RedRum wrote:

About the hurdles event, are there any penalties for knocking them down? What if a guy knocks down every one of them?? I loved the diving events and also watched the 1000m long run?? The guys ran for 10 laps. Damn I would of collapsed long before that

I did the hurdles in high school. It was an easy way to make the track team because nobody else wanted to do it. There's no penalty for knocking them down. It just slows you down. If you knock all of them down, there's pretty much no way that you're going to win.

And I think you mean 10,000m run. 1000m is only 2 1/2 laps, but 10 laps is only 4000m. I thought that the steeplechase was very interesting because you had to run a long ways and also you had to jump over that hurdle that had a puddle of water on the other side.
_________________

Nergene A.
super-no1.com - (Owner)
J!-ENT - (Photographer)

The Man wrote:

Paul Hamm is NOT number 2. He is number 1. Ichi ban, got it? He won the gold fair and square [bruddah, no worries] under the parameters of the competition's scoring and that's that.[/b]

He may have deserved that gold medal under that judge's opinion, but DO YOU think he really deserved it???!! (out of skill and whatnot. Biasness out of the way) If so, I can't say much, I admit.

The Man wrote:

IF THE RULES NEED TO BE CHANGED FOR FUTURE OLYMPICS GYMNASTICS OR FOR ANY OTHER FRIGGIN' EVENT, THEN IT SHOULD BE DONE! THE SCORES FOR THE XXVIII OLYMPICS ARE IN THE BOOKS ALREADY.[/b]

In the books as bullshit. I'm only picking on Hamm since he is the subject of topic. Trust me, if it were anyone else, I'd be there with some of my two yen.

But, unfortunately, he belongs to the US. But it's not that I have no love for the US, it's just basically that I have no love for bullshit. Period. So take away everyone else' gold medals if they didn't deserve it. Fine. They didn't deserve it and neither did I deserve that cookie in second grade.

The Man wrote:

For gymnastics, scores are rendered by the judges and posted immediately after the gymnast's performance; blame this seeming "rush to judgment" if anything and, you know what? I said before, if scorings from past Olympic gymnastics competitions should be reviewed for improprieties, I bet a lot of mistakes will be found. No one has brought this up yet? I wonder why. Could it be because a lot of medals will be taken away? Then, anyone who has won a gymn' Olympic medal would be calling "foul." Funny how only THEN, when the prospect of past medals getting taken away, would Olympic scoring become a problem outside of Paul Hamm all of a sudden.

That's fine too. I couldn't care less if they took away the gold medals from past time to make up for (the way they should take away Hamm's medal). I mean, since he didn't deserve it and all. I bet if it were another country, you would be on the side I am at this moment. I am not prejudice at all, I don't discrimiate at all. I just don't take bullshit at all. If it were another country, I'd still be saying the same thing.

The Man wrote:

The improprieties are there, make no mistake, but it's not Hamm's fault. The IOC says he keeps the medal. Period. It's in the books that he has it; history'll show what the Olympics community will think of the situation and it's gonna be pretty hard to deny down the road, if you ask me, when it'll prove to be that Hamm's still got the gold.

That's cool. But what they should write in the books is that he DIDN'T deserve it at all. Plain and simple. But you what? They won't write that. And that's what gets to me.

The Man wrote:

From questionable swim starts involving the way a dolphin moves to defrocked priests getting in the way of the intended gold medal winner of this Olympics' marathon, this Olympics -- like ANY OTHER -- was filled w/questionable acts that involved medal wins; SHOULD MORE FRIGGIN' TIME BE SPENT (NO, WASTED) GOING OVER RESULTS THAT ARE ALREADY IN THE BOOKS OR CAN WE BE PROGRESSIVE AND LOOK FORWARD ALREADY, REMEMBERING WHAT HAPPENED IN THE PAST WHILE SOME OF THE OLYMPIC RULES (THAT, ADMITTEDLY, NEED TO BE CHANGED) ARE TREATED????

Then if we are going to start looking forward, why don't we start looking at results FROM NOW???!!!!! Since looking at results from past time would be a waste, why can't we start now than keep going on the same old routine as we have been?

The Man wrote:

And all this controversy only helps Hamm -- when you start seeing him between stories in your sports magazines or in TV commercials, then you gotta' ask the complainers, "was it really worth your time?"

It IS woth our time. Better than giving into something that we don't beleive in. Wouldn't you agree? I know you would. Because you don't put up with anything you don't beleive in. You even told me.

The Man wrote:

ABOVE ALL, HAMM DESERVES THE GOLD AND HE AND A LOT OF OTHERS THINK SO TOO. THAT LAST "BARS" COMPETITION HE PERFORMED THAT ALLOWED HIM TO GET THE GOLD WAS MUCH BETTER -- LESS MISTAKES, IF AT ALL, FOR ONE THING -- THAN, NOT ONLY THE SOUTH KOREAN'S OWN PERFORMANCE, BUT THE OTHERS' PERFORMANCE AS WELL [GO WATCH THE TAPE]. THE REPORTS THAT I'VE BEEN HEARING REGARDING THE POSSIBILITY (and that's ALL it is at best) OF HAMM NOT DESERVING OF THE GOLD MEDAL DON'T SEEM ADDRESS THIS PART OF THE INDIVIDUAL MEN'S COMPETITION. FURTHERMORE, I HAVE YET TO SEE A SPLIT-SCREEN, SIDE-BY-SIDE COMPARISON -- OF THE INDIVIDUAL MEN'S COMPETITION -- BETWEEN HAMM AND THE OTHER CONTESTANTS. IF THAT KIND OF COMPARISON HASN'T BEEN SHOWN (AND YOU KNOW SOMETHING, I REALLY DON'T THINK SOMETHING LIKE THAT HAS YET BEEN SHOWN), THEN THE QUESTION BECOMES "WHY NOT?????" COULD IT BE THAT IF SUBSTANTIVE ARGUMENT, REGARDING THE MEN'S INDIVIDUAL COMPETITION, BECOMES PART OF THIS "HAMM DON'T DESERVE THE GOLD" WITCH HUNT, THEN THE NAYSAYERS'LL HAVE NOTHING TO STAND ON?

Basing Hamm's performance on only ONE event will NOT determine the fact that he deserves a gold. You need to look at all aspects. Not only "The last bars competition". Like you stated above.

The Man wrote:

Think of a situation where someone gets more of a margin than s/he earned; walking away from the proverbial dept. store or supermarket purchase with more change than s/he deserved is a good, garden variety example. Begging the prof' for an extra credit assignment -- that no one else'll probably get -- to get that 10 points needed for an "A" is another good example. You think such a person goes back and return the change? EVERY TIME it happened? ONCE? Did the student go out of his or her way to TELL all of their fellow classmates the prof' is giving extra credit assignments? EVERY time it happened?

You'd be suprised how many people do. I work in a Credit Union, a restaraunt, and at a retail outlet. And you'd be suprised how many people actually do come back to testify against descrepancies (that would benefit their favor). Don't doubt the goodness in peoples' hearts. It might just suprise you.

The Man wrote:

Because you know what? The questions, and answers, for the above boxed paragraph is NOT an analogy to the Hamm situation. I'm just mentioning it. So, whoo hoo!

Then why mention it if it has no relation to the topic at hand? It's like a run on sentence pretty much....................... leads to nowhere........
_________________

ahochaude wrote:

It's like a run on sentence pretty much....................... leads to nowhere........

You said it....

Thanks for listening! :O)

ahochaude wrote:

But, unfortunately, he belongs to the US. But it's not that I have no love for the US, it's just basically that I have no love for bullshit. Period. So take away everyone else' gold medals if they didn't deserve it. Fine . . .

