J
Joesitz
Guest
Re: Olympics
It's just ooooh sooooo subjective.
Jooooe
It's just ooooh sooooo subjective.
Jooooe
T
tharrtell
Guest
Re: Olympics
I love the Olympics and spend the two Oly weeks every two years glued to the TV (which is unusal for me because I don't sit well!) As to the chachet? I think for the vast majority of sports the Olympics will always be the peak. However, for sports like baseball, bball, tennis - the big professional sports, their respective championships will always mean more. There is something almost mythical about the Oly gold medal, IMO, that makes an Oly gold more than a World Championship. It might be a timing thing - that an athlete was able to put it all together when it counted most. That, and that fact that the Olympics have a wider audience. If Mary Lou Retton gave her performance at the World Championships, who would have known? For that matter, had Sarah given her performance at Worlds, who would have know?
I love the Olympics and spend the two Oly weeks every two years glued to the TV (which is unusal for me because I don't sit well!) As to the chachet? I think for the vast majority of sports the Olympics will always be the peak. However, for sports like baseball, bball, tennis - the big professional sports, their respective championships will always mean more. There is something almost mythical about the Oly gold medal, IMO, that makes an Oly gold more than a World Championship. It might be a timing thing - that an athlete was able to put it all together when it counted most. That, and that fact that the Olympics have a wider audience. If Mary Lou Retton gave her performance at the World Championships, who would have known? For that matter, had Sarah given her performance at Worlds, who would have know?
M
mpal2
Guest
Re: Olympics
<What importance has the number of athletes of a country being determined in Worlds got to do with an Olympic win of one athlete?>
My point (which I didn't get out too clearly) is that if the Olympics are so much more important, why don't they use the results there to determine how many places a country can have at the World Championships? The answer: because it is a once every 4 years competition. A lot can change in 4 years. New skaters come along and set a new high for their country.
The skaters are also competing against all the same people they compete against at Worlds. It's not like they are turning into couch potatoes because it's "just Worlds".
The only difference between Olympic gold and World gold is that the media makes more of a big deal about representing your country, blah, blah blah. A skater is still representing their country at Worlds. They still have a medal ceremony with the flags at both events.
I can't think of any reason why an Olympic medal is better than the World medal. They are both equally hard to obtain as far as having to outskate the competition.
<Well, I don´t think that in figure skating there are "lucky" winners. There are athletes who work very hard to win at the Olympics, and who have been seen as contenders to win the title already before the competition. Besides in figure skating unknowns don´t win there (unlike in many other sports)... And how ever many other titles a skater may have, if there is not that of the Olympic champion, the biggest title is missing from the collection.>
<If your definition of "true champion" is how many other gold medals someone has one, then I'm curious where your cutoff line is. Didn't Dorothy win just one (or two) Worlds? Didn't Kristi Y. just win one nat and one World title (or was it two), all in the space of a year? Or are Kristi and Dorothy true champions, but Tara, for example, isn't just because you don't like Tara?>
My definition of a winner vs champion is that a champion is a person who can go out and repeatedly and consistantly win in the competitions that were available to them. Anyone who has worked that hard to get near the top of the heap can win given the right circumstances. There are also plenty of people working just as hard as the winners/champions. Hard work does not equal a win or champion status, for most it won't even equal a medal.
There are plenty of people who can be a champion at their national level but not come anywhere close to that at the international level. I tend to think of Lucinda Ruh in this category. She has beautiful skating and spins, but she wasn't going to get anywhere near the top internationally without those triples.
Sarah Huges did a great job and that was the best I've ever seen her skate. She has every reason to be proud of that medal. However, all 3 people ahead of her bombed on their programs. If anyone of them had skated their best, Sarah would not be Olympic Champion/Winner. The only other win she has had is Skate Canada that year, which again the 2 ahead of her bombed on their program. That doesn't say anything about whether Sarah Hughes is a good person or how she handled a major win. It just means that if everyone else had skated at the level we're used to seeing, Sarah would not have been at the top of the podium. She should still be proud of that win though. But to me, it's a win.
As far as Kristi, Dorothy, Peggy, etc. I wasn't alive or watching skating at that point. I'm pretty much taking everyone else's word that they were champions. I also have had the joy of downloading their programs. I haven't seen most of their competitors though. It all goes back to relying on those who were following skating at that time. It is also difficult to compare to today because they didn't have the luxury of making money while competing. That money factor can change a lot of things.
Tara, unfortunately, was sidelined with injury so we'll never know how many wins she could have traded with Michelle. It would have been a case of one champion duking it out with another. I would have loved to have seen that happen. As it stands now, Tara (in my mind/definition) is a could have been champion vs a winner. Except for the Olympic win, her victories fall in the same category as Sarah. Her closest competitor didn't rise to the occasion.
Now that the skaters are allowed to make money, time (IMO) is the best measure of a champion. I hate to see anyone forced into leaving early. Both Tara and Sarah were/are capable of doing more. Tara didn't get to choose and it looks like Sarah has made her choice (this year at least).
I just hate to see an Olympic gold medal get in the way of good skating because it has been given this mystical power over all other medals.
<What importance has the number of athletes of a country being determined in Worlds got to do with an Olympic win of one athlete?>
My point (which I didn't get out too clearly) is that if the Olympics are so much more important, why don't they use the results there to determine how many places a country can have at the World Championships? The answer: because it is a once every 4 years competition. A lot can change in 4 years. New skaters come along and set a new high for their country.
The skaters are also competing against all the same people they compete against at Worlds. It's not like they are turning into couch potatoes because it's "just Worlds".
The only difference between Olympic gold and World gold is that the media makes more of a big deal about representing your country, blah, blah blah. A skater is still representing their country at Worlds. They still have a medal ceremony with the flags at both events.
I can't think of any reason why an Olympic medal is better than the World medal. They are both equally hard to obtain as far as having to outskate the competition.
