PDRHoya99
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 766
|
Post by PDRHoya99 on Aug 18, 2008 19:44:01 GMT -5
Obviously, they don't translate exactly from one to the other (thus your silly example of hopping on one foot). He has to do all four types of strokes in the IM and be pretty good at all of them (not just two). I don't think you can really say he's only good in two of them. No, but he is only world class in 2 of them, otherwise he would be competing in the individual backstroke and breastroke events, which he was not. This was the logic used earlier for eliminating triathlon, so I was just taking that to it's conclusion. Plus, he's going up against swimmers, a lot of times, who only do the fly, or only do the freestyle, and he still beats them. If there really isn't a lot of difference between the types of strokes (and thus its easier to get a lot of medals), then why don't more swimmers excel at multiple disciplines. That would seem to defeat your argument that if you're a good swimmer it should be easy to get lots of medals. Let's be clear, nobody is saying it's easy. Phelps is a great swimmer, however my point is that the swimming events seem to lend themselves to multiple event winners at a single games. Doing the 100M, the 200M and 400M is kind of like doing 200M, 400M and 800M on the track - something that's never been attempted, let alone someone getting gold medals and world records at each distance. My point exactly. Attempting the 100/200 double is getting to be more and more difficult. Trying to do any 3 combinations of distance on the track is basically impossible, suggesting that the lengths require sufficiently different types of training for success. I don't think the same can be said of the swimming events. Finally, I read somewhere that of the top 20 medal earners in Olympic history, only three are swimmers (Spitz, Phelps and Biondi). If it were truly easy to get lots of medals in swimming, the numbers would seem like they would come out different. Perhaps you should have read more closely. Click here is the top medal winner list. Notice anything? Four of the top 10 are swimmers, 2 are gymnasts (also ripe with medal overkill with a team, overall, and individual apparatus medals), one is a canoeist that participated in 5 olympics (probably would have had more if not for the 84 boycott), and two are from track and field, but one participated prior to 1930, so I'm thinking training methods are slightly different today. The other is Carl Lewis, and he won his over 4 different games as well, along with being one of the most amazing track and field athletes in history. So is Phelps performance amazing - yes, but he happens to participate in the sport best setup for multiple medal performances in a single games.
|
|
|
Post by lightbulbbandit on Aug 18, 2008 21:16:01 GMT -5
Obviously, they don't translate exactly from one to the other (thus your silly example of hopping on one foot). He has to do all four types of strokes in the IM and be pretty good at all of them (not just two). I don't think you can really say he's only good in two of them. No, but he is only world class in 2 of them, otherwise he would be competing in the individual backstroke and breastroke events, which he was not. This was the logic used earlier for eliminating triathlon, so I was just taking that to it's conclusion. Let's be clear, nobody is saying it's easy. Phelps is a great swimmer, however my point is that the swimming events seem to lend themselves to multiple event winners at a single games. My point exactly. Attempting the 100/200 double is getting to be more and more difficult. Trying to do any 3 combinations of distance on the track is basically impossible, suggesting that the lengths require sufficiently different types of training for success. I don't think the same can be said of the swimming events. Finally, I read somewhere that of the top 20 medal earners in Olympic history, only three are swimmers (Spitz, Phelps and Biondi). If it were truly easy to get lots of medals in swimming, the numbers would seem like they would come out different. Perhaps you should have read more closely. Click here is the top medal winner list. Notice anything? Four of the top 10 are swimmers, 2 are gymnasts (also ripe with medal overkill with a team, overall, and individual apparatus medals), one is a canoeist that participated in 5 olympics (probably would have had more if not for the 84 boycott), and two are from track and field, but one participated prior to 1930, so I'm thinking training methods are slightly different today. The other is Carl Lewis, and he won his over 4 different games as well, along with being one of the most amazing track and field athletes in history. So is Phelps performance amazing - yes, but he happens to participate in the sport best setup for multiple medal performances in a single games. It should be noted that Michael Phelps entered 2004 Olympic Trials as the top ranked swimmer in the world in the 200 back, but he dropped it from his Olympic program after qualifying second at the trials. I believe he is widely considered one of the top backstrokers in the world, breastroke is his only stroke where he is not considered "world class." You also say that it is nearly impossible to do the track triple because of the different training methods necessary, sounds true. Why do you think the same does not hold true for swimming? The way you state it sounds more like an argument of "A, therefore A."
