[aristotles]

Originally Posted by mduell 

They can ride the failopotamus home.

You should be proud of your athletes. The US won more medals than any other country. You guys can't win at everything.

[vcutag]

Originally Posted by aristotles 

You should be proud of your athletes. The US won more medals than any other country. You guys can't win at everything.

Indeed. We set a record for most medals ever won at a Winter Olympics, and Canada set a record for most gold medals ever won. Neither is anything to sneer at.

Re: the point about pros playing in the Olympics, they were banned prior to 1988, I think. The Olympic rules changed that year, but I think the NHL wouldn't let their guys play (because it's in the middle of the season) until the '98 Nagano games.

Amateurs from capitalist countries can't compete with the kind of support those from the USSR, East Germany and now China got without serious corporate sponsorship. Look at how well the Chinese have been doing, for a country without a tradition of raising kids to play winter sports. That's not coming from those sports becoming suddenly popular over there, it's because the state is able to train them from a young age to compete and win gold medals. It's their job.

[besson3c]

My favorite musical act in the closing ceremonies: MIchael Buble. He sounded great on SNL a few weeks ago too... Glad to claim that talent as one of our own!

[MacinTommy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

My favorite musical act in the closing ceremonies: MIchael Buble. He sounded great on SNL a few weeks ago too... Glad to claim that talent as one of our own!

But the real question is: Do you claim Nickelback?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by MacinTommy 

But the real question is: Do you claim Nickelback?

I didn't really care for anybody but Buble, although that Kaos group was cool too. I'm a pretty devout jazz musician though, so I don't really listen to a whole lot of pop or mainstream music.

[besson3c]

I just found out that Nathan Fillion is Canadian too.... There are a ton of Canadian sci-fi actors out there!

[mduell]

Originally Posted by aristotles 

You should be proud of your athletes. The US won more medals than any other country. You guys can't win at everything.

They sandbagged it with a bunch of first loser and second loser medals. Canada won the real medal count.

[aristotles]

Originally Posted by mduell 

They sandbagged it with a bunch of first loser and second loser medals. Canada won the real medal count.

Your county's athletes got 9 gold medals. When you are earning Silvers or bronze in a field composed of the best of the best of the world, it is not losing to come in second.

Finland had to fight hard to get their bronze medal when they were beat by the US. Maybe you should learn something from countries like Finland and Canada.

When Jenn Heil got a silver instead of a gold, she was initially disappointed but ended up feeling that she did not lose because she came in second when she gave her best performance and the American girl just happened to come down the hill a little bit faster.

There were a lot of events that had a lot of competitors and Canada felt good about even placing in the top ten in some of the cross country events.

The only athletes that really lost were the ones that did not try their hardest.

[Captain Obvious]

Originally Posted by aristotles 

The only athletes that really lost were the ones that did not try their hardest.

Plus the one that wrapped himself around a steel beam and the Dutch guy who pussed out because he was scared and the rest of his team couldn't compete. I'd say they all really lost.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

I figure it's personal bests that really count. Our cross-country ski team didn't win squat for medals, but we actually had seven top-10 finishes and an extraordinary number of personal-best finishes; yesterday we were 1.6 seconds away from gold (ended up 5th) in the 50-km mass start - an event in which we've placed outside the top-30 since, like, forever. We've really never been much of a nordic skiing country so it's fantastic to see athletes step up on the big stage like they never have before.

It's the choking that gets me. Canada started fairly poorly and I think we were bracing for the worst, but we ended up not having much of it these Olympics, and a surprising amount of stepping-it-up moments instead. Pretty awesome.

greg

[Eug]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I just found out that Nathan Fillion is Canadian too.... There are a ton of Canadian sci-fi actors out there!

That's because for some reason they film most TV sci-fi in Vancouver. It's just amazing how many alien planets look just like BC forests...

[vcutag]

Originally Posted by Eug 

That's because for some reason they film most TV sci-fi in Vancouver. It's just amazing how many alien planets look just like BC forests...

A friend of mine kept calling it the Caprica City games.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Eug 

That's because for some reason they film most TV sci-fi in Vancouver. It's just amazing how many alien planets look just like BC forests...

Canada in general is offering aggressive incentives for people to make movies there, more so than California.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

yesterday we were 1.6 seconds away from gold (ended up 5th) in the 50-km mass start - an event in which we've placed outside the top-30 since, like, forever.

The 50km cross-country was amazing.

Gold and Silver were separated by 0.2 sec.

-t

[mduell]

Originally Posted by aristotles 

Your county's athletes got 9 gold medals. When you are earning Silvers or bronze in a field composed of the best of the best of the world, it is not losing to come in second.

Actually, it is. The US lost to Canada in hockey, making them the top loser. Despite what kindergarten teachers may say we can't all be winners. There's only one winner and a field of losers.

