rose wasn't necessarily the only potential "perfect winner"... but he was certainly one of those who fully embraced golf in the Olympics, and one of those was who I was rooting for.

Men's Grand Slam Tennis events are Best of 5 sets, Olympics is 3 sets.

I think it is bit insulting to many other players to say that Rose embraced the Olympic experience more enthusiastically than any other player. Obviously its hard to objectify enthusiasm, but IMO, Stenson, Fowler, Watson, Kuchar and many other player were All-in. Siddakur was Bangladesh flag bearer in the Opening ceremonies and is the first Bangladesh athlete to qualify for the Olympics on merit (rather than a wild-card, equivalent to a Sponsors invite).

I do enjoy the Olympic competition, but the way it is portrayed here in America, it is one big propaganda machine that runs like a German train schedule.

Olympic final is best of 5 Sets GPB.

Correct, Thank you, earlier rounds are best of three.

Three of the Majors in Golf have 156 players and all of them have a cut, so the Olympic competition is already somewhat different than the Majors.

GPB

In the UK the coverage of the Olympics is geared towards tracking UK medal stories. In the past when the UK was garbage in the Olympics I think the the coverage was more about presenting some of the bigger sports comprehensively. Now the main coverage is all about flitting between sports to see a Brit pick up a medal. Not sure it counts as propaganda but it isn't the best way to watch some of the events. There will have been many great moments in these Olympics that UK viewers have missed as a UK athlete wasn't in contention.

Although as mentioned above you can follow most of the sports on the red button(access to channels no on the main channel list) or via online streams.

GPB wrote:I think it is bit insulting to many other players to say that Rose embraced the Olympic experience more enthusiastically than any other player.  Obviously its hard to objectify enthusiasm, but IMO, Stenson, Fowler, Watson, Kuchar and many other player were All-in.  Siddakur was Bangladesh flag bearer in the Opening ceremonies and is the first Bangladesh athlete to qualify for the Olympics on merit (rather than a wild-card, equivalent to a Sponsors invite).

I do enjoy the Olympic competition, but the way it is portrayed here in America, it is one big propaganda machine that runs like a German train schedule.

I think you misunderstand the quote. It's not saying Rose embraced the Olympics more than anybody else... just that nobody else did so more than him. I don't know if that's exactly correct... but if it's not, it's pretty darn close. But sure, like I indicated in my OP.... "Rose wasn't necessarily the only potential "perfect winner"... but he was certainly one of those who fully embraced golf in the Olympics, and one of those was who I was rooting for."... and the same sentence could have been written for others... such as some of the ones you mentioned... and more. (like Van Zyl fore example)

And I can't disagree with you more on the "propaganda" aspect of it. The definition of the word may be "technically" correct... but the negative connotation implied with the word isn't IMO. I think it's a more a case that to most the media... the Olympics REALLY ARE the big deal they're being made out to be. But certainly I can see how someone not so enamored with them thinks its overkill. I for one do not..

My propaganda observation was directed at comments that Justin Rose was the "perfect winner" because of his enthusiasm.

IMO, thats insulting to many other players that were all-in for the olympics.  A win by Watson, or Stenson, or Fowler would have been just as perfect for the Olympic movement.

IMO, The US TV coverage from the NBC family is not very balanced.  I expect it to have a bias, but not this much.  The Lochte incident has been barely talked about.  The green swimming pools are barely talked about.  There has been passive aggressive pot shots at the golfers who did not play.


Edit...I was making this post before Robo's last post.

You must be watching different NBC coverage than I am.... IMO a "fair" weigh is being given to the issues. But I think it comes down to what constitutes"balance" in the coverage. Is it to report one bad thing for every good thing? Or is it to fairly point out the few bad things that are going on in context with the 100's or 1000's of good things? I think it's the latter.

For instance you mentioned the green diving well. IMO it was proper to point out the issue and discuss it in some depth, which they did on the NBC I was watching. But beyond that what are they supposed to do..... point out the green murky water with each dive?

Same with the Lochte situation. IMO they handled it properly by not jumping the gun and reporting before all the facts were in (like I did here myself). But once they had the story they opened that nights coverage with a full detailed report. And then the did what they should have done... they moved on...

Does Rose's Gold Medal have an objective impact to his Hall of Fame prospects?

As far as Lochte, I only saw about a 20 second report on it. Granted I am not glued to NBC and I do a lot of channel surfing.

Particularly when they devote cameras to Phelps in the staging room etc.

I never did hear who were the other swimmers involved in the Lochte incident.

GPB wrote:Does Rose's Gold Medal have an objective impact to his Hall of Fame prospects?

If he's otherwise close but just below the mark to be voted in... sure I could see the Olympic Gold being the difference.  And who knows... by the time he's eligible for the 2030 class... it might be worth a LOT more.  Only time will tell on that one.

GPB wrote:As far as Lochte, I only saw about a 20 second report on it.  Granted I am not glued to NBC and I do a lot of channel surfing.
Particularly when they devote cameras to Phelps in the staging room etc.
I never did hear who were the other swimmers involved in the Lochte incident.

Here's a full story on it on the NBC Olympic site discussing it in full including the other swimmers involved.  http://www.nbcolympics.com/news/ryan-lochte-among-four-us-swimmers-robbed-gunpoint-rio

Here's another full video story on the incident from NBC TODAY on it... including interviews with Lochte, and a reporter going out and retracing Lochte's steps that night. http://www.nbcolympics.com/video/today-ryan-lochte-discusses-armed-robbery-incident

Seems to me if NBC is trying to sweep this story under the rug with pro Olympics "propaganda"...  they're doing a lousy job...

McLaren wrote:GPB

In the UK the coverage of the Olympics is geared towards tracking UK medal stories.  In the past when the UK was garbage in the Olympics I think the the coverage was more about presenting some of the bigger sports comprehensively.  Now the main coverage is all about flitting between sports to see a Brit pick up a medal. Not sure it counts as propaganda but it isn't the best way to watch some of the events.  There will have been many great moments in these Olympics that UK viewers have missed as a UK athlete wasn't in contention.

Although as mentioned above you can follow most of the sports on the red button(access to channels no on the main channel list) or via online streams.

Have you ever followed events like this from another country Mac? It's no different and often a lot worse, but like you say, there's dozens of feeds to pick what you want.

Anyone see any of the boxing. That really has been farcical. The Conlan fight was a disgrace and I for one will be wording a moderately worded letter to my MP.

Pretty funny watching all the Oirish boxers fail, all pretending to be billy big balls and all out.

Not really funny, the judging was clearly well out of order.

MontysMerkin wrote:Not really funny, the judging was clearly well out of order.

So you are insinuating that judges may be corrupt? in boxing? are you crazy!

As I mentioned before, when my MP gets my moderately worded letter all hell won't break loose.

The boxing comes somewhere below the horse dancing in terms of crap sports in the olympics.

Why don't you just become mildly indignant on the forum Monty? No need to actually go and do anything "real" about it.

The keyboard is mightier than the pen.

Unless you have an itch on your back, then I'd rather have a pen as I find the relatively rounded edges of the keyboard are useless for a good scratch.

Thanks Roller, may consider that course of action - it really makes my blood lukewarm.