Jamiet99uk + infinity to the power of infinity.

You have way too many threads on this page obi-dork, so I believe that it is time to stage an intervention.

I would ask you members of the WebDip community to kindly share with us some actual examples of when obi-dork's page hogging has negatively impacted your life.

Maybe if obi-dork would exercise a little rational restraint, then things would be different. But, alas, he does not. He insists upon posting inane threads.

I'll call THIS thread, Exhibit "A".

"Ohhhhh WHAT AN OUTRAGE.
Little Miss Betty Sue U.S.A. won't be doing any smiles and spreadshots for me in her famous mat routine.....
I mean COME ON BLABLABLABLABLABLA........

Come on, obi-dork.

Read the Chomsky book.

Seems to me like obi is saying "I want a tournament of Format B. There exists a tournament of Format A, and I don't like the outcome that someone who would have succeeded in Format B instead fails in Format A, so the existing tournament should be converted to Format B." There's nothing wrong with wanting the individual to succeed, but if so they should go compete in a Format B tournament. The fact that they entered a Format A tournament and did not achieve the results necessary to succeed in Format A does not make Format A unjust.

That doesn't mean Format A should never be changed. Maybe they'll adopt a rule that the current world champion automatically gets one of his/her country's two berths. If so, that will be the operative rule and someone can bitch about the injustice when the world champ places 100th out of 100 in the prelims and still gets to go to the final.

How's this for a non-sports analogy: the U.S. has a system in place where every state gets to send two senators to the Senate. California could say that its third-place vote getter amassed more votes than either of the candidates from New Mexico. Therefore, California should get to have three senators at the expense of a spot for New Mexico. The answer is that could be a valid way of determining representation under a different system, but that's now how THIS system is set up, and the vote outcome here does not make the two-senators-per-state setup unjust.

Lol obi, you are very wrong/naive about this. This happens in every sport all the time, just usually the cuts get made at the US olympic trials. Lots of american sprinters, swimmers, etc. arent at the games because there is a cap per country. You just don't know this because you dont pay attention to olympic sports outside of the olympics. The only difference is that in gymnastics the 'national trials' basically happen during the team qualifying round. But there are a lot of third or fourth best Americans who are top ten in the world (including other gymnasts) who dont go to the olympics. Its just the way it works and has always worked, and it makes the games more international.

Luckily for Wieber, she still gets to compete in the team event and I think in individual uneven bars as well. I wouldnt feel too bad for her.

I'm not sure why no one in this thread has realized this. No event in the Olympics necessarily features the best athletes because there are always country caps (and in the case of team sports, continent caps). Its only a news story now because girls' gymnastics is a popular sport and they have such short primes that wieber will never get a second chance.

Also, it isnt an IOC issue, USA gymnastics chose to have Raisman compete in all 4 events. They obviously knew that she might beat Wieber or Douglas. If USA gymnastics wanted to ensure that Wieber made the finals, they could have let Maroney compete in more than just vault and then use Raisman in only thre of the events. They still would have easily qualified as the top seed for the finals. So your thread is stupid because it isn't even an olympics rules issue.

In conclusion, understand sports better before posting about them.

@Frank, although i think most of what you posted is thoughtful and makes perfectly good sense, I think you dropped the ball on the IOC vs. USA issue. You are right that the US team could have set up their team so Weiber would be more likely to win the all around, but, they were working within the rules of the IOC, which says that only 2 can go from each country. Had the rules been different then they could have fielded more folks in the All Around. That being said, I think Obi is way to emotional about the issue. As has been explained ad nauseum, the rules are in place, we have to work within those rules or we don't compete in the olympics.

You are right. Except that its probably not the IOC, but whatever international body governs gymnastics. Since sports like track allow three per country. I was just trying to make 3 :

1. This isn't a unique situation, world champions often (always?) need to still qualify through trials as one of the best two or three Americans.
2. The USA couldve avoided this problem, but they chose not to because they (rightfully) wanted their two best gymnasts this week to go forward.
3. Obi knows nothing about anything he posts about and occasionally this angers me.

