Road to Tokyo 2020 - Irish Olympic News

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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?

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....

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.

Gillick raised some very good points in relation to athletics on the rte website today but I think they could be taken for most of the sports that Ireland participated in outside of the medal winning categories. Essentially he said many of the athletes underperformed and some qualified due to quotas in a particular sport and were out of their depth. Usual themes emerge - underfunding, lack of fulltime coaches, lack of high performance centres. It really comes down to whether as a nation you want to throw all your eggs in one basket and be known for fighting and rowing with the occasional one off individual success story.

The alternative medal tables make for interesting reading when you compare Irelands performance on a per capita basis and/or GDP.

In fairness in the article we are targeting more sports to medal but I hope this is not a round about way of saying that we overacheived and should be happy to go back winning 1 or 2 medals.

4 medals was decent but nothing exceptional. We are good enough to win 5-10 medals if we put or mind to it.

Anything below 3 or less medals should be considered a poor Olympics for us now. We need push on. Not just be happy with one half decent Olympics.

We're averaging around four medals per Olympics across the last four Olympics, and exactly four medals including one gold across the last three Olympics, so I would say that's par for us now. Less than four medals including at least one gold would have to be considered a disappointment going forward.

What made this an above par games was the two golds, particularly as they were in two different sports. Almost amazing that we've never managed to achieve that before, but it shows how poorly we were set up before the Beijing games.

The goal in Paris is to win medals in four different sports, so that's a step up on winning four medals. Again we've never achieved that before, three separate sports is as good as we've done. So it's a fairly challenging target I think.

We can aim as high as we like, and we can send better athletes/sportspeople every four years, but there is no rule/progression that says we will even win one medal. It's human competition, and there are dozens and dozens and dozens of countries all competing.

Take the sports we got medals in. Of the four medals, I think it was, these were from only two sports. One bronze, Aidan Walsh, was a wee bit soft when comparing. That leaves 3 hard won medals.

Paris could see us win more, the same medals, less medals or no medals.....no scenario necessarily makes us better or worse (other than medal count) than previous Olympics. The differences between medalling and not can be so so small.

Example: all our swimmers and track/field athletes in Paris could post better times/performances, and likely not one medal. Our rowers could post faster times in Paris and doesn't mean a medal. Our boxers could be faster and sharper and stronger in Paris, and doesn't mean a medal.

And this won't stop armchair fans and media etc having digs at our team

My general impression is the public were happy enough with the four medals. It was a definite help too that Kellie Harrington is so popular and created a real feelgood moment for the nation.

We probably should be celebrating three good Olympics in a row. We went to Rio with an exceptionally strong boxing team and two gold medal favourites, but for a variety of reasons the whole boxing thing fell apart. We had to fall back on Annalise Murphy and the O'Donovans in the end but had the dice rolled differently, we could have been looking at four or five medals.

I'd say we're in good shape going into 2024. O'Donovan / McCarthy will be back, very likely Kellie too, women's Fours, McCleneghan for certain (assuming qualification for all of them), the four golfers etc. It's not as if we're relying on a few up and coming athletes and hoping against hope that they can improve by Paris.

Just on the long term vision - with regards lightweight rowing, what's the plan for post 2024? It's almost certain that lightweight will be gone post Paris (it was supposed to be gone post Tokyo). Will Rowing Ireland bother bringing through youngsters in this discipline going forward when there is no pathway to the Olympics? Will this be the ultimate death of lightweight rowing, with smaller built people no longer having a future in the sport?

It won't really affect Paul O'Donovan as he'll be 34 come LA and might have called it a day by then, but this will cut Fintan's career short. Unless these guys can become heavyweights? Is that achievable?

Would there really be anyone screaming for heads to roll? You'd have the usual crowd trying to get a rise saying "Not good enough with 116 entrants we should get 116 golds or else we've failed typical Paddy Irish applauding failure blah blah " but realistically most of the public wouldn't have any problem with it and it'd be forgotten about within days.

We can even see this on boards. A lot of the posters who were incensed 2 weeks ago demanding the Minister for Sport to call a crisis meeting and sign a cheque for an 8 figure investment into chasing olympic medals immediately have moved on to some other topic, and won't pay attention to or mention the olympics until July 2024.

I get all that. No medal is easy in the Olympics. But his opposition/draw in Tokyo wasn’t really difficult. Two very basic opponents. It’s all relative. His bronze was “soft” under this analysis. And not as you say, a very hard fought medal.

I suppose my point is that not all medals are the same as regards what it took to get them.

Definitely. Unlucky to face 2018 WC in her first fight.

Walker beat reigning WC in his second fight.

She looks very stylish too, she's no brawler - light on her feet and skilful.

It will be interesting to see if Walker stays amateur. He's only 26 and might just be tempted to give the Olympics another go.