|
Post by John Lennon on Aug 27, 2012 18:21:14 GMT
After an amazing Olympic Games, the Paralympics start Wednesday. We have some excellent medal hopes, and I think some people will be surprised just how much they get into it.
Anyone going? I've got tickets for the Olympic Park only on Friday afternoon, and Athletics for the morning session next Wednesday. I'm really looking forward to it.
|
|
|
Post by dougie07 on Aug 27, 2012 18:56:05 GMT
I'm working on the TV coverage for the Paralympics so I really hope people buy into it. The ticket sales have been phenomenal thus far and some of the events are really interesting. The aim is to turn our finest Paralympians into household names so hopefully the attitude that the nation developed during the Olympics can be resurrected. There are some amazing stories here and immensely talented athletes.
From our perspective, we've got some excellent presenters and reporters involved so my hope is that we can take it to a new level.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 27, 2012 19:32:06 GMT
I know Martin Sinclair, brother of Swansea player Scott. He turns out for Plymouth Disabled football team. He was in a wheelchair for three years and has cerebral palsy. Nicer guy you couldn't meet, and got married a month or so ago. Hope they all do really well. Good luck with your work with the Paralympics. I am sure that you will enjoy it immensely
|
|
|
Post by tonyw on Aug 28, 2012 18:50:59 GMT
OK, I'm going to risk making myself sound like a complete w*nker here. But I'm a complete sports nutcase, and I was absolutely totally, tragically obsessed by the London 2012 Olympics - but I can't raise any enthusiasm for the Paralympics.
That is not to in any way talk down the competitors involved - I absolutely accept what Dougie says about there being amazing athletes and truly awe-inspiring stories. And I may watch a few documentary-style pieces after the event. But I have no interest in watching the Paralympics live - either at the Park itself or on TV.
And I've been trying to work out why that is.
In part, it's because - aside from the Velodrome - I did get to visit all the other venues during the Olympics, so I don't have that draw. In part, it's probably a history thing. I love my statistics and I love comparing performance to years gone past - and the Paralympics just doesn't have the same weight of history. Certainly not as the major event it is now. That'll take time.
But I think in the main it's because the Paralympics is just too segmented and subdivided to hold my interest. There are I believe - for example - 15 different versions of the 100m for both men and women.
As much as every winner is likely as remarkable in their performance as Usain Bolt - it just doesn't capture my imagination in the same way. I really want to see the fastest crowned.....I can't get excited in the same way about seeing the men and women in each of fifteen finely-divided categories crowned.
Does that make any sense or am I just fundamentally an evil individual?
|
|
|
Post by John Lennon on Aug 28, 2012 19:20:36 GMT
Tony, I think many people feel like you do. But come back when its finished, and I will guess you will feel the opposite. ParalympicsGB are expected to do well, so as I said in my opening post, I think a lot of people will be surprised how much they get into it.
|
|
|
Post by tonyw on Aug 28, 2012 19:37:49 GMT
Tony, I think many people feel like you do. But come back when its finished, and I will guess you will feel the opposite. ParalympicsGB are expected to do well, so as I said in my opening post, I think a lot of people will be surprised how much they get into it. Alas, I'm going off on holiday on Thursday for a week, so I'm not even going to be giving it a chance. It's possible you would've been right if I had - but I am a bit of a stubborn loon, and not a fan of arbitrariness in my sporting obsessions......
|
|
|
Post by winchesterox on Aug 29, 2012 10:38:24 GMT
Why don't they put the Paralympics on before the Olympics? That way it shows how important it is and also attracts decent interest from those excited about the start of the international sports events.
|
|
|
Post by Simon Lill on Aug 29, 2012 11:49:21 GMT
Why don't they put the Paralympics on before the Olympics? That way it shows how important it is and also attracts decent interest from those excited about the start of the international sports events. Why have it seperate at all? Extend the main Olympics by a couple of weeks and mix up the event schedule.
