Bummer. I just typed a really long, eloquent treatise on this subject and, upon trying to post it, found I wasn't logged in. I ain't doin' that again.
Summary: Times have changed for the Games, for track and for the athletes. I think a race has to stand on its own, even if it has the name Olympics attached to it. Not all Olympic races are created equal. The stage is a factor, but the actors are the essence. Look at the marathon. I don't think of the Olympic marathon winner as the best marathoner any more. Every race has to be evaluated for what it is, taking all factors into consideration.
When it comes right down to it, if the top athletes are competing in the biggest meet of the year, what difference does it make whether it's the Olympics or the World Championships? As far as I'm concerned, the only difference is that at the Olympics, they're fencing, wrestling, and playing water polo somewhere nearby. And, oh yes, there's a torch. Big friggin' deal. 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.
<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.
>Ryun had three chances at the Oly games and came
>up only with a Silver, but let's look at the
1964 -- Just a kid, just beginning SR.
>year in HS, pr is only 3:59.
1968 -- On the
>top of his game in '67, but runs into dual
>wrecking ball of mono and altitude. Silver to a
1972 -- falls. Can't
>really blame tactics for that, can you?
>question that the guy didn't have it mentally or
>that his tactics were faulty is off base, IMO.
Unfortunately, there is no evidence that Ryun could win the big meet. Could he have won a tactical kicker's race? I did not see much of him, so I can't say for sure. Ryun was largely a victim of bad luck which hurt his chances at success in the Olympics.
go back and read mine, Pego, you are correct. As I said in mine, without the Olympics, Track & Field to the typical American, or even typical American general sports fan would have the visibility of Table Tennis. So we TafNuts should treat the Olympics as our most treasured asset !
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.
><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
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.
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.
>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
What if he loses because he falls or finishes narrowly behind a great runner?