[Indo-Chinese Food]

from our haul, what are we left with in terms of GB medal successes.

without getting into the gentle ribbing offered by other countries of being the kings of 'sitting down sports' - in all seriousness do we have an over reliance on cycling and rowing and do the sheer amount of events in those two disciplines (of which there are many) skew our olympic prowess.
Should GB have chanelled much more energies to boosting our success in other sporting disciplines?

If your opinion is otherwise- articulating it might be worthwhile

[silent ninja]

(Original post by Indo-Chinese Food)
what are we left with in terms of GB medal successes.

without getting into the gentle ribbing offered by other countries of being the kings of 'sitting down sports' - in all seriousness do we have an over reliance on cycling and rowing and the sheer amount of events in those two disciplines skew our olympic prowess.
Should GB have chanelled much more energies to boosting our success in other sporting disciplines?

Why don't we remove swimming and the 30+ medals on offer, most of which are won by the big countries?

There's no sense in thinking that way. It is what it is, but we've done very well in Athletics today.

Edit: I believe the USA has won 16 out of it's 26 Golds in swimming alone!!

[Tapner]

That analogy is ridiculous. It's like saying if we removed the swimming and diving events, China and America would only win about half the medals they normally do.

[Xotol]

You can't just remove sports like that - I'm pretty sure America have got like half of their gold medals purely from swimming so far. As long as cycling and rowing are legitimate Olympic sports, they count.

EDIT - I just checked: USA have 30 medals out of their total of 54 just for swimming; 16 gold medals out of their total of 26.

[M'Ling]

We can't be the best at everything. We are, however, the best at cycling and rowing, so to discount them is to be cynical for the sake of being cynical.

[Indo-Chinese Food]

(Original post by Tapner)
That analogy is ridiculous. It's like saying if we removed the swimming and diving events, China and America would only win about half the medals they normally do.

well thats rubbish, china and the USA perform strongly in track and field, all gymnastics, badminton, table tennis, shooting, weightlifting etc etc
removing diving would not change their dominance.

[Tapner]

(Original post by Indo-Chinese Food)
well thats rubbish, china and the USA perform strongly in track and field, all gymnastics, badminton, table tennis, shooting, weightlifting etc etc
removing diving would not change their dominance.

So far, America have won 16 of their 26 golds in swimming. Sure, they're bound to win plenty more in athletics, but you can't just remove sports because we happen to perform the best and are better than anyone else in them.

[Indo-Chinese Food]

(Original post by M'Ling)
We can't be the best at everything. We are, however, the best at cycling and rowing, so to discount them is to be cynical for the sake of being cynical.

but we can try, the fact that there are so many variations of cycling and rowing events, our decent medal haul is almost totally dependant on them. Only i think swimming has more medals

[member592149]

As for the sitting down arguement cycling and rowing are just as physically demanding as any other sport. I mean look at some of the cyclists thighs.

[member592149]

Oh and if you take away our track cycling and rowing medals we would still be 6th in the table.

[Indo-Chinese Food]

(Original post by Tapner)
So far, America have won 16 of their 26 golds in swimming. Sure, they're bound to win plenty more in athletics, but you can't just remove sports because we happen to perform the best and are better than anyone else in them.

note i was not advocating 'removing' cycling and rowing form the olympics i was pointing out our total dependance on these two discplines and their multiple events to make a decent haul of medals.
but on that point i dont see the point in having for example, two different events for different weights of boat now ( ie sculls and lightweight sculls)

[zippyRN]

the other thing to consider at this point is that most of the track and field medals are stiull to compete for as are the sailing medals etc ...

[SirMasterKey]

(Original post by Indo-Chinese Food)
but we can try, the fact that there are so many variations of cycling and rowing events, our decent medal haul is almost totally dependant on them. Only i think swimming has more medals

Gymnastics have 18 I think?