Well, I'm glad this argument was noticed that because Hamm's gold medal IS considered a PAST gold medal (medal stats of the XXVIII Olympics are in the books already, there's no denying that; or would naysayers regarding THAT fact really WANT to go against the entire Olympic world . . . which is BASICALLY the WHOLE world?).

If past stats are reviewed and it's found that a myriad of athletes decades and decades back did not deserve their medals, I can assure you that some edict would be devised by the I.O.C. to say that their medals can't be taken away. It's in the books already.
So, why pick on Hamm's? Why reconsider, why appeal, a score already in the books (which includes the scores that led to Hamm's gold medal) because to pick on only Hamm's past medal (again, because I can't stress it enough, his past medal from this XXVIII Olympics) -- especially while being comfortable with the idea that the XXVIII Olympics was the ONLY Olympics that promoted unfair scoring in the men's gymnastics -- would be to discriminate a past medal.

There needs to be a cutoff point, at least officially (and, come to think of it, there's nothing "least" about that at all), toward agreement of a winner. And you wanna' tell the history books and the folks who have no doubt that Hamm won the gold (don't necessarily designate such folk as solely "fans" of Paul Hamm; even the S. Koreans -- the initial purveyors of the argument that two gold medals should be awarded -- have NOT stated that Hamm's gold should be taken away; but, I wouldn't necessarily call them his "fans" as well), tell us we're ALL wrong, don't be surprised if you're not taken seriously.

The convention is NOT be the controversy but the stats that state that Hamm won the gold. No controversy. No question. Decades down the road, our children doing research on the XXVIII men's gymnastic Olympics will see that Paul Hamm won the gold in the all-around; and it will not be a conspiracy, it will be the truth. JUST LIKE THE RESULTS OF EVERY OTHER PAST OLYMPICS. Are those false? Are we kidding ourselves? Are we in the Matrix? "Got revisionism (oh, don't get me started)"?

For future Olympics, any rules that need to be revised, should be revised. The judges, competiting nations, everyone else directly concerned knew the rules going into their respective competitions for this recently completed Olympiad . . . and there was no problem at the onset.

ahochaude wrote:

Basing Hamm's performance on only ONE event will NOT determine the fact that he deserves a gold. You need to look at all aspects. Not only "The last bars competition". Like you stated above.

Yes, I mentioned the single "bars" round, as anyone who watched that would agree, the points from that portion brought his overall score up.

But I also indicated, "stated," in fact, the "individual men's competition" which IS "all aspects" in the the "individual men's competition" is the name for the entire event. I clearly mention "I HAVE YET TO SEE A SPLIT-SCREEN, SIDE-BY-SIDE COMPARISON -- OF THE INDIVIDUAL MEN'S COMPETITION -- BETWEEN HAMM AND THE OTHER CONTESTANTS." I don't actually have to see that -- I saw the actual competition, and Hamm (except for crashing into the judges table as PART OF THE INDIVDUAL MEN'S COMPETITION) looked the best out of all the other competitors. My point is, the fact that the pundits, the TV news, the South Koreans, FIG, any patron of the pro-"Hamm-don't-deserve-the-gold" argument hasn't offered such a visual, side-by-side comparison.

So . . .

ahochaude wrote:

He may have deserved that gold medal under that judge's opinion, but DO YOU think he really deserved it???!! (out of skill and whatnot. Biasness out of the way) If so, I can't say much, I admit.

Yes, I do think he deserved the gold. He won the gold fair and square. That's my whole point.

Super No. 1 wrote:

I did the hurdles in high school. It was an easy way to make the track team because nobody else wanted to do it. There's no penalty for knocking them down. It just slows you down. If you knock all of them down, there's pretty much no way that you're going to win.

correction, you only lose time if you knock them down the wrong way. you can knock down all but if you do it right you don't lose time.

and to the "hamm-gate"..I think he should keep his medal, the judges did a misstake, but if they would correct it later they would have to correct a lot of stuff, like Kitajimas kick that the judges didn't see etc..would just make everything chaotic and you could just as well screw the judges and only depend on the camera..

Super No. 1 wrote:

I did the hurdles in high school. It was an easy way to make the track team because nobody else wanted to do it. There's no penalty for knocking them down. It just slows you down. If you knock all of them down, there's pretty much no way that you're going to win. And I think you mean 10,000m run. 1000m is only 2 1/2 laps, but 10 laps is only 4000m. I thought that the steeplechase was very interesting because you had to run a long ways and also you had to jump over that hurdle that had a puddle of water on the other side.

I thought I saw someone knock down all the hurdles in one of the prelim events and still took number 1. My dad kept saying it was strategy, LOL

Back in the day, I ran the 110 hurdles in high school.

At one track meet, since the lanes are spaced somewhat tightly and the hurdles are so light, one of the guys took the 3rd or 4th hurdle at an off angle and caused a domino effect, each hurdler bumping slightly into the other hurdler, so about 4 or 5 guys crashed to the track.

My amigo Steve and I both immediately got up and knowing there was no way we could now win, we both ran straight forward, knocking down the hurdles in front of us as we ran!
-PCM

I watched the women's volleyball final Russia vs. China. What an amazing game. It made me a fan of this sport.

I still feel very sorry for the Brazilian Runner who was taken out of gold contention by the crazy Irish X-Priest. That was just too bizarre.
_________________

The Man wrote:

Well, I'm glad this argument was noticed that because Hamm's gold medal IS considered a PAST gold medal (medal stats of the XXVIII Olympics are in the books already, there's no denying that; or would naysayers regarding THAT fact really WANT to go against the entire Olympic world . . . which is BASICALLY the WHOLE world?). ............................... ............................... ............................... ............................... ............................... ............................... ............................... For future Olympics, any rules that need to be revised, should be revised. The judges, competiting nations, everyone else directly concerned knew the rules going into their respective competitions for this recently completed Olympiad . . . and there was no problem at the onset.

That's why I said they should start now. I said if they wanted to do it to others from past time, then I have no problem with that. I never said that they should do it now.
And I'm only picking on Hamm because that's how this whole conversation came up and about. Nothing against the guy. My main gripe is that I don't beleive he deserved the medal, that's all.

ahochaude wrote:

He may have deserved that gold medal under that judge's opinion, but DO YOU think he really deserved it???!! (out of skill and whatnot. Biasness out of the way) If so, I can't say much, I admit.

The Man wrote:

Yes, I do think he deserved the gold. He won the gold fair and square. That's my whole point.

Ok, so you think he deserved it. I said my piece so I'm not going to continue anymore. If you aren't finished yet, then you may go on..


On another note..... Time to eat lunch. Didja go yet? I think I'm going to Imari now. (Depends on how long they'll take to make my bento). We go Gomaichi again, later.
_________________

ahochaude wrote:

Ok, so you think he deserved it. I said my piece so I'm not going to continue anymore. If you aren't finished yet, then you may go on.. On another note..... Time to eat lunch. Didja go yet? I think I'm going to Imari now. (Depends on how long they'll take to make my bento). We go Gomaichi again, later.

GASP!!!!! Oh, gosh . . . I must needs go to lunch at 1pm-ish, got the 2:30pm-ish meeting and all. Uh, should I try to . . . I'll walk past by there at that time?

Regardless of what Paul Hamm does, it's a lose-lose for him now... He's always gonna have to carry that albatross around unless he goes to Beijing and wins the all-around again...

The Man wrote:

GASP!!!!! Oh, gosh . . . I must needs go to lunch at 1pm-ish, got the 2:30pm-ish meeting and all. Uh, should I try to . . . I'll walk past by there at that time?

Sorry, came back already.

