I did too - swore he had until it showed Phelps in 1st, LOLHoly **** i thought the dude on the bottom was going to catch him.
That was some edge of the couch racing!Holy **** i thought the dude on the bottom was going to catch him.
"Oh say can you see" :americanflag:Maybe if he spent more time swimming and less time staring, that South African loser might have gotten on the podium. Well, at least he's got plenty of time to look at Phelps while they fly Old Glory in a bit.
Michael Phelps has more gold medals than 108 of the countries that have competed in the Olympics -- all time.
1980 was the best & in Lake Placid, NYWinter Olympics seemed bigger back in the day then it is now.
Winter Olympics seemed bigger back in the day then it is now.
Yes, because they lost, and the BB gun competitor won. Have you seen what the air rifle competitors have to hit? A target that the bullseye is about the size of the head of a pencil, from 10 meters away. Being able to hot that consistently and win your event is more impressive than almost winning a basketball game.That scoring system would rate a gold medal as three times as valuable as a bronze. I don't think I'd agree with that. I think being third out of 7 billion humans is worth more than that, especially when the difference is sometimes determined by crooked or incompetent judges, not to mention that not all events are created equal. If some team takes silver after losing the basketball finals in OT to the U.S, would that be half as impressive as winning the BB gun competition?
Yeah, you didnt know what it meant. But keep on being you, dumb guy.What is another word for Thesaurus?
I disagree. Ask Michael Phelps if he felt being edged out for gold four years ago in the 200m fly means his silver is almost as good as the other guy's gold. There's got to be a dividing line somewhere if you do a medal scoring system.Of course there are consequences to winning. No one is saying gold isn't best. The question was whether, in the context of the Olympics and games which come down to thousandths of a second between the two best people on the planet, a gold should be weighted exactly twice as much as a silver. I think that type of scoring system is too simplistic. And no, I don't believe all events are created equal. There are clearly events that are much, much harder to win, and take many more years of dedicated work to reach perfection than others.
This guy gets it.In our reality, being third in anything in the world of 7 billion people would be the biggest accomplishment in the history of our lives or our entire family. However, Olympic athletes aren't competing against 'us'. We wouldn't celebrate a national runner up in the NCAA almost as much as we would a championship, around here.
I'd score Gold 10, Silver 4, Bronze 1. All about the medals, son.
Starting to get the uneasy sense that the USA team is composed of members of the 'Participation Generation' where the main thing is to keep your self esteem intact.
Of course there are consequences to winning. No one is saying gold isn't best. The question was whether, in the context of the Olympics and games which come down to thousandths of a second between the two best people on the planet, a gold should be weighted exactly twice as much as a silver. I think that type of scoring system is too simplistic. And no, I don't believe all events are created equal. There are clearly events that are much, much harder to win, and take many more years of dedicated work to reach perfection than others.