<Well, I don´t think that in figure skating there are "lucky" winners. There are athletes who work very hard to win at the Olympics, and who have been seen as contenders to win the title already before the competition. Besides in figure skating unknowns don´t win there (unlike in many other sports)... And how ever many other titles a skater may have, if there is not that of the Olympic champion, the biggest title is missing from the collection.>
<If your definition of "true champion" is how many other gold medals someone has one, then I'm curious where your cutoff line is. Didn't Dorothy win just one (or two) Worlds? Didn't Kristi Y. just win one nat and one World title (or was it two), all in the space of a year? Or are Kristi and Dorothy true champions, but Tara, for example, isn't just because you don't like Tara?>
My definition of a winner vs champion is that a champion is a person who can go out and repeatedly and consistantly win in the competitions that were available to them. Anyone who has worked that hard to get near the top of the heap can win given the right circumstances. There are also plenty of people working just as hard as the winners/champions. Hard work does not equal a win or champion status, for most it won't even equal a medal.
There are plenty of people who can be a champion at their national level but not come anywhere close to that at the international level. I tend to think of Lucinda Ruh in this category. She has beautiful skating and spins, but she wasn't going to get anywhere near the top internationally without those triples.
Sarah Huges did a great job and that was the best I've ever seen her skate. She has every reason to be proud of that medal. However, all 3 people ahead of her bombed on their programs. If anyone of them had skated their best, Sarah would not be Olympic Champion/Winner. The only other win she has had is Skate Canada that year, which again the 2 ahead of her bombed on their program. That doesn't say anything about whether Sarah Hughes is a good person or how she handled a major win. It just means that if everyone else had skated at the level we're used to seeing, Sarah would not have been at the top of the podium. She should still be proud of that win though. But to me, it's a win.
As far as Kristi, Dorothy, Peggy, etc. I wasn't alive or watching skating at that point. I'm pretty much taking everyone else's word that they were champions. I also have had the joy of downloading their programs. I haven't seen most of their competitors though. It all goes back to relying on those who were following skating at that time. It is also difficult to compare to today because they didn't have the luxury of making money while competing. That money factor can change a lot of things.
Tara, unfortunately, was sidelined with injury so we'll never know how many wins she could have traded with Michelle. It would have been a case of one champion duking it out with another. I would have loved to have seen that happen. As it stands now, Tara (in my mind/definition) is a could have been champion vs a winner. Except for the Olympic win, her victories fall in the same category as Sarah. Her closest competitor didn't rise to the occasion.
Now that the skaters are allowed to make money, time (IMO) is the best measure of a champion. I hate to see anyone forced into leaving early. Both Tara and Sarah were/are capable of doing more. Tara didn't get to choose and it looks like Sarah has made her choice (this year at least).
I just hate to see an Olympic gold medal get in the way of good skating because it has been given this mystical power over all other medals.
J
Jaana
Guest
Re: Olympics
>My point (which I didn't get out too clearly) is that if the Olympics are so much more important, why don't they use the results there to determine how many places a country can have at the World Championships? The answer: because it is a once every 4 years competition. A lot can change in 4 years. New skaters come along and set a new high for their country>
Well, also I mentioned about that in my post above. But, they also use at the Worlds each year the qualification rounds to determine who is going to skate in the competition (= the number of the slots for each country). The results don´t stand for even a year... Besides at previous Worlds before the Olympics will be determined the number of the slots in the Olympics for each country, not specific skaters.
They use Worlds to determine the Olympic slots, but that definetely does not make Worlds a bigger or even as big a competition. It is just convenient to do that and some competition is just needed to determine the slots, because it is not convenient to have qualifications rounds at figure skating in the Olympics, as that is such a huge event (those are possible to do at Worlds because it is a smaller event). And Worlds is just a stepping stone upwards for the biggest competition of them all: The Olympics. See, the skater´s normal road starts from the Nationals, goes up to the Europeans, continues up to the Worlds and continues up to the Olympics (= the top) if in the Olympic season that skater manages to win or to place well in own Nationals, GP Finals and Europeans. The results from previous Worlds only give the number of slots.
>The only difference between Olympic gold and World gold is that the media makes more of a big deal about representing your country, blah, blah blah. A skater is still representing their country at Worlds. They still have a medal ceremony with the flags at both events.>
Olympics is the biggest event, much bigger than the Worlds. And it is not just media which makes it bigger, it just is the biggest event with all kinds different competitions, and it has always been regarded as the greatest honour by the athletes to be even able to compete in the Olympics.
>I can't think of any reason why an Olympic medal is better than the World medal. They are both equally hard to obtain as far as having to outskate the competition.>
Well, to win a skater has to outskate the competition in whatever competitions that skater is competing... And the better she/he outskates the competition, the bigger champion she/he is in that particular event. Sometimes it is very hard to obtain a gold even in one´s own Nationals. Besides for example a small event like Grand Prix Finals has normally all the top skaters (exactly the same top that a skater meets in Worlds or in Olympics in the Olympic season) competing there, but to win a gold in GP Finals is not seen as important as a Worlds gold, LOL.
>I just hate to see an Olympic gold medal get in the way of good skating because it has been given this mystical power over all other medals. >
I think that at least in most Olympics that skater has won who has done the best skating in that particular event. She/he also has done great skating earlier, because otherwise that skater would not have been able to win. Unknowns or skaters who have not already earlier been seen by the judges as the very top skaters, don´t win an Olympic gold medal in figure skating! And an Olympic gold medal is seen in most of the competitions held in the Winter Olympics as the highest possible gold medal an athlete can win for himself and for his country.
The fact that a few very popular athletes still skating today (with lots of other medals) have not been able to win a gold medal (or any medal) in the Olympics, cannot and must not diminish the value or the glory of an Olympic gold medal for an athlete (that is e.g. such a huge personal achievement) just because some skaters did not manage to achieve that (and others did).
