Shenmue Dojo

Sonikku wrote:I heard the Queen was looking down at her fingernails when the Brit Athletes walked in at the end of the opening ceremony.

At one point yeah, She was also trying to stay awake. Think it was gone midnight by the time the Brits entered.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5SHNqG2cXk[/youtube]

Lets face it every ones bored at that part of the show, An hour of watching people walking.

south carmain wrote:I meant that the amount we entered is irrelevant because most of the surplus entered wouldn't of even qualified normally hence making no difference at all, someone who has is 40 seconds behind the world champion won't get lucky and win gold

If that's the case, we're saying the exact same thing. I do wonder how many athletes were "host berths" because the other thing that stuck was you saying most of the team were there because of that. I would like to think the vast majority were there by right.

It's an over exageration It just means a lot did, if you want to be anal about it a lot barely qualify and the excess got a free pass still doesn't change the fact that it's the only reason we had a bigger team than the us and the amount of medals gained

Also the fact that we had 313 athletes at beijing compared to 556 at london suggests that a lot did get a free pass, if we follow what these numbers suggest and consider that over 200 athletes got a free pass then no, not most qualified by their own right i guess

If you include general relativity, it seems Usain Bolt ran the 100 metter in less time.

Check this out:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tflf05x-WVI[/youtube]

south carmain wrote:It's an over exageration It just means a lot did, if you want to be anal about it a lot barely qualify and the excess got a free pass still doesn't change the fact that it's the only reason we had a bigger team than the us and the amount of medals gained

Also the fact that we had 313 athletes at beijing compared to 556 at london suggests that a lot did get a free pass, if we follow what these numbers suggest and consider that over 200 athletes got a free pass then no, not most qualified by their own right i guess

I do tend to be a bit anal on specifics but don't believe it contributed to the number of medals we won, by your own admission a wild card entry still wouldn't win a medal. The size of the team is partly due to the wild cards, but also the increase in number of capable athletes. If the same effort had been put in for London than a normal away Olympics, the team still would be bigger than 313. Not as large as 500+ but still larger than before.

Neo Matrix wrote:

south carmain wrote:It's an over exageration It just means a lot did, if you want to be anal about it a lot barely qualify and the excess got a free pass still doesn't change the fact that it's the only reason we had a bigger team than the us and the amount of medals gained

Also the fact that we had 313 athletes at beijing compared to 556 at london suggests that a lot did get a free pass, if we follow what these numbers suggest and consider that over 200 athletes got a free pass then no, not most qualified by their own right i guess

I do tend to be a bit anal on specifics but don't believe it contributed to the number of medals we won

uhh yes, that's basically what everyone has been saying including me?

the team still would be bigger than 313. Not as large as 500+ but still larger than before.

unless if you have any source or anything to remotely back your claim I can't even consider it speculation, we had home advantage while performing yes because of the pressure it puts on the opposing team and the boost of adrenaline for the home team, but for qualifiers that doesn't change much, there's barely anyone at the qualifiers and you're performing against a time/fellow team mates, not to mention the fact that they got a free pass removes the fact that they have to train harder just to qualify

Are those Olympic rings still up above the bridge in London?

good question, I'm guessing they might leave them up until the end of the paralympic games, not sure

south carmain wrote:

Neo Matrix wrote:

south carmain wrote:It's an over exageration It just means a lot did, if you want to be anal about it a lot barely qualify and the excess got a free pass still doesn't change the fact that it's the only reason we had a bigger team than the us and the amount of medals gained

I do tend to be a bit anal on specifics but don't believe it contributed to the number of medals we won

uhh yes, that's basically what everyone has been saying including me?

If you're saying the only reason we got more medals is because we had a bigger team, then no. We're all saying home advantage definitely helped, but you seem to be adding in the larger team thing which I don't agree with.

south carmain wrote:

the team still would be bigger than 313. Not as large as 500+ but still larger than before.

unless if you have any source or anything to remotely back your claim I can't even consider it speculation

Same to you, in fact I almost said the exact same thing in my last post but I was doing it from my phone so I didn't have long to post. I just can't believe that the improvement in the medals is purely due to a larger team, the quality has to be there too. Wildcard places aside, the quality of the team was such that I think more than 313 would have qualified anyway, but neither of us have the proof of that, that's just what I believe.

How large were the Chinese, US and Russian teams for the last few Olympics? That might be an indicator as they're always near the top of the medal table now.

Ok i give up with you, no where did i say the amount of people we have there contributes to the amount of medals in fact i've been saying exactly the opposite i even told you this and you said we were saying the same thing then and now you're just focusing on something I didn't even say, your lack of comprehension is amazing, either you're fucking with me or you're cleverbot because this lack of comprehension isn't possible from a human, I hope you're just reading too fast because you're on your phone because basically this thread is:

SC: apples are red
NM: no they're not they're red
SC: yeah that's what I said
NM:no it's not
SC:

apples are red

NM: oh ok I thought the opposite"changes subject, talks about increase in numbers"
SC: the increase is because...
NM: STOP SAYING APPLES AREN'T RED

