(Close Window)
Topic: Sportsmanlike (?) dumping
Message: Posted by: S2000magician (Aug 1, 2012 06:42PM)
There's quite a bit of furore over the women's Olympic badminton players who deliberately lost matches to ensure that they would play specific teams in the quarterfinals, expecting that that would give them a better chance to make it to the semifinals or finals.

Over the years, there have been many similar incidents in, of all things, contract bridge, with arguments back and forth on whether it's good sportsmanship or not.

What do you think?

Personally, I think that a team's sportsmanlike duty is to try to do the best that they can [i]overall[/i]. If the conditions of contest are so poorly designed that it's in a team's best overall interest to lose a particular match, that indicates stupidity on the part of the contest organizers, and good sportsmanship demands that the team throw the match to have a better overall chance. I think it's abhorrant - don't get me wrong - but the blame rests with the organizers, not with the team that takes legitimate advantage of poor conditions of contest.
Message: Posted by: GlenD (Aug 1, 2012 07:22PM)
The olympics suck. Just my opinion.
Message: Posted by: TonyB2009 (Aug 1, 2012 08:18PM)
To me arrogance is a key part of the make-up of a successful sports person. I was never a good boxer, but if I stepped into a ring with Mike Tyson, until I hit the canvas I would be convinced I could take him. That is why the sight of teams trying to lose so that they could avoid the top seeds is so repugnant. A true sports person would be trying to win to force a match with the top seed, because they would be arrogant enough to believe in themselves.

I am glad they were sent home.
Message: Posted by: motown (Aug 1, 2012 11:03PM)
So, it's the organizer fault that teams purposely tried to lose.

That make's no sense.
Message: Posted by: NicholasD (Aug 1, 2012 11:11PM)
While I believe in going all out when competing, it could be construed as strategy. So, maybe there should be specific rules to address this type of situation.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Aug 1, 2012 11:25PM)
I'm in agreement with the OP. It's stupid to create a format that rewards losing on purpose, and it's easily avoidable.
Message: Posted by: S2000magician (Aug 2, 2012 12:56AM)
[quote]On 2012-08-02 00:03, motown wrote:
So, it's the organizer fault that teams purposely tried to lose.

That make's no sense.[/quote]
It makes more sense that sticking that apostrophe in "makes".

;)

If the conditions of contest say that if you win this match you play the toughest team in the quarterfinals and are, therefore, unlikely to make it to the semifinal (medal) round, but if you lose this match you will play the easiest team in the quarterfinals and are, therefore, likely to make it to the medal round, and your ultimate goal is to have the greatest chance of winning a medal, then you should try to lose this match. Those conditions are stupid, and would be the fault of the organizer. Pretty straightforward.
Message: Posted by: S2000magician (Aug 2, 2012 12:57AM)
[quote]On 2012-08-01 21:18, TonyB2009 wrote:
To me arrogance is a key part of the make-up of a successful sports person.[/quote]
But is arrogance a necessary component of sportsmanship?
Message: Posted by: MobilityBundle (Aug 2, 2012 01:50AM)
They could make rules against it, but those rules are pretty tough to enforce in general.

The only really competitive endeavor I know well is chess. I can't think of a case where purposefully losing a game provides a longer-term advantage in a tournament, there is a similar phenomenon called a "grandmaster draw." That's where neither player really tries to win, and agree to a draw after some very short number of moves. Grandmaster draws are bummers for the fans. When you see two titans sit down across the board from each other, you want to see them create something beautiful. At the same time, it's easy to understand why grandmaster draws happen.

I think it's the same with badminton, or really ANY spectator sport. In my mind, the point behind the olympics isn't just to find out who the best athlete or team is in a particular sport. It's to provide a spectacle for fans to enjoy, AND to find out who the best athlete or team is. (After all, if the olympics were held in secret, with only the results being published, it obviously wouldn't garner as much attention as it does now.) To that end, it's kind of morally incumbent on the competitors to help provide a bit of spectacle. But really, they only have fans to answer to... and I have no idea what badminton fans tolerate. Probably a lot. After all, they're badminton fans. :)
Message: Posted by: Matthew W (Aug 2, 2012 01:59AM)
This thread is not as funny as the title lead me to think it would be.
Message: Posted by: stoneunhinged (Aug 2, 2012 03:09AM)
How about intentional walks in baseball and softball? It's part of the overall strategy to win the game. It seems to me that it is completely legitimate strategy to treat a tournament as a single event.

That said, it's not cricket.

Read here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underarm_bowling_incident_of_1981
Message: Posted by: S2000magician (Aug 2, 2012 09:35AM)
[quote]On 2012-08-02 02:50, MobilityBundle wrote:
. . . I have no idea what badminton fans tolerate. Probably a lot. After all, they're badminton fans. :)[/quote]
Out of curiosity, have you ever played / watched Olympic badminton?

Without being overly dramatic, it's a grueling sport, every bit as exhausting as tennis or racketball.

When I was at University, I used to go to a local community college to play badminton against some of the best players in the country. (Since then, they've built the Orange County Badminton Club in Orange, CA: most of the US Olympics players train there.) I would come out of a match dripping wet and exhausted. This ain't the backyard game with cousin Joey.
Message: Posted by: critter (Aug 2, 2012 09:53AM)
It's kind of like tennis, but with an aerodynamically challenged target. So, tennis in slow motion ;)
Message: Posted by: S2000magician (Aug 2, 2012 10:04AM)
The motion of the shuttlecock might be slow (except right off the racket: 200 mph!), but the motion of the players is anything but.
Message: Posted by: Slide (Aug 2, 2012 10:40AM)
"If the conditions of contest say that if you win this match you play the toughest team in the quarterfinals and are, therefore, unlikely to make it to the semifinal (medal) round, but if you lose this match you will play the easiest team in the quarterfinals and are, therefore, likely to make it to the medal round, and your ultimate goal is to have the greatest chance of winning a medal, then you should try to lose this match. Those conditions are stupid, and would be the fault of the organizer."


But isn't that the way all contests like this are played. Someone has to play the toughest team early on, so it is a strategy that anyone could take. I don't how you could organize it any differently other than to say: toughest teams don't play at all until the final rounds. Strategy is strategy. Sometimes retreat is a better strategy. Sometimes losing is a better strategy. If a pitcher intensionally walks a great hitter, we don't complain that the pitcher is not doing the right thing by not trying strike out the player. Seems like the same thing to me.

Besides, who gives a crap about badminton? :) I was more surprised to learn it was an olympic event.
Message: Posted by: balducci (Aug 2, 2012 10:43AM)
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/editorials/badminton-players-punishment-fits-the-crime/article4456781/

The expulsion of eight badminton players from the London Olympics for deliberately attempting to lose their matches sends the right message while raising an interesting question about what it means to compete. The women’s doubles teams – one from China, one from Indonesia and two from South Korea – were trying to manipulate the outcome of the round-robin stage of the tournament; by losing their games, they would have guaranteed themselves a weaker opponent in the first round of the knockout stage. They refused to exert themselves and deliberately missed easy shots, in spite of officials’ repeated warnings to play to the best of their abilities.

The question this raises is whether athletes should be punished for strategically losing a battle in order to win the war. The point of high-level competition is, after all, to win it all, and this is no less true in the Olympics than it is in professional sports. In baseball, pitchers routinely walk batters on purpose; in many pro sports, teams that are ensured a spot in the playoffs won’t field their best players for the final game of the regular season because they want to rest them for the more important games ahead. In chess, the deliberate sacrifice of a pawn is accepted strategy.

So what is the badminton players’ crime? Simple: In the examples mentioned above, nobody deliberately sets out to lose a game by performing badly. To compete under the terms of good sportsmanship means to give your all to win the match at hand, even if – maybe especially if – it means your next opponent will be tougher. Spectators demand it, the rules require it, and sporting ethics make it non-optional. The eight badminton players tried to rig the outcome of their matches; the fact they are going home in disgrace says everything we need to know about what it means to compete with honour.
Message: Posted by: balducci (Aug 2, 2012 10:48AM)
Fwiw, apparently badminton was using a new group format at the games:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/olympics/badmintons-net-loss/article4456934/

Unlike tennis, where players are seeded and then knock each other out in successive games, badminton is using a group format for the first time. Under the system, players are put into groups and the top finishers in each pool qualify for an elimination round.

The doubles event consisted of 16 teams, including two teams each from China and South Korea, seeded by ranking across four pools.

The fixing began after Juhl and Pedersen upset the Chinese team of Tian Qing and Zhao Yunlei in the preliminary round, leaving the Danes in first place in their pool and China second.

It meant that in the elimination round, the top Chinese team of Wang and Yu would have played Tian and Zhao in the quarter-final. To avoid that, Wang and Yu purposely lost their final match against a South Korean team Tuesday.

When the South Koreans saw that, they did the same thing in their match with the Indonesians, who followed suit. The result was all four teams trying to lose on Tuesday to improve their chances in the elimination round.
Message: Posted by: critter (Aug 2, 2012 11:06AM)
I was only teasing. I'd probably suck at bad mint tea. I totally suck at ping pong.
Message: Posted by: TonyB2009 (Aug 2, 2012 11:14AM)
[quote]
On 2012-08-02 10:35, S2000magician wrote:
[quote]On 2012-08-02 02:50, MobilityBundle wrote:
. . . I have no idea what badminton fans tolerate. Probably a lot. After all, they're badminton fans. :)[/quote]
Out of curiosity, have you ever played / watched Olympic badminton?

Without being overly dramatic, it's a grueling sport, every bit as exhausting as tennis or racketball.
[/quote]
And a far sight easier than boxing, judo, gymnastics, marathon running, cycling, triathlon, and many of the other sports in the olympics.

In answer to your earlier point, yes I believe arrogance is a key element in the make-up of any serious sports competitor. Without it, you are making up numbers. With it, you are competing for the medals.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Aug 2, 2012 11:24AM)
[quote]
On 2012-08-02 11:40, Slide wrote:
"If the conditions of contest say that if you win this match you play the toughest team in the quarterfinals and are, therefore, unlikely to make it to the semifinal (medal) round, but if you lose this match you will play the easiest team in the quarterfinals and are, therefore, likely to make it to the medal round, and your ultimate goal is to have the greatest chance of winning a medal, then you should try to lose this match. Those conditions are stupid, and would be the fault of the organizer."


But isn't that the way all contests like this are played. Someone has to play the toughest team early on, so it is a strategy that anyone could take. I don't how you could organize it any differently other than to say: toughest teams don't play at all until the final rounds. Strategy is strategy. Sometimes retreat is a better strategy. Sometimes losing is a better strategy. If a pitcher intensionally walks a great hitter, we don't complain that the pitcher is not doing the right thing by not trying strike out the player. Seems like the same thing to me.

Besides, who gives a crap about badminton? :) I was more surprised to learn it was an olympic event.
[/quote]

In the world championships in bridge, for instance, the team that does best in a round-robin stage gets to choose its opponent in the next (knockout) phase; the team that does second-best chooses from those remaining, and so on. So a loss by China (which precipitated this mess) wouldn't incentivize anyone to lose; rather, they'd all be trying to win so they could select an opponent other than China.
Message: Posted by: NicholasD (Aug 2, 2012 03:01PM)
One of my physical education instructors in college was a national level badminton player. He played everyone in class one on one, and no one got a point.
Message: Posted by: S2000magician (Aug 2, 2012 03:14PM)
[quote]On 2012-08-02 11:43, balducci wrote:
Spectators demand it . . .[/quote]
Probably the strongest argument.

[quote]On 2012-08-02 11:43, balducci wrote:
. . . the rules require it . . .[/quote]
I'm pretty sure that this isn't true.

[quote]On 2012-08-02 11:43, balducci wrote:
. . . and sporting ethics make it non-optional.[/quote]
Again, I'm not sure that this is true. See the references to intentional walks.

[quote]On 2012-08-02 11:43, balducci wrote:
The eight badminton players tried to rig the outcome of their matches . . .[/quote]
I see it as them trying to ensure that they would make it to the medal rounds; seems competitive to me.

[quote]On 2012-08-02 11:43, balducci wrote:
. . . the fact they are going home in disgrace says everything we need to know about what it means to compete with honour.[/quote]
Unless the people who created the absurd rules of contest are sent home in disgrace, I diasgree that we know everything.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Aug 2, 2012 03:22PM)
Yeah, if you set the conditions of contest that make it a good idea to dump games, then get haughty because it happens and the spectators are upset, you should be out of there. Without pay.
Message: Posted by: Chessmann (Aug 2, 2012 03:24PM)
Intentional walks are done by a team seeking to win a game, not lose a game.

The badminton teams were trying to lose games (to get easier opponents in the future). Intentional walks are for the purpose of a team trying to win a game - plus, the team giving the walk risks some by allowing an opposing player on base.
Message: Posted by: balducci (Aug 2, 2012 03:34PM)
[quote]
On 2012-08-02 16:14, S2000magician wrote:.

[quote]On 2012-08-02 11:43, balducci wrote:
. . . the rules require it . . .[/quote]
I'm pretty sure that this isn't true.

