Cricket Web

Cricket Web (http://www.cricketweb.net/forum/)
-   2012 Summer Olympics (http://www.cricketweb.net/forum/2012-summer-olympics/)
-   -   Least/most valuable gold medal disciplines (http://www.cricketweb.net/forum/2012-summer-olympics/57619-least-most-valuable-gold-medal-disciplines.html)

Scaly piscine 09-08-2012 11:44 AM

Least/most valuable gold medal disciplines
 
For those that don't believe all golds are equal.

I always thought a decathlon (or hepathlon) was one of the most valuable thing to win.

At the other end is handball (such a ****e sport) and all things equestrian. But particularly dressage, even though we won a gold medal in it.

benchmark00 09-08-2012 11:48 AM

**** the decathlon and heptathlon. They're pointless. Jack of all trades but master of none.

PhoenixFire 09-08-2012 12:35 PM

Definitely the 10k walk or whatever the **** that was, so pointless.

sledger 09-08-2012 01:10 PM

Would be proud to win a gold medal in any of the events itbt.

Burgey 09-08-2012 01:52 PM

Poetry should never have been scrapped IMHO.

Burgey 09-08-2012 02:14 PM

I've always thought sailing was the most important gold medal.

Facilitates trade between nations. :ph34r:

GIMH 09-08-2012 03:55 PM

Football the least valuable, youth tournament.

I thought I'd feel differently once we played but watching us was like meh.

flibbertyjibber 09-08-2012 04:07 PM

I'd agree with football but having said that if you win them they all matter.

Agent Nationaux 09-08-2012 05:41 PM

Squash should definitely be an event in the Olympics. It's such an intense game, even more than tennis.

Dressage is useless, and the dozens of swimming events make winning a medal less valuable.

Burgey 09-08-2012 05:56 PM

I find the existence of athletics races between 100m - 42km really cheapens them. Having the hurdles cheapens athletics too, as do the decathlon and heptathlon because they include so many disciplines over different distances.

:blink:

Bahnz 09-08-2012 06:34 PM

Shooting is just stupid, there is no athletic dimension to it. At least with archery you still need decent upper body strength to maintain accuracy whilst drawing the bow.

BMX can go and get ****ed too, even if we are likely to medal.

dontcloseyoureyes 09-08-2012 06:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bahnz (Post 2896911)
BMX can go and get ****ed too, even if we are likely to medal.

BMX is pretty ****ing difficult tbf.

HeathDavisSpeed 09-08-2012 06:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Burgey (Post 2896900)
I find the existence of athletics races between 100m - 42km really cheapens them. Having the hurdles cheapens athletics too, as do the decathlon and heptathlon because they include so many disciplines over different distances.

:blink:

I would quite like to see the hundred metres backwards run and the hundred metres flail your arms around as much as humanly possible run as well. Would be even better over 10,000m distance.

Bahnz 09-08-2012 08:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dontcloseyoureyes (Post 2896913)
BMX is pretty ****ing difficult tbf.

So is walking for 20 km at the same speed that most people run. It still shouldn't be in the olympics.

Also all of the swimming save the freestyle should get the flick. Imagine having separate track races for hoppers, skippers and people who run backwards.

dontcloseyoureyes 09-08-2012 09:21 PM

Whilst I don't neccesarily disagree with you at all, why should BMX not be in the olympics but track cycling should? I mean, track cycling is ****ing retarded. They don't even properly race ffs. They ride around slowly in ****ing lycra, it's like ballroom dancing for pushbikes.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:25 AM.

Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SEO by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
Copyright ©2001 - 2011, Cricket Web