An Incredible Performance!

[Guest fountainhall]

Please, please, please take a look at the vdo in the first post in this new thread on GB's site. The boy is truly amazing - and his skills are awesome.

 

http://gaybuttonthai.com/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=4333#p42852

[Rogie]

I don't normally go in for that sort of thing (see my comment below) but I did enjoy watching.

 

FH makes a good comment on the other board about Chinese and Japanese gymnasts that will make me more likely to watch some of the gymnastic events in the olympics competitions. Up till now I have more or less ignored that kind of thing. Not watched gymnasts since Olga Korbut and that other one, Nadia someone or other, so I wonder at what stage the Asian performers overtook the Russians (formerly Soviets).

[Guest fountainhall]

Olga Korbut and Nadia Comăneci also sparked my interest, but it was always the men thereafter

 

You will have to make up for lost time, Rogie. The Chinese won their first Olympic diving gold medal in Los Angeles in 1984. By Seoul in 1988, they were on the march to near invincibility.

 

Since their first medal in 1984, the success of the Chinese in diving in the Olympics has been staggering. Chinese divers have won 20 out of a possible 32 golds, and 38 out of 96 possible medals. They have won the last six women’s springboard titles and the last three men’s springboard golds. On platform, the men have captured the last two, and three of the last four gold medals. In the new discipline of synchronized diving China has won five of the eight gold medals awarded.

 

http://diving.about....lyHistory_4.htm

 

Watch the synchronised diving events and be blown away by the Chinese boys - and girls. Here's a photo of Qui Bo who is expected gain at least one gold medal later this year.

 

Photo: Getty Images

 

In gymnastics, the Japanese are expected battle it out with the Chinese for the men's titles. There are some stunners in their squad.

 

 

Photo from this site -

http://tokyo2011.fig...ws-item,00.html

 

And watch out for their #1 gymnast, Kohei Uchimura, here doing the floor exercise in the 2011 World Championships for which he won gold (at the end of this clip, there is an error in the scoring which is later corrected) -

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TP8Lcj5iR5I

[Rogie]

Thanks for the memory-jogger FH.

 

It's fascinating to speculate why certain countries excel at certain sporting events.

 

I think there must be several factors:

 

1) a country's history and tradition of sporting excellence

2) how much encouragement potential young sportsmen and women get

3) whether the predominant ethnic group in a country gives it a likely advantage in certain sports events

 

I am sure there are more, especially with regard to individual competitors overcoming all kinds of obstacles to achieve success, but these are the ones that come to mind.

[Guest fountainhall]

Another memory jogger, everyone. The Olympics gymnastics competition has just started and there are mens events throughout much of this week. From what I can work out on the schedule, many take place in the morning UK time - idea for viewing here in Thailand. In the cuteness stakes, the Japanese team seems to have most of the aces

 

Ryohei Kato

 

Kohei Uchimura

[Guest]

The video referred to in the opening post is just amazing (credit to the Ting Tong forum for posting a link last year too).

Not only is he very skilled, but I like the cute white outfit too.

 

As for the gymnastics, I see evidence of discrimination. The ladies wear leotards, so shouldn't the boys be required to wear something that hugs the figure a bit more closely? Such double standards are inappropriate in the 21st century.

[Rogie]

The ladies wear leotards, so shouldn't the boys be required to wear something that hugs the figure a bit more closely?

 

The gymnast on the rings in post #5 and the athletes in the second photo in post #3 look to be wearing something a bit leotardy, but I am no expert on leotards so I expect whatever it is has another name.

[Guest fountainhall]

As I understand it, leotards are skin tight garments that cover only the upper body and leave the legs free. Male gymnasts wear special tracksuit type lower body garments for certain disciplines (e.g. rings and parallel bars), and short shorts for others (like the vault and the floor exercises). The former usually betray just a hint of a bulge. Personally, I'd rather they all went back to Greek times and wore nothing at all!

 

Still on matters sartorial, I deplore the trend in soccer and rugby of having ever longer shorts - rather tike basketball players. I can recall the times when soccer players wore the shortest of shorts. The same was true in Japan of rugby players. When these guys got down in the scrums, they sure were a cheeky lot

[Rogie]

As I understand it, leotards are skin tight garments that cover only the upper body and leave the legs free. Male gymnasts wear special tracksuit type lower body garments for certain disciplines (e.g. rings and parallel bars)

 

I have now briefed myself and have successfully identified the male gymnasts are wearing mens stirrups and they cost around UKP 25 - 30.