BTW, just out of curiosity I did a quick search: During the whole history of all Winter Olympics, only three lady skaters with three or more golds from the Worlds, have not won a gold medal in the Olympics. Two of them were Worlds gold medallists during the time there were no Olympics (between the ones held in 1908 and 1920). In men the number is five. And the number of the male skaters who have not won a Worlds gold medal (but one or more World medals though) *before* their Olympics win, is 8 (out of 21 Olympics). In ladies the number is 5 (out of 21). By the way Katarina Witt was one of them, as before her first Olympics she had not won a Worlds gold.
During almost 100 years at 21 Olympics there has been 17 *different* male figure skaters who have won the Olympic gold medal. In ladies the number is 18.
Marjaana
>My point (which I didn't get out too clearly) is that if the Olympics are so much more important, why don't they use the results there to determine how many places a country can have at the World Championships? The answer: because it is a once every 4 years competition. A lot can change in 4 years. New skaters come along and set a new high for their country>
Well, also I mentioned about that in my post above. But, they also use at the Worlds each year the qualification rounds to determine who is going to skate in the competition (= the number of the slots for each country). The results don´t stand for even a year... Besides at previous Worlds before the Olympics will be determined the number of the slots in the Olympics for each country, not specific skaters.
They use Worlds to determine the Olympic slots, but that definetely does not make Worlds a bigger or even as big a competition. It is just convenient to do that and some competition is just needed to determine the slots, because it is not convenient to have qualifications rounds at figure skating in the Olympics, as that is such a huge event (those are possible to do at Worlds because it is a smaller event). And Worlds is just a stepping stone upwards for the biggest competition of them all: The Olympics. See, the skater´s normal road starts from the Nationals, goes up to the Europeans, continues up to the Worlds and continues up to the Olympics (= the top) if in the Olympic season that skater manages to win or to place well in own Nationals, GP Finals and Europeans. The results from previous Worlds only give the number of slots.
>The only difference between Olympic gold and World gold is that the media makes more of a big deal about representing your country, blah, blah blah. A skater is still representing their country at Worlds. They still have a medal ceremony with the flags at both events.>
Olympics is the biggest event, much bigger than the Worlds. And it is not just media which makes it bigger, it just is the biggest event with all kinds different competitions, and it has always been regarded as the greatest honour by the athletes to be even able to compete in the Olympics.
>I can't think of any reason why an Olympic medal is better than the World medal. They are both equally hard to obtain as far as having to outskate the competition.>
Well, to win a skater has to outskate the competition in whatever competitions that skater is competing... And the better she/he outskates the competition, the bigger champion she/he is in that particular event. Sometimes it is very hard to obtain a gold even in one´s own Nationals. Besides for example a small event like Grand Prix Finals has normally all the top skaters (exactly the same top that a skater meets in Worlds or in Olympics in the Olympic season) competing there, but to win a gold in GP Finals is not seen as important as a Worlds gold, LOL.
>I just hate to see an Olympic gold medal get in the way of good skating because it has been given this mystical power over all other medals. >
I think that at least in most Olympics that skater has won who has done the best skating in that particular event. She/he also has done great skating earlier, because otherwise that skater would not have been able to win. Unknowns or skaters who have not already earlier been seen by the judges as the very top skaters, don´t win an Olympic gold medal in figure skating! And an Olympic gold medal is seen in most of the competitions held in the Winter Olympics as the highest possible gold medal an athlete can win for himself and for his country.
The fact that a few very popular athletes still skating today (with lots of other medals) have not been able to win a gold medal (or any medal) in the Olympics, cannot and must not diminish the value or the glory of an Olympic gold medal for an athlete (that is e.g. such a huge personal achievement) just because some skaters did not manage to achieve that (and others did).
BTW, just out of curiosity I did a quick search: During the whole history of all Winter Olympics, only three lady skaters with three or more golds from the Worlds, have not won a gold medal in the Olympics. Two of them were Worlds gold medallists during the time there were no Olympics (between the ones held in 1908 and 1920). In men the number is five. And the number of the male skaters who have not won a Worlds gold medal (but one or more World medals though) *before* their Olympics win, is 8 (out of 21 Olympics). In ladies the number is 5 (out of 21). By the way Katarina Witt was one of them, as before her first Olympics she had not won a Worlds gold.
During almost 100 years at 21 Olympics there has been 17 *different* male figure skaters who have won the Olympic gold medal. In ladies the number is 18.
Marjaana
S
Skate Sandee
Guest
Re: Olympics
Slightly off-tpoic: I think the Olympics have lost a little something because of the limited air time devoted to it. I remember as a kid, I could turn on the TV at any time of the day and watch the Olympics. They were on continuously (well - I wasn't up in the middle of the night, so I don't know if it was on 24/7) throughout the two weeks. Sure it meant that you were watching some obsure sports, but it was fun! I loved the athlete profiles and the little stories about little-known athletes. I was always more aware of the Olympics as a kid because it was such a television event....much more than the scant coverage we get now. Sigh....the good old days.
Slightly off-tpoic: I think the Olympics have lost a little something because of the limited air time devoted to it. I remember as a kid, I could turn on the TV at any time of the day and watch the Olympics. They were on continuously (well - I wasn't up in the middle of the night, so I don't know if it was on 24/7) throughout the two weeks. Sure it meant that you were watching some obsure sports, but it was fun! I loved the athlete profiles and the little stories about little-known athletes. I was always more aware of the Olympics as a kid because it was such a television event....much more than the scant coverage we get now. Sigh....the good old days.
J
Jaana
Guest
Re: Olympics
Well, it still is a huge event during the whole time of the Olympics on Eurosport broadcast and also in our national TV. LOL, but figure skating was not shown that much on our TV, but Eurosport has always compensated that from Europeans, Worlds and Olympics.