|
|
SirSaxa
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 747
|
Post by SirSaxa on Aug 18, 2008 21:17:59 GMT -5
My thoughts re: USA Basketball. 1. They are clearly the best team. 2. It's a single elimination tournament with shoddy officiating, a 40 minute clock and talented opponents. I won't be shocked if they lose. 3. This team does have players trying harder and there is better continuity. The story line that doesn't get played up but should, though, is that this team has vastly superior talent to the 2004 team. It's not even close. The 2004 team had a couple of Hall of Famers (neither of whom are well suited to the international game) and a whole bunch of one or two time all-stars. Here's another thing that doesn't get mentioned... the lousy coaching in Athens. Lebron, Dwayne and Carmelo play all the lead up games, then get benched for the Olympics? Larry Brown did a terrible job, almost as bad as the job he did with the Knicks when it appeared he was intentionally trying to lose to show what a lousy GM Isiah was. Much as I hate to admit it, Coack K does have the USA team playing very well together. And yes, that is a remarkable achievement with the egos on that team. They look like a TEAM and they play like a TEAM. I was not expecting that.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,744
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Aug 18, 2008 21:30:35 GMT -5
Also, if you saw Phelps in the 400 IM versus Kitajima, you'd be hard-pressed to say he isn't world-class there, either. Obviously, Kitajima probably wasn't going full-bore, but Phelps could compete in any of the shorter distance races, IMO.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,744
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Aug 18, 2008 21:35:56 GMT -5
I dislike Duke as a program, and I think K is a hypocrite regarding ethics, his "leader of men" crap, etc. The guy has done some pretty dirty stuff and...anyway.
I think strategically he's not an elite coach. He plays the same way regardless of talent -- it's luck or Jerry Coangelo that the US Olympic Team fits his style. He plays pressure man and drive and dish no matter who is on his team (see Carlos Boozer going second round, for example).
That said, I agree with you 100% SirSaxa. There's two things about a K team that are true: they play as a team; and they always give max effort. His team never seems to lose because they are flat -- they will have off games but I've never seen a game where I question effort.
That's impressive to me and a good fit for the US National Team. Most college coaches would be poor choices, frankly.
Even with this national team, I question the utter reliance on forcing turnovers, for example. But would a Ben Howland be better? Absolutely not -- I think the players would have rebelled a year ago.
|
|
SirSaxa
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 747
|
Post by SirSaxa on Aug 18, 2008 21:45:32 GMT -5
I would suggest Doc Rivers could do a good job, to name another candidate. Highly respected by the players. Unpretentious. Good strategist and motivator
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,744
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Aug 18, 2008 21:58:48 GMT -5
Well, regardless of whether they win or not, the bigger question for USA Basketball won't be answered until 2012 and beyond.
Which is, is this a novelty act still or will these guys play every Olympics? The biggest issue for America is not sending our best. For most of these guys, going once is enough. If we can't send LeBron, Wade, Kobe, Bosh, Howard, Paul, etc. next time, we aren't winning.
|
|
SirSaxa
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 747
|
Post by SirSaxa on Aug 18, 2008 22:26:25 GMT -5
Well, regardless of whether they win or not, the bigger question for USA Basketball won't be answered until 2012 and beyond. Which is, is this a novelty act still or will these guys play every Olympics? The biggest issue for America is not sending our best. For most of these guys, going once is enough. If we can't send LeBron, Wade, Kobe, Bosh, Howard, Paul, etc. next time, we aren't winning. That's a good point. But a few comments. Patrick Ewing won two golds... '84 and '92. OK, 1 was college and one was the first dream team. Still, he -- and others -- wanted to go twice and did. The USA doesn't/shouldn't need every one of those guys. Kevin Garnett, Paul Pierce, Tim Duncan and others are sitting home. Three, there will be new guys in 4 years that could also challenge for the team. Michael Beasley for example? Who knows who the best guys will be in 4 years (OK, we know Lebron will... but we can't say now who the top 25 guys for the talent pool will be then) The biggest things to me are: 1. most of the top guys wanted to go... and are having a great experience, and are helping their global marketing profiles for endorsements and even for future hoops contracts. 2. Our guys accepted coaching and a team concept -- that is a big change from some earlier teams. 3. I think they established a much different appreciation of the Olympic experience. Winning Olympic gold means something again. The rest of the world is getting better and better, so winning means more. Hey, we will have to wait to see. But my guess is we've seen (are seeing) a change here at Beijing that will have a lasting influence.
