Rio Olympics 2016

[BmoreBird22]

13 minutes ago, allblackraven said:

No way - USA doesn't have the greatest track record at World Champs, where they also send NBA players but the teams are slightly weaker than what they prepare for the Olympic Games. With college players, they wouldn't contend for medals.

They used to only have amateurs and they were winning medals (bronze in Seoul prior to the dream team and gold in 1984).

I'm actually almost certain the inclusion of professionals was America's response to the fact that America wanted to make it the last time they didn't win gold.

Edited August 9, 2016 by BmoreBird22

[allblackraven]

2 minutes ago, BmoreBird22 said:

They used to only have amateurs and they were winning medals (bronze in Seoul prior to the dream team).

This is World Champs since 1990, worth nothing Yugoslavia (1998/2002) was actually made up of Serbia and Montenegro, with all the national team players coming from Serbia. 1990 Yugoslavia was the old country, Divac, Drazen, Kukoc, Radja.... were in that team.

year     where    gold    silver      final         bronze    total teams played

2014    Spain    USA    Serbia    129-92    France    24
2010    Turkey    USA    Turkey    81-64    Lithuania    24
2006    Japan    Spain    Greece    70-47    USA    24
2002    USA    Yugoslavia    Argentina    84-77    Germany    24
1998    Greece    Yugoslavia    Russia    64-62    USA    16
1994    Canada    USA    Russia    137-91    Croatia    16
1990    Argentina    Yugoslavia    Soviet Union    92-75    USA    16

Games are altogether different story, USA kills every time.

[BmoreBird22]

14 minutes ago, allblackraven said:

This is World Champs since 1990, worth nothing Yugoslavia (1998/2002) was actually made up of Serbia and Montenegro, with all the national team players coming from Serbia. 1990 Yugoslavia was the old country, Divac, Drazen, Kukoc, Radja.... were in that team.

year     where    gold    silver      final         bronze    total teams played

2014    Spain    USA    Serbia    129-92    France    24
2010    Turkey    USA    Turkey    81-64    Lithuania    24
2006    Japan    Spain    Greece    70-47    USA    24
2002    USA    Yugoslavia    Argentina    84-77    Germany    24
1998    Greece    Yugoslavia    Russia    64-62    USA    16
1994    Canada    USA    Russia    137-91    Croatia    16
1990    Argentina    Yugoslavia    Soviet Union    92-75    USA    16

Games are altogether different story, USA kills every time.

It's just pretty boring that every single year we know the US is going to win and it's literally just a matter of who wins silver.

[Cville-Raven]

12 minutes ago, BmoreBird22 said:

It's just pretty boring that every single year we know the US is going to win and it's literally just a matter of who wins silver.

lol pretty much. It has to be the least competitive gold medal in the whole thing.

[BmoreBird22]

5 minutes ago, Cville-Raven said:

lol pretty much. It has to be the least competitive gold medal in the whole thing.

Even with amateurs only, I maintain the US would still be good enough to win.

[allblackraven]

3 minutes ago, BmoreBird22 said:

Even with amateurs only, I maintain the US would still be good enough to win.

Not a chance.

[BmoreBird22]

7 minutes ago, allblackraven said:

Not a chance.

It's happened before

From 1952 on, the only year that you'll find the US didn't win a medal with amateurs is 1980. That's eight different Olympics and I believe six (maybe seven) were gold medals.

I'm pretty sure you could find enough college players or rookies to field a more than serviceable team.

Edited August 9, 2016 by BmoreBird22

[Inqui]

7 minutes ago, allblackraven said:

Not a chance.

Depends on how the competition is structured. If you're ruling out professionals across the board then that'd also rule out the leagues across Asia, Australia and Europe, and I'd expect the US would win that for the most part because it just comes down to the structures each country has in place (same as how NZ would win the rugby equivalent pretty regularly - even the novices get developed pretty well considering). But I agree it seems a little arrogant to think a college all-star side could beat the best of what other countries have to offer.

[Moderator 3]

I've been enjoying the kayaking and even the sailing.  Pretty interesting.  Tried some equistrian today but changed after seeing the horses fall.  Did NOT like that.

[allblackraven]

1 minute ago, BmoreBird22 said:

It's happened before

It did when all the other nations played amateurs

[BmoreBird22]

Just now, allblackraven said:

It did when all the other nations played amateurs

Honestly, that's the way I think it should be. It's highly unfair for other countries and the US even voted against FIBA allowing pros.

[ALPHA]

10 minutes ago, Moderator 3 said:

I've been enjoying the kayaking and even the sailing.  Pretty interesting.  Tried some equistrian today but changed after seeing the horses fall.  Did NOT like that.

Has anyone fallen in yet? I heard ingesting one spoonful of water is a guaranteed to make you sick.

[ALPHA]

Also I'm conflicted on the Pats guy playing rugby, I want to support him but he is a Patriot.

[allblackraven]

3 minutes ago, BmoreBird22 said:

Honestly, that's the way I think it should be. It's highly unfair for other countries and the US even voted against FIBA allowing pros.