Skate Sandee are you speaking about US tv broadcast or those from the Canadian tv as well?
Marjaana
Well, it still is a huge event during the whole time of the Olympics on Eurosport broadcast and also in our national TV. LOL, but figure skating was not shown that much on our TV, but Eurosport has always compensated that from Europeans, Worlds and Olympics.
Skate Sandee are you speaking about US tv broadcast or those from the Canadian tv as well?
Marjaana
M
mathman444
Guest
Re: Olympics
Jaana, I am lucky enough to live in a U.S. city that borders on Canada (in fact, Windsor, Ontario is due <em>South</em> of Detroit), so I can watch both U.S. and Canadian coverage of the Olympics, as well as of other ice skating events. The U.S. Olympic coverage has become a cruel joke on the viewers. Almost nothing is shown live. Instead they have all kinds of edited "feature stories" which have no purpose that I can see except to give T.V. commentators more "face time." (In fact, in general the American television networks seem to think that newsreaders Peter Jennings or Tom Brokaw is the story, rather than the story being the story -- but that's another story. (I hope you are saying, who are Peter Jennings and Tom Brokaw right now -- that's my point entirely.:lol: ))
Anyway, the Canadian coverage is <em>far</em> superior, for both the summer and the winter games. They are not afraid to show preliminary heats in minor events, if that's what's going on at the moment.
Mathman
Jaana, I am lucky enough to live in a U.S. city that borders on Canada (in fact, Windsor, Ontario is due <em>South</em> of Detroit), so I can watch both U.S. and Canadian coverage of the Olympics, as well as of other ice skating events. The U.S. Olympic coverage has become a cruel joke on the viewers. Almost nothing is shown live. Instead they have all kinds of edited "feature stories" which have no purpose that I can see except to give T.V. commentators more "face time." (In fact, in general the American television networks seem to think that newsreaders Peter Jennings or Tom Brokaw is the story, rather than the story being the story -- but that's another story. (I hope you are saying, who are Peter Jennings and Tom Brokaw right now -- that's my point entirely.:lol: ))
Anyway, the Canadian coverage is <em>far</em> superior, for both the summer and the winter games. They are not afraid to show preliminary heats in minor events, if that's what's going on at the moment.
Mathman
R
realistic51
Guest
Re: Olympics
To me, the Olympics is fun to watch. I admire the hard work that the athletes have put in for their individual sport. I cheer for all different athletes from all different countries. Yet, I'd rather watch World Championships in ANY sport than the Olympics.
But we are forgetting one thing here. There are 3 winners at ANY Olympic competition, not just one. There is 1 Olympic Champion, but there are still two more medals. And to place in the top 3 and achieve an Olympic medal has to be just as valuable as the top spot.
For all my life I have watched the Olympics. For all my life I have placed more value on a World Championship medal than an Olympic one. Why is that? Because anyone can rise to win at a competition every 4 years, but not every athlete can do it year after year. I'm not calling anyone "lucky" for winning OGM, but there are 2 other winners standing on the podium with them and that ain't due to lack of hard work.
The stories I enjoy the most are the ones about athletes who come to the Olympics JUST to be called an Olympian. That's the true spirit of the Olympics. It's the media that places such importance on winning gold when so many athletes who probably don't stand a chance of ANY medal have trained and worked hard all their lives JUST to be call an Olympian.
The Olympics has lost its luster in recent years with boycotts, scandals, and politics. Those are the very things that shouldn't have intruded on a sport which was designed to recognize superior athleticism and bring the world together for at least one moment in time. (Ugh, that sounded like a song) It's lost that somewhere along the way. And with those things, the medals, gold, silver and bronze, are indeed less important to me than a World Championship win every year.
To me, the Olympics is fun to watch. I admire the hard work that the athletes have put in for their individual sport. I cheer for all different athletes from all different countries. Yet, I'd rather watch World Championships in ANY sport than the Olympics.
But we are forgetting one thing here. There are 3 winners at ANY Olympic competition, not just one. There is 1 Olympic Champion, but there are still two more medals. And to place in the top 3 and achieve an Olympic medal has to be just as valuable as the top spot.
For all my life I have watched the Olympics. For all my life I have placed more value on a World Championship medal than an Olympic one. Why is that? Because anyone can rise to win at a competition every 4 years, but not every athlete can do it year after year. I'm not calling anyone "lucky" for winning OGM, but there are 2 other winners standing on the podium with them and that ain't due to lack of hard work.
The stories I enjoy the most are the ones about athletes who come to the Olympics JUST to be called an Olympian. That's the true spirit of the Olympics. It's the media that places such importance on winning gold when so many athletes who probably don't stand a chance of ANY medal have trained and worked hard all their lives JUST to be call an Olympian.
The Olympics has lost its luster in recent years with boycotts, scandals, and politics. Those are the very things that shouldn't have intruded on a sport which was designed to recognize superior athleticism and bring the world together for at least one moment in time. (Ugh, that sounded like a song) It's lost that somewhere along the way. And with those things, the medals, gold, silver and bronze, are indeed less important to me than a World Championship win every year.
M
mathman444
Guest
Re: Olympics
To Realistic -- I am sorry about the loss of your brother.
Mathman
To Realistic -- I am sorry about the loss of your brother.
Mathman
M
mathman444
Guest
Re: Olympics
My original observation on this thread was this: "major" sports (by which I mean sports that generate enough fan interest to make everybody in the sport rich and famous) have their own "world championship" in some form or another. If they participate in the Olympics at all, it is as an afterthought.
For the "minor" sports, by which we mean sports that most people hardly know exist, the Olympics is their only opportunity to be noticed by the public. Tharrtell’s example of Mary Lou Retton is a case in point. She achieved fame and accompanying financial (endorsement) opportunities only because of the Olympics. In 1960, Peggy Fleming was in the same boat. Without the Olympics no one would ever have heard of her. Because of the Olympics, she’s rich and famous.