|
|
|
Post by tonyw on Aug 29, 2012 12:10:12 GMT
Why have it seperate at all? Extend the main Olympics by a couple of weeks and mix up the event schedule. Yay - I get to be Scrooge McEvil again. But the answer is because a lot of people - when they're watching the Olympics - want to be watching the Fastest, Highest and Strongest. That's what it's about. I want to watch one 100m race between the world's quickest runners - not three different races for athletes with different classes of visual impairment. I'm glad that the Paralympics exist and I'm actually very proud that we're seemingly taking such a massive interest in it as a nation. But the two events are not the same thing.
|
|
|
Post by Gary Baldi on Aug 29, 2012 12:12:07 GMT
I can't get that excited about the Paralympics. I have the utmost respect for anyone taking part and I'm happy for those that have worked hard to get medals. But I'm distinctly meh about the whole thing
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 29, 2012 12:45:01 GMT
Why have it seperate at all? Extend the main Olympics by a couple of weeks and mix up the event schedule. Yay - I get to be Scrooge McEvil again. But the answer is because a lot of people - when they're watching the Olympics - want to be watching the Fastest, Highest and Strongest. That's what it's about. I want to watch one 100m race between the world's quickest runners - not three different races for athletes with different classes of visual impairment. I'm glad that the Paralympics exist and I'm actually very proud that we're seemingly taking such a massive interest in it as a nation. But the two events are not the same thing. So you don't like the swimming then? That's the fastest... in a specific type of stroke. Or the fact they have weight categories for the Judo/Taekwondo etc so it's not actually the "strongest" who wins a medal. I don't see how that's any different. It's fine to not be interested in the Paralympics if you're just not, but your reasoning doesn't really stack up.
|
|
|
Post by tonyw on Aug 29, 2012 13:43:41 GMT
So you don't like the swimming then? That's the fastest... in a specific type of stroke. Or the fact they have weight categories for the Judo/Taekwondo etc so it's not actually the "strongest" who wins a medal. I don't see how that's any different. It's fine to not be interested in the Paralympics if you're just not, but your reasoning doesn't really stack up. No - I agree with you entirely. It isn't different. It is arbitrary. It should be gotten rid of. In 2008, when I was living in the US, I got into big arguments when I said that Butterfly swimming was an irrelevance and shouldn't be an Olympic sport. (and therefore that Michael Phelps was inferior to Usain Bolt). It should be about who can swim the distance fastest full stop. And I also agree about the Judo/Boxing/Taekwondo/Wrestling/Weightlifting. The different weight classes there are really just designed to give each of the sports a bigger Olympic footprint. Because otherwise there would just be two events in each sport and they'd be done in a day (or a few days in the case of Boxing). But I guess you could then just add more sports. There must be other forms of martial arts that would welcome Olympic exposure, right? So if you're born with a 50kg frame, you don't get to be an Olympic boxer unless you're so good that you can beat the big guys. It's tough but hell, if you're not 6 foot tall you're not going to be an Olympic basketball player either. (although I guess you could rejig the weightlifting so that it's weight lifted per kg of body mass......then the little North Korean cube guy would be even more impressive!)