On another note, girls gymnastics is a funny sport because it is incredibly psychologically difficult and the athletes are so young, and still growing and whatnot. So, primes are really short because its so easy to lose your edge or grow too tall. It is possible that Jordyn Wieber, even though she is the reigning world champion, might already be past her peak, considering she's been beaten by Douglas at three straight meets and now also by Raisman.

Like I said, I agreed with most of what you said, and felt that part of that last comment had a lot to do with number 3. And yes, it is interesting that Gymnasts are only able to perform for such a short period. It interests me that they upped the starting age, since, of Course, Nadia got her perfect 10 when she was 14.

I am sure there is a good reason for the age change, I just don't know what it was. I admit to not following these sports during the in between years. Except a little but of sprinting, now and again, and a passing interest in weight lifting.

Yeah, that is crazy. I wonder if there are age limits in other sports. Its probably a good idea, I doubt training 40 hours a week and then being on TV in front of the entire country is particularly good in the long term for a twelve year old kid.

That is a question for the oracle, I know men's soccer is under 23.

The youngest minimum age stated is 14(diving and bobsled), but that's not for all sports. It's 18 for team handball, 17 for wrestling and weightlifting. Gymnastics and figure skating is 16.

This is unverified info. I am too lazy to put in the extra work.

@TheHangedMan:

I wasn't arguing that I want B and they have A and why don't they do A right now...

I simply am saying I think A logically is flawed and Best 24 should be THE Best 24, I'm not saying Ms. Wieber should get to compete and there should be a rule change right now just for her, I'm arguing the rule itself is illogical, in my opinion is contrary to the spirit of competition, and I feel that it's "cheated" her out of what will likely be her only shot at this life-long dream she's trained for half her life--not "cheated" in the literal sense (lest I start up another firestorm) but in the figurative sense of the term.

"How's this for a non-sports analogy: the U.S. has a system in place where every state gets to send two senators to the Senate. California could say that its third-place vote getter amassed more votes than either of the candidates from New Mexico. Therefore, California should get to have three senators at the expense of a spot for New Mexico."

I'd submit that analogy fails because we DO NOT advocate "Top 50 Vote Getters" for our Senate.

It's localized, rather than open to the field, as it were--

The Gymnastics seem open to the field; I agree, these "2-per-team" mandates, if they are to be put into effect, seems to be something you'd enforce BEFORE competition, say, in team tryouts.

But I don't see how saying that someone who placed better than 21 people who will be allowed to compete in her stead, 21 people she beat fair and square in competition, that such a person should then be made to sit out.

AGAIN, I'm not saying that I demand B in A's place right now, I simply think that A is contrary to the spirit of competition and to me seems illogical and, indeed, rather unfair...

Either set it up beforehand so only two nationals from each nation get to compete, and thus you have your cap in place and you don't have this problem, or else allow for more than two to move on, let it actually be the best of the field, rather than a field trimmed to make sure everyone gets a bite--no matter their merits.

ON MERIT--which I have claimed to argue for again and again--Ms. Wieber is better than 21 others allowed in, at least one of which clearly would not be allowed in if this illogical rule were not in effect.

"But Obi, 'ON MERIT' she placed 3rd on her team, and out of it by the rules."

I understand that fully. I'm simply saying the rules do not celebrate merit so much as parity in this case, when she's ahead of 21 allowed in just because of her nationality and...well, you know what I say by now.

@Frank:

"Lol obi, you are very wrong/naive about this. This happens in every sport all the time, just usually the cuts get made at the US olympic trials. Lots of american sprinters, swimmers, etc. arent at the games because there is a cap per country."

I don't doubt it--and I think that's wrong all-around.

If it's an Individual sport and the Olympics bill themselves as "The Best in the World Competing," then it should be that...I'd be arguing this same line if Ms. Wieber placed 1st and got into her Finals while it was some other wronged individual being bounced because of a country cap in some other sport.

" Its just the way it works and has always worked, and it makes the games more international."

I don't think it does make the games more interesting--when I watch the Games (and I usually watch the Winter games more than the Summer games, but anyway) I watch to see the Best vs. the Best.

