are the olympics really that important?


Forum devoted to track & field items of an historical nature.

Re: are the olympics really that important?

Postby Powell » Fri Oct 03, 2003 7:32 am

You're not talking about the same thing here.
Yes, to the general public the Olympics are a lot more important because of the hype, tradition etc. And nobody here is suggesting we get rid of the Olympics - obviously they're hugely important as far as the visability of T&F goes (though it's much less the case in Europe than it is in the US).
However, from the purely athletic point of view the world championships are no different. In fact, looking at the recent past I would say the level of competition has generally been higher in the world champs.
Powell
 
Posts: 9063
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Vanuatu

Re: are the olympics really that important?

Postby Guest » Fri Oct 03, 2003 7:37 am

Correct. And that's really what Steve's original question was about.
Guest
 

Re: are the olympics really that important?

Postby Guest » Fri Oct 03, 2003 8:33 am

><The Olympics are important, but as a track meet,
>it's no better than the World Championships and
>the more people believe that, the healthier the
>sport will be.>

Who is naive here? Without the
>OG, T&F would not get even the sorry recognition
>by the media it is getting now. I've been a
>subject of ridicule for my "romantic"
>attachment to the OG in the past, so I am used to
>it. What surprises me is to receive it at this
>forum of T&F fans. After all, T&F is THE pillar
>of the Games. What surprises me even more is,
>that so far there has been not a single voice
>coming to my assistence. I just can't believe I
>am the only geek in this noble society who feels
>this way.

I am here!
Guest
 

Re: are the olympics really that important?

Postby Guest » Fri Oct 03, 2003 9:12 am

>> After all, T&F is THE pillar of the Games.<<

Yes it is. But that doesn't mean that the Games are the pillar of T&F. At the highest level, in purely T&F terms, the Games stand no higher than the World Championships.
Guest
 

Re: are the olympics really that important?

Postby Pego » Fri Oct 03, 2003 9:31 am

Powell, Righteris, not only do I disagree with your comparison of OG/WC, I don't think it's even close. As far as the pure results are compared, Powell is probably right, they look quite comparable. But look at the athletes! Olympic years see even the "retired" ones coming out of the woodworks. They don't do it for the WC. How many times have we heard "I'd gladly exchange all my World records for one Olympic gold medal"? When Jimmy Carter boycotted Moscow, the Soviets promptly retaliated. Would have they done the same for the WC? I doubt it. You are trying to strictly separate the athletics from all the other qualities of both OG and WC. I don't think it's possible, there is simply too much of an overlap.
Pego
 
Posts: 10196
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: beyond help

Re: are the olympics really that important?

Postby Guest » Fri Oct 03, 2003 9:40 am

Righteris, Lefteris is a name by the way..... Guess what nationality!
Guest
 

Re: are the olympics really that important?

Postby Guest » Fri Oct 03, 2003 10:07 am

I would assume it's Greek.
Guest
 

Re: are the olympics really that important?

Postby Guest » Sun Oct 05, 2003 6:38 am

The Olympics have been, are now, and probably will be for the next several years the top meet in the world. I've talked with many athletes and just about every one of them says they would rather have an Olympic gold medal over a WC gold medal. There is little comparison. Yes, to be the Olympic champion involves a certain amount of luck, but it involves a lot more ability. Some great athletes fail under the pressure of the OG. What makes the OG so important is its history and the fact in happens every four years. It's the biggest show on Earth.
Guest
 

Re: are the olympics really that important?

Postby Guest » Wed Oct 08, 2003 3:01 pm

You can't penalize EL G too much. He fell in '96 (hardly his fault). He did lose in 2000 but it was a close race and he lost to a great runner. If he gets beat in '04, I'll change this opinion though.
Guest
 

Re: are the olympics really that important?

Postby steve » Wed Oct 08, 2003 6:53 pm

>You can't penalize EL G too much. He fell in '96
>(hardly his fault). He did lose in 2000 but it
>was a close race and he lost to a great runner.
>If he gets beat in '04, I'll change this opinion
>though.
What if he loses because he falls or finishes narrowly behind a great runner?
steve
 
Posts: 692
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: are the olympics really that important?

Postby gh » Wed Oct 08, 2003 7:13 pm

>Righteris, Lefteris is a name by the way.....
>Guess what nationality!>>

It's Greek, and your brother in the middle is... Kenteris!
gh
 
Posts: 46302
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Re: are the olympics really that important?

Postby Guest » Wed Oct 08, 2003 10:00 pm

>>Righteris, Lefteris is a name by the
>way.....
>Guess what nationality!>>

It's
>Greek, and your brother in the middle is...
>Kenteris!

Cute.
Guest
 

Previous

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests