Also would you disallow olympic competitors from say Tajikistan that probably wouldn't make the top 1000 in the USA in their particular sport?

you see those are the sorts of comments galv could have made

no donald, in one of my first posts i referred to the womens' events. i listed a few reasons why disabled competition is different to womens' competition. something else which i didnt refer to in that post is that there are a lot more women than there are people with disabilities.

re boxing - no, definitely not. it's an interesting point.although you havent stated what your point is, presumably your argument is that boxing seperates out fighters who arent as good at fighting as others.

i dont this this is the case though. lighterweight boxers are no lesser boxers than heavyweights - in fact very often the lower weights have the most technically skilled fighters as well as the most agile and mobile.

the boxers are put into weight classes not based on ability, but based on providing the best contest between the best boxers.

furthermore, to an extent boxers can change weights, and test themselves against different fighters.

the paralympics dont make for a valid comparison because these are not the best athletes, and as we've discussed above, are unlikely to be in the top 8 million athletes in the world in their chosen discipline.

Also would you disallow olympic competitors from say Tajikistan that probably wouldn't make the top 1000 in the USA in their particular sport?
================

again, it's not a relevant point i dont think.

im not saying that diabled people shouldnt be allowed to enter the olympics. if they are the best athletes in their country then they should be allowed to at least try to qualify.

my point though is that the paralympics shouldnt be marketed as a part of the olympics, and shouldnt be marketed as an elite sporting competition because it is not an elite sporting competiion.

not sure what the point re:women is.

you said that the point of elite competition was to find the best in their sport. This doesn't apply to women, flyweight boxes who would get clobbered by any heavyweight, or competitors from Tajikistan in the 100m who aren't there on elite ability.

So if you're saying the paralympics is flawed as being something in which elite competition takes place, then the olympics is similarly flawed.

The whole thing about "elite competition" is a strange point to make about the olympics anyway. The olympics is based on a spirit and ethos of humanity and meritocracy. "Elite competition" takes place at the numerous world championship events that sports have outside of the olympics in which competitors from Tajikistan don't compete. It just so happens that the olympics fields elite athletes as well as those that aren't.

i hadnt noticed youd replied.

your first paragraph ignores the response ive already given you. it looks like the predetermined response you had already planned to follow your initial question up with. but ive adressed the points you hinted at fully in my previous post, so your paragraph is not redundant. not sure why you still bothered posting it tbh.

re your 2nd paragraph -
ive no idea what this means. you seem to be saying that is i consider the paralympics "flawed" then i must ocnsider the olympics "flawed. well i dont know what you mean by "flawed". i havent said that. and i have no idea how you come to this conclusion about the olympics being flawed.

re your 3rd paragraph -

the point of the olympic races is to find the "highest, fastest, strongest" athletes in the world. yes there is a spirit of ilympic family, but that family is comprised of the best athletes which each country has to offer.

the question of whether a country (you seem to be particularly concerned about tajikistan for some reason) should be allowed to enter its best athletes if those athletes are nowhere near the standard of the top of athletes of other countries, is a different debate which has no direct bearing on this discussion.

* now redundant *

Look, it's really simple.

You're complaining about the lack of "elite competition" in the paralympics based on the competition only being only open to a subset of people.

Therefore according to your assertion,
either the olympics opens its sporting events to all competitors based on merit alone, or it's not an elite sporting event.

Country of Origin/Gender/Weight/Disability not applicable.

You can't bend misapply the assertion you made just because you don't like its logic.

you what ????

which athletes are excluded from the olympics then ? other than the ones who arent good enough to compete in it.

Men are excluded from the women's events.
Heavyweight boxers excluded from flyweight boxing events
The fourth top athlete in a country is excluded even if they are better than the top athlete from every other country

Is that simple enough to follow?

btw, re the quality of the athletes and how good they would have been if it wasnt for their disability.

take this guy simon richardson who was in the news today over a court decision. he won a cycling gold medal at the 2008 paralympics., at the age of 41.

he had been able bodied until the age of 35 when he was injured in a car accident.

after his accident he was winning olympic gold medals (in his 40s). before his accident he cycled as a hobby but not at any sort of competition level at all.

i suspect that that is typical of almost all of the competitors in these games.

fantastic for what theyve done to get there, and not knocing the competition, but it's not elite sport. it's a sporting contest between people who arent particularly good at sport.