When you allow someone in not on merit, but because they lucked out that one or two ahead of them were from a nation so good they met their cap and these superior athletes weren't allowed in...well, that's what you get--

Inferior athletes--at least on the basis of their performance--being allowed in based SOLELY on superior athlete's being of a certain nationality...

If Ms. Wieber had been competing for Belarus, she'd have been allowed in.
What has kept her out is her being from a dominant nation in the sport, the US.
I can't say "She screwed up, she didn't earn a slot in," she bested 21 allowed in her stead.
That's not just a minor flaw, in my opinion, it's a glaring one.

When someone finishes that high, and schools almost the entire rest of the field, and the only reason they don't get in isn't because of their talent is lacking, but because their nation's cap limit has been met...

Well, as the sort of "casual viewer" that the Olympics and networks would seem to want to court for ratings and whatnot--

That does NOT make me want to watch the Games!
It doesn't make it "more interesting" for me!
On the contrary, I feel as if it's something that might have been interesting...
But now, well, why should I watch an inferior product?

Suppose someone behind her, someone placing 5-24 that got in, wins a medal...

I as the viewer won't be admiring her...I won't say "Wow, she's one of the best in the world, they really earned it!" I'll be thinking,

"Would she still have won her medal if the higher-placing, more-talented, merited Ms. Wieber had been allowed to compete?"

It diminishes the talent of the field...
It diminishes the accomplishment of such a winner...
And it makes the person I think of the most the bitterly-ousted loser...

That's not making it "more interesting," or at least not for a good reason, one that will make me want to watch more.

Sort of the way I didn't like "Doctor Who" until folks here said,

"Try a Tom Baker one, Obi, those ones are golden, they're the BEST, best chance to hook you in."

I gave "the best" a chance, and what do you know--I now like the show!

Watching "the best" perform and have the chance to perform as "the best" made the difference over watching a rather crappy David Tennant one to start (I actually like him as a Doctor now, but that's neither here nor there.

A sports example?

I took your advice and watched The World Cup...and I can report from both ends of it--

Late wins, like the US win over...whatever team that was, made me interested to watch more...

And then crap like the Ghana team flopping and eating up time with fake injuries made me want to watch less, that's making it "interesting," but for all the wrong, controversial reasons.

Will I watch the World Cup when it's on next time?
Yes, I will.
But will I watch events like these in the Olympics?
I might have before...I may yet...but I'm far less likely now, knowing that some of what they field is essentially an "inferior" product due to that damned cap.

I'm not whelping over Michael Phelps losing out...
He lost fair and square.
No cap-bouncing involved, he just wasn't good enough to merit a medal.
But in my opinion, that's not the case for Ms. Wieber, she DID merit a shot over 21 others that now have one.

"Luckily for Wieber, she still gets to compete in the team event and I think in individual uneven bars as well. I wouldnt feel too bad for her."

I'm not moved to tears and I won't be setting up a "Save Jordyn Wieber" Fund...

But I do feel bad for her--this was likely her shot at her dream, and she didn't have it denied because she failed or was abysmal or didn't earn it...again, in my mind, if anyone below her wins a medal, I have to think Wieber did as much if not more to earn the chance to win that medal as that person will have.

I mean, THIS IS HER IDENTITY, in a sense--healthy or no, this is her life's passion, and to an extent, it's how and who she will be known as for the rest of her life.

If this were a writing contest, and the Top 24 had a shot at the Nobel Prize, and my submission got enough votes to rank 4th in voting, but 2 Americans were ahead of me and I was denied my one and likely only shot at such a prize...knowing to a great extent that it was a cap that denied me the shot...

I'd get over it--but I'd be rather wounded in that moment...especially if my greatest chance to achieve my dream came at 17, as is the case with her.

Health willing, she has 70+ years of life left to her.

And her life's dream rested on a cap that cost her a chance at 17, when merit says she should've at least had a shot.

If you strike out swinging, you can at least say you got the chance to swing and took it.