[quote]On 2012-08-02 11:43, balducci wrote:
. . . and sporting ethics make it non-optional.[/quote]
Again, I'm not sure that this is true. See the references to intentional walks..
[/quote]
Of course, I cut and pasted the editorial from the link I gave. Those were not my opinions, exactly.

However, the last paragraph in the editorial did explain why intentional walks are a different case and do not violate sporting ethics.
Message: Posted by: balducci (Aug 2, 2012 03:36PM)
And as for what the rules of badminton do require ...

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetorch/2012/08/01/157703869/badmintons-detrimental-conduct-rule-and-losing-on-purpose

The article above also notes that NBA games have been tanked for the sake of draft ranking.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Aug 2, 2012 03:42PM)
[quote]
On 2012-08-02 16:24, Chessmann wrote:
Intentional walks are done by a team seeking to win a game, not lose a game.

The badminton teams were trying to lose games (to get easier opponents in the future). Intentional walks are for the purpose of a team trying to win a game - plus, the team giving the walk risks some by allowing an opposing player on base.
[/quote]

Olympic athletes want to win medals. If you don't want them to lose games on purpose, don't set up an event wherein losing games increases their chances of winning medals.
Message: Posted by: TomBoleware (Aug 2, 2012 05:49PM)
It's like a boxer unquestionably taking a fall in the first round. Nobody likes it.
It's not fair to the fans that pay big money to see a 'real' match.
It's cheating the sport and it is an insult to the other team.
I say they should be sent home immediately. Tar feathers and all for the coaches.


Tom
Message: Posted by: Chessmann (Aug 2, 2012 06:38PM)
[quote]
On 2012-08-02 16:42, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-08-02 16:24, Chessmann wrote:
Intentional walks are done by a team seeking to win a game, not lose a game.

The badminton teams were trying to lose games (to get easier opponents in the future). Intentional walks are for the purpose of a team trying to win a game - plus, the team giving the walk risks some by allowing an opposing player on base.
[/quote]

Olympic athletes want to win medals. If you don't want them to lose games on purpose, don't set up an event wherein losing games increases their chances of winning medals.
[/quote]

...which had nothing to do with my point, but ok. :)
Message: Posted by: motown (Aug 2, 2012 09:44PM)
[quote]
On 2012-08-02 01:56, S2000magician wrote:
[quote]On 2012-08-02 00:03, motown wrote:
So, it's the organizer fault that teams purposely tried to lose.

That make's no sense.[/quote]
It makes more sense that sticking that apostrophe in "makes".

;)

If the conditions of contest say that if you win this match you play the toughest team in the quarterfinals and are, therefore, unlikely to make it to the semifinal (medal) round, but if you lose this match you will play the easiest team in the quarterfinals and are, therefore, likely to make it to the medal round, and your ultimate goal is to have the greatest chance of winning a medal, then you should try to lose this match. Those conditions are stupid, and would be the fault of the organizer. Pretty straightforward.
[/quote]What's stupid is is your argument.

You've obviously never played any competitive sports.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Aug 2, 2012 09:49PM)
That is interesting from a betting mans point of view.
Message: Posted by: S2000magician (Aug 2, 2012 10:16PM)
[quote]On 2012-08-02 22:44, motown wrote:
[quote]On 2012-08-02 01:56, S2000magician wrote:
[quote]On 2012-08-02 00:03, motown wrote:
So, it's the organizer fault that teams purposely tried to lose.

That make's no sense.[/quote]
It makes more sense that sticking that apostrophe in "makes".

;)

If the conditions of contest say that if you win this match you play the toughest team in the quarterfinals and are, therefore, unlikely to make it to the semifinal (medal) round, but if you lose this match you will play the easiest team in the quarterfinals and are, therefore, likely to make it to the medal round, and your ultimate goal is to have the greatest chance of winning a medal, then you should try to lose this match. Those conditions are stupid, and would be the fault of the organizer. Pretty straightforward.[/quote]
What's stupid is is your argument.

You've obviously never played any competitive sports.[/quote]
I always find it interesting when a falsehood is obvious.

What part of my argument is stupid?
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Aug 2, 2012 10:23PM)
What's clearly stupid is the conditions of contest.
Message: Posted by: acesover (Aug 2, 2012 11:27PM)
Any one who competes in a competition and purposely loses does not deserve to compete. If we have athelets that stoop this low and coaches who condone it then neither of the aforementioned deserve to be in competitive sports. Lets see the logic here. Go let the inferior team beaat you so you canplay an even weaker team and beat them into the ground. That sounds like it is real sporting. Medals or not If I had to win a medal this way I would rather not have it and I have shoot competitie pitol, rifle and trap and would never consider this for one second. Let me put it another way. If you are a sponsor for lets say a watch company would you want this team endorsing your watches when every one knew how they medaled? I think not. If so I think your values are skewed.

With what you say if the medal is the only thing that is important suppose making money is the only thing that is important for a basketball player and he is offered a considerabale amount of money to shave points...according to your way of thinking as money is what it is all important you should shave the points...well I disagree. He should e strung up by hid __lls in both of these cases and barred from ever competing at this level again.

Pete Rose bet on the team he managed and they buried him. Now if he bet aganist them I could see the punishment. DIFFERENT TOPIC FORGET I SAID THAT. :) Unring that bell.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Aug 3, 2012 12:02AM)
Not much different than any NFL playoff team sitting its starters in the last week(s) of the season if it doesn't affect their playoff seed.
Message: Posted by: acesover (Aug 3, 2012 12:11AM)
[quote]
On 2012-08-03 01:02, LobowolfXXX wrote:
Not much different than any NFL playoff team sitting its starters in the last week(s) of the season if it doesn't affect their playoff seed.
[/quote]

Big differnce. The nonstarters are playing their hearts out trying to win. They are not throwing a game. I hope you see the difference. They don't let the other team win. That is the difference.

Seriously Lobo have you ever competed in any competitive sports or games of any kind? Not a trick question. Just wondering because if you did I cannot see how you could condone this type of behavior if you have anysort of competitive blood in you. I wonder who is responsible for the decision for these players do to this. I find it hard to believe they themselves decided on this, but rather the coaches or possibly even higher up, but that is ony speculation on my part.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Aug 3, 2012 12:15AM)
[quote]
On 2012-08-03 01:11, acesover wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-08-03 01:02, LobowolfXXX wrote:
Not much different than any NFL playoff team sitting its starters in the last week(s) of the season if it doesn't affect their playoff seed.
[/quote]

Big differnce. The nonstarters are playing their hearts out trying to win. They are not throwing a game. I hope you see the difference. They don't let the other team win. That is the difference.

Seriously Lobo have you ever competed in any competitive sports or games of any kind? Not a trick question. Just wondering because if you did I cannot see how you could condone this type of behavior if you have anysort of competitive blood in you. I wonder who is responsible for the decision for these players do to this. I find it hard to believe they themselves decided on this, but rather the coaches or possibly even higher up, but that is ony speculation on my part.
[/quote]

The players may be, but the coach is CERTAINLY not trying to win (in the NFL example). It's not a matter of condoning the behavior; it's a matter of assigning what I think is the primary blame. It's asinine, and easily avoidable, to set up a format where teams have a powerful incentive to lose on purpose. Those teams never should have been in that position in the first place. Even if everybody had played as hard as possible, the format could have easily resulted in the second-best team not medaling, and a team that lost to them getting a medal after being rewarded for their loss. The situation leading up to what happened was just totally stupid.

And yes, I have.
Message: Posted by: S2000magician (Aug 3, 2012 12:37AM)
[quote]On 2012-08-02 12:14, TonyB2009 wrote:
[quote]On 2012-08-02 10:35, S2000magician wrote:
[quote]On 2012-08-02 02:50, MobilityBundle wrote:
. . . I have no idea what badminton fans tolerate. Probably a lot. After all, they're badminton fans. :)[/quote]
Out of curiosity, have you ever played / watched Olympic badminton?

Without being overly dramatic, it's a grueling sport, every bit as exhausting as tennis or racketball.[/quote]
And a far sight easier than boxing, judo, gymnastics, marathon running, cycling, triathlon, and many of the other sports in the olympics.[/quote]
And a far sight harder (at least physically) than trap shooting, archery, diving, and sailing. (And I disagree that it's a far sight easier than many other sports.)

Are we really going to get into a discussion of which sports belong in the Olympics based solely on . . . what? . . . the number of calories burned per minute?
Message: Posted by: stoneunhinged (Aug 3, 2012 02:19AM)
[quote]What's stupid is is your argument.

You've obviously never played any competitive sports.
[/quote]

I absolutely love posts like this! They are so self-negating that it surprises me people make the effort to write them.

If I had a nickel for every time someone writes, "you don't know what you're talking about" (or variations thereof), I'd buy the Magic Café from Steve Brooks and turn it into a real bar. I'd put it right next to Magic Castle and we'd compete head-to-head. But instead of suits and ties and uppity atmosphere, we'd have more of a Hooter's sort of thing going. But, you know, with vegan wings for dudes like Lobo.

Hey, it's MY dream, so don't ridicule it.
Message: Posted by: stoneunhinged (Aug 3, 2012 02:32AM)
[quote]
On 2012-08-03 01:11, acesover wrote:
Seriously Lobo have you ever competed in any competitive sports or games of any kind?
[/quote]

And here we go again....

[Jeff groans]

First of all, I've never been an astronaut, but I bet that I know fifty times more about the moon landing than you, Aces. This argument is getting so old that I'm surprised you keep using it. It's as if you never have any better argument up your sleeve than to say, "you don't know what you're talking about." And sometimes--university rules and ethics in Germany, for example--you so clearly do NOT know what YOU are talking about that it literally makes my jaw drop that you keep going and don't admit it. (I mean, seriously, dude: how could you begin to start to begin thinking you know more than I do about university rules in Germany? Huh? It's positively brain-numbing.) Sometimes you ought to just give it your best and hope that your logic wins out, and not resort to the child-like "nanny nanny boo boo, I know oh more than you" defense.

Second, if you were to pay just a wee, tiny, small, little bit of attention to who's who here in this forum, you'd know that at least two of the posters have recently formed a bridge team and play competitive bridge. Another of the posters has a high enough chess ranking to suggest that he knows more about serious competition than you can possibly imagine.

Look, I said it before: I'm not angry with you. But I'm sick and tired of your arrogant claim to know more about things than everyone else here when you clearly do not. You do NOT know more about competitive sports than Lobo, and even if you did, it would say nothing regarding the logic or quality of your argument.

I'm beginning to suspect you're just trolling us. If you're not, get off your high horse and stop telling people they're stupid.

On Topic: what Lobo is suggesting is that the tournament has been arranged badly IF throwing individual games can allow a competitor to have an advantage in the overall tournament.

I agree.

And for the record, I have been involved in organized, competitive baseball and softball for over forty years and on three continents (Asia, North America, and Europe). So I know something about competition. And considering the three continents, I'd say I know a HELL OF A LOT MORE THAN ACES DOES ABOUT INTERNATIONAL COMPETITION. Not that it matters, mind you. ;) (Oh, and note that my yelling is done in a spirit of imitation. Otherwise, I really don't like to yell on Internet forums.)
Message: Posted by: Ray Tupper. (Aug 3, 2012 02:37AM)
[quote]
On 2012-08-03 03:19, stoneunhinged wrote:
[quote]What's stupid is is your argument.

You've obviously never played any competitive sports.
[/quote]

I absolutely love posts like this! They are so self-negating that it surprises me people make the effort to write them.

If I had a nickel for every time someone writes, "you don't know what you're talking about" (or variations thereof), I'd buy the Magic Café from Steve Brooks and turn it into a real bar. I'd put it right next to Magic Castle and we'd compete head-to-head. But instead of suits and ties and uppity atmosphere, we'd have more of a Hooter's sort of thing going. But, you know, with vegan wings for dudes like Lobo.

Hey, it's MY dream, so don't ridicule it.
[/quote]
What a stupid idea.
You've obviously never managed a bar before. ;)
Message: Posted by: stoneunhinged (Aug 3, 2012 02:40AM)
[quote]
On 2012-08-03 03:37, Ray Tupper. wrote:

What a stupid idea.
You've obviously never managed a bar before. ;)
[/quote]

LOL!
Message: Posted by: spatlind (Aug 3, 2012 03:39AM)
[quote]
On 2012-08-02 01:56, S2000magician wrote:
[quote]On 2012-08-02 00:03, motown wrote:
So, it's the organizer fault that teams purposely tried to lose.

That make's no sense.[/quote]
It makes more sense [b]that[/b] sticking that apostrophe in "makes".

;)

[/quote]

"than"

Someone's gotta watch the watchman. ;)

I agree with the stupid, short-sighted rule argument. However, the rules are the rules.
Message: Posted by: S2000magician (Aug 3, 2012 08:42AM)
[quote]On 2012-08-03 04:39, spatlind wrote:
[quote]On 2012-08-02 01:56, S2000magician wrote:
[quote]On 2012-08-02 00:03, motown wrote:
So, it's the organizer fault that teams purposely tried to lose.