|
|
|
Post by maddogmickey on Aug 29, 2012 16:10:34 GMT
So you don't like the swimming then? That's the fastest... in a specific type of stroke. Or the fact they have weight categories for the Judo/Taekwondo etc so it's not actually the "strongest" who wins a medal. I don't see how that's any different. It's fine to not be interested in the Paralympics if you're just not, but your reasoning doesn't really stack up. No - I agree with you entirely. It isn't different. It is arbitrary. It should be gotten rid of. In 2008, when I was living in the US, I got into big arguments when I said that Butterfly swimming was an irrelevance and shouldn't be an Olympic sport. (and therefore that Michael Phelps was inferior to Usain Bolt). It should be about who can swim the distance fastest full stop. And I also agree about the Judo/Boxing/Taekwondo/Wrestling/Weightlifting. The different weight classes there are really just designed to give each of the sports a bigger Olympic footprint. Because otherwise there would just be two events in each sport and they'd be done in a day (or a few days in the case of Boxing). But I guess you could then just add more sports. There must be other forms of martial arts that would welcome Olympic exposure, right? So if you're born with a 50kg frame, you don't get to be an Olympic boxer unless you're so good that you can beat the big guys. It's tough but hell, if you're not 6 foot tall you're not going to be an Olympic basketball player either. (although I guess you could rejig the weightlifting so that it's weight lifted per kg of body mass......then the little North Korean cube guy would be even more impressive!) Shamefully Tony, you are not the bad guy in all of this: I am. I have exactly the same views as you but with the addition that I can't stand women's events either. It's about time all people played the same game to the best of their ability and not based on gender, race or disablity. It's not 1955! Sure women wouldn't win much at the olympics but neither do short people but we don't have a seperate event for the under 5'2"s. Last, and it hurts me to say this, but one of the main reasons we're likely as a nation to do well at the paralympics is that so many of our youth have lost limbs while serving in our armed forces overseas and for me that is not something I wish to celebrate but rather mourn such a pointless waste of life and limb. Sorry, but these games will be Blair's legacy to the country as much as a celebration of achievment.
|
|
|
Post by Lone Gunman on Aug 29, 2012 16:17:44 GMT
Maddog, while there are a fair number of forces amputees competing in the games, there seem also to be a fair few who were p#ssed and fell out of windows or similar. Should we mourn this as a sad reflection of British binge-drinking culture?
Its sad that there are so many forces limbless in the team in one way, but surely the fact that they are not letting that misfortune reduce them to dependency and are taking advantage of it to compete as athletes on the international stage is only to be applauded?
|
|
|
Post by Mark on Aug 29, 2012 16:22:17 GMT
Tonyw, why do you support Oxford United? Wouldn't you be better off following Manchester United or City, or Chelsea, Barcelona, or Real Madrid. These teams actually win trophies their national titles, and European honours too. OUFC are a fourth division team, who play against other fourth division teams, and occasionally get beaten by a team from a higher division.
|
|
|
Post by tonyw on Aug 29, 2012 16:43:54 GMT
Tonyw, why do you support Oxford United? Wouldn't you be better off following Manchester United or City, or Chelsea, Barcelona, or Real Madrid. These teams actually win trophies their national titles, and European honours too. OUFC are a fourth division team, who play against other fourth division teams, and occasionally get beaten by a team from a higher division. I knew someone was going to come back to me with this argument! But it isn't the same. Although it might not seem like it some (most....alll.....) of the time - we are competing with Manchester United or Chelsea. It's just that the way our competition is arranged, we don't directly play them on a given day, or indeed in most (any) seasons. But we could - if we improved our performance sufficiently over many years. Oxford United is analagous to, say, following the Olympic marathon and cheering on the British runner. He's not going to win, he's not going to beat the Kenyans and the Ethiopians but I'm going to support him nonetheless. And if he's ranked 80th and he finishes 60th, I'm going to applaud him for a good performance. I support both British Olympic athletes and Oxford United because of a geographical accident of my birth/early life growing up. And I will support them regardless of whether they're finishing 1st or 100th. But I want that to be in a competition which is open to all (even if it may take many years to progress to the top level), not just open to a small subset of people that fulfill fairly arbitrary criteria. While I'm at it, with reference to Maddog's post - I did consider the Man/Woman argument too. And probably his theory is indeed the logical conclusion to this train of thought. I'm personally willing to make an exception in the case of women's sport, because you're talking about a rather clean dividing line and 50% of the world's population.