Originally Posted by aristotles 

The only athletes that really lost were the ones that did not try their hardest.

Trying your hardest is unrelated to winning or even doing well.

[SpaceMonkey]

mduell is right. The athletes who realistically know that they have no hope of earning a medal shouldn't even bother showing up. [/sarcasm]

IMO, winning the silver in men's hockey is a significant achievement for the United States. I think most people going into the tournament expected Canada and Russia to battle for gold, and that the United States would be fighting Sweden, Finland or the Czech Republic for bronze. That we beat Canada once in the process is a bonus.

[Spheric Harlot]

I think it's the heart of the American inferiority complex and their problems with the rest of the world that you can only be either NUMBER ONE or a Loser.

black and white and dumb all over, as it were.

[The Final Dakar]

They give out three medals for a reason. I suppose mduell thinks that's pointless.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by mduell 

Actually, it is. The US lost to Canada in hockey, making them the top loser. Despite what kindergarten teachers may say we can't all be winners. There's only one winner and a field of losers.

True as this is in the technical sense, in "real life" almost anyone can be beaten on any given day. The margin of error is so small in these competitions that it's close to pure luck whether you get gold, silver or bronze.

I mean, in that cross-country relay we were talking about: 50 kilometres on skis, over two hours, and the difference between first and second is 2 tenths of a second? That's probably one pole slip over the course of the race... one stride that wasn't quite perfect, out of thousands. Second place in the world might not be what you want, and it certainly hurts like a bitch, but it's ludicrous to think that it's not 98% as awesome as finishing first.

Trying your hardest is unrelated to winning or even doing well.

...but all those people who got gold medals all tried their hardest. It might not be sufficient, but it's a requirement.

greg

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

...but all those people who got gold medals all tried their hardest. It might not be sufficient, but it's a requirement.

Not quite always.

Shaun White's first run earned him Gold, but he didn't even try his hardest.

He tried his hardest the second run (Double McTwist 1260), where he scored even higher.

-t

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Not quite always.

Shaun White's first run earned him Gold, but he didn't even try his hardest.

He tried his hardest the second run (Double McTwist 1260), where he scored even higher.

-t

It's true that it's hard to account for being that much better than everyone else!

Having said that, I feel your statement is incorrect. You're mixing "trying your hardest" with "level of difficulty of performance."

These athletes - Shaun included - all "try their hardest" no matter what they're including in their program. If I might equate this to men's figure skating, Lysacek wasn't "not trying his hardest" because he didn't include a quad in his program. That was a conscious decision on his part, to attempt slightly less-difficult jumps but make up for it in other areas of the program. He still "tried his hardest" on the performance that he gave, and he would not have "tried harder" had he attempted a quad.

I think you can apply that logic to most of the "subjective judging" sports - aerials, moguls, yadda yadda. Take aerials, where many jumpers deliberately lower the difficultly level of their jump, in order to more perfectly execute a less-difficult jump. They're still trying their hardest on both types of jumps.

It's the same thing with Shaun. He didn't include the Double McTwist because he wanted his first run to be a "perfect" run with slightly less difficultly. After that he could assess the field, and depending on where he stood up the difficulty level if required. But he was still "trying his hardest" in that first run.

(Now that I think about it... do you think it might even be the opposite of what you've said? That he wasn't "trying as hard" the second run? After all at that point he'd already won - and I've read that there's been studies that show athletes actually perform better when all the pressure's off. Maybe his run was so great because he wasn't trying his hardest?! Anyways, that's a pretty random thought but it's a cool possibility in any case.)

greg

[Eug]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

It's the same thing with Shaun. He didn't include the Double McTwist because he wanted his first run to be a "perfect" run with slightly less difficultly. After that he could assess the field, and depending on where he stood up the difficulty level if required. But he was still "trying his hardest" in that first run.

That doesn't make sense.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

It's true that it's hard to account for being that much better than everyone else!

Having said that, I feel your statement is incorrect. You're mixing "trying your hardest" with "level of difficulty of performance."

These athletes - Shaun included - all "try their hardest" no matter what they're including in their program. If I might equate this to men's figure skating, Lysacek wasn't "not trying his hardest" because he didn't include a quad in his program. That was a conscious decision on his part, to attempt slightly less-difficult jumps but make up for it in other areas of the program. He still "tried his hardest" on the performance that he gave, and he would not have "tried harder" had he attempted a quad.

I think you can apply that logic to most of the "subjective judging" sports - aerials, moguls, yadda yadda. Take aerials, where many jumpers deliberately lower the difficultly level of their jump, in order to more perfectly execute a less-difficult jump. They're still trying their hardest on both types of jumps.

It's the same thing with Shaun. He didn't include the Double McTwist because he wanted his first run to be a "perfect" run with slightly less difficultly. After that he could assess the field, and depending on where he stood up the difficulty level if required. But he was still "trying his hardest" in that first run.

