Rio Olympic Games 2016

[ACVilla]

We've done very little in field athletics for example.

Agreed, I love watching field athletics. Oh for the glorious failures of Dalton Grant and Steve Backley. And the perennial eigth place for Mick Hill.

Does anyone know what happened to Steve Lewis?

According to Wikipedia he finished 29th at the World Championships last year.

Thanks. He turned average then. We had a female pole vaulter who I think broke the UK record as well recently. I'll have to wiki her

[ACVilla]

We've done very little in field athletics for example.

Agreed, I love watching field athletics. Oh for the glorious failures of Dalton Grant and Steve Backley. And the perennial eigth place for Mick Hill.

Does anyone know what happened to Steve Lewis?

According to Wikipedia he finished 29th at the World Championships last year.

Thanks. He turned average then. We had a female pole vaulter who I think broke the UK record as well recently. I'll have to wiki her

Holly Bradshaw apparantly, not who I was thinking of, it was Kate Dennison.

[Risso]

Well, on the whole I really enjoyed the Olympics.  GB have outdone themselves, with a magnificent medal haul in wide variety of sports.  A few things though:

Take out Mo, and we're exceedingly crap in Track and Field.  Where are the sprinters and middle distance runners, and all of the other events ike discus, hammer and pole vault etc?

Surely they need to even out the medals available in the various events.  The USA got 33 medals, about a quarter of their total in swimming.  Also, as pleased as I was for Nicola Adams, she was guaranteed a bronze after winning one fight.  And sort the bloody judges out for the boxing, they were a disgrace.

[TopDeck113]

What we need to start looking at now is finding ways to improve in the sports/areas where we've failed or at least not had much success. 

No. What we need to start looking at now is why the easily-cited inspiration of winning a large haul of medals doesn't translate into increased participation. Why two hours per week of P.E. is no longer statutory in schools.  Why cuts in council budgets inevitably mean a disproportionate cut in funding of leisure and sports facilities.  In an ideal world, developing and delivering world class performers should be the by-product of a culture of mass participation by all - and especially the young. 

[Ads]

Funding for scholarships at universities where the thick fast kid can get a "degree" in some made up shite like sociology while spending 90% of their time training for the 400 metres. That's how the Americans do it.

[Ger Regan]

Funding for scholarships at universities where the thick fast kid can get a "degree" in some made up shite like sociology while spending 90% of their time training for the 400 metres. That's how the Americans do it.

This is not a million miles away from GB's recipe for success, is it?

[paul_e]

What we need to start looking at now is finding ways to improve in the sports/areas where we've failed or at least not had much success. 

No. What we need to start looking at now is why the easily-cited inspiration of winning a large haul of medals doesn't translate into increased participation. Why two hours per week of P.E. is no longer statutory in schools.  Why cuts in council budgets inevitably mean a disproportionate cut in funding of leisure and sports facilities.  In an ideal world, developing and delivering world class performers should be the by-product of a culture of mass participation by all - and especially the young. 

Not really, that's a very different problem and comes down to the effect of austerity and the politicising of education.

[thick_mike]

I don't have any stats, but the number of people cycling and jogging around this neck of the woods seems to have massively increased over the last ten years. Focus seems to be on individual exercise and fitness rather than competitive sport.

[LeeS]

I don't have any stats, but the number of people cycling and jogging around this neck of the woods seems to have massively increased over the last ten years. Focus seems to be on individual exercise and fitness rather than competitive sport.

Maybe a reflection of the diminished social cohesion. We are all more solitary in our outlook now.

[PaulWinch again]

Well, on the whole I really enjoyed the Olympics.  GB have outdone themselves, with a magnificent medal haul in wide variety of sports.  A few things though:

Take out Mo, and we're exceedingly crap in Track and Field.  Where are the sprinters and middle distance runners, and all of the other events ike discus, hammer and pole vault etc?

Surely they need to even out the medals available in the various events.  The USA got 33 medals, about a quarter of their total in swimming.  Also, as pleased as I was for Nicola Adams, she was guaranteed a bronze after winning one fight.  And sort the bloody judges out for the boxing, they were a disgrace.

I think once Bolt is gone Gemilli will be up there in the 200 metres. He's got a good flat speed and runs a great bend. He's also got plenty of scope to improve.

[TopDeck113]

What we need to start looking at now is finding ways to improve in the sports/areas where we've failed or at least not had much success. 

No. What we need to start looking at now is why the easily-cited inspiration of winning a large haul of medals doesn't translate into increased participation. Why two hours per week of P.E. is no longer statutory in schools.  Why cuts in council budgets inevitably mean a disproportionate cut in funding of leisure and sports facilities.  In an ideal world, developing and delivering world class performers should be the by-product of a culture of mass participation by all - and especially the young. 

Not really, that's a very different problem and comes down to the effect of austerity and the politicising of education.

I disagree.  The potential gold medal winners of 2032 are already born and, for the most part, already at school.  If they're not hooked on participation and have easy/cheap access to grass-roots facilities over the next few years, then all the Lottery funding in the world is not going to delivery success at the very pinnacle of sport, at least not on the scale and breadth that we are becoming accustomed to, when they hit their twenties.