|
|
|
Post by maddogmickey on Aug 29, 2012 18:33:08 GMT
Maddog, while there are a fair number of forces amputees competing in the games, there seem also to be a fair few who were p#ssed and fell out of windows or similar. Should we mourn this as a sad reflection of British binge-drinking culture? Its sad that there are so many forces limbless in the team in one way, but surely the fact that they are not letting that misfortune reduce them to dependency and are taking advantage of it to compete as athletes on the international stage is only to be applauded? You're right. They ought to be applauded. They are right to take advantage of such an opportunity and I would too if I were in their position. But if the events are to take place they should be open to everybody and not just the disabled where logistically possible. Why can't I climd into a wheelchair and do archery? I have no advantage by having working lower lims. However, as above, I disagree on principle with women's sport too and see it as pointlessly divisive and I have met literally not one person who agrees with me, so it's likely that I am not only wrong but a very very bad person.
|
|
|
Post by Lone Gunman on Aug 29, 2012 19:47:12 GMT
Maddog, while there are a fair number of forces amputees competing in the games, there seem also to be a fair few who were p#ssed and fell out of windows or similar. Should we mourn this as a sad reflection of British binge-drinking culture? Its sad that there are so many forces limbless in the team in one way, but surely the fact that they are not letting that misfortune reduce them to dependency and are taking advantage of it to compete as athletes on the international stage is only to be applauded? You're right. They ought to be applauded. They are right to take advantage of such an opportunity and I would too if I were in their position. But if the events are to take place they should be open to everybody and not just the disabled where logistically possible. Why can't I climd into a wheelchair and do archery? I have no advantage by having working lower lims. However, as above, I disagree on principle with women's sport too and see it as pointlessly divisive and I have met literally not one person who agrees with me, so it's likely that I am not only wrong but a very very bad person. I don't think objecting to womens' sport makes you a bad person unless you can't justify it reasonably, which I assume you can. I can't say you will convince me but i'd listen to the argument.
|
|
|
Post by Boogaloo on Aug 30, 2012 8:03:30 GMT
we don't have a seperate event for the under 5'2"s. You obviously don't remember Eleanor Simmonds form the Beijing Olympics, who has dwarfism.
|
|
|
Post by maddogmickey on Aug 30, 2012 8:34:59 GMT
Yeah, I know. I have now seen a shorter lady on a C4 advert.
Well anyway, I still am not a fan of these games and would much rather have an inclusive system of sports in the UK without race, gender, disability or sexuality playing any part in who is and who is not able to compete. Having said that I guess I ought to include age in that list but honestly I do think children are 'different' to adults and have no objection to under 18 etc competitions. I guess I just think we're all 'people' and shouldn't create artificial barriers to all getting along.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 30, 2012 8:42:42 GMT
Having been totally absorbed by the Olymnpics - and actually attending five sessions - I can't really explain why I find myself completely disinterested in the Paralympics. Doubt I'll watch any of it.
This might not be a popular view, but maybe it's because during the Olympics you see the very best the human race can offer across a range of disciplines. For instance, the sprints show off the fastest humans on the planet. The Paralympics, on the other hand, show the best of a much smaller group of people. Still very competitive within that group but not, to my mind, quite such a spectacle.
|
|
|
Post by Boogaloo on Aug 30, 2012 8:50:08 GMT
We're not creating artificial barriers. For me the Paralympics is about saying hey look what we can do, we may not be as good as our our elite able-bodied counter-parts but we can still hold our heads up high.
Competition at any level is a good thing whether it's on age, gender or disability. Someone with one leg is never going to beat Usain Bolt, and it's ludicrous to suggest otherwise, but why should that athlete not be able to enjoy the thrill of serious competition against similar athletes from the rest of the world?
The spirit of competition breeds positive mental attitudes, and if a let's say for example a county level 100m sprinter has their leg amputated, they can STILL carry on training and still enjoy the thrill of competition. Why should they have to sit at home feeling sorry for themselves about what could have been?
I agree with you on the Gay games though. Not sure there are sports events based on race.
|
|
|
Post by maddogmickey on Aug 30, 2012 9:46:12 GMT
There used to be black only leagues in America for certain sports I think but to suggest something like that today would be awful. That is how I view women only sports, gays only and disabled only sport I'm afraid. Therefore rather than celebrate I more feel sad that they can't join, or don't feel comfortable joining the mainstream.
