'lympics

[Gazza]

And let's face it, China et al actually do kick our ass (and most everyone else's) at things like diving, rhythmic gymnastics, and men's gymnastics. But I'll gladly sacrifice that for doing well in sports most people actually care about, like soccer (women's anyway), basketball, and - at least once every four years - volleyball, swimming & track.

I was having a conversation with a couple of mates about this....We reckon sports like Gymnastics, Diving, Track and Field etc are the ones that actually matter, and there are certain sports, which whilst popular globally, matter less at the Olympics.

It's like, a country might win Gold for Football/Soccer at the Olympics, but if you've never won the FIFA world cup then Gold at the Olympics isn't the pinnacle.

Or you might win gold for tennis, but if you've never won Wimbledon, too bad mate.

But things like Swimming, Running, Cycling, Rowing etc...Well the Olympics is the pinnacle.

 

[Nic]

It's like, a country might win Gold for Football/Soccer at the Olympics, but if you've never won the FIFA world cup then Gold at the Olympics isn't the pinnacle.

Or you might win gold for tennis, but if you've never won Wimbledon, too bad mate.

I know what you mean, and kind of agree to a point, but those are two bad examples. In both cases, you can't compare the Olympics to the "big" championships because the rules/format are different.

With the Football, the Olympics has rules about the ages of the players that you're allowed to have on your team. Therefore, in many cases, countries had to field a different line-up to their "usual" team, as their normal lot are too old. So, if you're not allowed to send the same team, then its not really a fair comparison.

With the Tennis (well, the Men's anyway), it's different as they're only 3 set matches. As all the other big tournaments are 5, again, you can't make a direct comparison.