Where did you go? Subway? Gomaichi?
_________________

ahochaude wrote:

Sorry, came back already. Where did you go? Subway? Gomaichi?

Ah, shucks. Sorry, man. I never when go yet. Ah, shucks. I'm gonna' leave in a few mins, though . . . I actually should go Ala Moana . . . go Longs pick up my rubbahs. Ha. . Nah. Uh . . . yeah, I gotta' go there. Ahhhh, shucks, have I said that enough already?

I dunno what I going eat, now.

Tell us what you got, ahochaude. How long they took to make 'em?

I ordered the Tori No Karaage. (Fried Chicken)
Took them about 15 minutes to make it. (Which is actually pretty good timing for them)
But they gave me $4.00 change back in quarters 'cause they ran out of dollar bills.

Always something with them.
_________________

ahochaude wrote:

I ordered the Tori No Karaage. (Fried Chicken) Took them about 15 minutes to make it. (Which is actually pretty good timing for them) But they gave me $4.00 change back in quarters 'cause they ran out of dollar bills. Always something with them.

AHAHAHAHA... That's hilarious...

One time when I went to the movies with a friend of mine, he gave them a twenty and they gave him back fourteen ones: His wallet was as thick as a Big Mac....

bmwracer wrote:

AHAHAHAHA... That's hilarious... One time when I went to the movies with a friend of mine, he gave them a twenty and they gave him back fourteen ones: His wallet was as thick as a Big Mac....

Oh man, tht sucks. I'd get all bent out of shape if it were me.
Why don't those idiots get change when they realize that they are running low???!!
_________________

ahochaude wrote:

Oh man, tht sucks. I'd get all bent out of shape if it were me. Why don't those idiots get change when they realize that they are running low???!!

Ahhh, I never when eat nothin'; too hot.

Truly . . next time tell 'em, "eh, you no go bank, or what?"

Oh, man . . . all those quarters. I know there's some kind of rule or law, even, that says that as a retailer, and, I'd imagine, as a consumer, you don't have to accept an overage of pennies as change. Meaning, you don't have to recognize that as viable currency. Is that right?

ahochaude wrote:

Always something with them.

Next time we both go . . . not to say there's any problem with you, ahochaude, because there is not, but, when I go, I be treated w/great service there, for a take-out place. We'll get to the bottom of this . . .

NOTE: anybody remember that Final Fantasy movie? Well, the CGIers and/or animators or whatever they call themselves did a bulk of the work here on Oahu (I think the company is [or "was"] called "Square"). Anyway, if you watch the credits, they thank a certain "Imari" for the food, something along those lines. THAT "Imari" is the same "Imari" me and ahochaude, and some others go to -- the bentos are THAT good. Japanese style rice, Japanese-style burger, et al.

ahochaude wrote:

Oh man, tht sucks. I'd get all bent out of shape if it were me. Why don't those idiots get change when they realize that they are running low???!!

The bizarre thing about that was we went to a matinee: we were the first people in the movie theater, so you'd think they'd have change.... Kooky.

I don't really understand what there is to argue about whether Hamm deserved the gold or not. It is a FACT that the judges made a mistake, and it is a fact that the South Korean SHOULD have won the gold. Although, I have to agree now that they should just forget about it already, and move on, and no, they can't take away his gold already, because it's after the fact. Although I don't think there's any doubt that the South Korean should've been the one to get gold.

hatakekakashi081 wrote:

Although, I have to agree now that they should just forget about it already, and move on, and no, they can't take away his gold already, because it's after the fact. Although I don't think there's any doubt that the South Korean should've been the one to get gold.

Well, I hope no one expects a "oh, by the way, the South Korean deserved the gold" in the 'lympic history books or similar item thereof.

What gets me is he's being ASKED to give his gold up or give it to the S. Korean. That's the ONLY way the latter can get that medal.

Man . . . I am actually getting tired of writing about this . But, it's OK. Hamm's the real winner of the gold .