It's impossible to do that now - there are no clear amateurs (as in not making any money from playing basketball) in other countries any longer, unless you drop deep down to lower competition ranks.

[K-Dog]

20 minutes ago, Moderator 3 said:

I've been enjoying the kayaking and even the sailing.  Pretty interesting.  Tried some equistrian today but changed after seeing the horses fall.  Did NOT like that.

That is why I don't like water Polo.

It is too rough for the horses.

[BmoreBird22]

24 minutes ago, allblackraven said:

It's impossible to do that now - there are no clear amateurs (as in not making any money from playing basketball) in other countries any longer, unless you drop deep down to lower competition ranks.

You could always start by not allowing any NBA player that isn't a rookie. 

[allblackraven]

1 minute ago, BmoreBird22 said:

You could always start by not allowing any NBA player that isn't a rookie. 

If you do that and play strongest teams from other countries, USA is disadvantaged, They'd be much more competitive than other-way-around (amateurs vs amateurs) but not good enough to win, I think.

[BmoreBird22]

Just now, allblackraven said:

If you do that and play strongest teams from other countries, USA is disadvantaged, They'd be much more competitive than other-way-around (amateurs vs amateurs) but not good enough to win, I think.

But like you said- how do you find amateurs now a days? Given the amount of players that go straight from college to the pros and make a big impact (Anthony Davis and Karl Anthony-Towns immediately come to mind recently), I don't think the US would have trouble forming a decent team. They may not be a guaranteed winner every year, but it'd be at least adding to the competition.

[allblackraven]

18 minutes ago, BmoreBird22 said:

But like you said- how do you find amateurs now a days? Given the amount of players that go straight from college to the pros and make a big impact (Anthony Davis and Karl Anthony-Towns immediately come to mind recently), I don't think the US would have trouble forming a decent team. They may not be a guaranteed winner every year, but it'd be at least adding to the competition.

Definitely, I agree. Skills and capabilities wise - they'd still be the best I think but lack of experience and the fact they spend very short time together would show in a competition like Olympic Games. Would be way more interesting to watch, that's a given.

Edited August 9, 2016 by allblackraven

[Steve0x]

55 minutes ago, K-Dog said:

That is why I don't like water Polo.

It is too rough for the horses.

I love Water Polo

[Inqui]

32 minutes ago, allblackraven said:

Definitely, I agree. Skills and capabilities wise - they'd still be the best I think but lack of experience and the fact they spend very short time together would show in a competition like Olympic Games. Would be way more interesting to watch, that's a given.

I think they'd also struggle a lot with size and athleticism for the same reason rookies take a few years to acclimate to the pros. Their bodies still take a few years to fully develop. Dwight Howard's a pretty good example:

It'd be three-year pro Steven Adams v pre-rookie Karl-Anthony Towns, which is a pretty big mismatch physically. The international game's come so far these days that even Michael Jordan would struggle immensely imo (bearing in mind that it's the UNC version of him).

Honestly I don't think there's a clean fix for basketball in the Olympics anymore. If you put any kind of restriction on who can play, it's probably best to just cut the event from the Olympics altogether. If you limit the US to their collegiate players, that's a pretty big disadvantage for them. But if you get rid of professionals altogether, you end up with an event full of rosters like the US team for the Pan American Games, which would be pretty depressing to watch in general. As it is, seeing a premier US side come together (when it happens, that is) is kind of a highlight of the Games for me - as predictable as the results are.

[52520Andrew]

I always like to see the pros playing in the olympics. These games are about seeing the best players in the world at a variety of sports doing their thing. It also is a great opportunity to advertise the sport to people who don't watch as much as other places. The games wouldn't mean all that much if the best players aren't playing. Plus the U.S. did lose before in Athens, I am sure that win meant a whole lot more to Argentina than playing a bunch of college guys.

And let's be frank, a lot of these national players get to play a game of basketball against the stars of the NBA. That is an awesome opportunity. And to see the stars of the NBA on the floor together is a pretty big advertisement for the sport.

Winning against a bunch of college players would be like winning the title in AAA play in baseball, that is great and all but it isn't the majors.

Maybe it is predictable who wins the title but at least it is the best players out there.

[Inqui]

56 minutes ago, 52520Andrew said:

I always like to see the pros playing in the olympics. These games are about seeing the best players in the world at a variety of sports doing their thing. It also is a great opportunity to advertise the sport to people who don't watch as much as other places. The games wouldn't mean all that much if the best players aren't playing. Plus the U.S. did lose before in Athens, I am sure that win meant a whole lot more to Argentina than playing a bunch of college guys.

And let's be frank, a lot of these national players get to play a game of basketball against the stars of the NBA. That is an awesome opportunity. And to see the stars of the NBA on the floor together is a pretty big advertisement for the sport.

Winning against a bunch of college players would be like winning the title in AAA play in baseball, that is great and all but it isn't the majors.

