Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

The Ochlympics: Glasgow 2014

So the best part of the Games was the Aussie bit at the end. What a shit event.

It really is a waste of time and money. What's the point of spending all that dosh when most of the world's best athletes arent even there? And even if they are (Bolt) they can't be arsed even competing in most of their best events. Men's 100m final won in 10 secs. What's the point of that?
 
So the best part of the Games was the Aussie bit at the end. What a shit event.

It really is a waste of time and money. What's the point of spending all that dosh when most of the world's best athletes arent even there? And even if they are (Bolt) they can't be arsed even competing in most of their best events. Men's 100m final won in 10 secs. What's the point of that?
you could argue that any 100m without Bolt isn't worth running - he didn't run in the solo events as he is recovering from injury - what's the point of European Championships if Bolt isn't there, what's the point of the World Cup if Bolt isn't there, the Americas Cup, Wimbledon, The Masters - they should just give them to Bolt
 
So the best part of the Games was the Aussie bit at the end. What a shit event.

No, that the worst part

It really is a waste of time and money. What's the point of spending all that dosh when most of the world's best athletes arent even there? And even if they are (Bolt) they can't be arsed even competing in most of their best events. Men's 100m final won in 10 secs. What's the point of that?

I don't think so. Athletes who didn't make Olympic teams get the chance to compete and win medals. Fair enough, someone like a gymnast for example isn't getting to compete against the East Europeans/Chinese etc. but the athletes still get to compete against the Jamaicans/Kenyans. You also get to see some potential stars of the future (the two young gymnasts, Fragapane and Wilson).
 
So the best part of the Games was the Aussie bit at the end. What a shit event.

It really is a waste of time and money. What's the point of spending all that dosh when most of the world's best athletes arent even there? And even if they are (Bolt) they can't be arsed even competing in most of their best events. Men's 100m final won in 10 secs. What's the point of that?

It could be that the Commonwealth Games is celebrating an anachronism: something about Britain's imperial past that should now be gently forgotten.

I don't know anything about the Commonwealth and the benefits it offers for trade and suchlike but I know that two countries (Namibia and Mozambique) have chosen to become members despite the fact they were never part of Britain's colonial past. So there must be something to attract countries to join up. Despite its history, I quite like the modern idea of a family of nations, not bounded by geography: one that touches all continents and all religions and all colours. And the idea of them all coming together for a regular festival of sport seems only to be a good thing to me.

I don't know how I would take the Commonwealth Games into the future. For the last couple of decades, it has been struggling with credibility, now that the World Athletics Championships has joined the Olympic Games as a premier world sporting event.

It could go either of two ways, I think. Either you use the gate money and the broadcast money to offer good appearance fees: so you can ensure you attract the big-money names. Or you can make the whole thing a charity bonanza (I think this year, it made £5 million for UNICEF) and turn the whole thing into a Festival of Sport, rather than a world-ranking competitive games.:)
 
Back
Top Bottom