Men are excluded from the women's events.
Heavyweight boxers excluded from flyweight boxing events
The fourth top athlete in a country is excluded even if they are better than the top athlete from every other country
==============

ive written about womens' events on the other thread, and made the comment that there are more women to chose from than disabled athletes.

ive already given you your answer on the boxers which youve just ignored because youd already prepared your next post without having thought of the explanation which ive pointed out to you.

your point about the 4th best athlete not being able to take part in the games really has no bearing on the issue. we are comparing a competition in which all of the 8 million best athletes are excluded, to a competition in which theoretically the 4th best athlete might be excluded. it's no comparison at all.

tell me that this whole build up hasnt been to present that as the punchline ?

Oh I see there's "more" women to choose from.

Yes that makes perfect sense. So we've extended your assertion now from

A sporting event is not elite, unless it includes only the top athletes in that field.

To:

A sporting event is not elite, unless it includes only the top athletes in that field, OR the top athletes from a subset of a population in a restricted event, whereby the percentage of that population is greater than 47.7% worldwide.

I see.
But that still excludes flyweight boxers. How do you add those to your assertion?

I also take your other extension to your assertion on board:

OR in a restricted event that has at LEAST the top 3 athletes in that field in it and doesn't exclude more than 8 million competitors

This is a fascinating insight into the rules of elite sporting events I must say

what on earth are you talking about ?

"we" or "i" havent changed my argument at all.

youve come on here with what you thought was a carefully planned out argument that you were going to graduallly reveal, and it's fallen flat after the first post.

i explained the answer to your query about boxers which yuove totally ignored, and explained the answer to your query about different countries which youve toally ignored.

you seem to be posting as if i had answered as you had expected me to answer, and not based on how ive actually answered, because your latest post seems to have no bearing on the points which have been made either before you came on the thread or since you came on the thread.

i havent changed my argument at all.

go back, and read what has been written, and comment on that, not on what you expected to be written when you devised your ill conceived strategy.

OR in a restricted event that has at LEAST the top 3 athletes in that field in it and doesn't exclude more than 8 million competitors

This is a fascinating insight into the rules of elite sporting events I must say
=================

no, as i say, you just havent read the posts.

i suggest that if you want to discuss this in a rational way, you need to do the following :

1. calm right down
2. stop getting excited
3. slowly read the posts on the last few pages
4. consider the points which have been made
5. come back

Sorry what is your argument?

You have a complete set of complex rules to define what an "elite competition" is which shows why the paralympics isn't one, you just can't explain them well enough to show us why the olympics is an elite sporting event under those same rules?

who said i have a set of complex rules ?

youve just invented this in your head.

you need to seperate out your fantasy world of how this discussion would develop, and how it actually has developed.

So you don't have any rules as to why the paralympics isn't elite?

And you don't have any rules as to why the olympics is?

How about football, a lot of top footballers were excluded from the olympics. Did you complain about that being described as part of an elite event?

yes, see my long comment towards the bottom of page 19 of this thread

what the post that concluded "elite don't think so"
was that your rule? "don't think so?"

for the avoidance of doubt, i havent express any views on the following :

- should football be an olympic sport

- should countries be able to send athletes to the olympics if their athletes arent as good as other countries' athletes.

i dont see how the validity of the points which i have made, depend on either of these matters in any way whatsoever.

you still havent followed my advice of claming down donald.

your whole strategy has turned a car crash.

i have provided explanations to each of the following in direct response to your direct questions :

- the country issue
- the boxing issue
- the elite issue

you have just blinked the answers out and pretended the answers dont exist.

you are having an absoloute nightmare here.

if you have any structured points to make after reading and considering the points which have already been made in this discussion, i would be glad to discuss them further with you.

For the avoidance of doubt you also haven't explained what determines that a sporting event restricted to only a subset of the population is not elite, other than the 47.7% rule.

Comment deleted by Site Moderator