That make's no sense.[/quote]
It makes more sense [b]that[/b] sticking that apostrophe in "makes".

;)[/quote]
"than"

Someone's gotta watch the watchman. ;)[/quote]
Touché!
Message: Posted by: S2000magician (Aug 3, 2012 08:46AM)
[quote]On 2012-08-03 03:32, stoneunhinged wrote:
. . . get off your high horse and stop telling people they're stupid.[/quote]
I know something about horses, both high ones and the other kind.

;)
Message: Posted by: stoneunhinged (Aug 3, 2012 09:08AM)
Yeah, but what do you know about [i]competitions[/i] involving horses?

Oh wait. You *do* know something about that.
Message: Posted by: S2000magician (Aug 3, 2012 09:17AM)
[quote]On 2012-08-03 10:08, stoneunhinged wrote:
Yeah, but what do you know about [i]competitions[/i] involving horses?

Oh wait. You *do* know something about that.[/quote]
Just a smidge.
Message: Posted by: critter (Aug 3, 2012 09:25AM)
Legend has it that the founder of the modern Olympics got the idea from Highland Games competitions. That means my sport is the only real sport, and all others are stupid ;)
Message: Posted by: TonyB2009 (Aug 3, 2012 10:04AM)
Critter, I am a hammer thrower, which is the real essence of the highland games. The strength stuff is only for those not light enough on their feet for the hammer. And I can say that, because being a hammer thrower, I can probably run away faster than you can catch me!
Message: Posted by: critter (Aug 3, 2012 10:06AM)
My specialties are caber (throwing rocks) and stone put (throwing rocks) ;)
Message: Posted by: TonyB2009 (Aug 3, 2012 10:17AM)
[quote]
On 2012-08-03 01:37, S2000magician wrote:
Are we really going to get into a discussion of which sports belong in the Olympics based solely on . . . what? . . . the number of calories burned per minute?
[/quote]
No - I was only ribbing you.

But on a serious note, there are far too many sports in the Olympics in my view. I think the whole thing could be simplified. One racket sport instead of three, one wrestling discipline instead of three, etc. And get rid of the stupid sports like beach vollyball (only included for the obvious reason), ping pong, pairs diving, etc. And get rid of the sports that only one or two countries play to a sufficiently high level to make them competitive. For instance America has one thirteen out of sixteen titles at mens basketball and six out of eight at women's. Why keep up the charade? It is not an international sport, so drop it from the schedule.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Aug 3, 2012 10:31AM)
[quote]
On 2012-08-03 11:17, TonyB2009 wrote:
And get rid of the sports that only one or two countries play to a sufficiently high level to make them competitive. For instance America has one thirteen out of sixteen titles at mens basketball and six out of eight at women's. Why keep up the charade?
[/quote]

For moments like the 1980 hockey final.
Message: Posted by: stoneunhinged (Aug 3, 2012 10:50AM)
[quote]
On 2012-08-03 11:31, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-08-03 11:17, TonyB2009 wrote:
And get rid of the sports that only one or two countries play to a sufficiently high level to make them competitive. For instance America has one thirteen out of sixteen titles at mens basketball and six out of eight at women's. Why keep up the charade?
[/quote]

For moments like the 1980 hockey final.
[/quote]

Excellent point. I still get goosebumps remembering it.

I'm gonna check YouTube to see if there's a clip of the end of the game.

EDIT:

Here's the best-quality clip I could find. Man, it still brings tears to my eyes, I swear to God.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Aug 3, 2012 11:19AM)
I don't see no clip, dude.
Message: Posted by: stoneunhinged (Aug 3, 2012 11:26AM)
Hm.

It's like me and email attachments. I always forget to attach the attachment the first time.

Here it is:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8gfD134ED54&feature=related
Message: Posted by: critter (Aug 3, 2012 11:30AM)
Every single Prof I've ever had does the same thing with the emails. Always the first one with the message, and then a second that says "Oops" with the attachment :lol:
Message: Posted by: stoneunhinged (Aug 3, 2012 11:52AM)
What can I say, critter? It makes me feel better that I have company in my absent-mindedness.

Mind you--it does say something about us academic types. We're not "all there" in all ways. aces would surely agree. :jump:
Message: Posted by: S2000magician (Aug 3, 2012 02:06PM)
I'm all there. That is, I'm all there here. At school. That is.
Message: Posted by: GlenD (Aug 3, 2012 04:12PM)
I agree with S2000magician regarding the issue here at hand but for a different reason. I feel that they are perfectly fine in trying to shift their position or whatever. And I also feel that things tend to work themselves out in these situations anyways, sometimes in surprising ways (which is one of the greatest things about sports). There is no guarantee that they will defeat the desired opponent, viewed as inferior, and eventually they will be playing up against the best anyways. I feel it is blown up out of proportion. But I gave my general opinion previously and am not watching ("pah" imagine me spitting on the ground for emphasis).

Glen
Message: Posted by: acesover (Aug 3, 2012 05:34PM)
[quote]
On 2012-08-03 01:15, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-08-03 01:11, acesover wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-08-03 01:02, LobowolfXXX wrote:
Not much different than any NFL playoff team sitting its starters in the last week(s) of the season if it doesn't affect their playoff seed.
[/quote]

Big differnce. The nonstarters are playing their hearts out trying to win. They are not throwing a game. I hope you see the difference. They don't let the other team win. That is the difference.

Seriously Lobo have you ever competed in any competitive sports or games of any kind? Not a trick question. Just wondering because if you did I cannot see how you could condone this type of behavior if you have anysort of competitive blood in you. I wonder who is responsible for the decision for these players do to this. I find it hard to believe they themselves decided on this, but rather the coaches or possibly even higher up, but that is ony speculation on my part.
[/quote]

The players may be, but the coach is CERTAINLY not trying to win (in the NFL example). It's not a matter of condoning the behavior; it's a matter of assigning what I think is the primary blame. It's asinine, and easily avoidable, to set up a format where teams have a powerful incentive to lose on purpose. Those teams never should have been in that position in the first place. Even if everybody had played as hard as possible, the format could have easily resulted in the second-best team not medaling, and a team that lost to them getting a medal after being rewarded for their loss. The situation leading up to what happened was just totally stupid.

And yes, I have.
[/quote]

To your "Yes I have "respnse let me ask have you ever took a dive in your sporting career? If not. Would you? Of course I am not talking about your family being held hoage by the mob and they are going to kill them all if you win. :) To much television.
Message: Posted by: acesover (Aug 3, 2012 05:37PM)
[quote]
On 2012-08-03 01:15, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-08-03 01:11, acesover wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-08-03 01:02, LobowolfXXX wrote:
Not much different than any NFL playoff team sitting its starters in the last week(s) of the season if it doesn't affect their playoff seed.
[/quote]

Big differnce. The nonstarters are playing their hearts out trying to win. They are not throwing a game. I hope you see the difference. They don't let the other team win. That is the difference.

Seriously Lobo have you ever competed in any competitive sports or games of any kind? Not a trick question. Just wondering because if you did I cannot see how you could condone this type of behavior if you have anysort of competitive blood in you. I wonder who is responsible for the decision for these players do to this. I find it hard to believe they themselves decided on this, but rather the coaches or possibly even higher up, but that is ony speculation on my part.
[/quote]

The players may be, but the coach is CERTAINLY not trying to win (in the NFL example). It's not a matter of condoning the behavior; it's a matter of assigning what I think is the primary blame. It's asinine, and easily avoidable, to set up a format where teams have a powerful incentive to lose on purpose. Those teams never should have been in that position in the first place. Even if everybody had played as hard as possible, the format could have easily resulted in the second-best team not medaling, and a team that lost to them getting a medal after being rewarded for their loss. The situation leading up to what happened was just totally stupid.

And yes, I have.
[/quote]

Don't bet that it is the coaches decision. You may find yourself losing some money there.
Message: Posted by: acesover (Aug 3, 2012 05:41PM)
[quote]
On 2012-08-03 03:32, stoneunhinged wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-08-03 01:11, acesover wrote:
Seriously Lobo have you ever competed in any competitive sports or games of any kind?
[/quote]

And here we go again....

[Jeff groans]

First of all, I've never been an astronaut, but I bet that I know fifty times more about the moon landing than you, Aces. This argument is getting so old that I'm surprised you keep using it. It's as if you never have any better argument up your sleeve than to say, "you don't know what you're talking about." And sometimes--university rules and ethics in Germany, for example--you so clearly do NOT know what YOU are talking about that it literally makes my jaw drop that you keep going and don't admit it. (I mean, seriously, dude: how could you begin to start to begin thinking you know more than I do about university rules in Germany? Huh? It's positively brain-numbing.) Sometimes you ought to just give it your best and hope that your logic wins out, and not resort to the child-like "nanny nanny boo boo, I know oh more than you" defense.

Second, if you were to pay just a wee, tiny, small, little bit of attention to who's who here in this forum, you'd know that at least two of the posters have recently formed a bridge team and play competitive bridge. Another of the posters has a high enough chess ranking to suggest that he knows more about serious competition than you can possibly imagine.

Look, I said it before: I'm not angry with you. But I'm sick and tired of your arrogant claim to know more about things than everyone else here when you clearly do not. You do NOT know more about competitive sports than Lobo, and even if you did, it would say nothing regarding the logic or quality of your argument.

I'm beginning to suspect you're just trolling us. If you're not, get off your high horse and stop telling people they're stupid.

On Topic: what Lobo is suggesting is that the tournament has been arranged badly IF throwing individual games can allow a competitor to have an advantage in the overall tournament.

I agree.

And for the record, I have been involved in organized, competitive baseball and softball for over forty years and on three continents (Asia, North America, and Europe). So I know something about competition. And considering the three continents, I'd say I know a HELL OF A LOT MORE THAN ACES DOES ABOUT INTERNATIONAL COMPETITION. Not that it matters, mind you. ;) (Oh, and note that my yelling is done in a spirit of imitation. Otherwise, I really don't like to yell on Internet forums.)
[/quote]

NOt saying Iknow more about anything about anything than anyone else here. However I have competed at a highlevel in Pistol, rifle and Trap shooting form many years. Those are long gone. I say competed...that is th ekey work here I did not play at these sports. I never threw an evern or knew any of my competitors to do so either. they have to much pride and are competitors they are there to win by beating everyone else. End of stroy. Spin it however you want.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Aug 3, 2012 05:51PM)
It happens in team sport all the time. For example next week you have an important game but today you have not so impotant game. Do you send out your best players today or save them for next week?
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Aug 3, 2012 05:59PM)
[quote]
On 2012-08-03 18:41, acesover wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-08-03 03:32, stoneunhinged wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-08-03 01:11, acesover wrote:
Seriously Lobo have you ever competed in any competitive sports or games of any kind?
[/quote]

And here we go again....

[Jeff groans]

First of all, I've never been an astronaut, but I bet that I know fifty times more about the moon landing than you, Aces. This argument is getting so old that I'm surprised you keep using it. It's as if you never have any better argument up your sleeve than to say, "you don't know what you're talking about." And sometimes--university rules and ethics in Germany, for example--you so clearly do NOT know what YOU are talking about that it literally makes my jaw drop that you keep going and don't admit it. (I mean, seriously, dude: how could you begin to start to begin thinking you know more than I do about university rules in Germany? Huh? It's positively brain-numbing.) Sometimes you ought to just give it your best and hope that your logic wins out, and not resort to the child-like "nanny nanny boo boo, I know oh more than you" defense.

Second, if you were to pay just a wee, tiny, small, little bit of attention to who's who here in this forum, you'd know that at least two of the posters have recently formed a bridge team and play competitive bridge. Another of the posters has a high enough chess ranking to suggest that he knows more about serious competition than you can possibly imagine.

Look, I said it before: I'm not angry with you. But I'm sick and tired of your arrogant claim to know more about things than everyone else here when you clearly do not. You do NOT know more about competitive sports than Lobo, and even if you did, it would say nothing regarding the logic or quality of your argument.

I'm beginning to suspect you're just trolling us. If you're not, get off your high horse and stop telling people they're stupid.

On Topic: what Lobo is suggesting is that the tournament has been arranged badly IF throwing individual games can allow a competitor to have an advantage in the overall tournament.

I agree.

And for the record, I have been involved in organized, competitive baseball and softball for over forty years and on three continents (Asia, North America, and Europe). So I know something about competition. And considering the three continents, I'd say I know a HELL OF A LOT MORE THAN ACES DOES ABOUT INTERNATIONAL COMPETITION. Not that it matters, mind you. ;) (Oh, and note that my yelling is done in a spirit of imitation. Otherwise, I really don't like to yell on Internet forums.)
[/quote]

NOt saying Iknow more about anything about anything than anyone else here. However I have competed at a highlevel in Pistol, rifle and Trap shooting form many years. Those are long gone. I say competed...that is th ekey work here I did not play at these sports. I never threw an evern or knew any of my competitors to do so either. they have to much pride and are competitors they are there to win by beating everyone else. End of stroy. Spin it however you want.
[/quote]

I, too, have competed at fairly high levels in various disciplines.

