Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Road to Tokyo 2020 - Irish Olympic News

Options
14748495153

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 56 ✭✭flynng


    I have been an avid follower though not always a contributor to this discussion board since 2013 and I have just spent approximately an hour or so tonight catching up on the chat during the games that I had missed over the last few days. It made for compelling reading. I absolutely live for the Olympics when they come around and managed to get to London with my Dad in 2012 for a few days (and hope that I and my son will get to Paris in three years time). This discussion board has become an integral part of following Team Ireland in their quest to qualify for both Rio and Tokyo. Like many of you I am beginning to suffer withdrawal symptoms since the closing ceremony and have now resorted to watching the repeats on Eurosport. For those of you really suffering I suggest you go to the Eurosport Youtube channel, there's months of viewing individual sports events from Tokyo. I don't know who is the discussion organiser or moderator but I just wanted to thank you and the contributors for what is a fantastic discussion board with some seriously knowledgeable people with fantastic insights and debates. Looking forward to the creation of Road to Paris 2024, cheers!



  • Registered Users Posts: 54,684 ✭✭✭✭walshb


    Rd 3 from a judge's point of view would have seen a lot of credit for the Brazilian really trying hard to win and fight. Kellie, of course, did well, but there were cautions to Kellie for holding, and it appeared that Kellie was trying to spoil a bit. This is all factored into a judge's scoring criteria,along with the landed shots, aggression, ring generalship. I gave rd 3 to Kellie due to her landing cleaner, but the Brazilian definitely deserved credit and consideration for aggression and fight and forcing. And she landed as well.



  • Registered Users Posts: 357 ✭✭Oldira


    I 100% feel the same way. The days after an Olympics closes are some of the worst downers. Hopefully Discovery plus leave up their Olympics stuff. Will eventually get to Artistic Swimming and Rhythmic Gymnastics.

    The big saviour this time is the three year wait. That's less time, than back to the 2018 World Cup which to me, feels like yesterday. Qualification events will start next year and technically we are a quarter the way through this Olympic Cycle.



  • Registered Users Posts: 18,101 ✭✭✭✭Strazdas


    It's definitely a downer but I must say I'm very excited for Paris. O'Donovan / McCarthy say they already have their eyes fixed on another gold, I'm assuming Kellie will be back to defend her title. It might be the Games where McClenaghan finally comes good and if Rhasidat Adeleke keeps improving, she will surely be the star of our athletics team.



  • Registered Users Posts: 13,023 ✭✭✭✭Joe_ Public


    Kellie got 2 cautions for holding in R3, Ferreira got one. Not a huge factor, I don't think. I'd love to see stats for punches landed. Ferreira landed a fair few decent ones in a good fight with a lot of give and take, but I thought she missed with an awful lot more, mostly because Kellie was too elusive for her. I think Kellie held sway on all the vital aspects of the fight, movement, range, accuracy, punching. Not by huge amounts but enough to make her a clear winner.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 56 ✭✭flynng


    How many of the 116 that went to Tokyo do ye think will be in Paris? I know a few of the squad have indicated their intention to retire and some may fail to qualify or change event but thought it might be interesting to see if in 2.5 or 3 years time we revisit to see if predictions were correct. Probably easier to say who may not be there in 3 years but just thought it might be an interesting exercise!



  • Registered Users Posts: 24,571 ✭✭✭✭breezy1985


    Roche and Martin from the cycling won't be there but cycling allocation is based on the nations record not a riders personal qualification so when might still have the same number of riders but I reckon we will have less due to changes in allocation for Paris



  • Registered Users Posts: 18,101 ✭✭✭✭Strazdas


    Some of the hockey players are definitely retiring, certainly the ones up around 200 caps.

    Natalya Coyle was saying all along that this was her last Games, but one wonders if she'll have a rethink now (and she's still only 30). I'd say the vast bulk of the boxing team will return to try and qualify again. Even a more experienced member like Michaela Walsh is only 28 and Kurt Walker 26.



  • Registered Users Posts: 357 ✭✭Oldira


    I'd be very surprised if Harrington and Walker don't turn professional. I am sure they will have offers in abundance. €40,000 sports grant might might sound a lot but its pittance to what they could earn as professionals.

    I hope I am wrong but I doubt we will come near qualifying 116 for Paris. Not unless we again qualify two teams and to me, it looks like the women's hockey team is going to break apart.

    In any case I think such speculation should wait for the Road to Paris tread whenever it starts! Its great to have posters on this tread this past few weeks but there were times, even pre-pandemic when there were months between posts.



  • Registered Users Posts: 7,872 ✭✭✭Christy42


    I would also say that 40k is a lot less when trying to get a house etc. Would the bank even accept it? I mean it is not exactly dependable income if they get hurt or simply lose form it will quickly disappear.


