Gold Coast Comm Games
-
@nzzp said in Gold Coast Comm Games:
@nepia said in Gold Coast Comm Games:
@nzzp said in Gold Coast Comm Games:
@nepia said in Gold Coast Comm Games:
Stupid that a non gold medal winning cyclist is rated above gold medal winners.
The All Whites got a Halberg for a series of draws. The quality of the competition has to play a part in the significance of the achievement.
Nope. Was stupid then and stupid now.
I still maintain that coming 4th in the Mens 100m final at the Olympics is a more significant achievement than winning a gold for (apologies to Lisa) the K1 500, for example. I have no issue with the Halberg - it was a bloody good achievement. No issue for awards for the basketballers being (for instance) 2nd in the world. Much respect to those people.
Iām interested in your logic about how 4th in sprinting is a better achievement than a 1st in kayaking?
How do you come to that conclusion?
-
I remember they had a competition in Australia after the 88 Olympics to name the 3 best achievements. Should have been pretty straight forward because Aus won 3 gold, but they chose a kayaking silver over the women's hockey team. Imagine if that had happened these days!!!
-
@nzzp said in Gold Coast Comm Games:
@nepia said in Gold Coast Comm Games:
Stupid that a non gold medal winning cyclist is rated above gold medal winners.
The All Whites got a Halberg for a series of draws. The quality of the competition has to play a part in the significance of the achievement.
Yes, but.
The achievement has to come first IMO. Then the context.
If (using the other example) Lisa C gets an Olympic gold and WC in her chosen sport that trumps someone who makes a final in a higher profile sport straight away.
Someone who wins a higher profile, more prestigious event takes the position off her. -
@crucial said in Gold Coast Comm Games:
@nzzp said in Gold Coast Comm Games:
@nepia said in Gold Coast Comm Games:
Stupid that a non gold medal winning cyclist is rated above gold medal winners.
The All Whites got a Halberg for a series of draws. The quality of the competition has to play a part in the significance of the achievement.
Yes, but.
The achievement has to come first IMO. Then the context.
If (using the other example) Lisa C gets an Olympic gold and WC in her chosen sport that trumps someone who makes a final in a higher profile sport straight away.
Someone who wins a higher profile, more prestigious event takes the position off her.I understand the argument, but I do disagree. For me, the quality of the field is very important. That's why Olympic medals are more valued than Comm Games medals.
The argument for the 100m mens (and the frankly amazing achievements of Nick Porn Willis) are that the competition at that level is massively high - the pool of potential 100m runners in the world is basically everyone with a pulse and 2 legs. It is much much harder to compete at that level, than in other, more specialised events.
So, as I said before, the quality of the competition has to play a part in the significance of the acheivement. And yes, I was OK with the All Whites getting a Halberg - what they achieved was huge, and in a very very hard international field.