However, my wider point is, given the choice between millions of people participating in sport and physical recreation or the feel good factor of a hundred-odd of our citizens winning medals every four years, I think the former is not only the preferable option for our collective long-term health and well-being, but has the potential of actually delivering even more success.   I'm not advocating that UK Sport no longer funds the top level programmes, but I wonder whether additional - and much greater amounts of - Lottery money shouldn't be directed towards creating that base.

[Risso]

What we need to start looking at now is finding ways to improve in the sports/areas where we've failed or at least not had much success. 

No. What we need to start looking at now is why the easily-cited inspiration of winning a large haul of medals doesn't translate into increased participation. Why two hours per week of P.E. is no longer statutory in schools.  Why cuts in council budgets inevitably mean a disproportionate cut in funding of leisure and sports facilities.  In an ideal world, developing and delivering world class performers should be the by-product of a culture of mass participation by all - and especially the young. 

Not really, that's a very different problem and comes down to the effect of austerity and the politicising of education.

I disagree.  The potential gold medal winners of 2032 are already born and, for the most part, already at school.  If they're not hooked on participation and have easy/cheap access to grass-roots facilities over the next few years, then all the Lottery funding in the world is not going to delivery success at the very pinnacle of sport, at least not on the scale and breadth that we are becoming accustomed to, when they hit their twenties.

However, my wider point is, given the choice between millions of people participating in sport and physical recreation or the feel good factor of a hundred-odd of our citizens winning medals every four years, I think the former is not only the preferable option for our collective long-term health and well-being, but has the potential of actually delivering even more success.   I'm not advocating that UK Sport no longer funds the top level programmes, but I wonder whether additional - and much greater amounts of - Lottery money shouldn't be directed towards creating that base.

They were making a similar point on R5 on the drive home.  Apparently Finland is the fittest nation in Europe by most available criteria, but managed one bronze in Rio.  I don't see why the two have to be mutually exclusive.  My two eldest both enjoy swimming, Taekwondo and horse riding, and both have been hugely inspired by watching the success of the GB team.  Cycling is hugely popular over, inspired in part by Mark Cavendish and Peter Kennaugh.  The country needs a combination of good facilities, good parenting, good teaching of sport in schools, and people to look up to.  The government has a huge part to play in that, of course.

[paul_e]

What we need to start looking at now is finding ways to improve in the sports/areas where we've failed or at least not had much success. 

No. What we need to start looking at now is why the easily-cited inspiration of winning a large haul of medals doesn't translate into increased participation. Why two hours per week of P.E. is no longer statutory in schools.  Why cuts in council budgets inevitably mean a disproportionate cut in funding of leisure and sports facilities.  In an ideal world, developing and delivering world class performers should be the by-product of a culture of mass participation by all - and especially the young. 

Not really, that's a very different problem and comes down to the effect of austerity and the politicising of education.

I disagree.  The potential gold medal winners of 2032 are already born and, for the most part, already at school.  If they're not hooked on participation and have easy/cheap access to grass-roots facilities over the next few years, then all the Lottery funding in the world is not going to delivery success at the very pinnacle of sport, at least not on the scale and breadth that we are becoming accustomed to, when they hit their twenties.

However, my wider point is, given the choice between millions of people participating in sport and physical recreation or the feel good factor of a hundred-odd of our citizens winning medals every four years, I think the former is not only the preferable option for our collective long-term health and well-being, but has the potential of actually delivering even more success.   I'm not advocating that UK Sport no longer funds the top level programmes, but I wonder whether additional - and much greater amounts of - Lottery money shouldn't be directed towards creating that base.

No they shouldn't be, that's my point.  We shouldn't be using those funds to improve sport in schools or provide community sports facilities, those are things that should be paid for out of taxes but that have been purposely cut by successive governments.  The lottery funding is a finite pot that is spread across numerous areas including sport so additional funding means a withdrawal of lottery funding from other areas (such as culture and the arts) in favour of sport, even if that's not what you intend. Those areas that would lose are equally underfunded/undervalued from the government at school and community level and need the money just as badly.

As I've said the issue is that austerity has cut funding to the point where councils are only delivering essential services, and sports facilities don't fit in and education policy has been screwed with repeatedly for years to make everything measurable and almost entirely academic focused.  I completely agree that it's something we need to address and that it will be for the good of the country to do so I just don't think lottery funding and UK Sport direction is the right way to do it.  May has said that she wants this to be a government that serves everyone, she needs to be held to that promise and this is a key area that she should be measured on.

[TopDeck113]

With regard to school sport, schools are still in receipt of what is known as the Sports Premium.  It is actually reasonably generous and has the potential to give greater and wider opportunities to all children and also to the more talented.  Unfortunately, far too often at primary level it is used to bring in an outside coach to deliver P.E. lessons allowing the class teacher their contracted non-contact time without the need to employ another teacher to cover it (as a result of the squeeze on other areas of the school budget).  I'm certainly not decrying children getting an hour a week of coaching from, say, a basketball specialist, but I rather they were paid to deliver that as an extra-curricular hour in addition to the P.E. lesson delivered by the class teacher. 

[olaftab]

Third position where the top two are USA and China is very good indeed. I know it's about a million pounds per medal but nothing inspires our future generations like winning so well done all involved.