Have you ever participated in a major event that was set up such that it would have been to your advantage to lose?
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Aug 3, 2012 06:04PM)
[quote]
On 2012-08-03 18:37, acesover wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-08-03 01:15, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-08-03 01:11, acesover wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-08-03 01:02, LobowolfXXX wrote:
Not much different than any NFL playoff team sitting its starters in the last week(s) of the season if it doesn't affect their playoff seed.
[/quote]

Big differnce. The nonstarters are playing their hearts out trying to win. They are not throwing a game. I hope you see the difference. They don't let the other team win. That is the difference.

Seriously Lobo have you ever competed in any competitive sports or games of any kind? Not a trick question. Just wondering because if you did I cannot see how you could condone this type of behavior if you have anysort of competitive blood in you. I wonder who is responsible for the decision for these players do to this. I find it hard to believe they themselves decided on this, but rather the coaches or possibly even higher up, but that is ony speculation on my part.
[/quote]

The players may be, but the coach is CERTAINLY not trying to win (in the NFL example). It's not a matter of condoning the behavior; it's a matter of assigning what I think is the primary blame. It's asinine, and easily avoidable, to set up a format where teams have a powerful incentive to lose on purpose. Those teams never should have been in that position in the first place. Even if everybody had played as hard as possible, the format could have easily resulted in the second-best team not medaling, and a team that lost to them getting a medal after being rewarded for their loss. The situation leading up to what happened was just totally stupid.

And yes, I have.
[/quote]

Don't bet that it is the coaches decision. You may find yourself losing some money there.
[/quote]

Apart from a few cases of owners who think they're coaches (Al Davis, Jerry Jones), I would be good money that in the vast majority of cases, it's the coach deciding to bench starters to avoid injuries for playoffs. Most famously, it was Jim Caldwell's decision to pull the starters against the Jets, thereby blowing an undefeated season for the Colts.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Aug 3, 2012 07:39PM)
I don't think the football analogy really works, although I agree with Lobo's point in general.

When a football coach benches players for a game because the team is already in the playoffs, it is done to rest key players, and generally not as a way of manipulating the playoff schedule as was done by the badminton teams.

Further, when second and third-stringers are started in a meaningless end-of-season game, they generally perform to the best of their abilities because it is one of the only times many of them get to play full games and get the potentially valuable exposure that it brings them individually.

There is no intent, as in the badminton situation, to INTENTIONALLY lose the game.

I agree, though, that because the Olympic rule-makers created a situation where it could be advantageous for a team to throw a game, it is wrong to exclusively blame the players for working within the rules in order to improve their chances of making the finals.
Message: Posted by: acesover (Aug 3, 2012 09:35PM)
[quote]
On 2012-08-03 18:59, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-08-03 18:41, acesover wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-08-03 03:32, stoneunhinged wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-08-03 01:11, acesover wrote:
Seriously Lobo have you ever competed in any competitive sports or games of any kind?
[/quote]

And here we go again....

[Jeff groans]

First of all, I've never been an astronaut, but I bet that I know fifty times more about the moon landing than you, Aces. This argument is getting so old that I'm surprised you keep using it. It's as if you never have any better argument up your sleeve than to say, "you don't know what you're talking about." And sometimes--university rules and ethics in Germany, for example--you so clearly do NOT know what YOU are talking about that it literally makes my jaw drop that you keep going and don't admit it. (I mean, seriously, dude: how could you begin to start to begin thinking you know more than I do about university rules in Germany? Huh? It's positively brain-numbing.) Sometimes you ought to just give it your best and hope that your logic wins out, and not resort to the child-like "nanny nanny boo boo, I know oh more than you" defense.

Second, if you were to pay just a wee, tiny, small, little bit of attention to who's who here in this forum, you'd know that at least two of the posters have recently formed a bridge team and play competitive bridge. Another of the posters has a high enough chess ranking to suggest that he knows more about serious competition than you can possibly imagine.

Look, I said it before: I'm not angry with you. But I'm sick and tired of your arrogant claim to know more about things than everyone else here when you clearly do not. You do NOT know more about competitive sports than Lobo, and even if you did, it would say nothing regarding the logic or quality of your argument.

I'm beginning to suspect you're just trolling us. If you're not, get off your high horse and stop telling people they're stupid.

On Topic: what Lobo is suggesting is that the tournament has been arranged badly IF throwing individual games can allow a competitor to have an advantage in the overall tournament.

I agree.

And for the record, I have been involved in organized, competitive baseball and softball for over forty years and on three continents (Asia, North America, and Europe). So I know something about competition. And considering the three continents, I'd say I know a HELL OF A LOT MORE THAN ACES DOES ABOUT INTERNATIONAL COMPETITION. Not that it matters, mind you. ;) (Oh, and note that my yelling is done in a spirit of imitation. Otherwise, I really don't like to yell on Internet forums.)
[/quote]

NOt saying Iknow more about anything about anything than anyone else here. However I have competed at a highlevel in Pistol, rifle and Trap shooting form many years. Those are long gone. I say competed...that is th ekey work here I did not play at these sports. I never threw an evern or knew any of my competitors to do so either. they have to much pride and are competitors they are there to win by beating everyone else. End of stroy. Spin it however you want.
[/quote]

I, too, have competed at fairly high levels in various disciplines.

Have you ever participated in a major event that was set up such that it would have been to your advantage to lose?
[/quote]

No I have not. But me personally I can honestly say I would not go that route. I would have a hard time looking back on a victory that was accomplished by throwing a match to get easy prey. I guess I can see how it could be tempting to some just not me or my style.

But I still doubt that it was the sole decision of the athletes to throw the match. If I was the coach and my players did that without my consent I would pull all of them from competition. However if I was told from higher ups that you must do this or when you get back to your home country you may never be heard from again. :) Not sure what I would do but going back home is not an option.

Remember this team was not from the United States where this could be done without it hitting the fan. I hope we can all agree on at least that.

It would definitely be frowned upon here in the U.S. Anyway I sure hope it would and hope we are not stooping that low for a medal. Maybe it is just me from a different time and different ideals. Maybe that is the way things are done now. If so I am kind of glad most of my life is behind me.

Remember we are talking about atheletes dumping here. We are not talking about putting in your second string in order to save your cream for an already garanteed playoff spot. The second sstriing may still win. If your secon dssring was winning would you tell them to dump? Jeeez. Believe me when second string goes into a game they play their hearts out.


JEFF PLEASE STOP GROANING. I guess I asked that question because as a competitor I can not imagine a senario that I would ever throw a mach to an inferior opponent. NEVER..The only senario would be the mob has my family senario. :)

When your opponent is inferior they deserve to lose, unless it is your 3 year old grandson. He beats pop pop at everything.
Message: Posted by: acesover (Aug 3, 2012 09:42PM)
[quote]
On 2012-08-03 20:39, mastermindreader wrote:
I don't think the football analogy really works, although I agree with Lobo's point in general.

When a football coach benches players for a game because the team is already in the playoffs, it is done to rest key players, and generally not as a way of manipulating the playoff schedule as was done by the badminton teams.

Further, when second and third-stringers are started in a meaningless end-of-season game, they generally perform to the best of their abilities because it is one of the only times many of them get to play full games and get the potentially valuable exposure that it brings them individually.

There is no intent, as in the badminton situation, to INTENTIONALLY lose the game.

I agree, though, that because the Olympic rule-makers created a situation where it could be advantageous for a team to throw a game, it is wrong to exclusively blame the players for working within the rules in order to improve their chances of making the finals.
[/quote]

I agree on all points here.

But I have to ask. Has it been established who was to blame for the dumping? I mean obvioiusly the players but were they told to dump or did they do this on their own..As I said in another post if I was a coach and my players intentionally dupmed I would remove them from the competition.

Also I do have an issue with the statement, "the players for working within the rules" I would imagine somewhere in the rules of an event such as the Olympics there has to be something about ethics and I just find this unethical and I would think ethics are coverd in the Olympic rules. Maybe not. Just my thinking on this.
Message: Posted by: acesover (Aug 3, 2012 10:44PM)
Stone.

I was going to let this slide but I just can't. Here is your post:

Second, if you were to pay just a wee, tiny, small, little bit of attention to who's who here in this forum, you'd know that at least two of the posters have recently formed a bridge team and play competitive bridge. Another of the posters has a high enough chess ranking to suggest that he knows more about serious competition than you can possibly imagine.

While I have played chess in the past I lay no claim to any in depth knowledge of the game but a few simple openings. Having said that I did enjoy the game very much and can see how one can be a fan of it and really get involved in it seriously. At times I wish I had. But here is the issue. It is not a sport. It is a game of the mind. It does not involve anywhere the physcial endurance of what an Olympic athelete must do to compete at the same level as a Grandmaster chess player. Please don't go there. I in no way am degrading chess players becasue I stand in awe of them in their ability to play the game, but please don't compare chess to the Olympics. Please don't call chess a sport. No more than Holdem is a sport. Because if you classify that as a sport well here I am a real athelete in Holdem poker.

It is to easy to sit back here and talk about my competition whether it is in the arena of shooting or cards (poker) without having to prove anything. Discounting the fact that I own 3 Pool rooms plus other interests and run several card games a week for the last 18 years of which as long as you are going to talk about serious copetition I do not believe you can even afford to buy into the one game. Talk about being snobby huh. But if you think that I know nothing of competition you are misinformed. However this is off topic as I am discussing your comparing a grand master chess player with an olympian. I have tremendous respect for the grandmaster but this is definitely the "apples and oranges deal" if there ever was one.

By the way I do not even know how to play Bridge much less have an idea how difficult it is. However I have played Canasta for some serious money. And as I said I have played holdem for some very serious money both tournament style and cash games (ring games).

WHATEVER THE HECK THIS LAST POST OF MINE HAS TO DO WITH SPORT DUMPING. :confused:

I now have a headache.

Probably I come across as being nasty and you may think I also come across as a know it all. But to be honest I got where I am today because I worked by butt off and took chances, served my country in Nam, and am as many others here very opinionated. Therein lies the problem with me...opinionated and vocal about my opinions. I hate to be contradicted especialy if I am wrong about something (if that makes any sense). I comfortable financially and maybe that has spoiled me a bit because while not only being comfortable, I am what we call well connected and am used to getting my own way. So please excuse this spoiled brat and consider the source. :)

As long as Stone laid out some issues in another post I thought I might do the same. However this is the last time I will be nice. :) That is if you want to call this post nice. :)
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Aug 3, 2012 10:55PM)
I believe the Chinese coach accepted responsibility for what his team did. He was not present in the building at today's competition.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Aug 3, 2012 11:51PM)
[quote]
On 2012-08-03 23:44, acesover wrote:
Stone.

I was going to let this slide but I just can't. Here is your post:

Second, if you were to pay just a wee, tiny, small, little bit of attention to who's who here in this forum, you'd know that at least two of the posters have recently formed a bridge team and play competitive bridge. Another of the posters has a high enough chess ranking to suggest that he knows more about serious competition than you can possibly imagine.

While I have played chess in the past I lay no claim to any in depth knowledge of the game but a few simple openings. Having said that I did enjoy the game very much and can see how one can be a fan of it and really get involved in it seriously. At times I wish I had. But here is the issue. It is not a sport. It is a game of the mind. It does not involve anywhere the physcial endurance of what an Olympic athelete must do to compete at the same level as a Grandmaster chess player. Please don't go there. I in no way am degrading chess players becasue I stand in awe of them in their ability to play the game, but please don't compare chess to the Olympics. Please don't call chess a sport. No more than Holdem is a sport. Because if you classify that as a sport well here I am a real athelete in Holdem poker.

It is to easy to sit back here and talk about my competition whether it is in the arena of shooting or cards (poker) without having to prove anything. Discounting the fact that I own 3 Pool rooms plus other interests and run several card games a week for the last 18 years of which as long as you are going to talk about serious copetition I do not believe you can even afford to buy into the one game. Talk about being snobby huh. But if you think that I know nothing of competition you are misinformed. However this is off topic as I am discussing your comparing a grand master chess player with an olympian. I have tremendous respect for the grandmaster but this is definitely the "apples and oranges deal" if there ever was one.

By the way I do not even know how to play Bridge much less have an idea how difficult it is. However I have played Canasta for some serious money. And as I said I have played holdem for some very serious money both tournament style and cash games (ring games).

WHATEVER THE HECK THIS LAST POST OF MINE HAS TO DO WITH SPORT DUMPING. :confused:

I now have a headache.

Probably I come across as being nasty and you may think I also come across as a know it all. But to be honest I got where I am today because I worked by butt off and took chances, served my country in Nam, and am as many others here very opinionated. Therein lies the problem with me...opinionated and vocal about my opinions. I hate to be contradicted especialy if I am wrong about something (if that makes any sense). I comfortable financially and maybe that has spoiled me a bit because while not only being comfortable, I am what we call well connected and am used to getting my own way. So please excuse this spoiled brat and consider the source. :)

As long as Stone laid out some issues in another post I thought I might do the same. However this is the last time I will be nice. :) That is if you want to call this post nice. :)
[/quote]

What on earth does whether it's physical or not have to do with the level of competitiveness?