Wieber lost her shot swinging, hitting a home run...and still being called out because two people from the same team already hit HRs, and so her homer counts as a strikeout, regardless of the fact she was better than almost all the rest of the field.

She did nothing wrong, and she'll never get another shot, likely...so yes, I DO feel for her--indeed, I'm happy she still has a chance to win a medal still in the Team competition, and I sorely hope she does, because quite frankly, she should've been allowed her chance, and while it was going by the rules, I still count her cheated out of her life's dream, Frank.

We get one life, and then that's it, and often only one shot, if that, to fulfill our dreams--and she had hers blown away by a rule I think is simply terrible, and contrary to the spirit of the very competition and Games her dream was built on.

"Also, it isnt an IOC issue, USA gymnastics chose to have Raisman compete in all 4 events. They obviously knew that she might beat Wieber or Douglas. If USA gymnastics wanted to ensure that Wieber made the finals, they could have let Maroney compete in more than just vault and then use Raisman in only thre of the events. They still would have easily qualified as the top seed for the finals. So your thread is stupid because it isn't even an olympics rules issue."

It wouldn't have been an issue with Raisman if the rule was to truly allow the Best 24, which is what seems to be in the spirit of the competition, or else to limit each side to just two competitors at the trials to be sure this doesn't happen.

They shouldn't have to hold anyone back for fear they might bounce others...

If Wieber, Raisman, Douglas, Maroney, and whoever else might be on their team all wanted to compete, and all did and placed in the Top 4, 1-2-3-4, then they have DESERVED the right to go in the Finals.

Otherwise, cap it at 2 in the trials and don't let 3+ compete.

Either way, it IS a failing of the rules to allow this to happen, and because this is already long enough that 10 horses might be beaten to death with the sheer amount of text in it:

She beat 21/14.
If she weren't American, she'd be the darling of the Games and favored to win.
Even an appearance in the Finals, well earned,. would've landed her endorsements.
NOW business talking heads are saying she's likely lost millions.

THIS *IS* A RULE ISSUE.

It's not sporting to deny someone's dream that way, on an totally unmerited cap rationale, and it's certainly not right to now have her lose millions in revenue because of this absurd foible in the rules.

2 for the trials period instead of 3+, or let it be truly Best of 24 regardless of nationality.

Either way, NO CAP-BOUNCING.

Not exciting as a viewer, not fair as a participant.

I admit I was rather upset when Jordyn didn't qualify, but as has been pointed out, the rule is incredibly clear. It's not as though it was some minor technicality that they hit her with; she knew exactly what she needed to do to move on to the next round.

I have mixed feelings about the rule. On one hand, I feel it's unfair to individual athletes, but we all know what would happen if the rule wasn't in place: US and China would outspend every other country into oblivion and we'd be watching some very boring Olympics.

Let's not forget: Jordyn is still the best, it would be very hard for anyone to argue otherwise; she's still the defending World Champion, after all. And, unless I'm mistaken, she can still take home a gold on the group events.

Finally, let's take a moment to reflect over a quote by the founder of the Olympics, Baron Pierre de Coubertin:

"The most important thing in the Olympic Games is not to win but to take part, just as the most important thing in life is not the triumph but the struggle. The essential thing is not to have conquered but to have fought well."

Maybe I'm petty, abgemacht, but for me, it's about winning, or at least if you lose, knowing you lost to someone better and going out in a blaze of glory like the Greek heroes of old, given the whole Greek origin of the Games.

This doesn't feel...well, Olympic, or Herculean, or worthy of the Games.

If you are #25 and it caps at 24, you can honestly say you lost fair and square, given Mr. Pierre de Coubertin's quote.

Ms. Wieber can't claim that--by all rights, she should be in, but this rule keeps her out.

I agree the intent of the rule has logic to it, but not the rule itself, not when someone who performs that well and is #4 is bounced and #25 gets in because of it.

I don't mind losing out on job interviews or writing and publishing gigs knowing someone better won fair and square.
THEN I only have my self to blame.
This isn't that--the better isn't winning and moving on fair and square here.