For the avoidance of doubt I am not suggesting women or disabled people shouldn't participate in sport as it would appear people seem to conceive as the alternative.
|
|
|
Post by John Lennon on Aug 30, 2012 9:50:15 GMT
A lot of interesting points made. But I hope this thread can be about the great action at the games and success of ParalympicsGB, as well as debating some of the feelings people have about the games.
|
|
|
Post by Boogaloo on Aug 30, 2012 10:19:11 GMT
There used to be black only leagues in America for certain sports I think but to suggest something like that today would be awful. That is how I view women only sports, gays only and disabled only sport I'm afraid. Therefore rather than celebrate I more feel sad that they can't join, or don't feel comfortable joining the mainstream. For the avoidance of doubt I am not suggesting women or disabled people shouldn't participate in sport as it would appear people seem to conceive as the alternative. If they are good enough then they can participate in the 'main' events. Oscar Pistorious ran for South Africa in the 400m a few weeks back. Likewise I remember a while back Annika Sorenstam competed in one the Men's USPGA golf events. I can't remember the competition, but it was quite a high profile one.
|
|
|
Post by maddogmickey on Aug 30, 2012 10:31:42 GMT
I think you might be missing the point a bit. Of course the best are welcome at events where excellence defines the competitors, the best will win whatever they look like. Events where you are only allowed to compete based on what type of genitals they have, a particular colour of skin, a sexual preference for one gender or the other or whether they have the requisite number of limbs are the opposite. They define themselves by exclusion.
|
|
|
Post by Boogaloo on Aug 30, 2012 11:21:06 GMT
All we're doing is letting people compete on an even playing field. As for exclusion, I'm not sure why you're not happy about that - a Conference level footballer would earn a lot more than a blind Team GB footballer.
To me it's no different to weight classes in boxing. Obviously Manny Pacquiao would get his ass whupped by the Klitschko brothers, but that doesn't, nor should it stop him being a top-class boxer.
As I said before, gay and race should not be valid boundaries for defining sport qualification. In fact I'm surprised the 'Gay games' is even legal - there would be uproar if there was a 'No gay allowed' Athletics event.
|
|
|
Post by tonyw on Aug 30, 2012 12:14:47 GMT
We're not creating artificial barriers. For me the Paralympics is about saying hey look what we can do, we may not be as good as our our elite able-bodied counter-parts but we can still hold our heads up high. Competition at any level is a good thing whether it's on age, gender or disability. Someone with one leg is never going to beat Usain Bolt, and it's ludicrous to suggest otherwise, but why should that athlete not be able to enjoy the thrill of serious competition against similar athletes from the rest of the world? The spirit of competition breeds positive mental attitudes, and if a let's say for example a county level 100m sprinter has their leg amputated, they can STILL carry on training and still enjoy the thrill of competition. Why should they have to sit at home feeling sorry for themselves about what could have been? I agree with you on the Gay games though. Not sure there are sports events based on race. Personally, I'm not arguing with you on any of the above. I'm glad the Paralympics exist. I'm proud that our country is doing such a great job of supporting them. But I've just been trying to illustrate why I'm just not very interested in watching them. I love watching David vs. Goliath, champion vs. underdog-style sporting events most of all. Clashes of the titans - great viewing too. Watching the very best, like Usain Bolt, stretching the limits of human performance - great stuff. Underdog vs. Underdog in a closed, and tightly defined and controlled competition? Not my thing. (and I believe the reason the Gay Games is legal is because it doesn't actually restrict entry based on sexuality. Anyone is allowed to take part. It's just that I can't imagine why any straight person would particularly want to)
|
|
|
Post by moobs on Aug 30, 2012 20:53:42 GMT
Gay games? I bet the relay race is interesting... ;D As for the paralympics, saw a bit of wheelchair basketball, thoroughly boring then noticed the diamond league athletics was on so watched that....can't beat the real thing....
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 30, 2012 21:07:41 GMT
Stay classy Moobs.
|
|