Your initial question, by the way, in case you forgot it, was "Have you ever competed in any competitive sports [i] or games of any kind?[/i]. I've traveled internationally to represent my local district at international events. And you can pick your favorite sports league and not find more than a handful of athletes as competitive as a Bobby Fischer or Alexander Alekhine. So are we talking sports, or competitiveness? Because if you think that physical sports have a monopoly on competitiveness, it's my turn to play the "You don't know what you're talking about" card.
Message: Posted by: S2000magician (Aug 4, 2012 01:04AM)
[quote]On 2012-08-03 23:44, acesover wrote:
By the way I do not even know how to play Bridge much less have an idea how difficult it is. However I have played Canasta for some serious money. And as I said I have played holdem for some very serious money both tournament style and cash games (ring games).[/quote]
Bridge is far more complex than poker (any variation) and canasta. I have no compunction in saying that it is the most difficult card game (widely played) in the world.
Message: Posted by: S2000magician (Aug 4, 2012 01:06AM)
[quote]On 2012-08-04 00:51, LobowolfXXX wrote:
. . . it's my turn to play the "You don't know what you're talking about" card.[/quote]
That's completely unfair: you're an accomplished card player.
Message: Posted by: S2000magician (Aug 4, 2012 01:12AM)
[quote]On 2012-08-03 17:12, GlenD wrote:
There is no guarantee that they will defeat the desired opponent, viewed as inferior . . . .[/quote]
Ah, the vicissitudes of sport.

That would have been poetic justice . . . had the officials but let it play out.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Aug 4, 2012 01:17AM)
The whole ad hominem sub-argument is stupid, because we know for a fact that athletes at the highest levels DO lose on purposes. The 1919 White Sox, numerous boxers, etc.
Message: Posted by: S2000magician (Aug 4, 2012 01:21AM)
[quote]On 2012-08-04 02:17, LobowolfXXX wrote:
The whole ad hominem sub-argument is stupid, because we know for a fact that athletes at the highest levels DO lose on purposes. The 1919 White Sox, numerous boxers, etc.[/quote]
As you've never made an ad hominum sub-argument, you have no standing to condemn them. Please disist forthwith.
Message: Posted by: acesover (Aug 4, 2012 08:31AM)
[quote]
On 2012-08-03 19:04, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-08-03 18:37, acesover wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-08-03 01:15, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-08-03 01:11, acesover wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-08-03 01:02, LobowolfXXX wrote:
Not much different than any NFL playoff team sitting its starters in the last week(s) of the season if it doesn't affect their playoff seed.
[/quote]

Big differnce. The nonstarters are playing their hearts out trying to win. They are not throwing a game. I hope you see the difference. They don't let the other team win. That is the difference.

Seriously Lobo have you ever competed in any competitive sports or games of any kind? Not a trick question. Just wondering because if you did I cannot see how you could condone this type of behavior if you have anysort of competitive blood in you. I wonder who is responsible for the decision for these players do to this. I find it hard to believe they themselves decided on this, but rather the coaches or possibly even higher up, but that is ony speculation on my part.
[/quote]

The players may be, but the coach is CERTAINLY not trying to win (in the NFL example). It's not a matter of condoning the behavior; it's a matter of assigning what I think is the primary blame. It's asinine, and easily avoidable, to set up a format where teams have a powerful incentive to lose on purpose. Those teams never should have been in that position in the first place. Even if everybody had played as hard as possible, the format could have easily resulted in the second-best team not medaling, and a team that lost to them getting a medal after being rewarded for their loss. The situation leading up to what happened was just totally stupid.

And yes, I have.
[/quote]

Don't bet that it is the coaches decision. You may find yourself losing some money there.
[/quote]

Apart from a few cases of owners who think they're coaches (Al Davis, Jerry Jones), I would be good money that in the vast majority of cases, it's the coach deciding to bench starters to avoid injuries for playoffs. Most famously, it was Jim Caldwell's decision to pull the starters against the Jets, thereby blowing an undefeated season for the Colts.
[/quote]

Yea and we know how that ended up. He thaght a winning team how to lose. BrGot what they desrved NOTHING.
Message: Posted by: acesover (Aug 4, 2012 09:07AM)
[quote]
On 2012-08-04 00:51, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-08-03 23:44, acesover wrote:
Stone.

I was going to let this slide but I just can't. Here is your post:

Second, if you were to pay just a wee, tiny, small, little bit of attention to who's who here in this forum, you'd know that at least two of the posters have recently formed a bridge team and play competitive bridge. Another of the posters has a high enough chess ranking to suggest that he knows more about serious competition than you can possibly imagine.

While I have played chess in the past I lay no claim to any in depth knowledge of the game but a few simple openings. Having said that I did enjoy the game very much and can see how one can be a fan of it and really get involved in it seriously. At times I wish I had. But here is the issue. It is not a sport. It is a game of the mind. It does not involve anywhere the physcial endurance of what an Olympic athelete must do to compete at the same level as a Grandmaster chess player. Please don't go there. I in no way am degrading chess players becasue I stand in awe of them in their ability to play the game, but please don't compare chess to the Olympics. Please don't call chess a sport. No more than Holdem is a sport. Because if you classify that as a sport well here I am a real athelete in Holdem poker.

It is to easy to sit back here and talk about my competition whether it is in the arena of shooting or cards (poker) without having to prove anything. Discounting the fact that I own 3 Pool rooms plus other interests and run several card games a week for the last 18 years of which as long as you are going to talk about serious copetition I do not believe you can even afford to buy into the one game. Talk about being snobby huh. But if you think that I know nothing of competition you are misinformed. However this is off topic as I am discussing your comparing a grand master chess player with an olympian. I have tremendous respect for the grandmaster but this is definitely the "apples and oranges deal" if there ever was one.

By the way I do not even know how to play Bridge much less have an idea how difficult it is. However I have played Canasta for some serious money. And as I said I have played holdem for some very serious money both tournament style and cash games (ring games).

WHATEVER THE HECK THIS LAST POST OF MINE HAS TO DO WITH SPORT DUMPING. :confused:

I now have a headache.

Probably I come across as being nasty and you may think I also come across as a know it all. But to be honest I got where I am today because I worked by butt off and took chances, served my country in Nam, and am as many others here very opinionated. Therein lies the problem with me...opinionated and vocal about my opinions. I hate to be contradicted especialy if I am wrong about something (if that makes any sense). I comfortable financially and maybe that has spoiled me a bit because while not only being comfortable, I am what we call well connected and am used to getting my own way. So please excuse this spoiled brat and consider the source. :)

As long as Stone laid out some issues in another post I thought I might do the same. However this is the last time I will be nice. :) That is if you want to call this post nice. :)
[/quote]

What on earth does whether it's physical or not have to do with the level of competitiveness?

Your initial question, by the way, in case you forgot it, was "Have you ever competed in any competitive sports [i] or games of any kind?[/i]. I've traveled internationally to represent my local district at international events. And you can pick your favorite sports league and not find more than a handful of athletes as competitive as a Bobby Fischer or Alexander Alekhine. So are we talking sports, or competitiveness? Because if you think that physical sports have a monopoly on competitiveness, it's my turn to play the "You don't know what you're talking about" card.
[/quote]

Lobo,

Nice try Lobo. but you took my question out of context didn't you? Let me post tha whole thing here so the traiin of thought can be followed.. Here it is:

"Seriously Lobo have you ever competed in any competitive sports or games of any kind? Not a trick question. Just wondering because if you did I cannot see how you could condone this type of behavior if you have any sort of competitive blood in you."

Definitely read than different than way you suggest.


I asked earlier if you were a sponsor would you want a person or team who who won (I use the term won very loosely here) this way to endorse your product whie all know how it was accomplished. I am so sorry if you feel differently but when I won a competition any competition I won and and proud of my win. I never had to hang my head in shame because underhanded means were used whether allowed or not.

Pride is important and if you guided your team to victory in such a manner as what happened here, and I speak for myself only on this, I do not look as your win as much of an accomplishment but rather a cheap shot and you gave nothing to yourself or the team. It would be nothing more than a low blow in boxing that you got away with and as a result defeated your opponent.

The question was asked because I cannot believe that anyone involved with any kind of competitive spirit would stoop to such measures as to dump. Perhaps the way the format is set up it is flawed. But it is only flawed because there are some individuals who would stoop to such levels as this, and I guess those who wrote the rules did no believe that in the spirit of competition on this level there would be people who would dump a match. They probably thought, as they should have, that there would be to much pride...well they were mistaken because as we can see there are such people.

To answer your question: What on earth does whether it's physical or not have to do with the level of competitiveness?

Nothing. It is strictly the physcial preperation that diffeers. The level of competitiveness is the same. You are correct.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Aug 4, 2012 10:36AM)
It's not "only flawed because there are individuals who would stoop to such levels as is." it's extremely flawed, regardless. As a direct result of the format, the best teams could have been meeting before the final, for instance. Yes, to get the gold medal, you have to beat the best, but you don't want to play them before the final. Any system that rewards teams for losing and punishes them for losing is flawed, whether anyone actually loses on purpose or not.

I didn't take your question out of context at all. You changed your question when you didn't get the answer you wanted.

And lastly, I haven't "condoned" the actions of any of the players (you might want to reread my posts on the topic) and I, personally, wouldn't do it. I'd try my hardest, and probably get screwed out of a silver medal by the format. My comments have been directed at organizers for creating an easily avoidable problem.
Message: Posted by: S2000magician (Aug 4, 2012 04:28PM)
[quote]On 2012-08-04 11:36, LobowolfXXX wrote:
Any system that rewards teams for losing and punishes them for [b][i]losing[/i][/b] is flawed . . . .[/quote]
"Winning" I believe you meant.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Aug 4, 2012 04:48PM)
Thanks! Good catch.
Message: Posted by: Mr. Mystoffelees (Aug 4, 2012 05:21PM)
[quote]
On 2012-08-03 11:17, TonyB2009 wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-08-03 01:37, S2000magician wrote:
Are we really going to get into a discussion of which sports belong in the Olympics based solely on . . . what? . . . the number of calories burned per minute?
[/quote]
No - I was only ribbing you.

But on a serious note, there are far too many sports in the Olympics in my view. I think the whole thing could be simplified. One racket sport instead of three, one wrestling discipline instead of three, etc. And get rid of the stupid sports like beach vollyball (only included for the obvious reason), ping pong, pairs diving, etc. And get rid of the sports that only one or two countries play to a sufficiently high level to make them competitive. For instance America has one thirteen out of sixteen titles at mens basketball and six out of eight at women's. Why keep up the charade? It is not an international sport, so drop it from the schedule.
[/quote]

I agree with most of this, but "ping pong"? :)

And while you are at it, get rid of events that need judges.

As to the OP, there is enough fault to go around. The rules should have been better thought out, but that does not excuse throwing matches.

Jim
Message: Posted by: S2000magician (Aug 4, 2012 06:28PM)
[quote]On 2012-08-04 18:21, Mr. Mystoffelees wrote:
As to the OP, there is enough fault to go around. The rules should have been better thought out, but that does not excuse throwing matches.[/quote]
I agree that there is enough fault to go around. I disagree, however, with the premise that throwing matches (under the circumstances) is an action that needs an excuse.
Message: Posted by: S2000magician (Aug 4, 2012 06:29PM)
Out of curiosity, what do y'all think of Ali's rope-a-dope?
Message: Posted by: Ray Tupper. (Aug 4, 2012 06:41PM)
[quote]
On 2012-08-04 19:29, S2000magician wrote:
Out of curiosity, what do y'all think of Ali's rope-a-dope?
[/quote]
Tactics in one bout versus practices in a series of matches?
The rope-a-dope was basically tortoise and hare.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Aug 4, 2012 06:45PM)
I thought it genius.
Message: Posted by: S2000magician (Aug 4, 2012 06:58PM)
[quote]On 2012-08-04 19:45, tommy wrote:
I thought it genius.[/quote]
Unsportsmanlike genius?
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Aug 4, 2012 07:28PM)
[quote]
On 2012-08-04 19:29, S2000magician wrote:
Out of curiosity, what do y'all think of Ali's rope-a-dope?
[/quote]

Brilliant strategy. But I don't see how it relates because it was his intention to wear Foreman out and then beat him, not to throw the fight.

You'll recall what happened to Foreman after Ali rope-a-doped him for several rounds. He never knew what hit him.

One of my favorite fights of all time.
Message: Posted by: S2000magician (Aug 4, 2012 09:23PM)
[quote]On 2012-08-04 20:28, mastermindreader wrote:
[quote]On 2012-08-04 19:29, S2000magician wrote:
Out of curiosity, what do y'all think of Ali's rope-a-dope?[/quote]
Brilliant strategy.[/quote]
I agree.