|
|
|
Post by HoyaSinceBirth on Aug 18, 2008 22:43:21 GMT -5
another example of the judges screwing the US. besides the ridiculousness that they're a tie breaking procedure and that it's a bad one. That stupid australian judge screwed nastia.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,744
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Aug 18, 2008 22:46:54 GMT -5
Garnett said he'd never do it again. Duncan won't play in four years and won't be elite. Pierce was part of the teams everyone branded selfish though he'd be fine, but old in four years.
LeBron, Bryant, Paul, Howard and Wade are still going to be the best in four years. This happened once, and after a while, we didn't send our best. The superstars got excited again because 1) they've never been and 2) we lost last time.
If those above don't repeat, I bet we lose in four years. We simply can't afford not to send the very best. Maybe they will surprise me. But I don't think a Durant-Beasley type team will win a gold. You've got to send the best.
|
|
SirSaxa
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 747
|
Post by SirSaxa on Aug 19, 2008 7:38:58 GMT -5
Garnett said he'd never do it again. Duncan won't play in four years and won't be elite. Pierce was part of the teams everyone branded selfish though he'd be fine, but old in four years. LeBron, Bryant, Paul, Howard and Wade are still going to be the best in four years. This happened once, and after a while, we didn't send our best. The superstars got excited again because 1) they've never been and 2) we lost last time. If those above don't repeat, I bet we lose in four years. We simply can't afford not to send the very best. Maybe they will surprise me. But I don't think a Durant-Beasley type team will win a gold. You've got to send the best. SF, my point in mentioning Duncan, Pierce and Garnett was not to say where they would be four years from now. Rather, it was to say the talent pool right now is much deeper than the guys who are currently in Beijing. Four years from now, the talent pool will be deeper too. The guys you mention probably will still be among the best, and having as many of them as possible will be great for our team. But whether it is Beasley and Durant, or Greg Monroe and Jeff Green... there will be new guys who rise to that level. I think the point is not exactly who these guys will be, but -- as I think is really your point -- that we have to get enough of the very top guys to dominate the way the team is now. And.. they must have the same kind of team attitude.
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Aug 19, 2008 8:07:00 GMT -5
another example of the judges screwing the US. besides the ridiculousness that they're a tie breaking procedure and that it's a bad one. That stupid australian judge screwed nastia. Regardless of who, it was clear that someone was going to get screwed last night. The question is...why? Why is that even remotely necessary? Judged competitions are just plain silly. At least until someone invents the Robo-Judge 4000X (but then there's the issues with its stem-cell generated artificial intelligence, its side job as a murderous gigolo, its hard line into Skynet, its sexy Pierce Brosnan voice.....it'd be much easier to get rid of the judged events than go down that road).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 19, 2008 9:19:09 GMT -5
I hate judged events. If you don't determine who's better head-to-head and need some arbitrary third person to say who wins, you're bordering on "not a sport" territory.
Additionally, I hate ties. All ties, all the time, everywhere, in any sport.
That said, I feel like judged events are the one place there SHOULD be ties. Who cares HOW you got to the score you came to (whether it be two gymnasts or two figure skaters or whatever), if you have the same score SO BE IT! Who needs these stupid tiebreaker rules saying Gymanst A beats Gymnast B because her 9.5 is somehow "different" than Gymanst B's 9.5.
As for Robo-Judge 4000x, has he seen John Connor?
|
|
SirSaxa
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 747
|
Post by SirSaxa on Aug 19, 2008 9:30:24 GMT -5
Did anyone catch that sideline chat the Coach had with the US Woman silver medalist in the Pole Vault? If you didn't see it, he basically chastised her for all the things she did wrong in not winning the gold. For an added bit of perspective, she only started on the pole vault four years ago, and just beat everyone in the world except the gold medalist, who broke the Olympic and World record in winning the event.
On his behalf? Well, he must be a pretty good coach because she did win silver. But talk about negative and inappropriate. Geez, the girl just won an Olympic Silver medal. How about a little celebration. The ultra picky critique could wait a day or two.
|
|
thebin
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,848
|
Post by thebin on Aug 19, 2008 10:22:52 GMT -5
|
|
thebin
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,848
|
Post by thebin on Aug 19, 2008 10:53:14 GMT -5
WHat exactly did this pole vaulting coach have to say? He made quite a reputation for himself.
|
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Aug 19, 2008 11:34:09 GMT -5
I hate judged events. If you don't determine who's better head-to-head and need some arbitrary third person to say who wins, you're bordering on "not a sport" territory. Additionally, I hate ties. All ties, all the time, everywhere, in any sport. That said, I feel like judged events are the one place there SHOULD be ties. Who cares HOW you got to the score you came to (whether it be two gymnasts or two figure skaters or whatever), if you have the same score SO BE IT! Who needs these stupid tiebreaker rules saying Gymanst A beats Gymnast B because her 9.5 is somehow "different" than Gymanst B's 9.5. As for Robo-Judge 4000x, has he seen John Connor? Wow! A complete post from Buff and I couldn't agree more. The stars must really be in alignment now. Incidentally, earlier this year Florida and Georgia tied in a gymnastics meet! That's right: not just two individuals or even in one event, but in an entire meet. Per NCAA or SEC rules, they called it a tie. I asked our coach on a call-in show what would happen had that happened in the Super 6 (gymnastics' equivalent of the final four). She actually knew the rule. There are typically one or two "exhibition" gymnasts for most events. Those don'e count for your actual team score, but she said that those performances would serve as the tiebreaker at the NCAA's. I thought that was kind of interesting. sirsaxa wrote: Did anyone catch that sideline chat the Coach had with the US Woman silver medalist in the Pole Vault? If you didn't see it, he basically chastised her for all the things she did wrong in not winning the gold. For an added bit of perspective, she only started on the pole vault four years ago, and just beat everyone in the world except the gold medalist, who broke the Olympic and World record in winning the event.
On his behalf? Well, he must be a pretty good coach because she did win silver. But talk about negative and inappropriate. Geez, the girl just won an Olympic Silver medal. How about a little celebration. The ultra picky critique could wait a day or two.
Yes, I saw that too and thought the guy was totally out of line. He was saying something about "that's why he didn't want to get caught between the 65 and 85" ... does anyone know what they heck he was talking about? From the context, I think his point was that was why he thought a different strategy should have been used -- one where she wouldn't be forced to have to either go with a lower vault to make sure she nailed it, or one where she could go for the gusto but would most likely miss. Did anyone else catch that and if so, do you know what the exact term was and what it meant?
|
|
SirSaxa
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 747
|
Post by SirSaxa on Aug 19, 2008 11:46:55 GMT -5
WHat exactly did this pole vaulting coach have to say? He made quite a reputation for himself. I don't know exactly what he said, but I think I can convey the gist and the tone. Essentially it was "I told you so!" "You could have won a gold, but you didn't listen to me, you didn't do all the things I told you to exactly the way I told you so YOU lost the gold." Kind of a "I am the greatest coach in the world but I had to be saddled with your sorry ass so I wasn't able to prove to the world that I am the greatest coach in the world because YOU didn't listen and YOU blew it!" OK, maybe that's overdoing it a little. But it wasn't just what he said (though that wasn't good) it was the way, the tone, the body language, the attitude. And this for a woman who just won a silver medal! Anyone else want to chime in? Would you agree with that characterization?
|
|
Nevada Hoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 18,432
|
Post by Nevada Hoya on Aug 19, 2008 11:52:27 GMT -5
Yes, I thought that coach was out of line too. Allow her to enjoy her silver medal. She seemed to have that joy back (albeit a little muted) in her interview with NBC. I just saw the "confrontation" on the internet this morning and will have to go over it. I think he was talking about the runup to the vault. Maybe about hitting your marks on the runway.
|
|
fatthew
Century (over 100 posts)
Posts: 115
|
Post by fatthew on Aug 19, 2008 12:25:01 GMT -5
Isn't that the same pole vaulter who was talking trash to the Russian before the event? And then fell back on the whole "oh, well, I've only been doing this for 4 years & she's been doing it her whole life" thing when she didn't win the gold?
|
|