Maybe it is predictable who wins the title but at least it is the best players out there.

If you were to make a case to drop basketball altogether, that would honestly be it. Guys like Tracey McGrady, Vince Carter, Ray Allen, Shaquille O'Neal, Kobe Bryant, Jason Kidd, Kevin Garnett, Ben Wallace and Karl Malone had pulled out of the squad that year for various reasons. I know for the most part the reasons given were security fears and personal reasons, but I think for the most part an Olympic gold had stopped being the Holy Grail for these guys (becoming more of a bonus) and they decided it was better to rest up for the next NBA season. They lost, the gold became the Holy Grail again in 2008 and the cycle reset itself.

I agree with you about the best players in the world making the spectacle what it is, but the point is that the Games is at the whim of those best players. I think an Olympic event should be the best thing an athlete can achieve in that sport, and with basketball I feel like that's debatable. But that's why I think football (soccer), tennis and golf have no business being there. Even rugby sevens I'm a little up in the air on as a few of NZ's best players decided to stay home and focus on playing for their franchise. But maybe I'm too much of a traditionalist there, haha.

I'm not even disagreeing with you per se, just that Olympic basketball (like every other event) should be the pinnacle of basketball or not be in the Games at all.

[Willbacker]

10 hours ago, ALPHA said:

Also I'm conflicted on the Pats guy playing rugby, I want to support him but he is a Patriot.

Have to vote for the USA

10 hours ago, Moderator 3 said:

I've been enjoying the kayaking and even the sailing.  Pretty interesting.  Tried some equistrian today but changed after seeing the horses fall.  Did NOT like that.

This got DVD'd at my house. My eyes are still hurting from the toothpicks that were inserted to keep them open. Snoozeville. Talking bout the horse cross country stuff.

10 hours ago, K-Dog said:

That is why I don't like water Polo.

It is too rough for the horses.

You could say that about all horse sports especially horse racing.

3 hours ago, Inqui said:

I'm not even disagreeing with you per se, just that Olympic basketball (like every other event) should be the pinnacle of basketball or not be in the Games at all.

Then you'd have to eliminate tennis too but I agree it should be the pinnacle and this lets these other sports have the chance to have the spotlight and it means more to their athletes. LeBron James don't care about gold.

Edited August 9, 2016 by Willbacker

[BmoreBird22]

5 hours ago, Inqui said:

But that's why I think football (soccer), tennis and golf have no business being there. Even rugby sevens I'm a little up in the air on as a few of NZ's best players decided to stay home and focus on playing for their franchise. But maybe I'm too much of a traditionalist there, haha.

Wait, why do you think those sports should be removed?

Tennis I can agree on because Williams (I know she's female), Nadal, Dokavic and Federer all dominate (although, Williams lost and they are all four from different countries), but why soccer and golf?

Edited August 9, 2016 by BmoreBird22

[Steve0x]

US lost in Rugby  

[Steve0x]

Watch Kayaking now! US got nothing

Edited August 9, 2016 by Steve0x

[darklight1216]

The US women are dominating gymnastics, just like everyone expected.

US men finished 5th again in the team final.

 

And the women have won it all.

What do you get when you mix red, white, and blue? 

Gold!

[Inqui]

9 hours ago, BmoreBird22 said:

Wait, why do you think those sports should be removed?

Tennis I can agree on because Williams (I know she's female), Nadal, Dokavic and Federer all dominate (although, Williams lost and they are all four from different countries), but why soccer and golf?

Because like I said in the sentence before the one you quoted, the Olympics should be the absolute pinnacle of what you can achieve in any given sport. When Michael Phelps or Valerie Adams retire, if you ask them what they achieved in their careers they'll start with the number of gold medals they won. Same with rowers, archers, sprinters, track cyclists - you name it. The one thing they build towards is the Olympic gold.

With tennis, soccer and golf that isn't even close to the case. Djokovic is out, but even if he'd won the Olympic gold wouldn't even be his biggest achievement this year. And there's a laundry list of golfers who didn't go to Rio citing Zika (despite some of them living in South Florida), which to me is fairly telling of how they rank it against the other events on the golfing calendar.

[ALPHA]

15 minutes ago, Inqui said:

Because like I said in the sentence before the one you quoted, the Olympics should be the absolute pinnacle of what you can achieve in any given sport. When Michael Phelps or Valerie Adams retire, if you ask them what they achieved in their careers they'll start with the number of gold medals they won. Same with rowers, archers, sprinters, track cyclists - you name it. The one thing they build towards is the Olympic gold.

With tennis, soccer and golf that isn't even close to the case. Djokovic is out, but even if he'd won the Olympic gold wouldn't even be his biggest achievement this year. And there's a laundry list of golfers who didn't go to Rio citing Zika (despite some of them living in South Florida), which to me is fairly telling of how they rank it against the other events on the golfing calendar.

I think swimming events should be cut down with swimmers only allowed to compete in one distance per type. Also equestrian shouldn't be an olympic sport.