Olympics 2012 - Tennis

[djarvik]

I don't try to disrespect what they do, but if you break it down - its no fun. If they like what they do - its there right, but my right as a spectator is not to watch something I don't like. I think majority of the world more or less made their choice in regards to sport. There is a good reason why certain sports are more popular than others.

Of course this is my opinion. I know people like different things and I respect that. I was only voicing my point of view.

Top level? Well, of course they are, this is what they do - they better be top level. It is a sport, and it has a top level, just not for me. I prefer other, more engaging sports.

I never said they are not dedicated to the sport, all I said they are dedicated for monetary reasons. I was referring to the high paid athletes mostly. I am sure a high jumper is not in that category. Bolt (same as Phelps) - got there by winning, by dedicating himself. That is what I am talking about. Basketball? Brrr....Olympics for them is what Cro said. They certainly did not dedicated their life's to performing on Olympic stage, rather dedicated themselves to sign that max contract at NBA.

That's why I didn't want to say "armatures", that is not what I meant. I meant sportsman without major contractions at other organizations.

[Amazing Matheja]

Ah ok ! There I can agree ! Pheeeww !...
And of course I understand your point of view, even if I don't share it.

About NBA athletes... It's hard to say... True that they don't "live for it" (like in Athletism...). But I believe a Bryant will do anything to win it... Maybe more than others... Well... I don't really know... That's how I see the guy... ^^

EDIT : And maybe it's the same for some Tennis players... (Hop ! And there I go back on topic ! ^^)
But that is linked (I think) with the fact that some are way too much paid... (Close to what you say, but not an "Olympic, pros or non-pros ?" issue...)

[Vieira151]

I don't care about 80% of olympic events. Just the interesting sports really. I mean, who really gives a shit about coordinated ribbon twirling or synchronized ball throwing?

Well, a few people apparently. My dad's girlfriend (been staying down at my dads on holiday recently) said that she watched the ribbon twirling thing to be pretty mesmerising to watch.

Also, just because you don't care doesn't mean that others also don't care. I mean, I don't care for a lot of them but I'm sure many people do care.

Also, the synchronised swimming was really weird but awesome. I don't even know how they could do what they managed to do, since they weren't allowed to touch the bottom of the pool.

Even the races are pretty lame. I respect athletic ability, but when it's used for a purpose. Going really fast in a straight line (or circle) shouldn't be cause for jubilation.

Well, the jubilation is not because they ran fast in a straight line, its because they ran in a straight line really faster than anyone else. All it is is to see who is the fastest human at sprinting. Who is the human who can run the fastest for 10km. Who is the human that can jump the highest. Who is the human that can throw the furthest. Who is the human that can shoot an arrow the best. Who is the human that can swim back and forth the fastest.

It's less about the event itself, but rather the what skill the event is testing. I mean, as someone pointed out they all involve one skill that is honed ridiculously. But if that bores you, that is what the heptathlon and decathlon are for. To see who is the best athlete over a number of these single skill sports.

[Rob ITST]

I agree with the guys who believe the pros should be allowed at the Olympics. The Olympics, to me, represents the best in the world at whatever sports are played. Amateurs are not the best in world - professionals are. And by allowing pros, you're also keeping it honest..... if you didn't allow the pros, they would just get paid under the table - just like the Majors in tennis, back when pros were not allowed to compete. They were not amateurs, they were, as others have called them, shamateurs.

and why not professional tennis and basketball players? Do you discriminate against a sport because it is popular? Look at swimming. It's popularity is rising. So, suppose one day it becomes a major professional sport - do you not allow professionals to compete?

Also, imo, tennis belongs at the Olympics as much as any other sport, for many reasons:

It's one of the oldest major sports in the world.
It was, despite what many believe, played at the first modern Olympics (it was dropped in 1924).
The first woman to ever win a gold medal at the Olympics won it in tennis.
For better or worse, tennis was the first Olympic event that allowed professionals (in 1984, as a demonstration sport).

I would like to see tennis become a team event though, similar to Davis Cup. Dump the individual events, and play ties with a best of three (2 singles and 1 doubles match, best of 3 sets).

[Corbon]

Contrary to popular belief, the track & field athletes who are sitting at the top of the food chain are earning a crapload of money not just from endorsements (Bolt pocketed $20m last year) but also from tournament placements and achievements. Guess why Bubka and later Isinbayeva kept raising the WR in Pole Vault by only 1cm per event. Exactly, because every new WR would mean extra cash. Then there are the golden and diamond league events in Zurich etc. Plenty of prize money to grab for the top stars. These are 100% professional athletes unlike many swimmers who are still going to school but grabbing title after title.

But the 100m race is the most popular event at the Olympics (this one was reportedly watched by over 500m people) and these people want to see professional runners like Bolt, Blake etc. Removing every athlete who earns prize money would be like going back to pre-Open Tennis. The demand is too high and it's certainly high enough to warrant NBA stars to participate.

But in Track & Field an Olympic gold medal is still the highest achievement, something that cannot be said about Boxing, Tennis, Basketball (NBA), Golf (2016) and maybe others.

Also several sports like Baseball and Softball (lol) have been dropped from the roster due to a lack of competition. Well Table tennis and Badminton have been dominated by Chinese players forever but outside of Far East Asia these events usually don't cause a big stir so most are like let them have their medals.

[Cro Morgan]

The Olympics officially suck.

News item:

Michael Phelps could be in hot water for his recent photo shoot with the French luxury fashion house Louis Vuitton. Photos of Phelps taken by famed photographer Annie Leibovitz were leaked on the Internet late last week, violating the International Olympic Committee's controversial Rule 40, which states athletes can't promote any non-Olympic sponsors from July 18 to Aug. 15.

With an Olympic Committee like that, I no longer give a shit if pros are allowed to compete.

Long live The Dream Team!

[Amazing Matheja]

[Corbon]

Murray won't get a penny for his win, instead his fans get to lick his back!

http://rt.com/business/news/olympic-pri ... medal-522/

And lol @ Chinese Silver & Bronze medal winners (losers)

[SlicerITST]

Valueing the second and third place in any sports event must be the strangest thing ever. If you really think about it, why do we single out the best three of a sport event?

[Corbon]

Valueing the second and third place in any sports event must be the strangest thing ever. If you really think about it, why do we single out the best three of a sport event?

The notion of Silver & Bronze being condolence prizes for non-winners has always confused me. You don't lose a gold medal, you win A Silver or Bronze medal. Speaking of tennis, semi-finalists also go home without trophies, while the overall winner gets a big cup and the finalist gets a smaller cup. But trophies are just imaginary value compared to the prize money and other means of income connected to them.

As for your second question, because 3 is a magic number and someone came up with that idea a long time ago.

[emate007]

You don't lose a gold medal, you win A Silver or Bronze medal.

Well yeah, you do lose a gold medal in any event where you face off in a gold medal match. Silver is great, but I'm sure it still feels like shit to lose in the championship match.

[Vieira151]

Unless you never expected to be there in the first place.

[Cro Morgan]

Valueing the second and third place in any sports event must be the strangest thing ever. If you really think about it, why do we single out the best three of a sport event?

Excellent point.

The silver and bronze medal winners are also losers, just like the rest of 'em. .

[Vieira151]

But at least you have something to aim for should you be sprinting against Bolt, or swimming against Phelps.

[Cro Morgan]

But at least you have something to aim for should you be sprinting against Bolt, or swimming against Phelps.

True that.

Something to aim for = glorified loser.