So does that mean the SEC could have three teams in BCS bowls now? I know, I know, we have a playoff now, but I distinctly remember a lot of moaning and groaning from the peanut gallery making the same argument that's made by the Olympics rules.

Rule sucks and should go away, but THM is right here - while it was indeed impossible for all three gymnasts in question to qualify, it was not impossible for any one individual gymnast to qualify, so it's not like she was totally screwed out of a chance. I would like to see this rule changed, Jamaican bobsled teams be damned. This is supposed to be the highest athletic level in the world. I don't think such a rule is becoming of it.

Again--

For TEAM sports, I'd argue that, for something like soccer, yes, I think there should be more European and South American teams, given he quality...

But at least in team sports there's a reasonable, decent excuse--you DO need divisions and conferences, otherwise it just gets muddled, and that means sometimes teams with worse records make the playoffs in the NFL than others (case in point, the 7-9 Seahawks winning the NFC West the season before last while the 10-6 Buccaneers stayed home due to a stronger division and the Saints and Falcons, I think, finishing ahead for the Division and a WC berth.)

But there's no reason for that in Individual sports, there are no conferences or divisions that shut teams or people out like that.

"while it was indeed impossible for all three gymnasts in question to qualify, it was not impossible for any one individual gymnast to qualify, so it's not like she was totally screwed out of a chance."

I have to disagree--

When you finish above 21 people who get to go instead of you...

Yes.
You may THEN say you have been screwed out of your chance.
Yes, that's the rule, so technically she hasn't been screwed, but in every competitive spirit of the Games...she has been.

Oddly enough, what bothers me most about this, for all the talk of the competitive inequities that I honestly feel this raises, is the personal level.

This IS her life's dream.
This is it.
Sure, she's just 17, but 17 is a peak year for this sport.
I can (and likely will) write crap all my life, but it's still always POSSIBLE I'll get a great book out at 85.
I can at least go down typing, go out the way Tennyson prescribes in his "Ulysses"--

"To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield."

That was how this all began, in a way, the Olympic Games, if not directly, DID stem a bit in some sense from the idea of the Olympic Gods and Heroes...

And many of those heroes died having their shot--

Achilles, Ajax, Odysseus, Hercules, Theseus, Perseus, even Jason--they all keep going until old age or the opposition take them.

King Arthur and his Knights (well, most of them) do the same--despite their age, they never yield, and it's really only ultimately themselves that brings about the end of their hopes and dreams.

Any Olympic athlete is different from a Lebron James, who loses as a 20-something in a team sport that's played every year.

He got another shot the next year, still in his prime, and won.

She won't get that chance, in all likelihood.
She will never get another chance.
Perhaps the greatest dream of her life, and it's done, and not in a blaze of glory...
But due to a rule that's legal, but doesn't seem at all fair, or sporting.

How is she going to LIVE with that?

I don't pretend to think that sports should be one's whole life, and to be as disciplined as she must be to have become the world champion, she must have the maturity to realize that...but still--

How do you LIVE, knowing that your life's dream went unfulfilled, you'll probably never get another shot, and worse still, it wasn't because you gave it your all and failed, that you finished #25 and didn't make the cut of 24 but gave it your all, to your last ounce of strength, as Tennyson says...

But that you DID achieve the un-achievable height, you DID indeed make it to the Chapel of the Holy Grail...only to find that you cannot drink--

And not because of a fault of your own, as was the case with Lancelot and Gawain, but simply because of a quota, something so lifeless and soulless as a quota.

Again--

We only get this life, and that's it.
We get this life to achieve our dreams, to live to our fullest.
Imagine that you've done all you should do to attain that Grail of yours...
That you've beaten nearly all the field fairly to get it, you've worked for it all your life...
And it's taken away, never to be had again, by something as soulless as a quota...
And that's it.
That is the end of that dream FOR YOUR LIFE--AND AFTER.

Because she won't be a Mary Lou Retton now, likely.
She will not be Jackie-Joyner Kersee.
Or Olga Korbut.
Or anyone else...