[quote]On 2012-08-04 20:28, mastermindreader wrote:
But I don't see how it relates because it was his intention to wear Foreman out and then beat him, not to throw the fight.[/quote]
Is it possible to consider each round as a mini-fight? It was his intention to lose a few rounds - mini-fights - to make it easier to win the match.

(If you want to argue that the difference is that Ali had the same opponent for all the rounds whereas the badminton players would have had different opponents, I'll counter that a tired George Foreman isn't the same opponent as a vigorous George Foreman, and that Ali (probably) couldn't have beaten the latter.)
Message: Posted by: acesover (Aug 4, 2012 09:59PM)
Yea, well just about all good coaches take advantage of a teams or single oponents weakness. That is what makes them a good coach. If it is football and the team has a great pass defense they go to the run. You do not play to an opponents strengh, that would be rather of silly. Also good coaches don't dump or shave points.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Aug 4, 2012 10:30PM)
[quote]
On 2012-08-04 22:23, S2000magician wrote:
[quote]On 2012-08-04 20:28, mastermindreader wrote:
[quote]On 2012-08-04 19:29, S2000magician wrote:
Out of curiosity, what do y'all think of Ali's rope-a-dope?[/quote]
Brilliant strategy.[/quote]
I agree.

[quote]On 2012-08-04 20:28, mastermindreader wrote:
But I don't see how it relates because it was his intention to wear Foreman out and then beat him, not to throw the fight.[/quote]
Is it possible to consider each round as a mini-fight? It was his intention to lose a few rounds - mini-fights - to make it easier to win the match.

(If you want to argue that the difference is that Ali had the same opponent for all the rounds whereas the badminton players would have had different opponents, I'll counter that a tired George Foreman isn't the same opponent as a vigorous George Foreman, and that Ali (probably) couldn't have beaten the latter.)
[/quote]

And I'd retort that that is a lame argument. :eek: The fact is that Ali DID beat the "vigorous" George Foreman by rope-a-doping him. It was Ali who first tired Foreman out and then knocked him out.

The comparison to the badminton matches just doesn't work.
Message: Posted by: acesover (Aug 4, 2012 10:31PM)
(If you want to argue that the difference is that Ali had the same opponent for all the rounds whereas the badminton players would have had different opponents, I'll counter that a tired George Foreman isn't the same opponent as a vigorous George Foreman, and that Ali (probably) couldn't have beaten the latter.)

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lot of suposistion there that can never proved nor disproved either way. Who was the Greatest? Ali. Again can never be proved nor disproved. It is all opinion. Just like beauty, all in the eyes of the beholder. Almost hesitate to say it, but I will. Believe what you want. :) In the scheme of things what we believe or disbelieve does not mean a whole lot.

One thing for sure is Howard Cosell helped make Ali. Not taking away from Ali or Howard, because I think Ali was fantastsic. Could Ali beat Foreman? I like to think so. Do I know for sure he could do it with any regulariity? No I don't know. We could ask Foreman and Ali. Do you think that would answer the question? :)

If I am not mistaken wasn't Ali much older than Foreman.
Message: Posted by: S2000magician (Aug 4, 2012 10:42PM)
[quote]On 2012-08-04 23:30, mastermindreader wrote:
[quote]On 2012-08-04 22:23, S2000magician wrote:
[quote]On 2012-08-04 20:28, mastermindreader wrote:
[quote]On 2012-08-04 19:29, S2000magician wrote:
Out of curiosity, what do y'all think of Ali's rope-a-dope?[/quote]
Brilliant strategy.[/quote]
I agree.

[quote]On 2012-08-04 20:28, mastermindreader wrote:
But I don't see how it relates because it was his intention to wear Foreman out and then beat him, not to throw the fight.[/quote]
Is it possible to consider each round as a mini-fight? It was his intention to lose a few rounds - mini-fights - to make it easier to win the match.

(If you want to argue that the difference is that Ali had the same opponent for all the rounds whereas the badminton players would have had different opponents, I'll counter that a tired George Foreman isn't the same opponent as a vigorous George Foreman, and that Ali (probably) couldn't have beaten the latter.)[/quote]
And I'd retort that that is a lame argument.[/quote]
But you didn't answer the question.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Aug 4, 2012 10:44PM)
The thing that is wrong with the argument about the rope-a-dope is that it WASN'T a matter of "throwing" rounds at all, it was a deliberate tactic to wear Foreman out. If you watch the fight, you'll note that Ali did, in fact, score punches several times out of the "rope-a-dope" position. And while he was leaning against the ropes and covering up he was taunting and mocking Foreman with comments like "Is that all you got, George?" That, coupled with the fact that in the early rounds Ali scored repeatedly with a right lead - considered insulting and dismissive of Foreman's skills - infuriated Foreman and caused him to waste countless punches, nearly all of which were effectively deflected by Ali.

It was a cumulative tactic that eventually lead to Foreman being knocked out by an invigorated Ali. (Who's fusillade of punches in the last round provided dramatic proof that Foreman's punches had done little damage, except to himself.)

So no- rounds are not "mini-matches," nor can the rounds in which Ali rope-a-doped Foreman be considered "thrown."
Message: Posted by: S2000magician (Aug 4, 2012 10:54PM)
And I'd counter that Ali let Foreman beat himself. (Not solely, of course, but largely.) Ali couldn't have won without Foreman's enthusiastic cooperation.

Again, a brilliant strategy.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Aug 4, 2012 11:42PM)
[quote]
On 2012-08-04 23:31, acesover wrote:
If I am not mistaken wasn't Ali much older than Foreman.
[/quote]

Yes he is...his gold medal came 8 years before Foreman's; they're 7 years apart in age. Foreman is actually very close to Larry Holmes's age (though he peaked much earlier. The first time, anyway).
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Aug 4, 2012 11:49PM)
[quote]
On 2012-08-04 23:54, S2000magician wrote:
And I'd counter that Ali let Foreman beat himself. (Not solely, of course, but largely.) Ali couldn't have won without Foreman's enthusiastic cooperation.

Again, a brilliant strategy.
[/quote]

So I guess you've conceded, then, that Ali wasn't "throwing" rounds in a manner even remotely analogous to what happened when the badminton teams just intentionally kept hitting the birdie into the net in an attempt to actually lose games?

And Ali actually taunted and psyched Foreman into going for an early knock-out. You have to remember that Foreman was accustomed to winning his fights in just two or three rounds. It wasn't that Foreman was "cooperating" with Ali, it's just that he was fighting the only way he knew how.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AY3yIIxXvy4&feature=related
Message: Posted by: S2000magician (Aug 5, 2012 12:08AM)
[quote]On 2012-08-05 00:49, mastermindreader wrote:
[quote]On 2012-08-04 23:54, S2000magician wrote:
And I'd counter that Ali let Foreman beat himself. (Not solely, of course, but largely.) Ali couldn't have won without Foreman's enthusiastic cooperation.

Again, a brilliant strategy.[/quote]
So I guess you've conceded, then, that Ali wasn't "throwing" rounds in a manner even remotely analogous to what happened when the badminton teams just intentionally kept hitting the birdie into the net in an attempt to actually lose games?[/quote]
Bad guess. Both are long-term strategies.

Whether you think it's analogous isn't really the point. If you think that the badminton players' behavior was unsportsmanlike, so be it; we disagree. Nothing wrong with that.

[quote]On 2012-08-05 00:49, mastermindreader wrote:
And Ali actually taunted and psyched Foreman into going for an early knock-out. You have to remember that Foreman was accustomed to winning his fights in just two or three rounds. It wasn't that Foreman was "cooperating" with Ali, it's just that he was fighting the only way he knew how.[/quote]
Which was the cooperation on which Ali was counting. When Foreman saw that Ali had changed his fighting style, he (or his manager) could have changed his (Foreman's) style. That he didn't is the cooperation to which I refer.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Aug 5, 2012 12:24AM)
No. I haven't expressed an opinion as to whether or not the badminton players' strategy was unsportsmanlike.

The obvious difference, though, is that - in a single competition (a boxing match is NOT a collection of individual matches)- Ali intended to win and, in fact did. The badminton players - in a single match - attempted to lose in order to gain an advantage against a different opponent. Your argument that Foreman became a "different opponent" after he was tired out is creative but not, I'm afraid, very persuasive.
Message: Posted by: S2000magician (Aug 5, 2012 01:08AM)
[quote]On 2012-08-05 01:24, mastermindreader wrote:
The obvious difference, though, is that - in a single competition (a boxing match is NOT a collection of individual matches) - Ali intended to win . . .[/quote]
Presumably, the badminton players intended to win (the tournament), and were trying to give themselves the best chance of doing so.

[quote]On 2012-08-05 01:24, mastermindreader wrote:
. . . in fact did.[/quote]
Interesting fact, but irrelevant to the discussion.

[quote]On 2012-08-05 01:24, mastermindreader wrote:
The badminton players - in a single match - attempted to lose in order to gain an advantage against a different opponent.[/quote]
They weren't trying to gain an advantage against a different opponent per se; they were trying to gain an advantage in when they would play particular opponents. I submit that those ideas are vastly different.

[quote]On 2012-08-05 01:24, mastermindreader wrote:
Your argument that Foreman became a "different opponent" after he was tired out is creative but not, I'm afraid, very persuasive.[/quote]
Fair enough. Creativity has its place.

[quote]On 2012-08-05 01:24, mastermindreader wrote:
No. I haven't expressed an opinion as to whether or not the badminton players' strategy was unsportsmanlike.[/quote]
What is your opinion, if you don't mind my asking?
Message: Posted by: acesover (Aug 5, 2012 02:04AM)
My opinion is that they should be banned fomr copetition. By they I mean the team and the coach.

If not where do you draw th eline. Would you only throw them if they lost becasue someone bet on them and they bet aganist themselves.? What would the diference be? When you purposely you cheat not only your fans but yourself and have no respect for the sport you are competiting in.

I asked several times if you were a sponsor would you hire this team to promote your product knowing that the whole world knows what they did in order to medal? You can sit there and say it does not matter but it is the whole crutch of the matter...ethics, this is the Olympics where one of the primaary ingrediients is pride and this team or coaach has none.

Better yet would this team if sponsoring a produt entice you to purchase said product? Of course you can sit their and say that you are not swayed by advertisements. Well I guess the whole world of advertising is wrong. Seems like I know of another sports figure who lost sponsorship because of indisgressions. They want clean reputable people who can promote their product with pride and want people who are looked up to in their position in life for their accomplishments if they are sports figures.

Probably one of the reasons that Buck Knives never picked O.J. as a sponsor for their knives or for driving a certain type of SUV. Even though he used them in real life. In both cases these peopole are damaged goods (one more so than the other, you decide which one)but damaged none the less and people have no respect for them. That is except for the 12 morons who acquited him. Yea I called them morons, to some here that makes me a bad person. So don't buy any products I endorce. :)

By losing on purpose they cheat the system, they cheat themselves and they cheat the public who came to waatch them compete. I bet if you ipaid to see this Olympic event you would feel cheated. Or would you say, wow what a wonderful stradgedy I just witnessed I hope my children grow up to be just like them?

The ends definitely do not justsify the means in this instance. If one cannot see this then one needs "ethics glasses" because you are blind.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Aug 5, 2012 02:14AM)
I'd ban the organizer(s) who created and signed off on the format. The stinkin' Olympics, and they come up with a system that incentivizes losing and potentially puts the two best teams against each other before the gold medal round. Pathetic.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Aug 5, 2012 05:53AM)
[quote]
On 2012-08-05 02:08, S2000magician wrote:

What is your opinion, if you don't mind my asking?
[/quote]

I agree with you and Lobo. It's mainly the fault of those who created rules that made losing particular matches advantageous.

I disagree with your comparison to Ali's boxing strategy.
Message: Posted by: S2000magician (Aug 5, 2012 11:42AM)
[quote]On 2012-08-05 06:53, mastermindreader wrote:
[quote]On 2012-08-05 02:08, S2000magician wrote:

What is your opinion, if you don't mind my asking?[/quote]
I agree with you and Lobo. It's mainly the fault of those who created rules that made losing particular matches advantageous.

I disagree with your comparison to Ali's boxing strategy.[/quote]
Thanks, Bob.
Message: Posted by: S2000magician (Aug 5, 2012 11:50AM)
[quote]On 2012-08-05 01:24, mastermindreader wrote:
. . . a boxing match is NOT a collection of individual matches . . . .[/quote]
Given acesover's introduction of the wagering motif: do you know whether one can place a bet (with a sportsbook) on which fighter will win a particular round? It would surprise me if you couldn't, but I've never investigated it.
Message: Posted by: S2000magician (Aug 5, 2012 11:53AM)
[quote]On 2012-08-05 03:04, acesover wrote:
I bet if you ipaid to see this Olympic event you would feel cheated.[/quote]
You're spot on: I'd feel quite cheated.

By the organizers. Not by the players nor the coaches.

