| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Davers
Joined: 10 Oct 2007
Posts: 4619
Location: In a van down by the river
|
 Posted: Sun Aug 05, 2012 12:40 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Watching Oscar Pistorius run the 400m is absolutely amazing. So glad they let him run it. Shows the Olympics are definitely a love for the sport. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
thecaptainof 
Joined: 04 May 2007
Posts: 7571
Location: ¯\(°_o)/¯
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 05, 2012 2:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Kinitawowi wrote: | So the Brits seem to have had a bit of a day.
Jess Ennis romped it, Mo Farah timed it to perfection and nobody else went after Greg Rutherford. And then there was rowing and cycling and more rowing. |
I wondered if the weight of expectation on Jess Ennis would be too much, with her being the face of the Games an' all. Stupid to worry, she's amazing. All round, a great day.
We're not talking about penalty shootouts.
_________________
| yksi-kaksi-kolme wrote: | | Wow Mr. Mad, who fucked your buffalo? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pizzzapizza
Joined: 16 Feb 2007
Posts: 1281
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 05, 2012 3:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
Michael Phelps is retiring from the Olympics did any1 hear that?
makes me feel sad right now  because can be compared to him |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
alexhaz64
Joined: 01 Mar 2008
Posts: 4480
Location: Long Beach, CA
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
f4phantom2500
Joined: 15 Mar 2007
Posts: 2885
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 05, 2012 12:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| alexhaz64 wrote: | | pizzzapizza wrote: | Michael Phelps is retiring from the Olympics did any1 hear that?
makes me feel sad right now because can be compared to him |
I don't see what's so sad about it. The guy is 27 years old, he will probably never again be in as good of shape as he has been, and his whole life has basically been dedicated to the sport. He's had such a stellar career, and he's pretty much set for life. I think he's earned his retirement. 
So I guess track events are starting now? I think I might actually make an effort to watch those  (especially excited for Usain Bolt :p) |
thing is, swimming is really easy on the joints unlike, say, running, weightlifting, gymnastics, etc...personally i don't see a reason why he couldn't come back in 2016; he will only be 31. i think it's a little bit of 2 things. 1, he may think that, in 4 more years, he may not be able to dominate as he does today. hell, even now he's not as dominating as he was in beijing. of course, with enough dedication and training i think he could get back to his former peak. i'd heard that kinda let himself go and only seriously trained for london for the last year and a half. if he really prepares for rio he could definitely do well...but that's part 2. i think the expectations and stress of his position made him depressed and i think he is just tired of dealing with it and wants to move on to other things in his life. it's not like he has anything to prove and i'm sure that he could literally retire and do nothing except enjoy the rest of his life and he would be fine. but, with someone like that, he will likely take on another venture. i heard he might try to get into acting, that'd be interesting.
_________________
Here''''''''s a playlist of my FC videos of the 7 hardest songs to FC in GH1...also Cheat on the Church:
http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=4A83D02058247AC5
***subscribe plz*** (hint: playing along to vids can help you in GH1 ;) PM me if you need song/section-specific advice).
47/ 64/ 29/ 68/ 41/ 85/ 48/ 47/ 85/ 46/ 87// 647 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bclare
Joined: 21 Jun 2008
Posts: 6048
Location: Boston
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 05, 2012 5:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The dude has done nothing but swim for his entire life, 27 years is enough for him to want a change. He's broken every record, there's no reason he needs to stick around swimming more. He has a lucrative career ahead of him as a celebrity celebrity; he'll write a sappy memoir or two (well, someone else will ghostwrite it for him), he'll get on Dancing with the Stars, he'll still have endorsements from Subway plus whatever else. I wouldn't begrudge him for choosing that life, at least he became famous because he had an incredible talent at something.
_________________
I'm back I suppose |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ShadoWolf
Joined: 21 Jul 2008
Posts: 2034
Location: Slough, England
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 05, 2012 9:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Bolt takes the 100m Men's final with a staggeringly quick 9.63. The worrying thing? He was slow off the mark. I think he could go for a sub 9.5 on his best day. 