Well, the times, they are a-changing. Four-time world champion Kurt Browning is rich and famous in Canada without an Olympic medal. Five-time world champion Michelle Kwan is rich and famous in the United States without Olympic gold. Is this evidence that figure skating is moving out of the “minor sports” category and toward the status of sports that take charge of their own world championships without relying on Olympic validation?
Jaana argues persuasively, “no.” I think that she is probably right. Figure skating is not just another event in the Winter Games, it is <em>the</em> event. Figure skating is the only represented sport that pays its own way. The ladies’ free skate is always one of the biggest draws on television during an Olympic year, typically second only to the Super Bowl among American viewers. Nowadays figure skating does as much for the Winter Olympics as the Winter Olympics does for figure skating. It’s a win-win situation for the skating establishment, and for the athlete’s themselves, to continue the tradition of hyping the Olympics as the ultimate challenge in the sport.
Even so, I also agree with those posters who wonder if the whole idea of the Olympic Games might not be loosing its oomph, and may eventually go the way of the circus.
Mathman
My original observation on this thread was this: "major" sports (by which I mean sports that generate enough fan interest to make everybody in the sport rich and famous) have their own "world championship" in some form or another. If they participate in the Olympics at all, it is as an afterthought.
For the "minor" sports, by which we mean sports that most people hardly know exist, the Olympics is their only opportunity to be noticed by the public. Tharrtell’s example of Mary Lou Retton is a case in point. She achieved fame and accompanying financial (endorsement) opportunities only because of the Olympics. In 1960, Peggy Fleming was in the same boat. Without the Olympics no one would ever have heard of her. Because of the Olympics, she’s rich and famous.
Well, the times, they are a-changing. Four-time world champion Kurt Browning is rich and famous in Canada without an Olympic medal. Five-time world champion Michelle Kwan is rich and famous in the United States without Olympic gold. Is this evidence that figure skating is moving out of the “minor sports” category and toward the status of sports that take charge of their own world championships without relying on Olympic validation?
Jaana argues persuasively, “no.” I think that she is probably right. Figure skating is not just another event in the Winter Games, it is <em>the</em> event. Figure skating is the only represented sport that pays its own way. The ladies’ free skate is always one of the biggest draws on television during an Olympic year, typically second only to the Super Bowl among American viewers. Nowadays figure skating does as much for the Winter Olympics as the Winter Olympics does for figure skating. It’s a win-win situation for the skating establishment, and for the athlete’s themselves, to continue the tradition of hyping the Olympics as the ultimate challenge in the sport.
Even so, I also agree with those posters who wonder if the whole idea of the Olympic Games might not be loosing its oomph, and may eventually go the way of the circus.
Mathman
E
engrsktr
Guest
Olympics
I think that the olympics have endured as the most special event for the althletes involved... but maybe not necessarily so for viewers and fans, mostly because of how the games are handled by the media. I think the media takes away from the meaning of the games (the US media is the only one I can speak for) simply becuase everything is over-the-top and there are too many things shown that have NOTHING to do with the games in general. I for one am sick of watching countless commercials only to rejoin coverage to hear people talk and talk and talk about what they think. And I certainly don't need an in-depth tour of whatever country the games are in (sure a little info is nice, but I don't need a tour every single day to the last detail!) I want to see good sportsmanship, good sporting, and, as cliche as it sounds, I want to see the thrill of victory and the agony of defeat. :lol:
I believe there is too much money involved - too much wasted.... look at the opening ceremonies.... they have become a bigger deal than the sporting events themselves.....every city could save SO much money by scaling back on things like that that don't mean all that much....sure it's a great way to open something meant to be so global, but good gracious - sometimes I feel like I'm watching cirque du soleil instead of the introduction to the countries participating.(and as most know, tickets to cirque shows don't come cheap - at least not the marquee shows).
I believe that for athletes, the Olympics IS the pinnacle of success.... this is so for a few of reasons.... first, the olympics comes around once an olympiad... so this means the chance to compete is more rare than going to "just" a world championship which is every year...
Second, it's not just a gathering of people from your own sport - it's all summer or winter sports gathered together....what a great place to be as an athlete to meet other athletes in different sports and to attend other sporting events that you may not get the chance to so readily see.
Third, there is a history involved... not just in the modern era, but back in ancient sporting days.... it's something that existed so long ago... just to be a part of such a history and tradition would be great.
So I don't think athletes would care about the loss of viewership or fan attention....
as far as those who say being a consistent champion year after year is concerned.... those athletes who are so consistent should be able to put it together for the olympics.... if not, they are not as consistent champions as one would think, are they?
and to say that certain people only win because others faltered is unfair - part of being a competitor is to be able to do your best WHENEVER you have to. for those that see the olympics as "once in a lifetime" (only attending once) that's the test...it may sound like a stupid test, but it remains one reason why the olympics are so glorified. So not only are the athletes being tested on their overt skills, they are also being tested on strength of mind and spirit....it's all encompassing.
if an athlete can put it together on the night they wish, I don't call that luck.... I say that if that is possible, then there is something about that person that supercedes the average person in that regard (not saying they are better than any of us but saying that in that regard they have a strength most don't have or have never had to develop).
That person didn't get lucky - they were ready.