    Hopefully we will get a women's rugby team as well as the men. We should have the player base for it. A lot will retire as is the nature of sports. I am sure plenty were holding onto these games as a big finale but hopefully there are more in the wings. I have not been too involved in any sport where we have had an olympian in the past few decades but some of those were we do presumably have production lines of varying quality. These games may encourage others to up their work rate to follow those who retire.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 18,101 ✭✭✭✭Strazdas


    Walker is very possible, yes. I'm not at all sure about Kellie though. Katie Taylor had been around for many years on the elite amateur international scene, winning her first world championship way back in 2006. Kellie is a relative latecomer to top level amateur boxing and has yet to even win a European title. I think she'd be much better off staying with the Olympic cycle.



  • Registered Users Posts: 13,023 ✭✭✭✭Joe_ Public


    Kellie has talked a few times about turning pro, but not certain her heart would be in it tbh. Apart from matchroom, where is she likely to get any really serious offers? She has her work in the hospital which she seems to enjoy and i think that and the prospect of making history by retaining her title in Paris will motivate her sufficiently to stay and go for it. I think she'd make a brilliant mentor and coach for kids, would love to see her go down that road.



  • Registered Users Posts: 18,101 ✭✭✭✭Strazdas


    Another problem with the pro game is that it leaves you largely anonymous. Yes, you get well paid but it's all on pay-for-view TV, meaning 99% of people in your own country can't even see you box. Even Katie Taylor has probably lost a lot of media visibility in Ireland since she went pro.

    All in all, Kellie being boxing team captain in Paris (assuming she can qualify) sounds a far better bet and also would give her lots of time to spend with her partner and her family and her dogs etc.



  • Registered Users Posts: 19,113 ✭✭✭✭Brendan Bendar


    I see there is an open top bus parade in Dublin for Kellie.

    Well deserved and hopefully she welcomes it.

    However, controversy already has arisen as Coppinger is using the request to confine it to local people as a political football.

    Why is it that these clowns and rejects like Coppinger always try to spoil things for everyone.

    Can people not have a bit of sense and let the girl have her deserved day in the sun,without politicizing it.

    Coppinger is in my opinion, a clown.



  • Registered Users Posts: 13,023 ✭✭✭✭Joe_ Public


    I imagine Amy Broadhurst will be singing the praises of going pro to her when she gets the chance. Amy is decent enough and will definitely give Kellie something to think about should they end up fighting for that spot.



  • Registered Users Posts: 18,101 ✭✭✭✭Strazdas


    It's noticeable that even Nicola Adams didn't turn pro until she had completed two Olympics and won two golds. I'd be slightly surprised if Kellie went this route....she's very much a late bloomer on the amateur scene and hasn't won many medals.

    Is there any chance Broadhurst could box at a different weight in Paris?



  • Registered Users Posts: 13,023 ✭✭✭✭Joe_ Public


    In 2024, she'll be 34, could still turn pro at that stage if she wanted, would have 2-3 good years in her. As you say, she's a relatively late bloomer, loads left in the tank. She has the chance to achieve something Katie never managed, got to be powerful motivation I'd think. Don't know could Broadhurst move up, there's the 63kg at the worlds that's no bother but the 69kg for the Olympics is a big stretch. Not sure that's an option really, don't think so.

    Edit: forgot they've obviously brought in featherweight which is 57kg, so much more realistic option. Could look at that alright I suppose.



  • Registered Users Posts: 18,101 ✭✭✭✭Strazdas


    I saw an interview from a couple of years ago where Amy thought she might be able to pass out Kellie as the best lightweight in the country, but now that we know just how good Harrington is (outclassed even the current world champion), that might be a very tall order. Changing weight divisions might be the better option.



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,991 ✭✭✭Cosmo Kramer


    I think it will be very tough to match or pass the team of 116 for Paris (I believe 117 competitors actually took part in the end - Cathal Daniels from the original 116 didn't compete but two reserves took part in the equestrian events).

    The Hockey team has reached the end of a cycle and something similar happened with the men's team when they narrowly failed to qualify. The Sevens team were a bit lucky to sneak in and will likely need to improve to make Paris, however it looks like there will be investment coming their way.

    Katie Taylor's experience in Rio might suggest to Harrington that she shouldn't go back a second time - possibly more for her to lose than to gain. A lot might depend on how much she can earn in endorsements off the back of the gold medal, if it's a lot it might convince her to stay on. The prospect of a big money Taylor v Harrington pro match up might tempt her too though.

    However, it could be a case of quality over quantity next time. We should send strong boxing and rowing teams once again, Rhys McClenaghan should be back, the athletics team might be smaller but more competitive and someone like Wiffen or McSharry may have kicked on further in the pool. Hopefully we will send a larger and stronger sailing team also, that was an unusually small group this time around.



  • Registered Users Posts: 357 ✭✭Oldira


    two hockey reserves Carey and Malseed also played as did the Sevens Reserve Bryan Mollen. That’s 119by my book.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 718 ✭✭✭Kunta Kinte


    And there were no Irish competitiors in any of the athletics field events in Tokyo. Hopefully that will change in Paris.