_________________
  | PiemanLK wrote: | | Look, someone actually had to point out that singing "solo" meant singing alone. This is why we allow people to work registers at McDonald's that can't make change and it makes me want to run my face under a belt sander. For the love of tits, how can you be on the internet in 2012 and not think "maybe I can Google this word I should have learned in first grade before making a thread about it". |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Vampyromaniac
Joined: 08 Feb 2008
Posts: 1216
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 06, 2012 2:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
Does anyone else think the .1 second false start time limit should be adjusted? What happens when a world-class athlete is able to legitimately do it in .09? I personally think it should be changed to about .08. That small amount of time does make a difference for the 100m, and more importantly we won't be shitting on any player who happens to have unprecedented reflexes. Maybe I'm just paranoid, but I really hate to see players disqualified for false starts when they began well after the gun was fired.
_________________
[/u] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
psxfreak101 
Joined: 16 Feb 2007
Posts: 2141
Location: Gold Coast, Australia
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 06, 2012 3:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
It's a shame Powell pulled up during the final, because realistically that was going to be an entire field of sub-10 times in the final which is a crazy thought. Ah well, at least Usain Bolt didn't actually slack off this time which is all I'd hoped for out of the final.
Anywho, that wasn't why I came to post, I just wanted to share this hilarious article:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=10825019
Now, I know Australia are struggling like hell to win gold medals at these games thus far, but that isn't the way to improve their tally 
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Davers
Joined: 10 Oct 2007
Posts: 4619
Location: In a van down by the river
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kinitawowi
Joined: 18 Sep 2007
Posts: 1074
Location: Newham, London, UK
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Vampyromaniac wrote: | | Does anyone else think the .1 second false start time limit should be adjusted? What happens when a world-class athlete is able to legitimately do it in .09? I personally think it should be changed to about .08. That small amount of time does make a difference for the 100m, and more importantly we won't be shitting on any player who happens to have unprecedented reflexes. Maybe I'm just paranoid, but I really hate to see players disqualified for false starts when they began well after the gun was fired. |
They were talking about this sort of thing when Linford Christie got disqualified in the 1996 final for a reaction time of about 0.0976 or something - with the start being so significant, was it beyond the realms of possibility that somebody could potentially mentally train themselves to get out that fast? Which shows the problem; there is literally no way to distinguish between reaction and anticipation. Ultimately, the average reaction time in the 100m in pro sprinting is about 0.14s, not particularly close to 0.1, and there's scientific backing to say you can't get that low without anticipating (the speed of sound is the first variable that needs to be considered).
TLDR; it's probably fine as it is. The rule itself probably needs changing, but since it's the way it is because of the demands of American TV audiences that's not going to happen any time soon.
_________________
My Crapchievements Thread GOAL: The Log [Beast And The Harlot 4.7*]
"Our Father, who art in Heaven... please, stay there." - Saint Etienne, New Thing |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
psxfreak101
Joined: 16 Feb 2007
Posts: 2141
Location: Gold Coast, Australia
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 06, 2012 9:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I was actually awake in time to see if Valerie Adams would successfully defend her Shotput crown (and thus give us Kiwis our 4th gold), only to see Ostapchuk throw like a woman possessed. You know you've done well when you beat Adams' best with 4 of your throws in the final, considering that this ended up being her first loss in apparently 21 events and 2 years. Good stuff. She wasn't the only world champ to fall in the field today either which is honestly always fun to see.
Next on the to-see list for me: Sally Pearson hopefully winning the 100m hurdles. I'm almost certain Australia will riot if she doesn't win that, given how harsh the media/public have been about their swimming performance.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Benster26
Joined: 31 Jan 2009
Posts: 1348
Location: London, England
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 06, 2012 11:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kinitawowi wrote: | | Vampyromaniac wrote: | | Does anyone else think the .1 second false start time limit should be adjusted? What happens when a world-class athlete is able to legitimately do it in .09? I personally think it should be changed to about .08. That small amount of time does make a difference for the 100m, and more importantly we won't be shitting on any player who happens to have unprecedented reflexes. Maybe I'm just paranoid, but I really hate to see players disqualified for false starts when they began well after the gun was fired. |
They were talking about this sort of thing when Linford Christie got disqualified in the 1996 final for a reaction time of about 0.0976 or something - with the start being so significant, was it beyond the realms of possibility that somebody could potentially mentally train themselves to get out that fast? Which shows the problem; there is literally no way to distinguish between reaction and anticipation. Ultimately, the average reaction time in the 100m in pro sprinting is about 0.14s, not particularly close to 0.1, and there's scientific backing to say you can't get that low without anticipating (the speed of sound is the first variable that needs to be considered).