 

http://www.milanoleotards.co.uk/index.php?cPath=60

 

Still on matters sartorial, I deplore the trend in soccer and rugby of having ever longer shorts - rather tike basketball players. I can recall the times when soccer players wore the shortest of shorts. The same was true in Japan of rugby players. When these guys got down in the scrums, they sure were a cheeky lot

 

When I first starting watching football in the 1960's I used to laugh at those old newsreels showing players like Stanley Matthews and their 'long 'baggy' shorts. I expect the opposite happens now and kids today laugh when they see players from the 70's, 80's and 90's wearing what seems to them to be very short 'tight' shorts. But I agree with FH, I laugh at the baggy modern shorts in the same way I laughed at those vintage footballers from the 30's and 40's.

 

And what about shirts? George Best got away with it back in the 60's but I deplore the modern trend for footballers to wear their shirts outside and over their shorts, instead of being neatly tucked in. It is rather pathetic to see a player come on as a substitute looking all neat and tidy and the referee checks all is in order, then as soon as the player runs on to the field he yanks his shirt out of his pants. Tennis players have also 'gone downhill' as far as their sartorial elegance is concerned, and don't get me going on golfers or Formula 1 drivers and their idiotic baseball caps!

[Guest fountainhall]

don't get me going on golfers or Formula 1 drivers and their idiotic baseball caps!

 

These baseball caps exist for one reason and one reason only - cash, and loads of it. The sponsors pay small fortunes for athletes and drivers to sport their logos on caps. Have you noticed the caps are always on their heads when there is even the hint of a TV camera around? The value to a sportsman of just one logo on a cap for a year can be well in excess of US$100,000! And that's just the cap! The top sportsmen make millions just from logos on their clothing.

 

Mind you, given that, I think it's really odd that there are never any logos on the seat of golfers' pants. Just think of the number of times TV cameras pick up golfers bending down to pick up their balls and exposing their rears . Maybe I could start making some nice commissions - selling space on golfers' bums

[kokopelli]

Another disadvantage of those baggy shorts for tennis players is that their balls can fall out and cause them to be penalized. This did not happen with the tighter shorts worn years ago. The sound clip of a BBC broadcast is funny.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_9733000/9733859.stm

[Guest]

Personally, I'd rather they all went back to Greek times and wore nothing at all!

 

On certain gymnastic events, having it flailing around unconstrained could prove rather dangerous. So I would settle for the athletes wearing some minimalistic speedos.

[kokopelli]

Excellent idea however in some events such as fencing that might be unwise.

[Guest]

Even the swimmers seem over dressed, with trunks covering part of the legs .

The Olympics need a dress code, just like Wimbledon.

[kokopelli]

What? A dress code like Wimbledon? Do you want the swimmers balls to fall out like those tennis players?

[Guest fountainhall]

Even the swimmers seem over dressed, with trunks covering part of the legs

 

Agreed! How about some nice Speedo or Aqux? Unfortunately, those long trunks are here to stay because they add something aerodynamic that makes them go faster.

[Guest]

Unfortunately, those long trunks are here to stay because they add something aerodynamic that makes them go faster.

Would this be hydrodynamics? I figure only divers would be interested in aerodynamics & presumably they want to fall as slowly as possible to get more moves in.

Anyhow, the swimming federation should think about viewing figures and get the swimmers back into some more flattering clothing.

[Rogie]

I would just love it if one of the male swimmers from some 'unsophisticated' country where swimming is off the radar competed in his speedos (whilst the other guys were swanning around in their hydrodynamic whatsimacallits) and grabbed gold.

 

Remember 'Eric the Eel'?

[Guest fountainhall]

It is indeed hydrodynamics! In another thread, there's a discussion about the greatest Olympian. Some suggest Michael Phelps. Incredible though he undoubtedly is, we should remember that he and some other swimmers had the advantage in 2008 of the full-body Speedo racer suits which enable the body to move faster through the water. These were banned in 2009 and now swimmers can only wear the thigh length contraptions. Some others, of course, used those suits in 2008 and so they may not have provided a competitive advantage. They did, though, help in breaking world records!

 

What might be even more interesting than Speedos in the pool is an 'accident' to a diver. Now, these guys all wear short, tight-fitting trunks. When you get the underwater camera part of each dive, in most cases the trunks have slipped a bit and the divers have to pull them back up before surfacing. Could be interesting if one pair of trunks ended up around the ankles Sadly, though, the rippling of the water could create a pixilation type of effect

[Rogie]

When you get the underwater camera part of each dive . . .

