<p>The IOC limits the number of entrants per country per event in an attempt to add drama and attract the widest possible interest. To give some other counties a chance for glory in events otherwise heavily dominated by one country.</p>
<p>It used to be that each country could enter 3 swimmers per event, similar to track and field, but that was reduced to 2 around 1980 due to domination by the American men and East German women in 1976. That year all but a very few swimming medals were won by either American men or East German women. Got to be boring for other countries.</p>
<p>Some events are completely dominated by one country. Consider the Steeeplechase in track and field - probably the top 20 or 30 steeplechasers in the world are all Kenyans. If they didn’t place any per country limits the entire field in the steeplechase finals would be composed of Kenyans. It would really be the same race as the Kenyan national championships. Except for a few hard-core track fans that would be a big TV ratings yawner in the US, Europe, and Asia. </p>
<br>
<br>
<p>No, but we do have race walking and hurdles events, which are track and field’s version of the different strokes is swimming. If the swimmers were free to choose any stroke then every event would be freestyle, since that is the fastest human swimming stroke. and we already have a full complement of freestyle events - more than any other stroke. So to declare them all freestyle would simply serve to reduce the number of events after the duplicate events were dropped.</p>
<p>As you mentioned, Douglas was very ahead on bars. Reality is that she was also pretty far ahead on beam. In addition to Wieber’s extra execution errors, she lost extra tenths on her difficulty score. Douglas was able to create a large score parity just on bars and beam, enough to cushion her low fx score.</p>
<p>Lets look at weightlifting and see how you feel about it.</p>
<p>There are 7 weight divisions for women but each nation is only allow to send 4 into competition. For men, it is 8 and 6. In other words, you can be the worlds best and still be left off the national team. How unfair can it get?</p>
<p>My position is quite simple. Whatever the numbers decided upon, make sure it is applied consistently across all sports. Otherwise, the medal standing is meaningless. What do you all think?</p>
<p>You have to factor in the highest possible score that is assigned to each routine in order to evaluate the scoring. Was Gabby’s starting score higher than Jordyn’s?</p>
<p>I just read this:
Last time, Bridget Sloan was 11th, and couldn’t compete in the AA because of Nastia and Shawn. In 2004, Mohini Bhardwaj can in 8th, but couldn’t compete because of Carly and Courtney.</p>
<p>Going into the last rotation, the floor exercise, Gabby had more than a point lead on Jordan, so although Gabby had a terrible floor exercise and got the score she deserved for that event, she still had more overall points than Jordyn. Jordyn’s problems were cumulative – a shaky bar routine, a step out on her vault landing, a major bobble on the bar, and a step out on the floor. It was not the floor exercise that did Jordyn in, in fact the floor is the only event that Jordyn has qualified for the individual medal round in. Gabby and Aly both qualified for two individual events as well as the all-round (Aly beam and floor, Gabby bars and beam). So it is not a case of her being better than her teammates at this event. Aly was first, because she was the most consistent across all four rotations, Gabby second and then Jordyn. </p>
<p>As for Bela contention that Jordyn should have been last at the floor exercise because you put your best in the last spot, Aly is the both the national and world champion at the floor exercise so the Americans in fact did have their best floor person in the last spot.</p>
<p>I know it’s old news now, but I wanted to weigh in on the opening ceremony. My daughter and I liked it a lot–what NBC let us see of it. xiggi said this about it:
It’s funny, but as we were watching it, we noted that it was kind of eggheady, and that a lot of people really wouldn’t get it. Who recognizes quotations from “The Tempest?” Who is Kenneth Branagh? Who remembers “Tubular Bells,” and who is Mike Oldfield? Why is there a tribute to the National Health Service? What is “Chariots of Fire,” and who is that funny-looking guy messing up the performance? Etc. For me, all that stuff was what made the ceremony fun and interesting, as opposed to yet another helping of 500 dancers spinning giant hoops (or whatever).</p>
<p>I was going to add, "Who was that old woman performing “Hey Jude,” but I thought that was a little mean.</p>
<p>My pet peeve: NBC is showing the ceremony on tape delay. Why, during the parade of nations, do they have to pretend we’ve “missed” some of the countries coming in during the commercial? Why not just pick up where they left off? Do they think we don’t know it’s on tape delay?</p>
<p>It was my understanding that whoever places first in the US Olympic trials gets an automatic place on the Olympic team. But I’m not sure whether she also has the automatic right to compete in all four events in the qualification round. </p>
<p>Only those gymnasts who compete in all four events have scores high enough to make it possible for them to end up among the top 24 in the all-around. Kyla Ross (who competed in three events) and McKayla Maroney (who competed in one event) had no chance of making the all-around. Could the U.S. coaches have elected to put Gabby in less than four events, if they thought this was best for the team, or were they required to have her compete in all four because of her special status as winner of the trials?</p>
<p>The rule is whoever comes in first with trials + nationals scores is given a spot to the team. It does not at all guarantee what you will be competing on during the Olympics.</p>
<p>However, given that Gabby scored the highest all round at the last two major events, including the Olympic trials, it would make sense that she would compete for the all round. A couch has to look at where the athletes are in their arc at any given time when making these decsions. This may be as simple as Gabby is peaking right now, and Jordyn is not, for what ever reason. It may be tough to watch but it is reality of sport.</p>
<p>Folks, Team USA is not looking great in Men’s Gymnastics (team final). And it doesn’t look like the other teams are giving us any “help.” (As in, we’re last after 3 rotations.)</p>
<p>Watching women’s kayaking q’s. Mothers competing with daughters - so cool! 18 yr old Australian girl followed by Stepanka Hilgetova (sp?), 44 yr old two time Czech Olympic medalist, who had a great run. Yay, my people! I find the comments very useful since I know zip about the event and the athletes!</p>
<p>Taking this opportunity to correct a typo and clarify my point. When I wrote “It appears that americans are too dense to understand the beauty, the depth, and the irreverence of the idiosyncratic pageantry displayed last night in London.” it was in a rebuttal to the claim that you had to be a Brit to really understand, and perhaps appreciate the show. </p>
<p>My issue with the show was not it portrayed Great Britain with images or art that might be a tad obscure to the masses, but that it did without much passion. And, if the participants might have been passionate, the rendition did not translate in much entertaining. It was perhaps smart but it was also, unfortunately, deeply boring and disjointed. </p>
<p>A telling tale is that people have criticized Lauer and Vieira who were paid to be cheerleading the event. Despite this, they could not incorporate much enthusiasm in the show. There is only so much one (or two) can do. </p>
<p>As far as people understanding the finer points, I think many had no real issues recognizing the historical and artistic references. In Beijing, the network added an historian to explain all the REALLY obscure references, and I do not think many were bored, or looked forward to the next commercial break. The show was not only a technical masterpiece but a riveting introduction to a culture we still know little about, or even fear. </p>
<p>I realize that comparing editions only goes so far; London had to be different, because it would never repeat the scope and depth of Beijing. There was no need for thousands of drummers to send an awe-inspiring rhythmic message to the world. On the other hand, the show could have used coordinated dancers and a better story and better direction. Perhaps by design, this was a three-ring circus that did not fit a television audience very well. Perhaps the point of the show was to please the live audience and keep the affair as private as possible … just like they do with the cauldron. On a need to see basis!</p>
Williams doubles coming up next.</p>
about men’s gymnastics. </p>
I find the comments very useful since I know zip about the event and the athletes!</p>