Games of the XXX Olympiad-London

[DaveXA]

Originally Posted by guidomerkinsrules

getting way too narrow here - you can't just point to one way in which NBC blew and sucked and blew it all again - the whole time they were acting/programming like broadcasting sports was a huge chore
on weekends when only two channels were showing the games
i mean ryan seacrest??????
ryan seacrest for chrissakes!!!!

NBC overall was terrible, half the time the guide didn't match up with what was actually on and it overran it's allotted time several times, which sucked when my DVR got cut off right when the team was winning an event or whatever. Tried viewing live online a few times, but couldn't access it the first several days because Verizon and them couldn't get the viewing login sorted out. Once I could view, then ads would block anything else I was trying to view in the preview screen. They succeeded in making the experience a PITA.

Just terrible. And don't get me started on all of the stories behind the stories. I wanted to watch the games. and maybe an occasional bio.

[TXSAINTFAN]

Originally Posted by slowchild25

As well as a silver.

True. Can't forget about Serge.

[Geldo]

Originally Posted by brockmeaux

So take away the 3rd biggest sport behind track and gymnastics in the summer games, then?

Sorry to hurt your feelings, but you made the point the US was running away with the games....

To put it in perspective, if cycling had as many medals as swimming and as many opportunities to run more than one national competitor per event then the gap between the Uk and US might have been a tad uncomfortable for Statesiders.

Everyone outside the US and Australia knows the medal free-for-all in the pool is a joke. That's why Matt Phelps (great athlete though he is) can potentially win more medals in an Olympics than an entire cycling squad can....or a boxer can in three sporting lifetimes, or Usain bolt can win in three games.

[DaveXA]

Originally Posted by Geldo

Sorry to hurt your feelings, but you made the point the US was running away with the games....

To put it in perspective, if cycling had as many medals as swimming and as many opportunities to run more than one national competitor per event then the gap between the Uk and US might have been a tad uncomfortable for Statesiders.

Everyone outside the US and Australia knows the medal free-for-all in the pool is a joke. That's why Matt Phelps (great athlete though he is) can potentially win more medals in an Olympics than an entire cycling squad can....or a boxer can in three sporting lifetimes, or Usain bolt can win in three games.

Who is this Matt Phelps you speak of? I never heard of him.

Heh.

[Portland]

Originally Posted by Geldo

Sorry to hurt your feelings, but you made the point the US was running away with the games....

To put it in perspective, if cycling had as many medals as swimming and as many opportunities to run more than one national competitor per event then the gap between the Uk and US might have been a tad uncomfortable for Statesiders.

Everyone outside the US and Australia knows the medal free-for-all in the pool is a joke. That's why Matt Phelps (great athlete though he is) can potentially win more medals in an Olympics than an entire cycling squad can....or a boxer can in three sporting lifetimes, or Usain bolt can win in three games.

Sorry to hurt your feelings, but to put it in perspective the US had 39 more medals than the UK. Take away our 31 total medals from swimming and we still had 73 medals compared to the UK which had 65. I'm not trying to argue and say the US is better I just find people who blinding argue their side funny.

So whether our medals are from swimming or not is irrelevant, because swimming does exist within the Olympic games. It is also not a good idea to try and argue that the "medal free-for-all in the pool is a joke". You just sound ignorant.

Maybe you're right. I suppose it is a joke. We should just get ride of swimming. I mean only the US and Australia compete for those medals because outside of those countries it's a joke. I mean those 168 other countries who participated in swimming must think it's a joke and those almost 1,000 swimmers from all the countries combined must agree with you also.

It's also dumb to sit here and say, YEAH BUT IF CYCLING HAD AS MANY EVENTS AS SWIMMING UK WOULD BE THE BESTEST!

Well...it doesn't so why even argue it?

It's also funny that the US had 49 swimmers compete, Australia 47, and the UK 44. Looks like the UK didn't care for this event! The next highest in no order are Canada 33, Germany 30, Hungary 32, Japan 29, and Russia 35.