I think that the olympics have endured as the most special event for the althletes involved... but maybe not necessarily so for viewers and fans, mostly because of how the games are handled by the media. I think the media takes away from the meaning of the games (the US media is the only one I can speak for) simply becuase everything is over-the-top and there are too many things shown that have NOTHING to do with the games in general. I for one am sick of watching countless commercials only to rejoin coverage to hear people talk and talk and talk about what they think. And I certainly don't need an in-depth tour of whatever country the games are in (sure a little info is nice, but I don't need a tour every single day to the last detail!) I want to see good sportsmanship, good sporting, and, as cliche as it sounds, I want to see the thrill of victory and the agony of defeat. :lol:
I believe there is too much money involved - too much wasted.... look at the opening ceremonies.... they have become a bigger deal than the sporting events themselves.....every city could save SO much money by scaling back on things like that that don't mean all that much....sure it's a great way to open something meant to be so global, but good gracious - sometimes I feel like I'm watching cirque du soleil instead of the introduction to the countries participating.(and as most know, tickets to cirque shows don't come cheap - at least not the marquee shows).
I believe that for athletes, the Olympics IS the pinnacle of success.... this is so for a few of reasons.... first, the olympics comes around once an olympiad... so this means the chance to compete is more rare than going to "just" a world championship which is every year...
Second, it's not just a gathering of people from your own sport - it's all summer or winter sports gathered together....what a great place to be as an athlete to meet other athletes in different sports and to attend other sporting events that you may not get the chance to so readily see.
Third, there is a history involved... not just in the modern era, but back in ancient sporting days.... it's something that existed so long ago... just to be a part of such a history and tradition would be great.
So I don't think athletes would care about the loss of viewership or fan attention....
as far as those who say being a consistent champion year after year is concerned.... those athletes who are so consistent should be able to put it together for the olympics.... if not, they are not as consistent champions as one would think, are they?
and to say that certain people only win because others faltered is unfair - part of being a competitor is to be able to do your best WHENEVER you have to. for those that see the olympics as "once in a lifetime" (only attending once) that's the test...it may sound like a stupid test, but it remains one reason why the olympics are so glorified. So not only are the athletes being tested on their overt skills, they are also being tested on strength of mind and spirit....it's all encompassing.
if an athlete can put it together on the night they wish, I don't call that luck.... I say that if that is possible, then there is something about that person that supercedes the average person in that regard (not saying they are better than any of us but saying that in that regard they have a strength most don't have or have never had to develop).
That person didn't get lucky - they were ready.
M
mathman444
Guest
Re: Olympics
<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>I think that the olympics have endured as the most special event for the althletes involved... but maybe not necessarily so for viewers and fans, mostly because of how the games are handled by the media. I think the media takes away from the meaning of the games (the US media is the only one I can speak for) simply becuase everything is over-the-top and there are too many things shown that have NOTHING to do with the games in general.[/quote]I totally agree with both points.<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Third, there is a history involved... not just in the modern era, but back in ancient sporting days.... it's something that existed so long ago... just to be a part of such a history and tradition would be great.[/quote]The all-time medal winner in Olympic history is the emperor Nero. He competed in singing, playing the lyre, poetry, chariot racing, and many track and field events, winning them all. Altogether he won the equivalent of 1800 gold medals.
www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/alabaster/A493689
Mathman
<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>I think that the olympics have endured as the most special event for the althletes involved... but maybe not necessarily so for viewers and fans, mostly because of how the games are handled by the media. I think the media takes away from the meaning of the games (the US media is the only one I can speak for) simply becuase everything is over-the-top and there are too many things shown that have NOTHING to do with the games in general.[/quote]I totally agree with both points.<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Third, there is a history involved... not just in the modern era, but back in ancient sporting days.... it's something that existed so long ago... just to be a part of such a history and tradition would be great.[/quote]The all-time medal winner in Olympic history is the emperor Nero. He competed in singing, playing the lyre, poetry, chariot racing, and many track and field events, winning them all. Altogether he won the equivalent of 1800 gold medals.
www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/alabaster/A493689
Mathman
Re: Olympics
mpal, great post. ITA with your definition of Champion vs Winner.
However, I would say Tara is a Champion too. She had beaten a lean Kwan. And most important she had won all type of majore competetions before her Oly win.
IMO, the competetion at Worlds is just as strong as Olympics except the Olympic year since in Olympic year the winner usually choose to skip the worlds. In a non Olympics year all top skaters are geared up to the worlds. Alexie Yagudin said in a interview at 2001 worlds that he gaveup everything just for the worlds. Even skaters took that much importance of worlds at an non Olympics year.
As for GP events. I don't know how can anyone say it just as important as Worlds or Olympics. All top skaters are assigned to SIX diff events and IIRC each event has no more than 2 seeded skaters assigned to. And sometimes top skaters choose to sit out GP events.
As for Kwan won all other competetion again and again but fail to win OGM so she is not that consistant? Come on, since 1996 she has been beaten by ONLY 5 skaters (Tara L, Maria B, Irina S, Sarah H, Canadian J?) in any competetion. If this is not called consistant what is? And I don't think you can say that much about any other skaters on scen now.
mpal, great post. ITA with your definition of Champion vs Winner.
However, I would say Tara is a Champion too. She had beaten a lean Kwan. And most important she had won all type of majore competetions before her Oly win.
IMO, the competetion at Worlds is just as strong as Olympics except the Olympic year since in Olympic year the winner usually choose to skip the worlds. In a non Olympics year all top skaters are geared up to the worlds. Alexie Yagudin said in a interview at 2001 worlds that he gaveup everything just for the worlds. Even skaters took that much importance of worlds at an non Olympics year.
As for GP events. I don't know how can anyone say it just as important as Worlds or Olympics. All top skaters are assigned to SIX diff events and IIRC each event has no more than 2 seeded skaters assigned to. And sometimes top skaters choose to sit out GP events.
As for Kwan won all other competetion again and again but fail to win OGM so she is not that consistant? Come on, since 1996 she has been beaten by ONLY 5 skaters (Tara L, Maria B, Irina S, Sarah H, Canadian J?) in any competetion. If this is not called consistant what is? And I don't think you can say that much about any other skaters on scen now.
