|
|
|
|||
| Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3~4~5~6~7 [Next] | ||||||||||
acesover Special user I believe I have 821 Posts 
|
My opinion is that they should be banned fomr copetition. By they I mean the team and the coach.
If not where do you draw th eline. Would you only throw them if they lost becasue someone bet on them and they bet aganist themselves.? What would the diference be? When you purposely you cheat not only your fans but yourself and have no respect for the sport you are competiting in. I asked several times if you were a sponsor would you hire this team to promote your product knowing that the whole world knows what they did in order to medal? You can sit there and say it does not matter but it is the whole crutch of the matter...ethics, this is the Olympics where one of the primaary ingrediients is pride and this team or coaach has none. Better yet would this team if sponsoring a produt entice you to purchase said product? Of course you can sit their and say that you are not swayed by advertisements. Well I guess the whole world of advertising is wrong. Seems like I know of another sports figure who lost sponsorship because of indisgressions. They want clean reputable people who can promote their product with pride and want people who are looked up to in their position in life for their accomplishments if they are sports figures. Probably one of the reasons that Buck Knives never picked O.J. as a sponsor for their knives or for driving a certain type of SUV. Even though he used them in real life. In both cases these peopole are damaged goods (one more so than the other, you decide which one)but damaged none the less and people have no respect for them. That is except for the 12 morons who acquited him. Yea I called them morons, to some here that makes me a bad person. So don't buy any products I endorce. 
By losing on purpose they cheat the system, they cheat themselves and they cheat the public who came to waatch them compete. I bet if you ipaid to see this Olympic event you would feel cheated. Or would you say, wow what a wonderful stradgedy I just witnessed I hope my children grow up to be just like them? The ends definitely do not justsify the means in this instance. If one cannot see this then one needs "ethics glasses" because you are blind.
If I were to agree with you. Then we would both be wrong. As of Apr 5, 2015 10:26 pm I have 880 posts. Used to have over 1,000
|
|||||||||
|
LobowolfXXX Inner circle La Famiglia 1196 Posts
|
I'd ban the organizer(s) who created and signed off on the format. The stinkin' Olympics, and they come up with a system that incentivizes losing and potentially puts the two best teams against each other before the gold medal round. Pathetic.
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley. "...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us." |
|||||||||
mastermindreader 1949 - 2017 Seattle, WA 12586 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2012-08-05 02:08, S2000magician wrote: I agree with you and Lobo. It's mainly the fault of those who created rules that made losing particular matches advantageous. I disagree with your comparison to Ali's boxing strategy. |
|||||||||
S2000magician Inner circle Yorba Linda, CA 3465 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2012-08-05 06:53, mastermindreader wrote: Thanks, Bob. |
|||||||||
|
S2000magician Inner circle Yorba Linda, CA 3465 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2012-08-05 01:24, mastermindreader wrote: Given acesover's introduction of the wagering motif: do you know whether one can place a bet (with a sportsbook) on which fighter will win a particular round? It would surprise me if you couldn't, but I've never investigated it. |
|||||||||
|
S2000magician Inner circle Yorba Linda, CA 3465 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2012-08-05 03:04, acesover wrote: You're spot on: I'd feel quite cheated. By the organizers. Not by the players nor the coaches. I do see a stark difference between throwing a game to achieve a gain within the tournament, and throwing a game for ancillary gain (e.g., your example of betting against yourself); the two are incomparable. If you cannot see that . . . . |
|||||||||
|
acesover Special user I believe I have 821 Posts
|
AS Mr Burke once said. All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.
Well you seem to think that the organizers set this up so this would occur. I guess they thought they were dealing with good men. Guess they were wrong. They were dealing with dishonorable athelets and coaches. No matter how you cut it that is the truth as they dumped and did not play to the best of their ability in all of their mataches. It is as simple as that. No matter how you spin it makes the coaches and athelets disgusting and not very honorable. Still no response on the sponsor question. Do youwant them endorsing your porduct. Your response to this question would answer a lot of the questions aked here. I would not want them enndorsing anything I represented or had a finincial interest in as they are not honorable people and their endorsement would be woorthless just as they are. Face the truth here. It is not the organizers fault, unless you can believe that theyknew they were dealing with dishonorable people to start it is those who dumped for gain and no one else. Blaming the organizers is like blaming the owners of a bank if a teller steals because they did not have tight enough security. the reasonthey stole is because they were not honorable people. I am sure most here could have profited some what in their life if they were dishonorable but choose not to. Because opportunity is afforded that does not give an excuse.