30/56 USA's medals in swimming. 16/26 golds. The US would be very poor without considering their size when it comes to the medals if it were not for the swimming so far.

[M'Ling]

(Original post by Indo-Chinese Food)
well thats rubbish, china and the USA perform strongly in track and field, all gymnastics, badminton, table tennis, shooting, weightlifting etc etc
removing diving would not change their dominance.

First of all, we did win a gold medal in shooting, so we're not that far behind surely?

Have you seen the population sizes of China and the USA? We should be proud that a nation as small as ours is the best in the world at anything. As some have already said, half the medals the USA have won have been from swimming. Frankly, watching Team GB repeatedly gain world records for the cycling this year has been inspirational, we're just monsters on two wheels.

As for China, they have a population of over a billion and growing, and a quite frankly scary training regime.

[Tapner]

(Original post by Indo-Chinese Food)
note i was not advocating 'removing' cycling and rowing form the olympics i was pointing out our total dependance on these two discplines and their multiple events to make a decent haul of medals.
but on that point i dont see the point in having two different events for two different weights of boat now ( ie sculls and lightweight sculls)

You're right, we wouldn't get anywhere near as many medals without rowing and cycling, but most, if not all countries have events that they rely/depend on. Don't forget, swimming has more events than any other. It would be nice to win more swimming medals, so we need to work on that for 2016. Don't forget about population sizes either.

[Dirac Delta Function]

Who cares?

We're rocking third place right now and it's pretty damn sweet.

[member592149]

(Original post by Indo-Chinese Food)
note i was not advocating 'removing' cycling and rowing form the olympics i was pointing out our total dependance on these two discplines and their multiple events to make a decent haul of medals.
but on that point i dont see the point in having two different events for two different weights of boat now ( ie sculls and lightweight sculls)

I don't see the point in having 30 different events in swimming.

Look. Come back and ask this question at the end of the games. I'd still bet that we'd finish top 5 without the cycling and rowing medals. As I say we would be 6th at the moment without track cycling and rowing medals.

But why are we debating this anyway? You could say the same for just about any other country. Take away swimming from USA and they'd be struggling. Take away diving, badminton and table tennis and the Chinese would be struggling. Take away archery and the Koreans would be struggling.

[SirMasterKey]

(Original post by Indo-Chinese Food)
note i was not advocating 'removing' cycling and rowing form the olympics i was pointing out our total dependance on these two discplines and their multiple events to make a decent haul of medals.
but on that point i dont see the point in having for example, two different events for different weights of boat now ( ie sculls and lightweight sculls)

Normal sculls demand raw power and technique. The heavier crew has a significant advantage.

Lightweight sculls have to weigh a certain amount. The two athletes combinded have to weight a maximum 140kg with a maximum weight of a single athlete being 72.5kg.

The lightweight sculls therefore will have almost everyone at a very similar weight and so quite simply the best technique should and will win.

[Four Queue]

No, you stick to what you're good at. USA have amazing swimmers, China have amazing Badminton players. It would be stupid for them to remove their funding of those sports and focus on others just for the sake of being more rounded, because they know they're virtually guaranteed medals there. Same applies to GB in cycling/rowing.

[Malevolent]

This is getting slightly annoying now seeing people complain about the Swimming and then seeing people counter it with cycling and rowing. As long as their counted as olympic sports theres going to be medals to be won in them, Im sure if the US won the amount GB in cycling and rowing they would be thrilled likewise if you were to swap GB and US in the swimming we would be thrilled. Theres still another week of events why don't we wait till its all said and done then talk about it? If their there to be won their there to be won simple as that. Lets just celebrate it.

Jaimaca are likely going to only win medals in the sprinting shall we take credit away from them? Same with Korea in archery and China in diving and table tennis as well as badminton. Certain countries are better then others at sports. Lets take Basketball away because US usually humiliate opponents when they bother to turn up.

On a sneakier note lets bash Australia for their woeful performances.