C
carlantz
Guest
Re
OGM is important. To say OGM are not important is funny, it is corious that the ones that say that in this forum are MK fans. That is a lack of respect for the Oly gold winners and for MK too. If it werent important tell me why the most of the MK fans bashed Tara? Why MK cried at Nagano 98 and at Salt Lake 02?. Is that a consolation???. MK is more famous for her achievents, not because she havent won a olympic gold medal.
OGM is important. To say OGM are not important is funny, it is corious that the ones that say that in this forum are MK fans. That is a lack of respect for the Oly gold winners and for MK too. If it werent important tell me why the most of the MK fans bashed Tara? Why MK cried at Nagano 98 and at Salt Lake 02?. Is that a consolation???. MK is more famous for her achievents, not because she havent won a olympic gold medal.
E
eltamina
Guest
Carlanz, wherre is the data to back it up?
<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>OGM are not important is funny, it is corious that the ones that say that in this forum are MK fans. [/quote]
How do you know they are MK fans, and not dual fans or triple or millenial fans?
<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>If it werent important tell me why the most of the MK fans bashed Tara[/quote]
Interesting, I am a dual MK and Tara fan. I like Tara. Where do you get the statistics tht most of the MK fans bashed Tara? BTW, for Tara's birthday our own Mathman wrote a poem for her
<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Why MK cried at Nagano 98 and at Salt Lake 02?[/quote]
I guess no one can read minds or get into her head, who knows why she cried?
Back to topic:
My answer is yes and no. I remember I thought Kobe was nuts for skipping Olympics 2000, By skipping the Olympics he missed the chance to represent USA, and an OGM. But I guess love and marriage is more important than the Olympics :rollin:
OT: What is the name of that Miami Heat guy who played at the Olympics, but had to fly home in b/w games because his wife had a baby?
<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>OGM are not important is funny, it is corious that the ones that say that in this forum are MK fans. [/quote]
How do you know they are MK fans, and not dual fans or triple or millenial fans?
<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>If it werent important tell me why the most of the MK fans bashed Tara[/quote]
Interesting, I am a dual MK and Tara fan. I like Tara. Where do you get the statistics tht most of the MK fans bashed Tara? BTW, for Tara's birthday our own Mathman wrote a poem for her
<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Why MK cried at Nagano 98 and at Salt Lake 02?[/quote]
I guess no one can read minds or get into her head, who knows why she cried?
Back to topic:
My answer is yes and no. I remember I thought Kobe was nuts for skipping Olympics 2000, By skipping the Olympics he missed the chance to represent USA, and an OGM. But I guess love and marriage is more important than the Olympics :rollin:
OT: What is the name of that Miami Heat guy who played at the Olympics, but had to fly home in b/w games because his wife had a baby?
M
mpal2
Guest
Re: importance of Olympic gold
just to add an additional clarification: I never said the Olympic gold medal wasn't important. I just don't think it should be more important than the World Championship medal. I just don't think someone has reached the pinnacle of skating just because of that 1 medal. There is so much more involved in determining the best of the best.
Sarah Hughes had the potential to achieve more than what she has already done. Chances are, she's not coming back. Winning Olympic gold did nothing but diminish her skating this last year out. There were moments where she looked like she was in the middle of her own personal hell and that is sad.
Yes, I love Michelle Kwan's skating. But my attitude on the Olympic gold doesn't change across any of the sports. I think Svetlana Khorkina is probably the best person on the uneven bars in gymnastics. She fell on that event at the Olympics in Sydney and didn't get the individual medal in that event. I still think she's the best one at that event, she just had an off night.
If any athlete in any other sport catches my attention at the Olympic games, I go to the websites and review the history of their sport's World Championships. I also read up on what the knowledgable fans and their own peers have to say about that particular athlete. Call me a statistics addict. Yes I can be happy for them because of their Olympic win. In fact that would be one of the reasons why I bothered to look their sport up on the internet. But it takes more than 1 competition to convince me that I have witnessed the best ever.
I just can't say that Olympic gold is greater than any World Champion medal.
just to add an additional clarification: I never said the Olympic gold medal wasn't important. I just don't think it should be more important than the World Championship medal. I just don't think someone has reached the pinnacle of skating just because of that 1 medal. There is so much more involved in determining the best of the best.
Sarah Hughes had the potential to achieve more than what she has already done. Chances are, she's not coming back. Winning Olympic gold did nothing but diminish her skating this last year out. There were moments where she looked like she was in the middle of her own personal hell and that is sad.
Yes, I love Michelle Kwan's skating. But my attitude on the Olympic gold doesn't change across any of the sports. I think Svetlana Khorkina is probably the best person on the uneven bars in gymnastics. She fell on that event at the Olympics in Sydney and didn't get the individual medal in that event. I still think she's the best one at that event, she just had an off night.
If any athlete in any other sport catches my attention at the Olympic games, I go to the websites and review the history of their sport's World Championships. I also read up on what the knowledgable fans and their own peers have to say about that particular athlete. Call me a statistics addict. Yes I can be happy for them because of their Olympic win. In fact that would be one of the reasons why I bothered to look their sport up on the internet. But it takes more than 1 competition to convince me that I have witnessed the best ever.
I just can't say that Olympic gold is greater than any World Champion medal.
I
IceCastles1814
Guest
Re: Has the Olympics lost its cachet?
I've never posted on this board before, but I've always enjoyed reading the threads here. I'm doing it now, because I really think this is a great question. From what I read I think people who are saying yes the Olympics have diminished are saying it for either one and/or two reasons: 1. like mathman has said, the major sports do not rely on the Olympics for money or exposure and figure skating has become a controlling factor in the success of the Olympics, a switch from earlier years. 2. when you have athletes like Michelle, Irina, Kurt, etc. who undoubtedly great athletes and competitors, but who don't rise up to the particular occassion, it gives the idea of "success" a duality.