 

Can anyone tell me what is the purpose of all that? I grant an underwater camera is useful during a swimming race but who wants to see an underwater shot of a diver sinking and bobbing up to the surface? Once the diver hits the water that should be the end of it. The rest is simply superfluous. The judges don't award any points for the underwater section!

[Bob]

Can anyone tell me what is the purpose of all that? The judges don't award any points for the underwater section!

 

As I understand it, the underwater cameras are indeed part of the process - the judges watching to some degree to make sure a swimmer isn't breaking the assigned stroke (a person doing the butterfly who inserts some other strokes can be disqualified).

[Guest fountainhall]

I think Rogie was referring only to the diving. As he mentions, the diving judges must judge with their eyes and so cannot see underwater. They are not even allowed the slow motion replays. I think the TV networks like the underwater camera as it shows the end of the complete dive. It also makes it clear what happens when a diver screws up his entry.

[Rogie]

Sorry for any confusion Bob, FH's right I was referring specifically to the diving.

 

I think the underwater cameras are fine for the swimming, but I do query the point of showing the divers underwater. I haven't watched much diving so didn't realise it was a useful add-on when he messed up - I'll have to watch more keenly from now on.

 

It seems to me a good idea to judge just once, the 'live' version. Once you start permitting replays or slow-motion replays where do you stop? You could end up watching it umpteen times in the hope of separating two competitors who're neck and neck. I wonder if they would use it if a diver had had a complaint made against him by another competitor? But then again I guess the judges are on the look out for any infringements.

 

No, I reckon the (trained) human eye is unrivalled for its ability to discriminate. Tests have proved that even with an arsenal of sophisticated equipment what the eye perceives scores better, even when the scorer might not be aware of that himself! There was an example of that on TV a while back but I can't recall the exact details.

[Guest fountainhall]

I reckon the (trained) human eye is unrivalled for its ability to discriminate.

 

Surely you cannot mean the human eye can distinguish who wins the 100 meters sprint? With all respect, I don't think any judge considers that even remotely possible at Olympic level when times are measured in 1/100ths of seconds.

 

The problem with diving and some other sports (I believe gymnastics is another) is that the judges are not all located in exactly the same place. Since everything happens so fast, what one pair of eyes sees, another might not. A perfect example of this was the final of the gymnastics men's team competition two evenings ago. In the final round of events, the judges determined that Uchimura's head had touched the pommel horse as he fluffed his dismount. There is a specific deduction for that infringement. Accordingly, Japan dropped from second to fourth place, leaving Britain with Silver and Ukraine with Bronze. The Japanese coaches lodged a protest. According to their eyes (and they are closer to the 'action' than the judges), Uchimura's head had not touched the equipment. There followed a 10-minute examination of the slow motion replays. As a result, the coaches were adjudged to be correct, Uchimura's marks were reassessed and Japan vaulted up to the Silver Medal position. Without slow motion replays, Japan would unfairly have been denied a medal.

 

When athletes train for years, if not decades, and their hugely complex routines last from just a couple of seconds to not much more than a minute, I think you absolutely must have technology to ensure fairness to all. After all, in fencing, another sport which involves moves that sometimes take even less than one second, foils and fencing jackets are all wired. A 'hit' now has to be registered on the electric scoring system for it to be judged valid. When I fenced decades ago at University, there was a lot of play-acting to try to influence judging. That, thankfully no longer happens.

[Rogie]

Surely you cannot mean the human eye can distinguish who wins the 100 meters sprint?

 

No sir, I never said that. The discussion was about diving so my comment applied to that.

 

I draw a disinction between a qualitative sport such as diving and a 'quantitative' sport where the winner is the first to cross the finishing line (and if a camera is required to decide who crossed that line first that's an excellent use of modern technology).

 

The problem with diving and some other sports (I believe gymnastics is another) is that the judges are not all located in exactly the same place. Since everything happens so fast, what one pair of eyes sees, another might not.

 

That's the key word, a pair of eyes. Yes it happens so fast, and I am going to assume all the judges have exactly the same vantage point, so that what they all 'see' is the same. They are judging on quality, not deciding which diver hit the water first. That is why I said if they could view the dive again in slow motion it would be wrong IMO. They have to use their trained senses to get an immediate feel for the dive, and that is where I believe their subconscience plays a vital role. What the judge 'sees' is a combination of light hitting his retina plus the way in which his brain interprets it. That makes it sound rather pedestrian but I believe one can never underestimate the brain's power. That's my simple layman's explanation - I do not expect to convince everyone!