What is wrong?

[mithrandir]

^^To be fair it does make you wonder though in terms of genetic disposition, we've never had a champion at long distance running until now and the guy who has delivered it only came here at the age of 8. In fact I think I'm right in saying we've never won gold in the Euros or Worlds over 10k either.

^^ We'll just have to rely on inspiring kids who are of Somali/Etheopian/Kenyan decent.

What about Galen Rupp. I know he's American, but he's white, and very nearly beat Mo.

We can 'grow our own', maybe Mo should coach them

Galen Rupp and Mo trained together since Mo moved to the US for his training, that was where he learnt more about tactics and it helped him to run his race (so he mentioned in this mornings BBC interview)

Also, I don't think it necessarily means Somali/Etheopian/Kenyan decent shold be the best at long distances, Brendan Foster did it for GB (many) years ago, It's porbably down to finding the right kid and providing sufficient training.

 

[Superficial]

Other countries like USA and Russia are ranking us 4th as they do it by overall medals

the official websites for 2012 and 2008 do it by golds - and most countries do it that way. no surprise the russians do it that way really.

besides we all know the first thing people look-up on the leader board is who won the most golds.

 

[Freddie1980]

It doesn't matter how much funding we have as theres alwaya going to be a bottleneck on talent for long distance runners. In Kenya and Somailia athletics and long distance running is the national sports whereas in Britian athletics is way down the list. Were a football, cricket and rugby country we shluld greatful that we have produced as many winners as we have had.

 

[Moothead2]

Other countries like USA and Russia are ranking us 4th as they do it by overall medals

Who's bright idea was it to value Bronze medals the same as Golds .

 

[FrankJH]

Other countries like USA and Russia are ranking us 4th as they do it by overall medals

GB rank it similar to the IOC (Internationa Olympic Committee), so who do you think is wrong?

^^To be fair it does make you wonder though in terms of genetic disposition, we've never had a champion at long distance running until now and the guy who has delivered it only came here at the age of 8. In fact I think I'm right in saying we've never won gold in the Euros or Worlds over 10k either.

The reason that is 'important' is that in terms of future prospects it does make you wonder, in terms of whether GB can be competitive even if a new generation is inspired to take up Athletics, even if the profile of long-distance running is raised, even if more funding goes in to it.

You are correect (according to Inverdale and the panel), its always likely to be KKenya and Etheopia who excel at those distances, but considering UK's immigration policy, Mo 's situation could easily happen again (god forbid, I dont WANT it to happen, as its horrendous - whether about war or any other reason, but its the world we live in).

But saying that - its the inspiration it raises in youth, imo, rather than those specific distances that is most important.

 

[NZB]

I'd go with whoever ranked us lower as being wrong. I just found it amusing, the yanks doing it to better show off their haul and the russkies to compensate for lack of golds

 

[BunnyKillBot]

Quoting this from the first page just because I'm so happy it was so wrong.

Amazing effort by Team GB over the last couple of weeks. Brilliant to see our athletes punching above their weight in so many different sports. I just hope this continues to the next Olympics and beyond rather than fizzling out now the home games are (nearly) over.

Haha, I was waiting for that Home advantage and all I still stand by in though.

 

[NuclearWinter]

GB rank it similar to the IOC (Internationa Olympic Committee), so who do you think is wrong?

The IOC does not recognise any ranking of nations. They keep a table for information purposes but make it clear that it's not any kind of official ranking.

 

[semi-pro waster]

I'd go with whoever ranked us lower as being wrong. I just found it amusing, the yanks doing it to better show off their haul and the russkies to compensate for lack of golds

I think we can afford to be magnanimous here, if certain nations have to present the rankings wrongly to feel better about themselves and pretend that Team GB didn't come third then that's fine. We're all aware that Team GB came third.

The IOC does not recognise any ranking of nations. They keep a table for information purposes but make it clear that it's not any kind of official ranking.

True, they do make it explicit that it's not an official ranking but it's also fair to say that the way Britain tallies medals is the same as the way the IOC tally medals. If only due to that I'd be inclined to suggest it's a reasonable way of approaching the question.

 

[FrankJH]

The IOC does not recognise any ranking of nations. They keep a table for information purposes but make it clear that it's not any kind of official ranking.

then how come the order changes throughout the Games when medals are won lol

if they really wanted to do it without any ranking they would use alphabetical order instead ( or some other system where order is completely fixed)

According to IOC table team GB are third.

 

[NuclearWinter]

then how come the order changes throughout the Games when medals are won lol

if they really wanted to do it without any ranking they would use alphabetical order instead ( or some other system where order is completely fixed)

According to IOC table team GB are third.

Because that's the way tha has become most common to do it throughout the world. The IOC didn't used to put up medal tables at all.

It's still not an official ranking, the IOC states that emphatically.