Yes, the olys are important to these skaters, I'm sure, they've all said as much. But, the point is that you are not a "loser" and forgotten if you don't win the OGM (if you are a contender) or any medal. That doesn't diminish the mental and physical achievement of those who have won OGMs or medals, while maybe not possessing the overall career of those who didn't. The Olys still have a special spirit of competition and meaning to those who compete. It's a big event. And, it also puts a lot of pressure on those in contention. And, yes, some make bad or questionable decisions or can't handle that pressure. Oh, well...that's life. I just don't think it's as bad a blimish on a world champion's career if they don't win the OGM. It's disappointing, but heck, Kurt has 4 World Championships and Michelle has 5 of them and two Olympic medals. I can't imagine that's a failure. It's how we've been trained to think of it because the media and the fans [and the athletes] have the highest expectations and "hype" everything to death.
I love the Olys and I'll always watch both the summer and winter. I just can have respect both for those who rise to that Olympic occasion [it's exciting!] and those who have won multiple world championships [it's admirable] in any sport. Neither is a simple feat and both are great achievements of a kind. That's my two cents, anyway.
I've never posted on this board before, but I've always enjoyed reading the threads here. I'm doing it now, because I really think this is a great question. From what I read I think people who are saying yes the Olympics have diminished are saying it for either one and/or two reasons: 1. like mathman has said, the major sports do not rely on the Olympics for money or exposure and figure skating has become a controlling factor in the success of the Olympics, a switch from earlier years. 2. when you have athletes like Michelle, Irina, Kurt, etc. who undoubtedly great athletes and competitors, but who don't rise up to the particular occassion, it gives the idea of "success" a duality.
Yes, the olys are important to these skaters, I'm sure, they've all said as much. But, the point is that you are not a "loser" and forgotten if you don't win the OGM (if you are a contender) or any medal. That doesn't diminish the mental and physical achievement of those who have won OGMs or medals, while maybe not possessing the overall career of those who didn't. The Olys still have a special spirit of competition and meaning to those who compete. It's a big event. And, it also puts a lot of pressure on those in contention. And, yes, some make bad or questionable decisions or can't handle that pressure. Oh, well...that's life. I just don't think it's as bad a blimish on a world champion's career if they don't win the OGM. It's disappointing, but heck, Kurt has 4 World Championships and Michelle has 5 of them and two Olympic medals. I can't imagine that's a failure. It's how we've been trained to think of it because the media and the fans [and the athletes] have the highest expectations and "hype" everything to death.
I love the Olys and I'll always watch both the summer and winter. I just can have respect both for those who rise to that Olympic occasion [it's exciting!] and those who have won multiple world championships [it's admirable] in any sport. Neither is a simple feat and both are great achievements of a kind. That's my two cents, anyway.
M
mathman444
Guest
Re: Has the Olympics lost its cachet?
Very well said, IceCastles. I'm glad you decided to start posting here. Welcome aboard!
Mathman
Very well said, IceCastles. I'm glad you decided to start posting here. Welcome aboard!
Mathman
M
maxell1313
Guest
Re: Olympics
<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>as far as those who say being a consistent champion year after year is concerned.... those athletes who are so consistent should be able to put it together for the olympics.... if not, they are not as consistent champions as one would think, are they? [/quote]
Hey, engrsktr...you forgot to say how much you dislike Michelle Kwan in this post.
<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>as far as those who say being a consistent champion year after year is concerned.... those athletes who are so consistent should be able to put it together for the olympics.... if not, they are not as consistent champions as one would think, are they? [/quote]
Hey, engrsktr...you forgot to say how much you dislike Michelle Kwan in this post.
M
mathman444
Guest
Re: Tara
Off Topic:<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>"BTW, for Tara's birthday our own Mathman wrote a poem for her." -- Eltamina[/quote]Ahem. Well. if you insist...
<div style="text-align:center">A Sonnet for Tara
Tara, Tara's twenty-one!
Time has flown on golden wing;
May setting moon and rising sun
Another day of beauty bring
To her whose grace our hearts has won,
Whose charm compels our hearts to sing.
With joy you scaled Olympian heights
The pride of all the watching world,
Your Star on Ice the brightest light
Outshining diamonds, gold or pearls;
We treasure most remembered sights
Of dazzling smiles and joyful twirls.
Tara, Tara's twenty-one.
Your journey's only just begun!</div>
OK, so I'm not Freddy the Pig. But if any of you guys have never visited the "Cafe," there are some ongoing trivia contests posted where you can win birthday gifts for your favorite skaters. Already prizes have been won for Tara, Michelle, Jennifer Robinson, Belbin and Agosto, Jeffrey Buttle, Dorothy Hamill and Jenny Kirk. If you are feeling smart but silly, come join in!
Mathman
Off Topic:<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>"BTW, for Tara's birthday our own Mathman wrote a poem for her." -- Eltamina[/quote]Ahem. Well. if you insist...
<div style="text-align:center">A Sonnet for Tara
Tara, Tara's twenty-one!
Time has flown on golden wing;
May setting moon and rising sun
Another day of beauty bring
To her whose grace our hearts has won,
Whose charm compels our hearts to sing.
With joy you scaled Olympian heights
The pride of all the watching world,
Your Star on Ice the brightest light
Outshining diamonds, gold or pearls;
We treasure most remembered sights
Of dazzling smiles and joyful twirls.
Tara, Tara's twenty-one.
Your journey's only just begun!</div>
OK, so I'm not Freddy the Pig. But if any of you guys have never visited the "Cafe," there are some ongoing trivia contests posted where you can win birthday gifts for your favorite skaters. Already prizes have been won for Tara, Michelle, Jennifer Robinson, Belbin and Agosto, Jeffrey Buttle, Dorothy Hamill and Jenny Kirk. If you are feeling smart but silly, come join in!
Mathman
Similar threads
- Sticky