To stick with the Greek theme--she won't get to join that Pantheon, and live afterwards in the memories of others with them.

And you can live with that if you take your shot and miss and you know you gave it your all, but were unworthy...

What do you do when you're just about as worthy as can be, and a RULE denies you even the CHANCE?

Imagine Hercules, completing his 12 Labours, and at the end...he's not given his freedom, not given his vaunted place among the heroes, not made a deity...because there was a quota on Greek heroes, and Perseus came first.

How contrary is THAT to the original, Greek spirit of these Games, to be denied a chance at the Pantheon when you have earned it?

I DO NOT see the Olympics as being something of Nationalist Pride or Medal Conts--not for these Individual athletes.

For team sports--sure, I chant U-S-A along with everyone over here...

But the Individual Athletes? THAT is closer to the glory of winning for the honor of winning, I feel, not winning for you country, though that factors in quite a bit of course, but even more so, it's the sense of Tennyson's poem being fulfilled--

That you HAVE strove, sought, found your way, this pinnacle of humanity between Performance and Spirit...that you never yielded, and here you are, at the Pinnacle...

AND WE *SHARE* IN THAT MOMENT...

IN A PERSONAL TRIUMPH OF THE SOUL, WE *ALL* SHARE IN THAT MOMENT...

In that moment, YOU are the Ultimate, and we, in our awe and amazement at your feats, are sharing in the moment, as for most of us, seeing the Pinnacle, watching the Ultimate be achieved, that's as far as most of us are able to go on our own personal life odysseys.



If that sounds absurdly spiritual, if my tone sounds that way, that's because I DO feel that way about this--I don't believe in an afterlife, or a God or a Jesus or anything of the sort.

So those human beings that make the jump just a little bit further, the ones that really and symbolically show humanity inching ever onward towards improvement and betterment and achievement...I place great value in such individuals, and their achievements, that enrich themselves, and enrich others knowing that, if they couldn't do it, at least someone could, that HUMANITY can--and will--not yield, but move onward.

I will probably never write anything meaningful, probably nothing of value, anything even remotely worth the paper I print it on.

But I can live and die at peace knowing that not only did Shakespeare come along and write things I wished to write, and say things I wished to say, but could not articulate, could not evoke in myself, at least I can say that Shakespeare did it, and he'll stand forever, and inspire others...

And that at least I was given my fair shot, took it, tried, and never yielded, and if failure is my place in the literary Pantheon, it's failure well-earned, a sweet, not bitter failure.

The same goes for Ms, Wieber, and that's why I feel for her so--

All that lives on, in my view, is our legacies, and what is so inspiring to us are the Pinnacles...

And here she was, knowing the pinnacles of her profession her whole life, striving with every inch Tennyson's Ulysses strove with, seeking with every ounce of strength, finding within herself every iota of power and purpose she could to propel herself forward...

NEVER TO YIELD--

And she does her work, does all she must to attain the Grail, and a silly rule denies her not just the present glory of that Grail, but all that comes with it, all that build up that came before it, and all that will come AFTER IT...

That is not a sweet failure well-earned, but a bitter failure sorely undeserved, and a failure that was not at all hers...and still it keeps her from the chance to compete for the sort of Pantheon place, that sort of ending that is befitting someone who has struggled and worked along Ulysses' path--

THAT is the spirit of the Olympic Games, not Medal Counts, but something far greater than even those who win the Gold...

And that's been taken away from Ms. Wieber on a formality, and made that "something far greater" diminish before the pettiness of nations quibbling and competing for bits of shiny metal.

My, I laid myself a bit open there...lol.

"There's only one good Marx--well, 4, actually--

Groucho, Harpo, Chico, and Zeppo."

Everyone leaves off Gummo just because he didn't make it into the movies.

+1 for catching Gummo :)

But yeah, I left him off because he wasn't in the movies...though he supposed to have been possibly one of the funniest of them all.