I do see a stark difference between throwing a game to achieve a gain [i]within the tournament[/i], and throwing a game for ancillary gain (e.g., your example of betting against yourself); the two are incomparable. If you cannot see that . . . .
Message: Posted by: acesover (Aug 5, 2012 12:20PM)
AS Mr Burke once said. All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.

Well you seem to think that the organizers set this up so this would occur. I guess they thought they were dealing with good men. Guess they were wrong. They were dealing with dishonorable athelets and coaches. No matter how you cut it that is the truth as they dumped and did not play to the best of their ability in all of their mataches. It is as simple as that.

No matter how you spin it makes the coaches and athelets disgusting and not very honorable. Still no response on the sponsor question. Do youwant them endorsing your porduct. Your response to this question would answer a lot of the questions aked here. I would not want them enndorsing anything I represented or had a finincial interest in as they are not honorable people and their endorsement would be woorthless just as they are. Face the truth here. It is not the organizers fault, unless you can believe that theyknew they were dealing with dishonorable people to start it is those who dumped for gain and no one else.

Blaming the organizers is like blaming the owners of a bank if a teller steals because they did not have tight enough security. the reasonthey stole is because they were not honorable people. I am sure most here could have profited some what in their life if they were dishonorable but choose not to. Because opportunity is afforded that does not give an excuse.
Message: Posted by: S2000magician (Aug 5, 2012 12:34PM)
[quote]On 2012-08-05 13:20, acesover wrote:
Still no response on the sponsor question. Do youwant them endorsing your porduct.[/quote]
Yes, if they won I would consider them as sponsors. I do not consider what they did to be dishonorable.

Now that that's settled, let's get back to the point of the discussion, shall we?
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Aug 5, 2012 12:41PM)
[quote]
On 2012-08-05 13:20, acesover wrote:
AS Mr Burke once said. All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.

Well you seem to think that the organizers set this up so this would occur. I guess they thought they were dealing with good men. Guess they were wrong. They were dealing with dishonorable athelets and coaches. No matter how you cut it that is the truth as they dumped and did not play to the best of their ability in all of their mataches. It is as simple as that.

No matter how you spin it makes the coaches and athelets disgusting and not very honorable. Still no response on the sponsor question. Do youwant them endorsing your porduct. Your response to this question would answer a lot of the questions aked here. I would not want them enndorsing anything I represented or had a finincial interest in as they are not honorable people and their endorsement would be woorthless just as they are. Face the truth here. It is not the organizers fault, unless you can believe that theyknew they were dealing with dishonorable people to start it is those who dumped for gain and no one else.

Blaming the organizers is like blaming the owners of a bank if a teller steals because they did not have tight enough security. the reasonthey stole is because they were not honorable people. I am sure most here could have profited some what in their life if they were dishonorable but choose not to. Because opportunity is afforded that does not give an excuse.
[/quote]

Why would you set up a format to punish a team for winning EVEN IF you know that nobody would dump a game? Sheer incompetence.

Let's say the second-best teams plays as hard as they can every time. In a perfect world, they should get the silver medal. But because of the format, maybe they play the best team in the semifinal, so they get a bronze while an inferior team gets the silver. Or if they lose to the best team in an earlier knockout stage, they don't get a medal at all.

This is an important point, so let's give it its own paragraph:

The idiocy of the format is NOT due to the "unsportsmanlike" athletes. For the reasons set forth in the first paragraph, it was an asinine format that had gross deficiencies EVEN IF EVERYBODY PLAYED THEIR HARDEST EVERY TIME. You DON'T have to foresee dumping games to realize that this was an incompetently chosen format. If there was a "malpractice" standard for organizing competitive endeavors, this would meet it.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Aug 5, 2012 12:47PM)
[quote]
On 2012-08-05 13:20, acesover wrote:
AS Mr Burke once said. All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.

Well you seem to think that the organizers set this up so this would occur. I guess they thought they were dealing with good men. Guess they were wrong. They were dealing with dishonorable athelets and coaches. No matter how you cut it that is the truth as they dumped and did not play to the best of their ability in all of their mataches. It is as simple as that.

No matter how you spin it makes the coaches and athelets disgusting and not very honorable. Still no response on the sponsor question. Do youwant them endorsing your porduct. Your response to this question would answer a lot of the questions aked here. I would not want them enndorsing anything I represented or had a finincial interest in as they are not honorable people and their endorsement would be woorthless just as they are. Face the truth here. It is not the organizers fault, unless you can believe that theyknew they were dealing with dishonorable people to start it is those who dumped for gain and no one else.

Blaming the organizers is like blaming the owners of a bank if a teller steals because they did not have tight enough security. the reasonthey stole is because they were not honorable people. I am sure most here could have profited some what in their life if they were dishonorable but choose not to. Because opportunity is afforded that does not give an excuse.
[/quote]

I think it's more like blaming them if, instead of having bad security, they had a policy that stated that you shouldn't take money from the drawer, but if you do, you can keep it.
Message: Posted by: S2000magician (Aug 5, 2012 12:47PM)
[quote]On 2012-08-05 13:20, acesover wrote:
AS Mr Burke once said. All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.[/quote]
True that. Not relevant, but true.

[quote]On 2012-08-05 13:20, acesover wrote:
Well you seem to think that the organizers set this up so this would occur.[/quote]
I have no idea where you got that idea, but let me dispel it: I think nothing of the kind.

[quote]On 2012-08-05 13:20, acesover wrote:
I guess they thought they were dealing with good men. Guess they were wrong.[/quote]
I suspect that the organizers didn't think about the implications of their plan at all; that's the problem.

[quote]On 2012-08-05 13:20, acesover wrote:
No matter how you cut it that is the truth as they dumped and did not play to the best of their ability in all of their mataches. It is as simple as that.[/quote]
That's never been in dispute.

[quote]On 2012-08-05 13:20, acesover wrote:
Face the truth here. It is not the organizers fault, unless you can believe that theyknew they were dealing with dishonorable people to start it is those who dumped for gain and no one else.[/quote]
I am facing the truth: the truth is that the organizers failed to set conditions of contest that rewarded winning. That's their fault.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Aug 5, 2012 12:49PM)
In this thread, we had questions about whether certain of us had been involved in serious competitive endeavors. I wonder if the organizers of the event ever were.
Message: Posted by: S2000magician (Aug 5, 2012 01:04PM)
[quote]On 2012-08-05 13:41, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]On 2012-08-05 13:20, acesover wrote:
AS Mr Burke once said. All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.

Well you seem to think that the organizers set this up so this would occur. I guess they thought they were dealing with good men. Guess they were wrong. They were dealing with dishonorable athelets and coaches. No matter how you cut it that is the truth as they dumped and did not play to the best of their ability in all of their mataches. It is as simple as that.

No matter how you spin it makes the coaches and athelets disgusting and not very honorable. Still no response on the sponsor question. Do youwant them endorsing your porduct. Your response to this question would answer a lot of the questions aked here. I would not want them enndorsing anything I represented or had a finincial interest in as they are not honorable people and their endorsement would be woorthless just as they are. Face the truth here. It is not the organizers fault, unless you can believe that theyknew they were dealing with dishonorable people to start it is those who dumped for gain and no one else.

Blaming the organizers is like blaming the owners of a bank if a teller steals because they did not have tight enough security. the reasonthey stole is because they were not honorable people. I am sure most here could have profited some what in their life if they were dishonorable but choose not to. Because opportunity is afforded that does not give an excuse.[/quote]
Why would you set up a format to punish a team for winning EVEN IF you know that nobody would dump a game? Sheer incompetence.

Let's say the second-best teams plays as hard as they can every time. In a perfect world, they should get the silver medal. But because of the format, maybe they play the best team in the semifinal, so they get a bronze while an inferior team gets the silver. Or if they lose to the best team in an earlier knockout stage, they don't get a medal at all.

This is an important point, so let's give it its own paragraph:

The idiocy of the format is NOT due to the "unsportsmanlike" athletes. For the reasons set forth in the first paragraph, it was an asinine format that had gross deficiencies EVEN IF EVERYBODY PLAYED THEIR HARDEST EVERY TIME. You DON'T have to foresee dumping games to realize that this was an incompetently chosen format. If there was a "malpractice" standard for organizing competitive endeavors, this would meet it.[/quote]
So, it appears as though these players / coaches, having determined that there was a significant flaw in the format, set about to correct that flaw and ensure that the two best teams would meet in the final.

Sounds laudable.
Message: Posted by: acesover (Aug 5, 2012 02:48PM)
[quote]
On 2012-08-05 13:34, S2000magician wrote:
[quote]On 2012-08-05 13:20, acesover wrote:
Still no response on the sponsor question. Do youwant them endorsing your porduct.[/quote]
Yes, if they won I would consider them as sponsors. I do not consider what they did to be dishonorable.

Now that that's settled, let's get back to the point of the discussion, shall we?
[/quote]

Never went off topic. You talked about it being honorable in you original post. It isn't. I don't believe I sstrayed from the honor question at all.

If you feel you would use them to sponsor you rproduct that is your choice. I would really like to see that ad campaign. :) I gues maybe it would work in an ad campaign aganist smoking. BE A QUITTER AND WIN. :)
Message: Posted by: acesover (Aug 5, 2012 02:55PM)
I found this comment on th enet and am not sure how the matchups takes place. Does anyone know for sure?

Here is what I found:

Group stage leading into elimination rounds is an incredibly common format. People keep questioning the format saying it leads to scenarios where it’s better to lose, but that’s simply not the case. What happened is there was a huge upset in another group leading to a top team (who others wanted to avoid) ending up as a lower draw so top teams in other groups could run into them earlier in the next stages. The problem isn’t the format (in fact the format is great because it guarantees athletes more games and gives viewers more stuff to watch). The problem here is in the execution of the format.

One solution is simple, soccer/football figured it out a long time ago. Play all of the final group games simultaneously. That way competitors won’t be sure who they might face in the next stages, so they have to assume they’ll face an easier opponent by winning (since better teams should finish higher up the group standings)

The above post was al inrefrence to the Olympic dumping in the Olympic gaes that just occurred..
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Aug 5, 2012 03:06PM)
Back to Ali/Foreman for just a second. I found something interesting. The general perception seems to be that Ali rope-a-doped his way through seven rounds prior to knocking out Foreman in the eight. The fact is that, even while he was rope-a-doping, Ali was scoring frequently with pinpointed jabs into Foreman's face. The champion's face was considerably swollen going into the last round. Ali, on the other hand, appeared unaffected by the hundreds of punches thrown by Foreman.

But here's the interesting thing- Ali was AHEAD on all three judges' cards going into the eight round.

[quote]1974 Fight of the Year - Ring Magazine
Scorecards in rounds: Zach Clayton 4-2-1 Ali, Nourridine Adalla 3-0-4 Ali, and James Taylor 4-1-2 Ali

In points: referee: Zach Clayton 68-66 |judge: Nourridine Adalla 70-67 |judge: James Taylor 69-66 [/quote]

The most rounds given to Foreman was two, by judge Zach Clayton.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Aug 5, 2012 03:43PM)
[quote]
On 2012-08-05 15:55, acesover wrote:
I found this comment on th enet and am not sure how the matchups takes place. Does anyone know for sure?

Here is what I found:

Group stage leading into elimination rounds is an incredibly common format. People keep questioning the format saying it leads to scenarios where it’s better to lose, but that’s simply not the case. What happened is there was a huge upset in another group leading to a top team (who others wanted to avoid) ending up as a lower draw so top teams in other groups could run into them earlier in the next stages. The problem isn’t the format (in fact the format is great because it guarantees athletes more games and gives viewers more stuff to watch). The problem here is in the execution of the format.

One solution is simple, soccer/football figured it out a long time ago. Play all of the final group games simultaneously. That way competitors won’t be sure who they might face in the next stages, so they have to assume they’ll face an easier opponent by winning (since better teams should finish higher up the group standings)

The above post was al inrefrence to the Olympic dumping in the Olympic gaes that just occurred..
[/quote]

The statement that it's "simply not the case" is absurd. It's EXACTLY the case. After the pool play was the knockout stage. Obviously, running into the top team "at an earlier stage" if you win means that it's better to lose (assuming you've already qualified for the knockout stage, as the teams in the scandal had). It's advantageous to play the best team as late as possible, once you get to the knockouts. The easiest fix in the world would let the teams with the best records in pool play select their opponents in the elimination round; then, even if you've qualified, you'd be strongly incentivized to try to win the "meaningless" remaining match(es).

Picture playing the last game in the regular reason in college basketball, having clinched a spot in the March Madness tournament. If you win your final game, you play the #1 seed in the first round, and if you lose, you play a lower seed. That's how stupid the format was. Here's a pretty good article on it:

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/olympics--eight-badminton-players-booted-from-olympics-for-throwing-matches.html
Message: Posted by: stoneunhinged (Aug 5, 2012 04:09PM)
Bob, I watched that YouTube clip of the 8th round that you posted, and it really does show how the technique worked. It wasn't really anything like, "I'm just not gonna fight; I'm gonna rest on the ropes until George tires himelf out." It looks much more tactical than that. Ali is ALWAYS looking for some holes to poke a jab through, ALWAYS holding out for a possible counter-attack. When the KO actually comes, it doesn't look at all like, "George is tired now--I'll finally let loose". It looks much more like he saw an opportunity that he would have taken in any previous round.