If I were to agree with you. Then we would both be wrong. As of Apr 5, 2015 10:26 pm I have 880 posts. Used to have over 1,000
|
|||||||||
|
S2000magician Inner circle Yorba Linda, CA 3465 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2012-08-05 13:20, acesover wrote: Yes, if they won I would consider them as sponsors. I do not consider what they did to be dishonorable. Now that that's settled, let's get back to the point of the discussion, shall we? |
|||||||||
|
LobowolfXXX Inner circle La Famiglia 1196 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2012-08-05 13:20, acesover wrote: Why would you set up a format to punish a team for winning EVEN IF you know that nobody would dump a game? Sheer incompetence. Let's say the second-best teams plays as hard as they can every time. In a perfect world, they should get the silver medal. But because of the format, maybe they play the best team in the semifinal, so they get a bronze while an inferior team gets the silver. Or if they lose to the best team in an earlier knockout stage, they don't get a medal at all. This is an important point, so let's give it its own paragraph: The idiocy of the format is NOT due to the "unsportsmanlike" athletes. For the reasons set forth in the first paragraph, it was an asinine format that had gross deficiencies EVEN IF EVERYBODY PLAYED THEIR HARDEST EVERY TIME. You DON'T have to foresee dumping games to realize that this was an incompetently chosen format. If there was a "malpractice" standard for organizing competitive endeavors, this would meet it.
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley. "...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us." |
|||||||||
|
LobowolfXXX Inner circle La Famiglia 1196 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2012-08-05 13:20, acesover wrote: I think it's more like blaming them if, instead of having bad security, they had a policy that stated that you shouldn't take money from the drawer, but if you do, you can keep it.
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley. "...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us." |
|||||||||
|
S2000magician Inner circle Yorba Linda, CA 3465 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2012-08-05 13:20, acesover wrote: True that. Not relevant, but true. Quote:
On 2012-08-05 13:20, acesover wrote: I have no idea where you got that idea, but let me dispel it: I think nothing of the kind. Quote:
On 2012-08-05 13:20, acesover wrote: I suspect that the organizers didn't think about the implications of their plan at all; that's the problem. Quote:
On 2012-08-05 13:20, acesover wrote: That's never been in dispute. Quote:
On 2012-08-05 13:20, acesover wrote: I am facing the truth: the truth is that the organizers failed to set conditions of contest that rewarded winning. That's their fault. |
|||||||||
|
LobowolfXXX Inner circle La Famiglia 1196 Posts
|
In this thread, we had questions about whether certain of us had been involved in serious competitive endeavors. I wonder if the organizers of the event ever were.
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley. "...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us." |
|||||||||
|
S2000magician Inner circle Yorba Linda, CA 3465 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2012-08-05 13:41, LobowolfXXX wrote: So, it appears as though these players / coaches, having determined that there was a significant flaw in the format, set about to correct that flaw and ensure that the two best teams would meet in the final. Sounds laudable. |
|||||||||
|
acesover Special user I believe I have 821 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2012-08-05 13:34, S2000magician wrote: Never went off topic. You talked about it being honorable in you original post. It isn't. I don't believe I sstrayed from the honor question at all. If you feel you would use them to sponsor you rproduct that is your choice. I would really like to see that ad campaign. I gues maybe it would work in an ad campaign aganist smoking. BE A QUITTER AND WIN.
If I were to agree with you. Then we would both be wrong. As of Apr 5, 2015 10:26 pm I have 880 posts. Used to have over 1,000
|
|||||||||
|
acesover Special user I believe I have 821 Posts
|
I found this comment on th enet and am not sure how the matchups takes place. Does anyone know for sure?
Here is what I found: Group stage leading into elimination rounds is an incredibly common format. People keep questioning the format saying it leads to scenarios where it’s better to lose, but that’s simply not the case. What happened is there was a huge upset in another group leading to a top team (who others wanted to avoid) ending up as a lower draw so top teams in other groups could run into them earlier in the next stages. The problem isn’t the format (in fact the format is great because it guarantees athletes more games and gives viewers more stuff to watch). The problem here is in the execution of the format. One solution is simple, soccer/football figured it out a long time ago. Play all of the final group games simultaneously. That way competitors won’t be sure who they might face in the next stages, so they have to assume they’ll face an easier opponent by winning (since better teams should finish higher up the group standings) The above post was al inrefrence to the Olympic dumping in the Olympic gaes that just occurred..
If I were to agree with you. Then we would both be wrong. As of Apr 5, 2015 10:26 pm I have 880 posts. Used to have over 1,000
|
|||||||||
|
mastermindreader 1949 - 2017 Seattle, WA 12586 Posts
|
Back to Ali/Foreman for just a second. I found something interesting. The general perception seems to be that Ali rope-a-doped his way through seven rounds prior to knocking out Foreman in the eight. The fact is that, even while he was rope-a-doping, Ali was scoring frequently with pinpointed jabs into Foreman's face. The champion's face was considerably swollen going into the last round. Ali, on the other hand, appeared unaffected by the hundreds of punches thrown by Foreman.
