Be Excellent To Each Other

If you were only able to watch one event at the olympics what would it be?

I think this question is born of waiting for something exciting to come on the telly, and hoping that something quick like a 100m sprint or high jump event will be more exciting than seeing what appears (to me) to be the same gymnastics routine over and over again.

Or to look at it another way, if you were trying to get someone into the olympics and were allowed to show them one event, which would it be?

I think that totally misses the point! The beauty of the Olympics is watching a variety of sports - many of which you haven't seen before. It can make you a fan of something you wouldn't have ever previously considered. For example the archery is probably my highlight of the day so far, and the handball looks entertaining. Badminton was incredible to see how quickly the players have to react, and then you've got the stuff that is just always good like swimming.

It's all good! Just stick it on in the background and you'll eventually find yourself soaking it in.

In short, stupid question.

You can't say "I don't want to think that way so I'll answer a different question and call the original question stupid."

I agree with the Bulge.

Shut up, Jonarob.

Heh! I wasn't having a go! I simply can't answer your question!

I'm sure someone who feels similarly as yourself (but has enjoyed an Olympic Games before) will come along and give you the sort of answer you're after, but I was just trying to say that I think that's the wrong approach. It's all about variety.

Table tennis. It is so utterly awesome to watch live.

Can I choose the opening ceremony?

If Kingdom Brunel grinning in satisfaction was in every event I'd watch every second.

The Olympics schedule on the BBC shows which slots are the finals of each event. If you want to get all of the excitement without repetition, it might be best to just watch the finals. The athletics finals are always brilliant, and events like diving (I especially marvel at the synchronised diving) are acebest.

The gymnastics is ace, though. Fool.

The gymnastics are impressive, and the individuals are obviously very strong and talented, but I don't like the thought of any competition being decided by opinion.

There's the X-Factor for that.

Someone (imo) needs to prove that they are fastest, strongest, best at something by an objective measure.

Which makes it hard for me to watch gymnastics, dressage, diving, synchronised swimming etc.

Malc

Gymnastics isnae really judged by opinion though. The judging criteria is pretty fucking stringent and based on difficulty & form.

Presumably the other stuff will be similar otherwise they couldnae call it a sport.


Also, wtf is dressage?

Prancy horse walking. I think.

Do they turn the shit horses into dug food & glue?

Does every judge award the same mark though?

I assume there are several judges and they award an average, hence opinion!

Malc

Near enough. They wouldnae get to judge at this level if they weren't objective & strayed from the criteria. It's not fucking Eurovision

What about team sports or sports such as snooker where decisions often fall to a single referee or adjudicator? At least with something like gymnastics or diving the scores are worked out on an average score of judges (taking away the highest and lowest scores and giving an average of the rest) and the scores are awarded on very specific criteria. It's not anything like the XFactor, because it's not to do with what routines the judges like, but how well they stick to very specific criteria.

The scores are worked out by each move being given a very specific difficulty score. These are added up to provide mark. Gymnasts and trainers decide on what difficulty of routine to sim for. Then there is the mark awarded for how well each move is executed. Whether they take a step back, whether they complete each full rotation of the bar, whether they fall off the beam, etc.

yes, and the top and bottom marks aren't counted towards the total either. Marking is pretty tight.

But there is always controversy, as most countries have persecution complexes and are convinced everyone is out to get them (cf The British Media).

Track and field, esp women's track and field.

Absolutely. I'm not by any means saying it's perfect. I just wondered if opinion, as Malc puts it, makes sports like Gymnstics unwatchable to him, it means that sports ruled by a referee also don't work for him, as I think it's possible that the average judgement of a number of people is better than the judgement of one.

Sorry. Than sentence is awful, but lunch is ready.

The dropping of top and bottom scores evens out any bias, not only because it makes it difficult to influence the overall score, but also because anyone trying to do so is easily spottable and can be removed.

That said, the scoring in the boxing is a complete joke.

Watched one today that was completely one-sided. At the end, the obviously beaten competitor, who had been hammered in the final round, just looked glum and was packing his bags, while the other chap rightfully celebrated.

Mental judges called it a draw and gave it to the beaten guy on some count back. The commentators were furious, as was the crowd. Absolute travesty.

Well, it worked perfectly to make LIBOR reliable.

I think that is different, they don't directly decide who wins, sure their decisions can influence the game, and that can annoy me, but the result at the end is determined by the winning team.

Anything that can aid the referee in making the right decision should be done IMO.

Goal line tech etc.

Malc

Fitba referees appear to work to the vaguest criteria ever.

Womens beach volleyball.

Yesterday was a post Sunday roast sexy guilt trip.