maplesyrup
New member
Poor start too... In the interest of fairness, they should really make him do it in a potato sack.
2012 Olympics
- Thread starter Fanatic
- Start date
hockeyfan1
New member
The Olympics are in a class all unto themselves. Murray won Olympic tennis gold. This was not Wimbledon, nor the French. Australian, or U.S. Open. It was just that -- an Olympic event, not to be compared to any other outside it.
Take it for what it is, and that's what it is... an Olympic victory.
Take it for what it is, and that's what it is... an Olympic victory.
hockeyfan1
New member
Well, it looks like things are finally getting interesting here...
http://ca.sports.yahoo.com/blogs/eh-game/monday-canada-u-soccer-clash-physical-one-might-191900851.html
...and, as yes, the game is on at 2:45pm today at Old Trafford. Canada vs U.S. Women's semi-final.
C'mon girls, you can do it!
http://ca.sports.yahoo.com/blogs/eh-game/monday-canada-u-soccer-clash-physical-one-might-191900851.html
...and, as yes, the game is on at 2:45pm today at Old Trafford. Canada vs U.S. Women's semi-final.
C'mon girls, you can do it!
maplesyrup
New member
Bullfrog said:
No. I didn't. What exactly did he say?
hockeyfan1
New member
The " ' Ugly Americans "? Here we go again, nothing unusual though. We've all seen this before, although one must admit that Serena Williams not shaking Sharapova's hand reeks of very poor sportsmanship. Spoiled brat Yank!
http://ca.sports.yahoo.com/blogs/eh-game/ugly-americans-back-2012-london-olympics-115632623.html
http://ca.sports.yahoo.com/blogs/eh-game/ugly-americans-back-2012-london-olympics-115632623.html
It seems the thread has covered several different, incomparable ways that we might assess the importance of an event:
1. the personal pleasure the individual feels
2. the level of prestige in the eyes of the fans or the world at large
3. the difficulty/probabilty of winning the event and what it says about the relative skill level of the winner
4. the level of physical demands on the body
You can grade #1 by asking the participants I suppose. You could grade #2 perhaps by taking a survey (or perhaps doing some web analytics these days).
#3 is more interesting to discuss. The point that there are 64 vs. 128 entries is an interesting one. It is completely clear that given a participant has qualified to participate, it is more difficult to come in 64th place in Wimbledon than in the Olympics. (once one has qualified, nothing is required to place 64th at the Olympics). It is also likely that it is more difficult to come in 30th at Wimbledon than the Olympics. In a given year, is it more difficult to win Wimbledon than the Olympics? I think the 64 extra competitors you get at Wimbledon are statistically irrelevant when it comes to actually winning. They don't increase the difficulty of winning at all because those extra players at the bottom of the draw have effectively no chance to win. Have any of those players won a grand slam in decades? I don't actually know as I don't follow tennis but my understanding is that it hasn't been anyone but Federer, Nadal, Jok. for the last decade or so. What is important for winning is the competition at the top. For instance, I didn't hear Nadal's name come up. If Nadal did not participate at the Olympics then I'd say the Olympics were significantly easier to win than a tournament that contained all of the top 4 players in the world.
Could the change in the number of sets make the Olympics easier to win? I could also imagine that certain players (perhaps those with less endurance or perhaps those that play better in the first few games of a match) would do better in a best out of 3 than a best out of 5. Is Murray one of those? Is Federer not? I have no idea. In general, from this angle, there may be slight advantage granted to one set of players over another but I don't think such a skew changes the overall "difficulty" of winning -- I think the analogy with the 200m vs the 800m is quite apt. They are different races and the 800 requires more endurance, but it isn't necessarily harder to beat the competition set against you in one or the other.