But here's the interesting thing- Ali was AHEAD on all three judges' cards going into the eight round. Quote:
1974 Fight of the Year - Ring Magazine The most rounds given to Foreman was two, by judge Zach Clayton. |
|||||||||
|
LobowolfXXX Inner circle La Famiglia 1196 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2012-08-05 15:55, acesover wrote: The statement that it's "simply not the case" is absurd. It's EXACTLY the case. After the pool play was the knockout stage. Obviously, running into the top team "at an earlier stage" if you win means that it's better to lose (assuming you've already qualified for the knockout stage, as the teams in the scandal had). It's advantageous to play the best team as late as possible, once you get to the knockouts. The easiest fix in the world would let the teams with the best records in pool play select their opponents in the elimination round; then, even if you've qualified, you'd be strongly incentivized to try to win the "meaningless" remaining match(es). Picture playing the last game in the regular reason in college basketball, having clinched a spot in the March Madness tournament. If you win your final game, you play the #1 seed in the first round, and if you lose, you play a lower seed. That's how stupid the format was. Here's a pretty good article on it: http://sports.yahoo.com/news/olympics--e......hes.html
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley. "...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us." |
|||||||||
|
stoneunhinged Inner circle 3067 Posts
|
Bob, I watched that YouTube clip of the 8th round that you posted, and it really does show how the technique worked. It wasn't really anything like, "I'm just not gonna fight; I'm gonna rest on the ropes until George tires himelf out." It looks much more tactical than that. Ali is ALWAYS looking for some holes to poke a jab through, ALWAYS holding out for a possible counter-attack. When the KO actually comes, it doesn't look at all like, "George is tired now--I'll finally let loose". It looks much more like he saw an opportunity that he would have taken in any previous round.
I think the point that shocked everyone back in the day is that his use of the ropes defied the conventional wisdom that boxing matches are won through footwork. Maybe they are. But Ali showing that you could win a match in an unconventional way does not mean that he wasn't fighting the match to the best of his ability. He was. And that's why he was ahead on all three cards. It's another case of people mis-remembering how something happened. Back on topic: the comparison to soccer is interesting, because I've always thought that soccer tournaments are also flawed. I've seen many games--including this year, BTW--in which it seemed pretty clear that the two teams stopped playing once the score got tied early. Doing the math, it's quite possible during Round Robin that a tie is good enough against an opponent who is stronger than the opponent in the next game. Soccer also has a mind-bogglingly complex system of handling tie-breakers for league standings, since it doesn't use the play-off system. Neither does international softball and baseball, BTW. This drove (still drives) me crazy. The league champion is determined by percentage of won games. But let's say two teams have the same winning percentage. Next comes this: the team who allowed the fewest number of runs in games against the team they are tied with becomes the champions. But wait! That could very well be the same (and in softball, where very low scores are the norm, it's even likely.) So then they compare the number of all runs allowed during the season. If the two teams are still tied, then--get this, I'm not making this up--they draw straws. Not literally. I'm not sure (since it never happened to us) whether they flip a coin or put names into a hat or what. But they somehow randomly choose which of the two teams wins. And they continue to do this for every team in the standings until all the places are ordered. Is it rational? Not at all. In essence, the system means that a team should try to win the most games with a preference for defense over offense. This may make a certain sense in that baseball and softball are defense-oriented sports. But it is STILL arbitrary. I never quite understood this until I started coaching softball here in Germany. Internationally, softball treats league standings as the determiner of who is the season champions. No play-offs! So the team with the highest winning percentage Let's say Göttingen is tied with Hamburg at the end of the season with 20 wins and 8 losses each. To determine the season champion, instead of a play-off game (or series of games), they start in with soccer-like tie-breaking rules. The first is simply: who scored the most runs. If both Göttingen and Hamburg have scored the same number of runs in a season, the next rule is: who allowed the most runs against them--in other words, try to rate the respective defense performances. Let's say that the two teams are still tied. |
|||||||||
|
Pengnome New user 57 Posts
|
Its not easy to come up with a set of rules. Perhaps one of the strangest outcomes was this football match.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbados_v_Grenada_(1994) |
|||||||||
|
S2000magician Inner circle Yorba Linda, CA 3465 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2012-08-05 15:48, acesover wrote: Unless, of course, it is. You haven't made a case for it being dishonorable. |
|||||||||
| The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » Sportsmanlike (?) dumping (0 Likes) | ||||||||||
| Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3~4~5~6~7 [Next] | ||||||||||
Posted: Aug 5, 2012 07:04 am 
| [ Top of Page ] |
|
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.13 seconds requiring 5 database queries. |
|
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic. > Privacy Statement < 
|