If that was a bit shorter Obi, I might have read the last post. But I agree with President Eden. The Olympics are supposed to be the pinnacle of athletic achievement in the world, where nations gather in peace to compete. However, this means the best in the world should be allow - quota systems be damned. You don't need the sporting world's equivalent of affirmative action when doing this because the point of the competition is having the best in the world compete against each other. If that means countries like Fiji are never represented, well, they'll never be represented.

But the argument that the big capitalist nations will always win the most medals is garbage when you consider that the poor island country of Jamaica whips all of our asses in track year after year after year and someone from Kazakhstan just won the gold medal in the road race. The Olympic Games were created to help whip up the French spirit and get Frenchmen patriotic, in shape, and better the odds of the French winning the next war.

From an (somewhat reputable) article written by a history major from NYU

"Born on January 1, 1863, Coubertin was eight years old when he witnessed the defeat of his homeland in the Franco-Prussian War. He came to believe that his nation’s lack of physical education for the masses contributed to the defeat at the hands of Prussians led by Otto von Bismarck.

And in his youth Coubertin was also fond of reading British novels for boys which stressed the importance of physical strength. The idea formed in Coubertin’s mind that the French educational system was too intellectual and desperately needed a strong component of physical education"

http://history1800s.about.com/od/sports/a/Coubertin.htm

Oh and @THM - that's why we have the House of Representatives, which operates on that system and is arguably the more important of the houses now that the Senate doesn't really ratify treaties or declare war anymore.

Actually.. - And I am from good ol' Europe so I didn't even know the gymnast prompting this discussion. And I made it through the whole topic, even through the greek mythology. ;)

That said, I still wonder about the point of view leading into this discussion. I would like to mention two things and - with a minimum exception - leave out political aspects at all.

First of all: Olympic games of course are about the best sportsmen. And already right there the basic question turns up: How to select the "elite", how to distinguish between the average hobby and the top athlete? The answer, pure and simple is "based on performance". The better someone performs, the higher he or she is placed in the ranking. By that we do select in sports like we do in other disciplines. Set a cap and those above the bar are within the tops and those not above the bar are not within. Each and everyone willing to compete is judged by his or her performance - whether it be measured over a period (round robin), as single elimination or what method ever it is. Many individual sports face single elimination, like all martial arts, fencing and so on and someone not peak performing during the direct comparison is simply out. Whether it be in the national tryouts or in the olympics itself: There is a moment where as a sportsman you have to perform better than your rival or you might as well be marinated in talent, you won't be in. Talent is nothing, performance is.

Second: Olympic games is about the best sportsmen from all over the world. So..It's not about the Top10 competing with each other. It's about the top athletes from all participating nations. One easily misses the meaning of the Olympic games if one misses the pan global character. The Olympic games are nowadays limited to 10,000 athletes. That's the number. Imagine 9,991 of these athletes would come from PR China - and the rest would be spread among Sweden, Spain, Venezuela, Canada, Vanuatu, Malta, South Africa (2x) and Yemen. Would that reflect the idea of the olympic games? Would it reflect upon the ancient panhellenistic idea? Or the modern revival? A rhetorical question as it would not. Thus the national caps, the national tryouts, the chance for each athlete to participate in the opening parade, to represent his/her home country and to represent the elite they in fact are.


Of course, we DID and DO experience situations, where political interests had or have influence on the selection of athletes or participation. The most known will be 1980's moscow olympic games and 1984's Los Angeles olympic games. Not always the best performer is really selected based on the set of rules. But happily enough, this time this is not the case. And there remains the given situation, that an athlete judged in direct comparison delivered not the peak performance needed to rank high enough in her peer group, when she would have needed to do so. Well.. You don't win the superbowl if your opponent performs better than you. The same it is with gymnastics. I rest my case.

But her opponents didn't out-perform her...

Her own teammates did.

What are they supposed to do, hold back because only two can make it, so one under-performs intentionally or, in this case, is left of because she's better than all the world EXCEPT for her own teammates?

I understand your argument for an international flavor, sir, and that's certainly a main factor of the Olympics, but I must disagree--

IT IS about the Best of the Best competing against one another...be they 10 gymnasts from 10 nations or 10 from 8 or 6 or 3, it MUST be the Best of the Best, or the competitions aren't between "the best sportsmen in the world."

