|
Post by Tiruray2004 on Aug 25, 2008 20:05:53 GMT -5
Your "feeling" may reflect a very real phenomenon. Every television producer's dream is to control outcomes for maximum ratings. The IOC exists to sell ad revenue. Therefore, they necessarily must be concerned with the marketability of their product. Seems like a reasonable suspicion to me. I remember reading some column (blatantly biased) noting that the majority of China's gold medal haul was from judged sports like gymnastics, boxing, and diving. We all have suspicions that athletes from the host country get a boost. It happens all the time and I suspect the US got it when the Olympics were in Atlanta and LA. It's not to say that the judging was blatantly biased, but that there might have been a subconscious boost. I remember watching one of the boxing matches, and how commentator Teddy Atlas was noting clear blows landed by an Irish boxer that weren't being registered by the judges (using that strange 3 of five judges pressing buttons within one second system) against a Chinese fighter. This system was instituted after Roy Jones Jr clearly outclassed his South Korean opponent during the Seoul Olympics, but lost in a 3-2 decision. If you were the judge and they offered you $1 million dollars, what would you do? Wasn;t hat part of the $40 billion dollar budget anyways??
|
|
|
Post by BearClause on Aug 25, 2008 20:12:25 GMT -5
And as an American, it's pretty hyprocritical for me to complain about China given that Paul Hamm (2004) and Marian Jones (2000) benefited greatly from some questionable actions. I just want to appreciate the incredible moments some of the athletes gave me and the fact that I got to feel overly-patriotic for sixteen days. The Olympics are great! Jones was flat out on illegal PEDs. Hamm's case I can understand. He had a score to beat and the rules were set up such that competitors know what they have to do. I've heard Hamm's interviews saying that if Yang Tae-Young (who got the bronze) had a higher score coming in, he would have adjusted his last event to create a higher difficulty. In any case, I've heard experts comment that Yang had committed an illegal action (four pauses when the rules state no more than three) in that parallel bar routine which should have been deducted 0.2 points. If you subtract that after adding an additional 0.1 start points he'd end up completely out of the medals. I've read the Court of Arbitration for Sport ruling, and this is clearly stated in the final report. Altering a score on an ongoing or done event with a cumulative score is unusual. I'd think it would be like a one point basketball win being overturned because they reviewed a replay from early in the first half and determined that a player had taken several three point shots that had been ruled as two point shots. As it is, most rulebooks I know of only allow for quick judgements at the next break in the action to determine two/three point shots. You've got to know what you're up against.
|
|
|
Post by hammer on Aug 25, 2008 20:15:31 GMT -5
Ya, pretty hard to argue against the physics that concludes that in certain events (e.g., balance beam and uneven bars) small, skinny girls have an advantage. Regarding boxing, the technology exists to judge the sport much more accurately now. Hi definition video cameras placed at several angles could record the live action, then judges could score points via replay and slow motion. The results wouldn't be known for approx. 15 minutes after the fight ended. But in the interest of fairness, I wouldn't mind the wait. I still can't believe the look on the face of the South Korean boxer who defeated Roy Jones in Seoul immediately after it was announced he had won. It was like -- are you sure I'm the winner -- you must of added wrong, or something.
|
|
|
Post by BearClause on Aug 25, 2008 20:20:24 GMT -5
Ya, pretty hard to argue against the physics that concludes that in certain events (e.g., balance beam and uneven bars) small, skinny girls have an advantage. Regarding boxing, the technology exists to judge the sport much more accurately now. Hi definition video cameras placed at several angles could record the live action, then judges could score points via replay and slow motion. The results wouldn't be known for approx. 15 minutes after the fight ended. But in the interest of fairness, I wouldn't mind the wait. I still can't believe the look on the face of the South Korean boxer who defeated Roy Jones in Seoul immediately after it was announced he had won. It was like -- are you sure I'm the winner -- you must of added wrong, or something. I was looking into this, and read some claim that one of the judge said he was sure the other judges would decide for Jones - so he decided to vote for Park so as to not make him look bad in front of the home crowd.
|
|
|
Post by OverAndUnder on Aug 25, 2008 21:58:19 GMT -5
Your "feeling" may reflect a very real phenomenon. Every television producer's dream is to control outcomes for maximum ratings. The IOC exists to sell ad revenue. Therefore, they necessarily must be concerned with the marketability of their product. Seems like a reasonable suspicion to me. I remember reading some column (blatantly biased) noting that the majority of China's gold medal haul was from judged sports like gymnastics, boxing, and diving. We all have suspicions that athletes from the host country get a boost. It happens all the time and I suspect the US got it when the Olympics were in Atlanta and LA. It's not to say that the judging was blatantly biased, but that there might have been a subconscious boost. I remember watching one of the boxing matches, and how commentator Teddy Atlas was noting clear blows landed by an Irish boxer that weren't being registered by the judges (using that strange 3 of five judges pressing buttons within one second system) against a Chinese fighter. This system was instituted after Roy Jones Jr clearly outclassed his South Korean opponent during the Seoul Olympics, but lost in a 3-2 decision. While there is no doubt plenty of nationalistic influence-peddling going on, I think the next ten years will see the continuation of an enormous but mostly submerged attempt to turn professional sports into Faux Reality TV programming, in which small disclaimers in the credits often inform viewers that the judges used input from the producers and studio staff to decide who gets cut and who gets to stay. Arbitrary judgment of participants gives the producers more leeway to help the most attractive players and volatile situations stay in the public eye. They have been raking in ad revenue hand over fist in regard to guys like Michael Vick and Pacman Jones. Football is so heavily rule-based and replay-friendly that it is one of the most difficult sports to influence outcomes by tampering with the officials. The day some monobrow horse-faced girl with a big nose and crooked teeth to wins major Figure Skating championships I will retract everything I'm saying here.
|
|
|
Post by hammer on Aug 26, 2008 17:20:20 GMT -5
Ice dancing is one of the sports where beauty seems to have one of the biggest effects on the judging. Contrast that to pairs where you really have to be pretty athletic to win any top flight competition.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 26, 2008 17:35:03 GMT -5
That and hockey.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Aug 26, 2008 18:32:06 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by TheSantaBarbarian on Aug 27, 2008 10:35:03 GMT -5
I didn't know they judged on the costumes.
|
|
|
Post by BearClause on Aug 27, 2008 11:09:41 GMT -5
I didn't know they judged on the costumes. The horses have to be impeccably groomed. Manes are almost always braided, and I wouldn't be surprised if judges marked off for an unkempt looking horse.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 27, 2008 11:38:32 GMT -5
Or one with an attitude. I know Mr. Ed was DQ'd back in the day.
|
|
|
Post by Phaedrus on Aug 27, 2008 12:04:39 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by ucsdfan on Aug 28, 2008 0:08:36 GMT -5
Or one with an attitude. I know Mr. Ed was DQ'd back in the day. Mr. Ed apparently had a connection to Balco. If you notice how much larger he was in season 2 than season 1, it's pretty obvious... and I mean Barry Bonds obvious, not Tour de France obvious.
|
|