User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
|
Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats
|
AllianceTickets.com has cheap MLB Tickets. Get all your Colorado Rockies Tickets, Seattle Mariners Tickets, San Francisco Giants Tickets and all your favorite baseball tickets here. We also carry cheap Denver Broncos Tickets, Seattle Seahawks Tickets and Denver Nuggets Tickets. |
For wholesale prices on baseball gifts and equipment, check these stores out! |
Page rendered in 0.5270 seconds
50 querie(s) executed
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
What they did wasn't allowed, tempting as it was, and so was rightly punished. A weakness in the format only gives an opportunity not a license to openly cheat.
Still, if just one part gains from subtly throwing the game, which happens all the time in ice hockey for example, it isn't done brazenly and there's no evidence to base a punishment on, even though it's as unsporting and some other team will be harmed. The only dfference here is that both sides wanted to throw it and persisted until it escalated to comedy.
There are plenty of situations where that doesn't help. Like when Denmark and Sweden played 2-2 in the Euros, coincidentally the result that made it impossible for Italy to advance. Cue frothing Italians.
I think it was because one year Germany and Austria both realized that if they tied they'd both get in based on what had happened earlier in the day.
No, it was worse than that, after Algeria won against Chile the needed result was 1-0 to West Germany. So the Austrians let the Germans get an early goal before everybody lolled about for 80 minutes more.
Also, by losing the Chinese group allowed the Danish team to win group D and pushed back a Japanese team to 3rd and out of the draw.
Yeah, the 1982 World Cup wasn't a case where your situation was necessarily improved by losing. In that case, both teams would achieve their objectives if they mutally achieved a specific result to the match, but if they played to win they would jeopardize their chances by potentially achieving a different result. Austria wanted to lose 1-0, but they didn't want to lose any other way. And West Germany didn't want to lose.
But in badminton, all of the booted teams wanted to lose, and didn't care how they did it.
I'm not saying I disagree to some extent that it's wrong but people will utilize whatever edge they can get if the door is left open. And the whole "Olympics is pure" meme is ludicrous in the face of all the evidence that it isn't.
The real problem isn't that they attempted to lose but the lack of subtlety. Like Ye Shiwen. Win by small amounts and no eyebrows raised but win by a lot - Ben Johnson, FloJo - and people think something's up.
It was even more ridiculous than that.
If Mexico scored in the first 12 innings, they were eliminated. They had to win 3-0 or 4-0 in 13 or 14 innings.
In what sense? I'm not disagreeing, I just can't think of any hockey examples.
Maybe they have a bunch of guys good at one or two apparatuses but none who are good, well... all-around.
Bizarre ME top 4, with all the top seeds out. Highest seed in the top 4 is 12. A freaking Venezuelan and American are fencing to go on to the gold medal match. Bizarre.
They only had one gymnast, Guo Weiyang, who did all six events in the qualifiers (i.e., only one gymnast who met the minimum standard). He messed up his pommel and was eventually first alternate.
The more substantive reason is that they're carrying two gymnasts who are better as specialists (Zou Kai and Chen Yibing) and could have actually carried more (they had three, iirc, in the world championships in 2009, where they had someone in the top two of every single event except vault. There wasn't a team competition then, though). At least that's my best guess (I know women's a lot better).
It's possible I suppose, in the way it's possible for a team to win 100 games while having no individual player anywhere near the best in the league (Cubs 2008 maybe?). But it seems unlikely (though, clearly this is what happened).
As I understand it, the individual's performance in the team competition is qualification for the individual all around, and one's performance in the individual all around is qualification for the individual apparatus competition. So, if you don't make the individual all around, you have no chance in the apparatus.
Though I could be wrong here. Maybe the team competition is the qualification for everything.
That's incorrect. With the exception of the vault (in overall qualification, you do two vaults for individual vault qualification), the scores in the initial qualifcation are the scores which qualify you for each event.
EDIT: a better comparison is like winning a soccer game without the overall most talented player, but with the best finisher, fastest player, best passer, etc. There won't be a clear MVP, or even a player on the overall team of the tournament, but your team will perform much better - which is what happens in gymnastics and, indeed, they'll each win awards as the best passer and fastest runner (the apparatus finals) themselves.
OK, thanks. Is the qualifying the team competition as well, or are they different?
Yeah, it's the same overall team qualification. There's basically one qualifying round, where the top teams are assessed (they'll have the team competition between these teams), the top scores for twenty-four gymnasts who did all the apparatuses (apparati?) are the top all-around, and the top eight scores in each apparatus will go to the event finals. For men in 2012, that was this round.
It's a good question. The first thing I'll do is paraphrase Aldo Nadi, Italian fencing great of the early 20th century. It's impossible for sport fencing to ever be like dueling. No one in a fight with sharp weapons would execute one tenth of the moves we perform in fencing, because they are far too risky. In fencing you need only hit your opponent in correct time, and whether you are also hit is irrelevant.
Also, there is a question of what you mean by real sword fighting? If you mean a 18th-19th century duel, then Epee fencing is vaguely similar. Such duels were typically fought to "first blood," hence the target area in epee is the entire body. You could have blood drawn from you and still win if you drew blood first. Hence, epee has no right of way rules. First man to touch, gets the point.
Foil has "right of way rules" that force you to block (parry) attacks rather than simply try to counterattack. This was originally meant to force you to behave as you would in a real fight. In foil, once your opponent attacks, he has "right of way," which you can only regain by parrying or by avoiding his attack with movement. Once you have parried or evaded attack, it is YOUR right of way, and he must do the same (counter-parry, etc.). That is why the rules in foil are sometimes likened to "taking turns."
But the truth is that none of these weapons are much like a real fight. Think about it. If you were in a sword fight for you life, would you observe rules or traditions? No. You would slash with your sword arm, scratch with your off arm, kick testicles or shins, spit, grapple, etc.
I will say that modern saber fencing is disappointingly un-fencing like to me. It i can be VERY fun to participate in, and even fun to watch, but it simply doesn't produce the blade play that I love in foil particularly. Parrying a slashing weapon is simply far too difficult to ever result in prolonged parry-riposte-counter-riposte, etc. exchanges.
Yeah, of course nobody would pay attention to rules in a real fight. Reminds me of Bruce Lee: somebody asked him what he'd do if he was in a real life-or-death fight. He said he'd either shoot him with a gun (if he had one), or, failing that, he'd use an old-fashioned fist. The showy kicks, chops and especially jumping was just for the movies.
Her bout with Velikaia or Kharlan will be a different story though. Those two seem to get her at least half the time.
COME ON MARIEL
I give Kim a lot of credit - I thought her movement was much stronger than Zagunis', and stronger than either Kharlan or Velikaya in the other semi. She used the whole strip really well.
EDIT: That is, Kim's comeback was 13-5, from down 2-8. I didn't notice what the largest lead Zagunis held was.
I don't expect her to be competitive against Velikaia. I really think Mariel gave that away. She should have been able to adjust and get three touches before Kim got 10.
Well, Mariel has had a few blemishes this season. She lost the World Champs to Velikaia and the Korfanty cup to Kharlan. She did win gold at the Orleans world cup, but I think the days of her dominating the division are over.
Sweden punted the game against Slovakia in the Olympics 2006 to get Switzerland in the quarters.
Los Angeles or Chicago would make a nice place to start it. Or maybe Orlando, let ESPN in on it.
Brilliant toe touch.
Not surprising, really, because usually the flag-bearer is either somebody who has done very well in past Olympics and thus may be on the decline (since they likely were at or near their peak in the previous games), or is a inspirational story that deserves to be honored not for the fact they might win, but rather because they have overcome great obstacles just to take part.
Wasn't Zagunis supposed to do the same? I kind of am rooting for Kim (well, I'm watching swimming right now, but if I was watching). Thing for the underdog.
I am proven utterly and completely wrong.
1.Kim
2.Velikaia
3.Kharlan
4.Zagunis
Wow. WOW! What a showing by the Korean fencing federation.
The fencing world is changing, and for the better. In a few years the USA will NOT be running roughshod over the Pan-Ams.
It didn't look like there were many flukes, at least in the medal bouts - Kim earned that gold, and Abouelkassem was very impressive yesterday. The one guy that looked a little flukey to me was Kelsey, who didn't appear to be of the same class as the medal winners. Though maybe I just don't get epee.
1- Removes the incentive to lose for a better matchup
2- Removes the possibility of the #1 seed being forced to play a superior team that fell to a poor seed due to some circumstance that won't be present in the next game/match/series. (You see this in the NCAA frequently, when a team gets a player back from injury around tournament time, making them better than their seed, and screwing the high seed team that has to face them.)
3- Creates a cool strategic decision for fans to argue about
4- Creates a cool storyline wherein the lower seeds know that the higher seed deliberately chose to face them
5- Allows for a possibility of a high seed deliberately choosing to face their arch-rival or main target early, creating a fun showdown
I really can't see any downside to this approach, yet as far as I know, the only place it has ever been tried is in the NBA's D-League.
Seems to me the moral question gets much more difficult when you go from talk of intentionally losing to improve your matchup for the next round, to intentionally losing just to get to the next round.
Are you going to break California up into 6 states, Texas into 4, and New York, Florida and Illinois into 2?
Looking it up, the only source I could, which I won't link to because it's bleacher report, says there were 128 native californians in London, with the other big states around 35 each.
Well, I see one obvious downside. How the hell do you determine who the #1 seed is. Sure it's easy in MLB or any other league, where the post-season follows a long regular season, but in the Olympics?
If there's one thing I have learned from FIFA/UEFA coefficients, it's that sports governing bodies are largely completely hopeless at ranking teams (or individual competitors).
Well, having California as one state wouldn't be much different than how the USA, China and Russia always have tons of people....
The top 4 teams in Sweden's hockey and handball leagues get to choose their playoff opponents (out of teams 5-8) in order of finishing.
don't they know europe is broke? and that americans will buy the tickets?
what's the real scoop?
Residents of the UK and "designated European countries"* can buy tickets direct from a central web site. Residents of all other countries (including the US) must get tickets through their own national associations.
* Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden and Switzerland.
Here's the web site with the rules.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main