Road to Rio 2016 - Irish Olympic News

It's one of those odd situations. The more successful you are the more you get. Not that I begrudge anyone grants or help . But surely the people on the way up need more support than those at the top of there support. Or an injured athlete should be supported instead of having funding cut.

Dodge wrote: »

Lack of interest from Irish people is the big one. We just don't care enough about sports. Look at any sporting event here, the attendances are all very poor compared to equivalents in most countries. That extrapolates out into funding etc

Big picture, absolutely. I just meant the immediate issue for athletes.

Pity really, it's all a bit of a vicious circle. People won't care until there's something big enough to engage them and comfortable facilities to view from, and that won't happen until people are engaged.

Thinking about it, I think most people would even feel like a bit of a weirdo turning up at a local non- gaa/football/rugby event if they weren't a relative or active in the club.

CrabRevolution wrote: »

If Irish don't care about certain sports, then they probably don't care that we don't excel in them either.

They'll feign interest when we
1) win some medals
or
2) struggle really badly

Then 2 months later, no one cares again.

I do, but I accept I'm in a tiny minority

Joe_ Public wrote: »

I think the boxers have spared us from the "talk to joe" headbangers for the past 2 Olympics. Would have been open season without them. Although, in fairness, the walkers have done their bit too.

But even then it's the "if the boxers can do it, why can't...."

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Thats true, but I don't think it's necessarily a bad question to be asking, especially if you were a CEO or high performance coach of another sport, not in terms of winning Olympic medals perhaps, but in setting achievable targets and realising them.

The average punter values all medals equally. They don't understand that winning a medal in the men's 800m is far harder than in women's boxing. So if Mark English was to finish 8th, that wouldn't impress many outside of knowledgeable sporting fans.

The reality is that in boxing:

1) There's only 1 competitor from each country, there's 3 from each country in athletics events
2) Two bronze medals are given out. Imagine how many more Olympic medals we'd have if 4th place in athletics got a medal.
3) They don't have to beat the best boxers in the world (given that most believe that the best pro boxers would beat the best amateur boxers), though this could change in the future. Athletes have to beat the very best in their field.

Not trying to downplay the achievement of boxing medals, but more show how difficult a position our track and field athletes will always be in with regards to impressing the Joe Duffy knownothings!

Chivito550 wrote: »

The average punter values all medals equally. They don't understand that winning a medal in the men's 800m is far harder than in women's boxing. So if Mark English was to finish 8th, that wouldn't impress many outside of knowledgeable sporting fans.

The reality is that in boxing:

1) There's only 1 competitor from each country, there's 3 from each country in athletics events
2) Two bronze medals are given out. Imagine how many more Olympic medals we'd have if 4th place in athletics got a medal.
3) They don't have to beat the best boxers in the world (given that most believe that the best pro boxers would beat the best amateur boxers), though this could change in the future. Athletes have to beat the very best in their field.

Not trying to downplay the achievement of boxing medals, but more show how difficult a position our track and field athletes will always be in with regards to impressing the Joe Duffy knownothings!

You constantly try and downplay medals in other sports. There are over 20 disciplines in track and field. Is it difficult to medal in any one of them? Hugely. It's also every bit as difficult to medal in any one weight division in boxing. Problem being that you will never see this.

NiallBoo wrote: »

Isn't it all kind of swings and round-abouts?

Some sports will have easier qualification but that means tougher competition in Rio but others will have tougher qualification but more chance of getting a medal once they're there.

Either way you have to be the best in the world.

I think that's a fair point, in boxing its often half the battle just getting there. But I can still sympathise with the initial points made, particularly in relation to the bronze medal award. Other sports like tennis, bastketball and football have third place play-offs, I don't really get why boxing doesn't have as well.

walshb wrote: »

You constantly try and downplay medals in other sports. There are over 20 disciplines in track and field. Is it difficult to medal in any one of them? Hugely. It's also every bit as difficult to medal in any one weight division in boxing. Problem being that you will never see this.

So if there were 3 Chinese, 3 Russians, 3 Kazaks, 3 Cubans in every category, it wouldn't be any more difficult to win medals?

If all the top pros were there, it wouldn't be any more difficult to win medals?

And are you arguing the clear fact that there are 4 medals in boxing vs 3 in athletics? This alone is clear evidence that boxing medals come easier.

Imagine a 100m race in Rio where only guys between 10.0 and 10.30 were running. That's amateur boxing. You said yourself the pros would beat the amateurs.

I am not debating it with you. You are not capable of looking past numbers. I am simply pointing out your ignorance when it comes to your constant arguing about it being 'harder' to medal in T&F than boxing. As if it's somehow provable! Your stance is a combination of ignorance and arrogance.

Like I said. Fixated on numbers.

Btw, you do realise that there are dozens of elites in many countries trying to get that one spot in boxing? So there is more than 3 Cubans etc. It's a qualification process. You will never see this.

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Other sports like tennis, bastketball and football have third place play-offs, I don't really get why boxing doesn't have as well.

Because there were instances before 1948 (when boxing had only one bronze,) where a boxer was so badly beaten by the ultimate gold medallist in the semi-final bout that he had to concede the bronze medal bout. It happened to an Irish boxer in 1924 or 1928, 1924, I think. It was considered unfair that this should happen to a boxer who was unlucky enough to draw the best boxer in his semi-final.

feargale wrote: »

Because there were instances before 1948 (when boxing had only one bronze,) where a boxer was so badly beaten by the ultimate gold medallist in the semi-final bout that he had to concede the bronze medal bout. It happened to an Irish boxer in 1924 or 1928, 1924, I think. It was considered unfair that this should happen to a boxer who was unlucky enough to draw the best boxer in his semi-final.

It's a reasonable basis I suppose, although still not sure I agree with it, but certainly won't be complaining if we rack up a couple of bronze in Rio anyway....

walshb wrote: »

Like I said. Fixated on numbers.

Btw, you do realise that there are dozens of elites in many countries trying to get that one spot in boxing? So there is more than 3 Cubans etc. It's a qualification process. You will never see this.

I understand that. But an Irish boxer only has to beat 1 Cuban, 1 Russian, 1 Mongolian. An Irish athlete must beat 3 Jamaicans, 3 Ethiopians, 3 Americans. If the 3 best boxers in the world are from one country, only one will be there winning a medal, leaving 2 medals free (actually 3!) for others to win. In things like the Steeplechase, the 3 best all come from the one country, and all 3 are at the Olympics. Is this really hard to understand?

NiallBoo wrote: »

So...any actual Olympic news?

Ciara Everard has been named in our Olympic team. I've been told she's injured, but maybe they are picking her provisionally.