(Now that I think about it... do you think it might even be the opposite of what you've said? That he wasn't "trying as hard" the second run? After all at that point he'd already won - and I've read that there's been studies that show athletes actually perform better when all the pressure's off. Maybe his run was so great because he wasn't trying his hardest?! Anyways, that's a pretty random thought but it's a cool possibility in any case.)

greg

I agree that the phrase "trying the hardest" is subjective.

But as for the rest of your post, you just took what I said and turned it into the complete opposite.
Well played

-t

[mduell]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

mduell is right. The athletes who realistically know that they have no hope of earning a medal shouldn't even bother showing up. [/sarcasm]

We'd have one fewer death if the rank amateurs from the third (er, second) world who have no realistic shot at winning (or even a participation medal) didn't show up.

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

They give out three medals for a reason. I suppose mduell thinks that's pointless.

I do.

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

...but all those people who got gold medals all tried their hardest. It might not be sufficient, but it's a requirement.

Nope. People with high levels of skill don't have to go all out to beat those without it.

[Spheric Harlot]

Of course, that breaks down when ALL participants have high levels of skill.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by mduell 

I do.

Then I don't think you quite grasp the concept of the Olympics.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by mduell 

We'd have one fewer death if the rank amateurs from the third (er, second) world who have no realistic shot at winning (or even a participation medal) didn't show up.

Perhaps. However, crashes by experienced and even championship luge athletes were a regular occurrence during training runs this year before the track was adjusted. In any event, there is a difference between someone who is completely unqualified and someone who simply isn't thought of as being in contention for the top spot in their sport. The aforementioned Canadian cross-country skiers, for example.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by Eug 

That doesn't make sense.

Why not? You think that athletes who do a slightly-less-difficult program are trying less hard during that program?

The "trying" (e.g. "effort") and the "level of difficulty" are mutually exclusive. Would Shaun White be "trying harder" if he took a run and kept failing at tricks that are impossible, e.g. a McTwist 3600? He would just be falling all the time. He would be giving the exact same effort has he did when he made his first run at the Olympics.

Originally Posted by turtle777 

I agree that the phrase "trying the hardest" is subjective.

But as for the rest of your post, you just took what I said and turned it into the complete opposite.
Well played

-t

I didn't say "trying your hardest" is subjective. So I'm not sure what you're agreeing with.

Otherwise, I don't understand. You said that Shaun White didn't try his hardest during his first run; instead, he was trying harder during his second run, because the level of difficulty was slightly higher.

I'm saying that's incorrect. At this level of competition every athlete has to try their hardest during every performance, no matter if there's slight variations in the difficulty of that performance.

greg

[Eug]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

Why not? You think that athletes who do a slightly-less-difficult program are trying less hard during that program?

The "trying" (e.g. "effort") and the "level of difficulty" are mutually exclusive. Would Shaun White be "trying harder" if he took a run and kept failing at tricks that are impossible, e.g. a McTwist 3600? He would just be falling all the time. He would be giving the exact same effort has he did when he made his first run at the Olympics.

He tried less hard because he thought he could get away with it, and sometimes it pays to be conservative. It happens all the time in sports, and often even in the Olympics.

Also, you see runners ease up at the end of races for some showboating, because they can get away with it if they're leading. It's also quite common in qualifying heats, because they're "saving" themselves for the final race.

Hell, for the summer Olympics, the US basketball team has been known to put on their second stream team because they can get away with it, just to give the second string some practice. In that sense the US isn't trying its hardest. In fact, if they did, they might be criticized for blowing away Team Zimbabwe 145:10.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by Eug 

Hell, for the summer Olympics, the US basketball team has been known to put on their second stream team because they can get away with it, just to give the second string some practice. In that sense the US isn't trying its hardest. In fact, if they did, they might be criticized for blowing away Team Zimbabwe 145:10.

See: 2004 Olympics in Athens

greg

[Phileas]

99 out of 100 armchair critics could not do a fraction what an Olympic athlete can do, in any sport, from any country.

That we won against the US in hockey was pure luck in the end - both teams played as well as they could and gave their all. An Olympic silver medal is nothing to sneeze at.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

See: 2004 Olympics in Athens

Yep. That's what happens sometimes when they don't actually get away with it. However, you conveniently did not mention previous competitions (including Olympics).

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Phileas 

99 out of 100 armchair critics...

I have never in my life criticized an armchair

-t

[Eug]

I don't like the La-Z-Boys much.

[SpaceMonkey]

Let me have your attention for a moment! Put that silver medal down! We're adding a little something to this year's Olympic contest. As you all know, first prize is a Cadillac Eldorado. Anybody want to see second prize? Second prize is a set of steak knives. Third prize is you're fired.

[mduell]

I didn't realize how much medal inflation there has been in the last 22 years. Easy to set absolute records when you have so much more to work with.