Quote:
Originally Posted by JiriHrdina
Have I even mentioned Phelps. Disagree that's fine but don't presume to tell me how I form my opinions. 1.
Agreed but again that doesn't describe all our athletes. There are numerous that are competing in their final olympics that didn't stand a chance this time. 2.
Sure but I would suggest our olympic bar is simply too low. Moreover, if its not about winning then I have no interest in it. I could care less about the world joining hands every 4 years to pretend we all get along. I care because it's sports. If that's not what's about - I have no interest. 3.
They would have that opportunity - if they are good enough. 4.
If that's what the olympics are supposed to do - they are failing. Show me data that links the olypmics with kids getting out there and exercising more and I'll be happy to listen to that position. I think there are more effective ways of motivating physical exercise. For starters give parents a tax break on all fitness related costs. But that's another topic. 5.
Sure. But that still doesn't answer the question as to why the team has to be so damn big. 6.
I think a line has to be drawn between an ahtlete good enough to COMPETE and an athlete good enough to PARTICIPATE. 7.
|
1. I am sorry, I didn't mean to presume or offend, but instead make the point that there is a development concept to athletics. There are very few gifted athletes that can seemingly make it on their own. The rest need to be in an environment where they can develop. Think of hockey, not every player in the NHL is a first round draft pick that steps in and makes a difference right from the start without *seemingly* much help. Think of how much a team like Detroit invests in development, scouting and coaching.
2. Fair enough, but some of the best Olympic (and sports) stories are the underdogs that devoted their entire life to something and in their last opportunity find success.
3. You make a valid point, but again, why do many of us cheer for the quad city Flames, only two of twenty that will realistically make the NHL and even at that point...participate as opposed to compete.
4. Fair enough...I would still argue that you need an environment for developing talent, but I see where you are coming from.
5. I can't claim they are succeeding (and I made that point in my original argument). However, its hard to deny that everything from marketing to media is very much aimed at the youth. Even the McDonalds commercials (counter-intuitive) is promoting children and athletics.
6. I agree that Canada could reduce the size of their team, but I don't see that as an advantage. On the team there are competitors and there are projects...the key is knowing who is who and cheering for those with a realistic chance, and supporting those who may develop.
7. I agree, although as stated in 6, maybe TSN or CBC should introduce them as competitors or participants.
I AGREE with the fact that athletes over the hill with no chance of winning should do so on their own dollar or not even in the first place. I also strongly argue against equestrian being in the olympics as we might as well have an animal olympics with dog racing and rooster fighting.
