The Glade 4.0

Posting this in Heckfire, just in case it gets frisky...

I haven't been following closely, but stumbled on this story about the 4th best olympic qualifier not being including in the final field of 24 for the all around finals, because she was only the 3rd best on her own team, and they only allow the top two from any one country.

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/olympics-- ... final.html


...continued at the link

It's not something I'm going to lose any sleep over, and I understand why they do it. It is still difficult to tell a young girl who has worked this hard all of her life to perform on this stage, that someone who isn't as good as she is is more deserving of a chance to win a medal than she is. Especially in this particular case, where it's likely that the girl in question would have been the Gold Medal winner.

Should be about who's best in the world, so that makes the rule stupid.

Edit to expand my opinion:
- Solo athlete competitions should not fall under the two competitors per country rule. If Kenya has the top 10 runners in the world, the rest of the world should know that.
- Team competitions should be restricted to one team per country

Also, it might be worth noting that she still has a chance to win a team medal.

I just can't imagine her going through life not having had a chance to compete for the all around medal, despite qualifying fourth in a competition where the top 24 advance.

After reading the article, it seems the Russians had a similar incident in the 2000 olympics. In that case, one of qualifying russian girls came up with a mysterious injury, allowing the 3rd team mate to qualify. She ended up winning Gold...

It is so shocking that something that is not a sport has bizarre rules for determining winners.

_________________

This is one of the reasons I don't watch the Olympics. That said, it's been a good long while since the world has been merit based.

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

The Olympics is about the best competitors from each country, not the overall best from the world. If you just went with the top 24 competitors period, smaller nations would NEVER be able to attend.

It would also mean that we would have never been treated to inspiring stories like Eddie the Eagle and the Jamacian Bobsled team.

I don't really see anything here to get all upset about. That said, it's definitely unfortunate for Jordyn.

This is true, but there shouldn't be quotas on who makes it past preliminary events. The smaller nations can still send their athletes, and they'll still be competing in the team events. And true stand-outs from small nations will make it into the higher levels of competition.

_________________
"Aaaah! Emotions are weird!" - Amdee
"... Mirrorshades prevent the forces of normalcy from realizing that one is crazed and possibly dangerous. They are the symbol of the sun-staring visionary, the biker, the rocker, the policeman, and similar outlaws." - Bruce Sterling, preface to Mirrorshades

This.

Besides, no one is talking about just automatically going with the top 24 competitors. This is about keeping someone out who would have been in the top 24 simply because she had 2 teammates with higher scores, and despite the fact that other qualifiers scored lower than she did, and worse, is apparently a rule unique to gymnastics. Just going with the top 24 would mean dispensing with qualifying rounds entirely, and make the Olympics a mere ancillary to other international competitions.

The idea that smaller nations would never be able to compete holds no water; frequently at least some of the top 24 would be from smaller nations in the first place and second, the competition is supposed to be about individual athletes representing heir nations, not about nations all competing with differences in population and national character controlled out of existence. During the Cold War, excessive focus on the international aspects of the competition turned the entire thing into a matter of national glory for east vs. west, with the cheating in order to win glory for socialism reaching epic heights.

Inspirational stories like Eddie the Eagle and the Jamaican Bobsled team are not what the Olympics are about. Note that in both cases, despite poor overall performance, these competitors qualified based on their own merit. They may look awful compared to other Olympians, but they're among the best in the world compared to everyone else. We do not need to keep a better bobsled team out just to give Jamaica an opportunity to lose in a medal round.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Winning the Olympics does not make you a world champion, so I have no qualms with this process at all.

As for quotas, I am not sure where that concept came up. If there was a quota then there would 230+ athletes in every contest (one for each country), not 24.

_________________

What does being a 'World Champion' have to do with anything?

The Olympics... Boring the crap out of me for 28 or so years...

_________________
Darksiege
Traveller, Calé, Whisperer
Lead me not into temptation; for I know a shortcut

Being an Olympian therefore is an honorary/cermonial award and has nothing to do with being the best.

_________________

What?

Exactly.

/edit:
Gold medal winners in the Olympics are not the World Champion (aka best) in their sports, that is a seperate competition. For example the World Gymnastics Championship which Jordyn is currently reigning World Champion of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Gymn ... mpionships ; or swimming http://www.fina.org/H2O/index.php?optio ... Itemid=796 ; or figure skating http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_World ... mpionships .

The Olympics is an honorary competition with honorary awards that just happen to have a high profile. Gold medalists are not recognized as the best in their sport. Since they are not considered the best in their sport the field doesn't need to consist of the best in the sport. Hence why picking the best 1-2 per country is legit.

_________________

Sorry Hop.. I'm lost. I'm not sure what language you are speaking, but it's not making sense to me. I tried google translate.. no luck...

It might be better expressed this way:

It is about the purpose of the event: If it is not a competition to determine who is the best, you don't need to include the best; if it is an honorary event you dole out the honor of who gets to compete as you see fit.

_________________

While the winner of the gold medal in an event in the Olympics may not be the same as the reigning world champion, it is still very much about being among the best at that sport. Olympic Gold Medalists frequently are the world champion, or have been, or are a contender for that title.

If the medals were doled out on "whatever basis someone saw fit" they would rapidly lose any value as an honorary win. An honorary win at an event where the conditions are rigged so that victory is not about who performed the best at that event has very little value as an honor.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

You're not watching the right events

_________________

Holy shitsnacks!

Allow me to call your attention to the numerous events involving women in bathing suits.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

This. Swimming > volleyball > diving > Gymnastics.

_________________

Holy shitsnacks!

Oh, and OT. As far as I am concerned, top 24 with no restrictions. Only 2 from each country is stupid.

"But then the smaller countries can't compete!" Yes, they can. Be in the top 24! If you're not, you're going to get tooled in the finals anyway by the top 2 from the US, and then the top 1 from **** or whatever remnant of the USSR that's still hardcore into gymnastics. (As an example).

_________________

Holy shitsnacks!

A race of 24 Kenyans in the Marathon isn't really a world event then is it?
Nor would 24 Canadian Hockey teams be a world sport for that matter. Some countries value and invest their resources more heavily into single events/competitions because culturally it is important to them which would naturally tilt the field.

_________________

Up to a point, yes, but we wouldn't see such ridiculously slanted numbers for the same reason we don't see nothing but Chinese and Indians - A) at that level, even a major population advantage doesn't give you enough in the class to completely swamp an event B) events are almost always culturally important in at least a few countries and C) limiting the number of teams (and the team sizes)is not the same as limiting the number of competitors. Limiting teams is different because it forces each country to qualify its own athletes rather than sending inferior athletes and relying on quotas to get into a medal round. That still might allow some athletes from a country with a smaller talent pool to compete where others at a similar skill level from a larger country might not be able to, but if they were inferior they'd still lose and if they were better, they'd win. It would still be very, very rare for significantly inferior athletes to compete over better ones.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Hah, except I feel like a perv watching the gymnasts. Except for the Turkish gymnast this year (first ever!), who's, ya know, actually of age.

_________________
This cold and dark tormented hell
Is all I`ll ever know
So when you get to heaven
May the devil be the judge

Yeah, there's a vague sense of unease watching the gymnasts

And even some of the swimmers... but for the most part. Also, there were some hot cyclists this time too

_________________

Holy shitsnacks!