I explained to you the situation in a much simpler way so that hopefully it can help you in future interactions with people

oh and no what you're saying isn't even speculation because you have absolutely nothing to back you up (THIS IS ABOUT THE NUMBER OF ATHLETES GETTING A FREE PASS NOT ABOUT THE NUMBER OF MEDALS, IS THAT CLEAR?) while I do, in the past 50 years the most athletes we sent to the olympic games was 371 in 1992, the rest being between 250-310 on average except for 1988 with 340, and when we host at home where people get free passes we have an increase of over 200 athletes on our team, so yes it's speculation but I do believe that this increase in numbers in our team is due to free passes so I don't believe the vast majority of the GB team were at the olympics were there by their own right like you were saying, this has nothing to do with medals, at this point medals are completely irrelevant to the conversation
just to quote what I was answering in the hopes you don't answer this with some irrelevant off topic argument about medal count like you have done in every post before

I would like to think the vast majority were there by right.

source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Brit ... r_Olympics

Calm down, madam... it's just an internet forum with green apples! No wonder you guys have so many dramas happening with short fuses like the one you've just exhibited. Now, before you get a chance to try and attack me even more, I've had a read back and I think I see what happened here... We were finally on the right track with each other:

Neo Matrix wrote:

south carmain wrote:I meant that the amount we entered is irrelevant because most of the surplus entered wouldn't of even qualified normally hence making no difference at all, someone who has is 40 seconds behind the world champion won't get lucky and win gold

If that's the case, we're saying the exact same thing. I do wonder how many athletes were "host berths" because the other thing that stuck was you saying most of the team were there because of that. I would like to think the vast majority were there by right.

When this happened...

south carmain wrote:It's an over exageration It just means a lot did, if you want to be anal about it a lot barely qualify and the excess got a free pass still doesn't change the fact that it's the only reason we had a bigger team than the us and the amount of medals gained

...which completely threw me for a loop because it contradicted what you had just said. Maybe it was an incomplete sentence, but it made me interpret your words to mean "Bigger Team = More Medals".

As for the team size...

Neo Matrix wrote:I do wonder how many athletes were "host berths"... I would like to think the vast majority were there by right.

So you've misunderstood me there with my "speculation" as I've said I don't know the answer and it was purely hoping that the majority of the team was there by right and not making up the numbers. However, seeing as you've posted some research and a link (thank you for that) we can actually have a look.

• Archery: 6
• Athletics: 0
• Badminton: 0
• Basketball: 0 (I think)
• Boxing: 0
• Canoeing: 2 (1 double canoe)
• Cycling: 0
• Diving: 4
• Equestrian: 12
• Fencing: 8
• Field Hockey: 2 teams
• Football: 2 teams
• Gymnastics: 0
• Handball: 2 teams
• Judo: 14
• Modern Pentathlon: 0 (I think)
• Rowing: 0
• Sailing: 16
• Shooting: 9
• Swimming: 0
• Synchronised Swimming: 2 teams
• Table Tennis: 8
• Taekwondo: 4
• Tennis: 4
• Triathlon: 0
• Volleyball: 4 teams
• Water Polo: 2 teams
• Weightlifting: 5
• Wrestling: 1

That's 106 there and I haven't adjusted for team events which I assume were counted individually for the total of 556 so it does look like the number could be close to the average team, unfortunately. I'll have to look into the teams further.

The only other related question I have then is whether any of those with automatic berths could have qualified by right if they had to. For example one of the archery team probably could have qualified seeing as he came 4th out of 64 behind the 3 Koreans in the seeding round. In Equestrian and Sailing, looking at the medals they probably would have qualified automatically anyway. Judo also had 3 who made it to the quarter-finals or beyond...

Yeah, chill out people. I think Neo is right about the majority of the confusion coming down to what seems to be a slightly confusingly worded sentence. It was probably just easily misinterpreted.

At least that's how I'm seeing it, like saying all the apples in the room are red while holding a green one in your hand.

Neo Matrix wrote:Calm down, madam... it's just an internet forum with green apples! No wonder you guys have so many dramas happening with short fuses like the one you've just exhibited. Now, before you get a chance to try and attack me even more, I've had a read back and I think I see what happened here... We were finally on the right track with each other:

not mad, just tired of you answering every single post with the same thing despite me telling you that we were on the same track over and over again, in the end it feels like you're arguing with me just to argue, if you thought the caps were shouting it wasn't, it was so that you would finally read what I was saying, as for drama I'm barely involved in it, I got pissed once because he insulted my cultural background that's about it

the fact that I posted this

I meant that the amount we entered is irrelevant because most of the surplus entered wouldn't of even qualified normally hence making no difference at all, someone who has is 40 seconds behind the world champion won't get lucky and win gold

and you still argued with me over medal count making me believe you were either fucking with me or needed to be explained to extra carefully, I came off harsh because having to repeat yourself for the 4th time is kind of annoying you know? not to mention like in our previous argument you just ignore half of what I'm saying leading you to completely ignore the point I'm making in the first place (or in this case make one up for me)

as for the poorly worded sentence it just meant the US has usually a bigger team and the fact we had a bigger one than them this year doesn't change the medal count, as I had implied in the post before those who won medals would of qualified anyway as they are all world class athletes

Using caps will always be seen as shouting to me, and you've kind of shown I can still think that way as you "shouted" to make me read that particular part. I wasn't even concentrating on that part though because your swearing and not so subtle hints that you think I'm sub-human on the intelligence scale got my attention more. Explaining things over and over can be annoying, but you can't just speak louder, slower with insults and expect to get the results you want if you don't look at what might be causing the problem in the first place. It's not always just the other person's mistake...

That said, do you finally see where I could have misunderstood what you said as bringing the medal count back into it like mue 26 managed to see? Yes, we were on the same track until it looked like you jumped to the other side of the dual carridgeway!