  • Registered Users Posts: 18,101 ✭✭✭✭Strazdas


    I saw an interview with Nicola Adams on Sunday where she said that as Olympic champion in boxing, everyone is now out to get you, but she added that it is perfectly doable to go back and win a second gold medal. The only reason she didn't try and win a third is that she lost the fire inside and was no longer motivated. In Katie Taylor's case, I think her form in general slumped in 2016 (personal issues being a factor) and she was nowhere near as good as she had been in London.

    Difficult to tell what will happen with the hockey team going forward. They were a tad disappointing but were still competitive and are there or thereabouts in terms of being good enough to qualify for an Olympics.



  • Registered Users Posts: 54,684 ✭✭✭✭walshb


    I thought Katie was just as good in Rio. She lost a very close fight that IMO she deserved....won't say robbery, but I thought a poor call.

    Same as her loss to Estelle in 2016 worlds.....she won that fight.....judging was off.

    The issue in Rio was exaggerated due to an arrogance from fans/media. Our lads that lost all were brilliant. Paddy Barnes was magnificent in his loss, and IMO deserved the win. Conlan deserved the win.. It was then spun to make out that the team was weak/disjointed and not prepared...sure, there may well have been issues in the team, but those three losses all ad brilliant performances that I felt deserved the wins.



  • Registered Users Posts: 13,023 ✭✭✭✭Joe_ Public


    I admire Mira Potkonen for the application and determination she showed to become a two times Olympic medallist. Kellie even talks about her being an inspiration for her. That said, i don't believe there's any way that Katie, at her best, should be losing to her. At her best, she would be beating Mira Potkonen with a bit to spare, and no disrespect meant there. Obviously, Katie was below her best that summer and leading into it, for whatever reason. There was an injury reportedly going into it, think she missed some training, but never heard her making an excuse of that personally.



  • Registered Users Posts: 54,684 ✭✭✭✭walshb


    I disagree...I watched that fight several times, and purely on visuals and what happened, Katie was as good as ever. She won the fight IMO; it was not the correct decision.

    Barnes the same. Fought like a demon and won the fight. And was making excuses afterwards for his showing. His showing was superb.

    Conlan fought out of his skin to beat a man that was top class, and man that had beaten him twice already I think.

    The issue was that there seemed to be a hype and an arrogance about our boxes, as if they had some divine right to win. And when we lost these fights, everyone went looking for excuse

    The three losers fought brilliantly, and IMO all three deserved the win!



  • Registered Users Posts: 13,023 ✭✭✭✭Joe_ Public


    Scratch what I said above about the injury. Was mixing it up with 2012! Obviously didn't bother her then anyway!

    What do you disagree with, though? That Katie at her best was a class above Mira Potkonen? I'd seen Katie fight Mira at least twice before that and win comfortably each time. Did Mira improve that much by 2016, do you think?



  • Registered Users Posts: 7,556 ✭✭✭Dr. Bre


    Hopefully the crowds back in 2024 in Paris! Thought some of the events needed more crowds especially the athletics - nothing beats a packed stadium for the athletics !



  • Registered Users Posts: 54,684 ✭✭✭✭walshb


    I disagree that Katie was below par and not at her best. I watched the fight several times. She won for me. Performed brilliantly. Was as good as I have ever seen her. Mira was also very good

    Just because you beat someone previously more comfortably, and then not as comfortably (as was Rio) does not mean you were not as good, or you were below par. It doesn't work like that. Mira was better in Rio than in her previous losses, but she still did not beat Taylor in Rio on my card.

    And I think I was rightly critical at the time for Katie's post fight reactions. I thought she was disrespectful to a very good Mira in how she "should be beating these girls." Mira was very good in Rio, and so was Katie. Katie won, but the judges did not think so....



  • Registered Users Posts: 13,023 ✭✭✭✭Joe_ Public


    I can't see there is any less validity to me saying Katie was below her best in Rio and you claiming Mira just excelled her previous performances. It's just the exact same assumption based on a fight that was extremely closely fought. It's just my opinion that a peak Katie Taylor would be winning that fight without any doubt or speculation and to compare it with Kellie fight of a career at the weekend is simply wrong. If Katie was truly "brilliant" against Potkonen then I'm afraid the oxford dictionary is simply inadequate to describe the many many performances when she did truly excel.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 54,684 ✭✭✭✭walshb


    Did I compare Katie and Kellie? I don't think I did

    All I said was that Katie, IMO performed brilliantly in Rio, and deserved the win... I do not think she lost because she was below par. I think she lost because she met a very good Mira, and the judges got it wrong.

    Where in the Rio fight did Katie clearly look below par? You seem to be basing this purely off her losing to Mira.....

    In other words, being sucked into the kind of arrogance of having a divine right to win.....

    Kaite was fast, active, busy, great feet, fit as a fiddle, strong...she showed everything......she simply was not awarded the fight. One judge saw it the way I did....

    As to the oxford dictionary: Are you implying that only clear wins are examples of truly excelling? Can you not perform brilliantly and win a close fight? Katie has won several very tight affairs that could have gone either way. She truly excelled in these wins as well, same way she truly excelled in Rio. Just that in Rio, the split decision went against her.



Advertisement