I think the point that shocked everyone back in the day is that his use of the ropes defied the conventional wisdom that boxing matches are won through footwork. Maybe they are. But Ali showing that you could win a match in an unconventional way does not mean that he wasn't fighting the match to the best of his ability. He was. And that's why he was ahead on all three cards.

It's another case of people mis-remembering how something happened.

Back on topic: the comparison to soccer is interesting, because I've always thought that soccer tournaments are also flawed. I've seen many games--including this year, BTW--in which it seemed pretty clear that the two teams stopped playing once the score got tied early. Doing the math, it's quite possible during Round Robin that a tie is good enough against an opponent who is stronger than the opponent in the next game.

Soccer also has a mind-bogglingly complex system of handling tie-breakers for league standings, since it doesn't use the play-off system.

Neither does international softball and baseball, BTW. This drove (still drives) me crazy. The league champion is determined by percentage of won games. But let's say two teams have the same winning percentage. Next comes this: the team who allowed the fewest number of runs in games against the team they are tied with becomes the champions. But wait! That could very well be the same (and in softball, where very low scores are the norm, it's even likely.) So then they compare the number of all runs allowed during the season. If the two teams are still tied, then--get this, I'm not making this up--they draw straws.

Not literally. I'm not sure (since it never happened to us) whether they flip a coin or put names into a hat or what. But they somehow randomly choose which of the two teams wins. And they continue to do this for every team in the standings until all the places are ordered.

Is it rational? Not at all. In essence, the system means that a team should try to win the most games [i]with a preference for defense over offense[/i]. This may make a certain sense in that baseball and softball are defense-oriented sports. But it is STILL arbitrary.

I never quite understood this until I started coaching softball here in Germany. Internationally, softball treats league standings as the determiner of who is the season champions. No play-offs! So the team with the highest winning percentage

Let's say Göttingen is tied with Hamburg at the end of the season with 20 wins and 8 losses each. To determine the season champion, instead of a play-off game (or series of games), they start in with soccer-like tie-breaking rules. The first is simply: who scored the most runs. If both Göttingen and Hamburg have scored the same number of runs in a season, the next rule is: who allowed the most runs against them--in other words, try to rate the respective defense performances. Let's say that the two teams are still tied.
Message: Posted by: Pengnome (Aug 5, 2012 04:22PM)
Its not easy to come up with a set of rules. Perhaps one of the strangest outcomes was this football match.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbados_v_Grenada_(1994)
Message: Posted by: S2000magician (Aug 5, 2012 07:01PM)
[quote]On 2012-08-05 15:48, acesover wrote:
You talked about it being honorable in you original post. It isn't.[/quote]
Unless, of course, it is.

You haven't made a case for it being dishonorable.
Message: Posted by: S2000magician (Aug 5, 2012 07:17PM)
Maybe it would have been better for them to have forfeited the match on a pretext.
Message: Posted by: acesover (Aug 5, 2012 07:55PM)
[quote]
On 2012-08-05 16:43, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-08-05 15:55, acesover wrote:
I found this comment on th enet and am not sure how the matchups takes place. Does anyone know for sure?

Here is what I found:

Group stage leading into elimination rounds is an incredibly common format. People keep questioning the format saying it leads to scenarios where it’s better to lose, but that’s simply not the case. What happened is there was a huge upset in another group leading to a top team (who others wanted to avoid) ending up as a lower draw so top teams in other groups could run into them earlier in the next stages. The problem isn’t the format (in fact the format is great because it guarantees athletes more games and gives viewers more stuff to watch). The problem here is in the execution of the format.

One solution is simple, soccer/football figured it out a long time ago. Play all of the final group games simultaneously. That way competitors won’t be sure who they might face in the next stages, so they have to assume they’ll face an easier opponent by winning (since better teams should finish higher up the group standings)

The above post was al inrefrence to the Olympic dumping in the Olympic gaes that just occurred..
[/quote]

The statement that it's "simply not the case" is absurd. It's EXACTLY the case. After the pool play was the knockout stage. Obviously, running into the top team "at an earlier stage" if you win means that it's better to lose (assuming you've already qualified for the knockout stage, as the teams in the scandal had). It's advantageous to play the best team as late as possible, once you get to the knockouts. The easiest fix in the world would let the teams with the best records in pool play select their opponents in the elimination round; then, even if you've qualified, you'd be strongly incentivized to try to win the "meaningless" remaining match(es).

Picture playing the last game in the regular reason in college basketball, having clinched a spot in the March Madness tournament. If you win your final game, you play the #1 seed in the first round, and if you lose, you play a lower seed. That's how stupid the format was. Here's a pretty good article on it:

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/olympics--eight-badminton-players-booted-from-olympics-for-throwing-matches.html
[/quote]

If that is how it works I agree that the agangement is kind of weird.


I am curious has it always been that way in this sport?

Part of the problem with this discussion is we seem to be discussing two entirely different matters. One being a flawed set of rules for elimination and the other being the ethics of a team purposely throwin a game in Olympic event. I see this as two entirely different matters.

I do not know if all badminton tournaments are run this way or just the Olympic event. I do not know if it is a double elimination or triple how it works. Which ever way it works it seems not to work. But as some put the blame on the rules committee and many seem to do just that. HoweverI blame the coaches and atheletes as it seems to cheapen their participation and where they finish in what is deemed to be an event to see who is the "BEST" and the two runner ups. This is not necessarily how it will sork out by the rules set, or the way the atheletes scheme in order to beat a flawed system. The old six on one and half dozen of the other. I wonder how the Greeks decided who had the best badminton team. :) OK just kidding I know the Olympics has gone commerical and does not resemble much of what it originally was in Greece.
Message: Posted by: spatlind (Aug 5, 2012 08:06PM)
Before I comment, let me repeat that I said earlier that I thought the rule was short sighted.

Having said that, as aces noted, and as best I understand it, the situation arose when the Chinese favourites suffered an upset defeat. In order to avoid meeting their countrymen (as second favourites), the other Chinese team threw their match. Having seen that, 2 other teams followed suit. This, to me, seems to be an inordinate level of manipulation of results. Had the original game gone to form, none of this would have happened, and there would have been no reason to question the format. But it didn't.

So are we saying that if an underdog wins against form, all others should be allowed to throw games in order to manipulate further fixtures? "YES" is what I am hearing many of you say. But how far should this be taken? It is against the rules and the spirit of the sport. "But the ends justify the means", I hear you say. Does this mean that it is acceptable to deliberately injure an opponent in order to gain an advantage? To make a nick on the cricket ball (I hate cricket) etc etc? "But that's different", I hear you say. Why? It's against the rules.

So where do you draw the line? "The organisers have to draw the line, and they made a mess of it." Perhaps they did, but they drew a line, indicated that deliberately throwing a match was against the rules and then disqualified 3 teams for breaking the rules.

The rules are the rules.
Message: Posted by: spatlind (Aug 5, 2012 08:07PM)
Just to add - as someone else noted, and which would be a better way to implement the rule, all final matches could be played at the same time.
Message: Posted by: acesover (Aug 5, 2012 08:19PM)
Lobo,

I read the link you posted and while I agree with most of what was said the article does blame both the people who set the rules and the players. However the phrase, and this is not exact, "they did not cheat" may be somewhat true, and I say somewhat, I feel they cheated themselves, their fans, the sport and the Spirit of the Olympics. They stooped below cheating by throwing a match in which they should have won. They cheapened what they have trained for, for so many years and if they feel that this is worth it then I feel sorry for them and sorry for those who feel they are correct in their decision to dump a match and lose on purpose as being acceptable. I am sure there is nothing in their training regiment that includes throwing a match.

As I said in a previous post I find fault with the people who set the rules as being somewhat shortsided to create such a possibility but even more astounded that an athelte of this level would consider dumping a match after all the sacrafices they have made for so many years. As a trite saying goes...Your milage may differ, and I am sure many here disaagree with me. No surprise there.

I said all I have to say about this and how I feel. Not upset with anyone.

Good luck to all the participants in this Olympics and strive for perfection in what you have worked so long and hard for.
Message: Posted by: S2000magician (Aug 5, 2012 10:33PM)
[quote]On 2012-08-05 21:06, spatlind wrote:
So where do you draw the line? "The organisers have to draw the line, and they made a mess of it." Perhaps they did, but they drew a line, indicated that deliberately throwing a match was against the rules and then disqualified 3 teams for breaking the rules.

The rules are the rules.[/quote]
Is there a rule that says that a team is not allowed to throw a match deliberately? If not (and I suspect not), then drawing the line where they did was wrong. Undebatably.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Aug 6, 2012 02:24AM)
But they should be penalized, I think, for their lousy match throwing technique. They could have at least made it LOOK like they were trying to win. :eek:

But, given that they made no attempt whatsoever to disguise what they were doing, it seems obvious that they didn't think they were doing anything wrong.
Message: Posted by: spatlind (Aug 6, 2012 05:17AM)
There is, though, a rule stating that acting in a way detrimental to the game is not allowed. And to my knowledge, they were repeatedly warned against doing what they were.
Message: Posted by: stoneunhinged (Aug 6, 2012 07:51AM)
What they should have done--if they were clever--is declared a forfeit due to *personal issues* or "illness".

Since probably very few of you know about international softball rules, here is an interesting tidbit: the pitcher is not required to actually throw the pitches, like in baseball. She just declares to the umpire that she would like the batter to walk.

In baseball, one still gets the feeling that the pitcher might mess up and throw a hitable ball. There is an appearance of risk (if only an appearance). Seems slightly different to me.
Message: Posted by: S2000magician (Aug 6, 2012 03:44PM)
Suppose that in the round of 16 they had a rule that if you win, you're out, but if you lose, you're in the quarterfinals. Would it be unethical to lose intentionally under those circumstances?

(I've often thought that it would be interesting in Formula One to have a random number chosen after qualifying: if it's less than, say, 0.2, then the starting order would be reversed, so the fast drivers/cars would have to get through the pack to win. It could be fun.)
Message: Posted by: acesover (Aug 6, 2012 10:12PM)
[quote]
On 2012-08-06 16:44, S2000magician wrote:
Suppose that in the round of 16 they had a rule that if you win, you're out, but if you lose, you're in the quarterfinals. Would it be unethical to lose intentionally under those circumstances?

(I've often thought that it would be interesting in Formula One to have a random number chosen after qualifying: if it's less than, say, 0.2, then the starting order would be reversed, so the fast drivers/cars would have to get through the pack to win. It could be fun.)
[/quote]

Well I said I ws done posting to this thread but I do have to ask S2000magicica. Have you been drinking? :)
Message: Posted by: S2000magician (Aug 6, 2012 10:13PM)
[quote]On 2012-08-06 23:12, acesover wrote:
[quote]On 2012-08-06 16:44, S2000magician wrote:
Suppose that in the round of 16 they had a rule that if you win, you're out, but if you lose, you're in the quarterfinals. Would it be unethical to lose intentionally under those circumstances?

(I've often thought that it would be interesting in Formula One to have a random number chosen after qualifying: if it's less than, say, 0.2, then the starting order would be reversed, so the fast drivers/cars would have to get through the pack to win. It could be fun.)[/quote]

Well I said I ws done posting to this thread but I do have to ask S2000magicica. Have you been drinking? :)[/quote]
Not too much.
Message: Posted by: acesover (Aug 6, 2012 10:18PM)
[quote]
On 2012-08-06 23:13, S2000magician wrote:
[quote]On 2012-08-06 23:12, acesover wrote:
[quote]On 2012-08-06 16:44, S2000magician wrote:
Suppose that in the round of 16 they had a rule that if you win, you're out, but if you lose, you're in the quarterfinals. Would it be unethical to lose intentionally under those circumstances?

(I've often thought that it would be interesting in Formula One to have a random number chosen after qualifying: if it's less than, say, 0.2, then the starting order would be reversed, so the fast drivers/cars would have to get through the pack to win. It could be fun.)[/quote]

Well I said I ws done posting to this thread but I do have to ask S2000magicica. Have you been drinking? :)[/quote]
Not too much.
[/quote]

Well then. :cheers:
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Aug 7, 2012 01:44AM)
[quote]
On 2012-08-06 08:51, stoneunhinged wrote:
What they should have done--if they were clever--is declared a forfeit due to *personal issues* or "illness".

Since probably very few of you know about international softball rules, here is an interesting tidbit: the pitcher is not required to actually throw the pitches, like in baseball. She just declares to the umpire that she would like the batter to walk.

In baseball, one still gets the feeling that the pitcher might mess up and throw a hitable ball. There is an appearance of risk (if only an appearance). Seems slightly different to me.
[/quote]

I agree. There is more than an appearance of risk. A pitcher throwing a ball for an intentional walk sometimes throws a wild pitch that gets away from the catcher, allowing base runners to advance and score.