I've been hesitant to use this term, given how charged it is here in America--and I have mixed feelings about it--but I'm in for a penny, I may as well be in for the pound...

This strikes me, just a bit, as "affirmative action" in competition, NOT insofar as nations are given an advantage due to ethnicity or background, but rather the "Quota System" which WAS in place here in California, where the University of California schools, back before this was overturned, would and DID set "Race/Gender Quotas" to be filled...

The effects of that--ie, were "more qualified" white college applicants sometimes denied to make room for some of the racial "quotas"--and its extent are still debated today, but it was seen as being in error enough that the system was abolished.

Here we have the opposite--not a quota of "Each nation must have at least X in the Finals," but "Each may only have X number in the finals REGARDLESS of how much they dominate the field."

And that's contrary to the original spirit of the games--

The Ancient Greeks DID play (and even die, in some cases) for the chance to have the honor of being called the best in their field...

There was no "cap" that said that if the Spartans had better wrestlers than the Athenians, only 2 Spartan wrestlers maximum could move on in the tournament, even if more than that qualified.

In team sports, it's Nation-First, athletes-second,
In Individual Sports, it's athletes first, Nation second.

They should let the best athletes compete, even if it means 3 or 4 from one nation, or else only let 2 per nation compete AT ALL in a category, because being better than all the world and placing so high you should not only be in the Finals but with your high placing considered one of the favorites to WIN IT...only to be bounced from the Finals to let an athlete YOU DID BETTER THAN COMPETE IN YOUR PLACE, simply because your nation is "too good" at that sport and it's "unfair" to let all that talent from one nation in...

It's contrary to the celebration of talent for talent's-sake and pride in and rewarding of dominance and exceptional performance that the original Olympics was founded on...

It was NOT founded on the idea of "Everyone gets an equal chance, regardless of merit."

If that means certain cliques of nations dominate sports, well--then they dominate that sport, fair and square...

It's not fair to the ATHLETES, the people who actually make the Olympics WORK, to oust them not on the basis of their performance, but simply because of an arbitrary quota.

They work their whole lives for that moment of glory--and she'll never get this again, she's had her chance to compete, which she won fair and square, bettering 21 of those who will compete instead of her, 21 people who finished WORSE than her (I cannot stress that enough, tiresome though I suspect it is to everyone) are allowed to move on, and she can't because 3 USA gymnasts out of 24, rather than 2, is just a step too far and somehow ruins the excitement of the Games, having 1 more gymnast because, well, THE NATIONAL TEAM *EARNED* that extra slot for their gymnast.

Instead of a superior competition between superior athletes, compromise and parity are what has marked this event now, and nothing could be further from that original spirit of competition and yearning to be the best, not for the endorsements or for money, but for the HONOR of competing with and beating the best than that.

(I honestly never expected to write this much about gymnastics in my life...such is the extent I feel for this girl and feel this is just a terrible slight against the Games' greater significance to those involved...I now really hope she trounces the field in this Team competition, and I know next to nothing about the ins and out of the sport...she just deserves better than the shafting in the name of middling mediocrity she just got, and that's something that infuriates me to no end, in any case it presents itself.)

There is a glaring error in your argument though. Her teammates were also her opponents.

There is no defense in gymnastics. You perform your best and hope your opponents do worse. It is also interesting that you are simultaneously competing against your teammates and working with them.

Well, they won the Gold medal for the Team competition it seems, so it looks like All's Well That Ends Well...

I still say...what I've said 20 times, but at least she's getting a medal...

@ smcbride.. I think you and obi are actually saying the same thing there. "Her teammates are also her opponents" would seem to imply that there shouldn't be a country limitation if every single athlete is competing against every single athlete.

The rules apply, and they were known beforehand, but it's a built in paradox that in an individual competetion, you limit the number of people that can move on based upon something that is 'not' individual. An easy change would be to limit the number of athletes from each country that compete in the prelims (and thus limit the number that can move on), and then simply allow the top 24 to advance.