[quote]Kailash wrote:
It’s truly sad to see how many people fall for this nationalism propaganda. At least there are indicators though, that it is the older generation…
Fuck Jesse Owens, and heil Hitler! - huh? lol[/quote]
[quote]orion wrote:
I bet she smokes pot too, that snowboarding hippy harlot…[/quote]
Naw man, this happened with a Canadian snowboarder a number of years ago.
It was established that snowboarders only ingest marijuanna in a second-hand fashion; it’s never their fault, or intention, to do so.
-FC
[quote]FlawlessCowboy wrote:
orion wrote:
I bet she smokes pot too, that snowboarding hippy harlot…
Naw man, this happened with a Canadian snowboarder a number of years ago.
It was established that snowboarders only ingest marijuanna in a second-hand fashion; it’s never their fault, or intention, to do so.
-FC[/quote]
Was that the one that won gold and they wanted to take the medal away from him?
Just to play devil’s advocate here, has anyone considered that there’s not a whole lot of time to contemplate your decision to try to hot dog it when you’re flying down an icy hill at high speeds? I mean an idea pops into her head, she goes with it, and before you can blink, she’s on her can.
[quote]ChrisKing wrote:
Kailash wrote:
It’s truly sad to see how many people fall for this nationalism propaganda. At least there are indicators though, that it is the older generation…
This is the reason I don’t care for the Olympics as a whole.
Look at all the armchair athletes on this thread who are pissed that a snowboarder didn’t win a gold medal for them.
As for all the showboating comments, at it’s core snowboarding is showboating. It doesn’t matter wheather it’s halfpipe, slopestyle, boardercross, or freeriding.[/quote]
I am a Brit and i am all for a yank falling over and cocking up, but thats not the reason.
As an armchair athlete, i excell in armchair athletics, and would attempt to win in any of the armchair event.
She was an immature arse who doesn.t know what she had there.
Herm Edwards may well have played for that very reason; other people have their own. If everyone is only expected to play for his own reasons, rather than somebody else’s, this situation does not lead to any problems.
[quote]tGunslinger wrote:
Her jersay says “U.S.A.” on the front. She wasn’t sent over there to have a good time, she was sent over there to compete as hard as she could and she failed to do so. THAT is why we’re angry with her.[/quote]
If her jersey said Pizza Hut (as it very well might, in quite a few sports) would you still be angry at her for letting the good proprietors of that enterprise down? Come on, now. Nationality in the Olympics is for publicity. It’s all PR. Entirely so. It’s PR, okay?
You’re not paying her salary – don’t expect her to perform with you in mind.
[quote]etaco wrote:
The Europeans care more than most of the Americans. It’s what makes the hockey so much fun to watch.[/quote]
Agreed, but… that’s only the case because American football & baseball don’t exist as Olympic sports. I don’t believe it reflects a true cultural difference in attitude.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
I think you are confused. This was a race. She lost.[/quote]
Fine, it was a race. I was under the impression that there was some other aspect of it besides that. Nevertheless, I stand by my point. Imagine this: what if an athlete’s intention in competing, above all, was to demonstrate his/her superiority to the competition? Could this be done without securing a formal win? I believe that it can, and it happens very often in all sports, though more so in professional leagues. The reason for the latter is that professional sports are very rigid in regards to their rules, whereas “non-competitive” sports are very fluid. I happen to think that rigidity in pro sports is a detrimental factor which often leads to disparities between official “winners” and the truly skilled athletes of the sport.
[quote]loppar wrote:
I don’t care about snowboarding personally, but I have to respectfully state that the paragraphs quoted above were retarded.
What is the point of sport competitions then?[/quote]
There’s no universal answer to that question. The point of a competition depends on the nature of the competition.
[quote]loppar wrote:
Why should I strive to compete in a particular sport if my opponent is clearly superior in skill? Should I just throw in the towel and say “Oh well, even if I win that it would be meaningless because he is clearly superior in skill to me”[/quote]
Only you can answer that question with respect to yourself, and the same holds true for every other sports competitor.
[quote]loppar wrote:
The whole point of competition is to show your skill when it MATTERS (i.e. in an actual competition event). Who gives a flying fuck if you can win every single sparring or a training race if you cannot perform at the event than matters.[/quote]
And who’s to be the judge of when something “matters” the most? Once again, everyone will come to his own conclusion - there’s simply no way around it. Formal competitions are established to represent the cutting edge of true, real-world competition. Unfortunately, they often fall behind the competitive curve, turning into archaic social rituals in the process.
[quote]loppar wrote:
There were thousands of situations where competitors or teams who were clearly inferior in skill or athleticism or whatever defeated “better” opponents in the Olympics, World Championships etc. I never saw anyone of those defeated simply shrug their shoulders and say “Oh nevermind, we could have beated them any other day, everyone knows were better, we were here just to have fun”.[/quote]
Maybe not. But that doesn’t change what happened. It simply means that the people involved apparently cared more for the formal aspects of their respective sports than the skill-based aspects.
[quote]loppar wrote:
This wholle “I’m just here to have fun and please the crowd” sounds like PC run amok and applied to sports.
[/quote]
Some are there to please the crowd, and others to please themselves. Live with it. Or, if you don’t like it, design a formal competitive event model which phases out the flaws and retains the benefits as you percieve them.
Nominal Prospect, you wrote a lot of loser talk, but this is the pussiest, hippy, feel-good bullshit I’ve ever read.
No complaints
TQB
(Swede)
[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
I think you are confused. This was a race. She lost.
Fine, it was a race. I was under the impression that there was some other aspect of it besides that. Nevertheless, I stand by my point. Imagine this: what if an athlete’s intention in competing, above all, was to demonstrate his/her superiority to the competition? Could this be done without securing a formal win?
[/quote]
No. In order to prove you are superior you must win. Otherwise you are inferior to the winner.
[quote]
I believe that it can, and it happens very often in all sports, though more so in professional leagues. The reason for the latter is that professional sports are very rigid in regards to their rules, whereas “non-competitive” sports are very fluid. I happen to think that rigidity in pro sports is a detrimental factor which often leads to disparities between official “winners” and the truly skilled athletes of the sport.
… [/quote]
You play to win. If you don’t play to win, don’t play. Do something else. There are plenty of non-competitive things that require athletism.
Not everyone wins, but everyone should give their best effort.