Perhaps a more significant change is that by decreasing the number of sets, you give a little bit more opportunity for luck to play a role in a match. It would be interesting to know if there was a statistically significant increase in the probability of an upset in a 3-set match vs a 5-set match. If there is an increase in the upset percentage then this would be a real reason that the Olympics are easier to win for a competitor who was not actually the favorite to win ( it makes it harder for the favorite -- ie, the player who possesses the most real talent). Said another way, if the upset probability was higher, we would know a little bit less about the true talent of the Olympic winner -- a greater portion of their win might be due to luck.
1. the personal pleasure the individual feels
2. the level of prestige in the eyes of the fans or the world at large
3. the difficulty/probabilty of winning the event and what it says about the relative skill level of the winner
4. the level of physical demands on the body
You can grade #1 by asking the participants I suppose. You could grade #2 perhaps by taking a survey (or perhaps doing some web analytics these days).
#3 is more interesting to discuss. The point that there are 64 vs. 128 entries is an interesting one. It is completely clear that given a participant has qualified to participate, it is more difficult to come in 64th place in Wimbledon than in the Olympics. (once one has qualified, nothing is required to place 64th at the Olympics). It is also likely that it is more difficult to come in 30th at Wimbledon than the Olympics. In a given year, is it more difficult to win Wimbledon than the Olympics? I think the 64 extra competitors you get at Wimbledon are statistically irrelevant when it comes to actually winning. They don't increase the difficulty of winning at all because those extra players at the bottom of the draw have effectively no chance to win. Have any of those players won a grand slam in decades? I don't actually know as I don't follow tennis but my understanding is that it hasn't been anyone but Federer, Nadal, Jok. for the last decade or so. What is important for winning is the competition at the top. For instance, I didn't hear Nadal's name come up. If Nadal did not participate at the Olympics then I'd say the Olympics were significantly easier to win than a tournament that contained all of the top 4 players in the world.
Could the change in the number of sets make the Olympics easier to win? I could also imagine that certain players (perhaps those with less endurance or perhaps those that play better in the first few games of a match) would do better in a best out of 3 than a best out of 5. Is Murray one of those? Is Federer not? I have no idea. In general, from this angle, there may be slight advantage granted to one set of players over another but I don't think such a skew changes the overall "difficulty" of winning -- I think the analogy with the 200m vs the 800m is quite apt. They are different races and the 800 requires more endurance, but it isn't necessarily harder to beat the competition set against you in one or the other.
Perhaps a more significant change is that by decreasing the number of sets, you give a little bit more opportunity for luck to play a role in a match. It would be interesting to know if there was a statistically significant increase in the probability of an upset in a 3-set match vs a 5-set match. If there is an increase in the upset percentage then this would be a real reason that the Olympics are easier to win for a competitor who was not actually the favorite to win ( it makes it harder for the favorite -- ie, the player who possesses the most real talent). Said another way, if the upset probability was higher, we would know a little bit less about the true talent of the Olympic winner -- a greater portion of their win might be due to luck.
bustaheims
Active member
princedpw said:
In 2001, Goran Ivani?ević was "ranked" 125th in the event and won the Wimbledon title. It's not a frequent event, but it does happen. Let's not forget that those who are among the best in the world now were once among the unranked at these major tournaments. While the majority of the extra 64 players may not be particularly difficult competition, the next generation of elite players are in there as well.
Guru Tugginmypuddah
Active member
Sinclair puts the ball in the back of the net! 1-0 Canada!
LittleHockeyFan
Moderator
Guru Tugginmypuddah said:
but it's only soccer :-( ....... having to settle for this makes me miss hockey more.
How much longer til hockey season?
LittleHockeyFan
Moderator
Nik? said:
apparently Kerry Fraser has come out of retirement to referee this soccer game.
bustaheims
Active member
princedpw said:
Only if you dismiss the rest of the point I was making. Nadal, Federer, etc, they were all among those extra 64 guys early in their careers. That extra round is tough, make no mistake about it. Seeded players fall to to these guys in every Grand Slam tournament. They're not all pushovers. They're young up and coming players. They're older guys who still have something left. They're highly skilled players coming off injuries. They're still among the best players in the world. That extra match can take and has taken it's toll.