Even more so, the UK had 557 total Olympians competing. Why is that number relevant? That's because that number means they had the highest number competing out of all the countries in the Olympics. That is 23 more than the US, 116 more than Russia, 162 more than Germany, 178 more than China, 143 more than Australia. Looks to me like the UK had more opportunity to take more medals with more athletes competing.

Yes and to what DaveXA said...Who is Matt Phelps?

[Firecross]

NBC sucks, will only watch it now when the Saints are on, they botched the Olympics again, I am so sick of that fail network.

[Portland]

Originally Posted by Firecross

NBC sucks, will only watch it now when the Saints are on, they botched the Olympics again, I am so sick of that fail network.

That they do. I too will barely watch the network unless football is on. It really is so bad though listening to Collinsworth and Michaels commentary. It's the most dry and boring dialogue I've ever heard. I've even watched quarters at a time with my receiver muted.

At least with Madden in his old age made me laugh with his scribbling all over the screen and his ridiculous analogies.

*Circles and scribbles on the screen*

AND BOOM, HE JUST HIT THAT HOLE LIKE A FREIGHT TRAIN COMING DOWN THE TRACKS!

I miss you John.

[Geldo]

Originally Posted by Portland

Sorry to hurt your feelings, but to put it in perspective the US had 39 more medals than the UK. Take away our 31 total medals from swimming and we still had 73 medals compared to the UK which had 65. I'm not trying to argue and say the US is better I just find people who blinding argue their side funny.

So whether our medals are from swimming or not is irrelevant, because swimming does exist within the Olympic games. It is also not a good idea to try and argue that the "medal free-for-all in the pool is a joke". You just sound ignorant.

Maybe you're right. I suppose it is a joke. We should just get ride of swimming. I mean only the US and Australia compete for those medals because outside of those countries it's a joke. I mean those 168 other countries who participated in swimming must think it's a joke and those almost 1,000 swimmers from all the countries combined must agree with you also.

It's also dumb to sit here and say, YEAH BUT IF CYCLING HAD AS MANY EVENTS AS SWIMMING UK WOULD BE THE BESTEST!

Well...it doesn't so why even argue it?

It's also funny that the US had 49 swimmers compete, Australia 47, and the UK 44. Looks like the UK didn't care for this event! The next highest in no order are Canada 33, Germany 30, Hungary 32, Japan 29, and Russia 35.

Even more so, the UK had 557 total Olympians competing. Why is that number relevant? That's because that number means they had the highest number competing out of all the countries in the Olympics. That is 23 more than the US, 116 more than Russia, 162 more than Germany, 178 more than China, 143 more than Australia. Looks to me like the UK had more opportunity, than every country.

Yes and to what DaveXA said...Who is Matt Phelps?

Sheesh no one's saying the US had a bad games, I just took issue with the idea that the US dominated the games as though no one else did well.

To put the issue in context the UK has one sixth of the population of the United States, and until very recently was light years behind the US in sporting infrastructure, with no collegiate system and many athletes who competed in the 80s having to hold down part or even full-time jobs on top of training.

It's real simple - the US didn't dominate the games, you did well enough, but there were other countries who did equally well (or perhaps better if you adjust for facilities, coaching, population etc). Jamaica, UK, South Korea all did superbly.

Swimming has too many medals - it's not an issue of how many competitors there are. Usain Bolt is possibly the greatest athlete who has ever lived but he will never win more than three golds in a games - MICHAEL Phelps can win eight I think (maybe it's more). That's close to double the number that can be won in any other discipline (gymnastics maybe the exception) and if you can't see that is unbalanced then I'm wasting my time discussing this.

The UK sucked in the pool, so what? If they'd won every gold in the water it wouldn't change the fact the swimming events are over represented.

[DaveXA]

One country that did very well that few have taken notice is Russia. They had a really nice last few days. Were they still the USSR, it would have been a pretty close matchup at the top between the Soviets, China and the USA.

[blackngold4877]

So if the US gymnastics team were to play the Avengers, Aly Raisman would be the Hulk. Look at the freakin arms on that girl: