Jump to content

2016 Summer Olympics, Rio de Janeiro


StanBalaban

Recommended Posts

Japanese bloke on the last leg of 4 x 100 relay : 

"60 metres to go....hey, I'm level with Bolt :D"

10 metres later.....

"Oh......f*** :wacko:"

Or something like that...in japanese 

Edited by mottaloo
Additional comment
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Chindie said:

Taekwondo is one of the stupidest martial arts around.

It's odd, I don't particularly get it. Have to feel sorry for the Brit, I love the fact that he was gutted that he got silver, shows that he has ambition and drive.

 

It was interesting listening to Gail Ems the other day, she said if you play in a third place play off and win you are happy, but losing in a final is gut wrenching as you've gone out of the  tournament on a loss rather than winning third.

Edited by mikeyp102
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Chindie said:

Taekwondo is one of the stupidest martial arts around.

What gives you that opinion? Genuine question.

My wife is a brown belt in it and seeing the hard work and dedication she has put in over the years is amazing. 

In order for her to earn her black belt she has to learn mandarin. 

I've done judo and jitsu to a decent belt level but none come close to how hard taekwando is as a discipline

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Doubt any other country than the US would get a protest through on the 4 x 100 w relay.

Went on to win the gold...

No big chock if the men also get their protest to go through.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, DrUnKeNbUm said:

What gives you that opinion? Genuine question.

My wife is a brown belt in it and seeing the hard work and dedication she has put in over the years is amazing. 

In order for her to earn her black belt she has to learn mandarin. 

I've done judo and jitsu to a decent belt level but none come close to how hard taekwando is as a discipline

Yeah, the Olympics is full of ridiculous non-sports. Taekwondo is not of one of them. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sure others share my opinion but what an amazing performance by Team GB.  As things stand, we're 2nd in the overall table (take away the swimming medals for USA and we would be right up there in top spot).  It seems National Lottery funding really is making a difference and I think a lot of nations are looking at us in envy (we are a small island after all).  

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DrUnKeNbUm said:

What gives you that opinion? Genuine question.

My wife is a brown belt in it and seeing the hard work and dedication she has put in over the years is amazing. 

In order for her to earn her black belt she has to learn mandarin. 

I've done judo and jitsu to a decent belt level but none come close to how hard taekwando is as a discipline

I tend to approach martial arts from their usefulness in a fight, I appreciate that the learning of the arts is more than that, and that the discipline etc is as much a draw for many practitioners, but my viewpoint is definitely from it's use in defeating an opponent.

And taekwondo strikes me as not the best approach for a fight. It seems to promote flashier moves than effective ones, it does't seem to have much of a defensive methodology (seemingly largely relying on the opponent's attacks missing, and moreover, their moves not hitting in a permissible way). It almost feels limited. It also doesn't help that, as a casual watcher of the Olympic tournaments, it seems obscenely 'scrappy' - theres very little grace to it, there doesn't appear to be much strategy you'd find in something like boxing or wrestling (where you can manipulate your opponent by strategy or technique to overcome him), it largely appears to be almost like tag - waiting for a moment to hit an opening or trying to counter.

I absolutely appreciate that tournaments (and certainly the Olympics) tend to force combat sports away from their combat basis into more obvious 'sports', and I know the likes of judo have in their basic tenants, I believe, that the discipline is less about fighting and more about competition, which can neuter them. Saying that though, a fighter with some judo training would probably find that useful in a fight, whereas a fighter with taekwondo training, from my perspective, would probably supersede that training with another more effective discipline - this has happened a few times in MMA where some fighters began in taekwondo as kids then shifted to other arts.

Certainly I feel like were you to put a pure taekwondo fighter in a fight with, say, a muay thai fighter, the taekwondo fighter doesn't walk away looking better the muay thai practitioner.

I'm not a practitioner of any martial art, though I'd have liked to try a few out, but am a fan of some combat sports and it just seems that taekwondo is very much in it's own sphere, for it's own sake. Doesn't take away from it's benefits and uses for it's adherents though, and I could see the appeal.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, trekka said:

I'm sure others share my opinion but what an amazing performance by Team GB.  As things stand, we're 2nd in the overall table (take away the swimming medals for USA and we would be right up there in top spot).  It seems National Lottery funding really is making a difference and I think a lot of nations are looking at us in envy (we are a small island after all).

You can see other nations pouring a bit of dosh in after this tournament.

Should we be able to hold off China? They'll have the right hump. The French will be incandescent, with cycling verging on religion over there.

Pleased for the team, but the obvious inequality, pollution and corruption on display is tarnishing the event as a whole.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Chindie said:

I tend to approach martial arts from their usefulness in a fight, I appreciate that the learning of the arts is more than that, and that the discipline etc is as much a draw for many practitioners, but my viewpoint is definitely from it's use in defeating an opponent.

And taekwondo strikes me as not the best approach for a fight. It seems to promote flashier moves than effective ones, it does't seem to have much of a defensive methodology (seemingly largely relying on the opponent's attacks missing, and moreover, their moves not hitting in a permissible way). It almost feels limited. It also doesn't help that, as a casual watcher of the Olympic tournaments, it seems obscenely 'scrappy' - theres very little grace to it, there doesn't appear to be much strategy you'd find in something like boxing or wrestling (where you can manipulate your opponent by strategy or technique to overcome him), it largely appears to be almost like tag - waiting for a moment to hit an opening or trying to counter.

I absolutely appreciate that tournaments (and certainly the Olympics) tend to force combat sports away from their combat basis into more obvious 'sports', and I know the likes of judo have in their basic tenants, I believe, that the discipline is less about fighting and more about competition, which can neuter them. Saying that though, a fighter with some judo training would probably find that useful in a fight, whereas a fighter with taekwondo training, from my perspective, would probably supersede that training with another more effective discipline - this has happened a few times in MMA where some fighters began in taekwondo as kids then shifted to other arts.

Certainly I feel like were you to put a pure taekwondo fighter in a fight with, say, a muay thai fighter, the taekwondo fighter doesn't walk away looking better the muay thai practitioner.

I'm not a practitioner of any martial art, though I'd have liked to try a few out, but am a fan of some combat sports and it just seems that taekwondo is very much in it's own sphere, for it's own sake. Doesn't take away from it's benefits and uses for it's adherents though, and I could see the appeal.

Dude I appreciate a well thought out and reasonable opinion. 

The Olympic method of Taekwondo is different to your normal competition Taekwondo and they have tried to 'glam' it up this year by making the head kicks and spin kicks earn more points. 

Normal competition Taekwondo is better in my opinion as punching earns a decent amount of points and makes for more varied bouts. 

I don't know how old you are but honestly martial arts are for all ages. Have a look into it mate if it intrests you. 

Again I appreciate the honest reply

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I always feel Team GB underperforms in track and field events, as good as the medal haul is it's heavily supported by cycling dominance and traditional strength in rowing etc. I don't quite know why we never seem to have more than 1 or 2 events in the athletics we seem able to get a gold in, usually where we have a mercurial talent come through. You can't expect a US style performance from us, where they can genuinely expect to get a medal in more or less any event, we simply don't have the population, but I think we should do better than we do. Maybe my perception is off though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Track we are genetically held back... I would say it's not like other European nations are ahead of us, we're all pretty shit at it, we can't compete with the Afro Caribbean nations in the sprinting and we can't compete with the African nations in the long distance

i also think part of the legacy stuff and the get involved stuff has almost been a drive to get non sporty people in to sports, maybe sports they didn't know before, part of the problem is that of course sporty people will also get dragged in to taking part in sports they don't know, I'd say track and field isn't exactly a glamorous event anymore, we seem to have all these new exciting things that youngsters can do, like taekwondo, and running really fast in a straight line is getting left behind

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I appreciate the genetic disadvantage. But we also benefit from that. Britain is famously a 'mongrel' nation, we have a lot of people of Caribbean and African descent competing for us, and we still don't quite have it. A lot of our best and most famous athletes come from a mixed heritage background.

I can only think it boils down to the money. Famously we invest in success, and we've never blown anyone's socks off in the pure athletics categories, so perhaps they aren't getting the money cycling is, and perhaps aren't engaging the kids from those backgrounds that might have that slight natural advantage in the sprints etc etc. Or those kids are getting driven down the route to football (and who could blame them, make it as an athlete and maybe you're the nations darling for life, truly make it as a footballer and you're a millionaire in seconds) instead.

Either way, still work to be done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...
Â