TLDR; it's probably fine as it is. The rule itself probably needs changing, but since it's the way it is because of the demands of American TV audiences that's not going to happen any time soon. |
Even turning a stopwatch on and off in less than 0.1 seconds is very, very hard so I highly doubt that anyone could legitimatley react to the gun in less than that time. However, I don't see a problem, with an athlete anticipating it and going. Surely the gun is the same time after the read-set every time =, so I'm sure most athletes try and anticipate the gun to a certain extent, no?
_________________
psn: benloves26
Back on the 11th! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Benster26
Joined: 31 Jan 2009
Posts: 1348
Location: London, England
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 06, 2012 11:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kinitawowi wrote: | | Vampyromaniac wrote: | | Does anyone else think the .1 second false start time limit should be adjusted? What happens when a world-class athlete is able to legitimately do it in .09? I personally think it should be changed to about .08. That small amount of time does make a difference for the 100m, and more importantly we won't be shitting on any player who happens to have unprecedented reflexes. Maybe I'm just paranoid, but I really hate to see players disqualified for false starts when they began well after the gun was fired. |
They were talking about this sort of thing when Linford Christie got disqualified in the 1996 final for a reaction time of about 0.0976 or something - with the start being so significant, was it beyond the realms of possibility that somebody could potentially mentally train themselves to get out that fast? Which shows the problem; there is literally no way to distinguish between reaction and anticipation. Ultimately, the average reaction time in the 100m in pro sprinting is about 0.14s, not particularly close to 0.1, and there's scientific backing to say you can't get that low without anticipating (the speed of sound is the first variable that needs to be considered).
TLDR; it's probably fine as it is. The rule itself probably needs changing, but since it's the way it is because of the demands of American TV audiences that's not going to happen any time soon. |
Even turning a stopwatch on and off in less than 0.1 seconds is very, very hard so I highly doubt that anyone could legitimatley react to the gun in less than that time. However, I don't see a problem, with an athlete anticipating it and going. Surely the gun is the same time after the read-set every time =, so I'm sure most athletes try and anticipate the gun to a certain extent, no?
_________________
psn: benloves26
Back on the 11th! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
f4phantom2500
Joined: 15 Mar 2007
Posts: 2885
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 07, 2012 10:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Benster26 wrote: | | Kinitawowi wrote: | | Vampyromaniac wrote: | | Does anyone else think the .1 second false start time limit should be adjusted? What happens when a world-class athlete is able to legitimately do it in .09? I personally think it should be changed to about .08. That small amount of time does make a difference for the 100m, and more importantly we won't be shitting on any player who happens to have unprecedented reflexes. Maybe I'm just paranoid, but I really hate to see players disqualified for false starts when they began well after the gun was fired. |
They were talking about this sort of thing when Linford Christie got disqualified in the 1996 final for a reaction time of about 0.0976 or something - with the start being so significant, was it beyond the realms of possibility that somebody could potentially mentally train themselves to get out that fast? Which shows the problem; there is literally no way to distinguish between reaction and anticipation. Ultimately, the average reaction time in the 100m in pro sprinting is about 0.14s, not particularly close to 0.1, and there's scientific backing to say you can't get that low without anticipating (the speed of sound is the first variable that needs to be considered).
TLDR; it's probably fine as it is. The rule itself probably needs changing, but since it's the way it is because of the demands of American TV audiences that's not going to happen any time soon. |
Even turning a stopwatch on and off in less than 0.1 seconds is very, very hard so I highly doubt that anyone could legitimatley react to the gun in less than that time. However, I don't see a problem, with an athlete anticipating it and going. Surely the gun is the same time after the read-set every time =, so I'm sure most athletes try and anticipate the gun to a certain extent, no? |
the way i see it you'd be taking a pretty huge risk if you were anticipating it because of course you could go before...so in my mind if you can get off the block in such a short time it should be legit. they *could* have the athletes wear a small earbud to hear it, which would eliminate any delay caused by the speed of sound.
_________________
Here''''''''s a playlist of my FC videos of the 7 hardest songs to FC in GH1...also Cheat on the Church:
http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=4A83D02058247AC5
***subscribe plz*** (hint: playing along to vids can help you in GH1 ;) PM me if you need song/section-specific advice).
47/ 64/ 29/ 68/ 41/ 85/ 48/ 47/ 85/ 46/ 87// 647 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Copyright © 2006-2024 ScoreHero, LLC
|
Powered by phpBB
|
![Inbox [ Login ]](templates/subSilver/images/icon_mini_message.gif){kind=icon}
Inbox [ Login ]
Search
Memberlist
Profile
Log in
