ahh gotta love the toxicity
ahh gotta love the toxicity
Michael S wrote:
Michael S wrote:
God, people, I am observant.
(1) It’s YOUR website. So anything written by an employee of yours is YOUR responsibility
(2) YOU wrote the criticism of bronze medal winner Chelimo, WHO DID NOT BREAK ANY RULES
(3) YOU wrote thread after thread praising Hocker like he was the second coming, and never started such thread for Chelimo, even though Hocker got sixth place and Chelimo is now a TWO TIME OLYMPIC MEDAL WINNER
(4) And in the thread you did start about the men’s 5k final, YOU DIDNT EVEN MENTION CHELIMO’S NAME!!!
I bet Rojo won’t respond
I bet your correct. He hasn’t responded to my question on why the hate for Grijalva. What did Grijalva do to earn such disrespect from ROJO?
oldoldrunner wrote:
Michael S wrote:
I bet Rojo won’t respond
I bet your correct. He hasn’t responded to my question on why the hate for Grijalva. What did Grijalva do to earn such disrespect from ROJO?
God we are observant
Honestly, given all the renewed attention on the mental health and wellbeing of athletes, I find this whole exercise to be gross. They made it to the goddamn Olympics. That in and of itself is a triumph. We don't need to be slapping people with grades. Do we need to pile on more on Centro and Coburn, when they are surely coping already with their feelings.
oldoldrunner wrote:
Jonathan Gault wrote:
What do you mean "dishonest in the past"? Please give an example.
Answer my question. Why the dis on Grijalva? Do you really believe he is that inferior of a runner that he would beat Kincaid by 7+ seconds in the Olympic 5k final?
Why is Grijalva even in the conversation? He’s not American. He ran for Guatemala
Awsi Dooger wrote:
I do remain stunned at the apparent belief in Purrier. I didn't share that at all. Throughout every round I considered her on Jessica Hull level in terms of relationship to the true medal contenders.
Jessica Hull Top 3 1500/miles entering Olympics: 4:00.42/4:00.73/4:01.80
Elle Purrier: 4:16.85i, 3:58.03, 3:58.35
Purrier also had the Trials run, essentially leading from the gun and running 3:58.03 after getting pushed into the infield at the start.
2.4 seconds is a pretty significant gap and Hull losing to Josette Norris in her last pre-Olympics race whereas Purrier is beating the whole US 1500 field by 2+ seconds...
girl watcher3 wrote:
Iron Bars wrote:
A few more:
NBC = F on the coverage. What a goddamn sh!tshow with Peacock. F U x 10000000
Tokyo = F for not allowing vaccinated fans and for robbing Jewitt of his spot in the finals.
NBC Live Internet Stream = A. Superb commentary, showed every single running event from heats to finals, not simply "US only". Full marathon coverage. Not possible to show every round in every field event but they did a great job with excellent critique and build up to the dramatic (and emotional) events like the men's and women's HJ and PV. Great camera work, lots of panning to athletes in the stands who were cheering on their compatriots.
The main presenter would give an eloquent lead in speech to the major events, especially the women's 100m.
I was able to watch all of the streams by kicking off the previous night's replay during the day (CST in US) and then watching the next morning event stream in the evening. Good thing I'm telecommuting but tried to get some work done too!
Not certain who the presenters were but it was an English guy, and Aussie woman who seemed to be a retired athlete, an American, and then a field event specialist who sounded English.
No interviews or human interest story lead-ins to the events, just the actions but also all of the medal ceremonies, victory laps, and emotional post-event action, no cutting away.
The only problem is trying to avoid learning the event outcomes since I was usually watching the replays.
This would be an A+ but sometimes had problems with the replay if the full program had yet to finish.
The internet stream for 5k and 10k was no more than a C. Cmon, if you’re streaming those events, there is no need to interrupt the event to show Sandy Morris fail a vault and then burst into tears on replay. No need to show the Indian jav thrower nor the German (Vetter?). The pole vault and jav and jumps all had their own dedicated streams that showed every throw or jump in sequence and uninterrupted. It’s disrespectful to the 5k and 10k on the one hand, and it’s a spoiler for those who want to see the field competitions without having the suspense taken out. Lasitskine almost bombed out at 1.9x height, and yet we knew she won because some highlight was shown during a track race. Good grief. Come to think of it, I give the stream an F just because of the spoiler thing
Brianruns10 wrote:
Honestly, given all the renewed attention on the mental health and wellbeing of athletes, I find this whole exercise to be gross. They made it to the goddamn Olympics. That in and of itself is a triumph. We don't need to be slapping people with grades. Do we need to pile on more on Centro and Coburn, when they are surely coping already with their feelings.
I agree, this entire thread and most of the "grades" are mean-spirited. rojo is hack#1
juvie wrote:
oldoldrunner wrote:
Answer my question. Why the dis on Grijalva? Do you really believe he is that inferior of a runner that he would beat Kincaid by 7+ seconds in the Olympic 5k final?
Why is Grijalva even in the conversation? He’s not American. He ran for Guatemala
Because ROJO put him in the conversation. Try reading you may learn something.
the rojo variant wrote:
Brianruns10 wrote:
Honestly, given all the renewed attention on the mental health and wellbeing of athletes, I find this whole exercise to be gross. They made it to the goddamn Olympics. That in and of itself is a triumph. We don't need to be slapping people with grades. Do we need to pile on more on Centro and Coburn, when they are surely coping already with their feelings.
I agree, this entire thread and most of the "grades" are mean-spirited. rojo is hack#1
Gotta disagree ... The performance is relative to expectations which means that if someone who was given a "D, E or F" felt they had run really well and were satisfied then something is wrong (in Grading or the Athlete)
For the rest it sounds harsh but any decent athletes harshest critic is themselves so they should be able to agree and realize something went wrong.
If I'm aiming for a 2:30 marathon and I run a 2:40 and someone gives me an "F" then I would most likely be 100% on the same page .
Relative to anyone's performance on this board obviously they get an A but that's not the point.
If the ratings are fair or not is another question.
One of these days no one is going to be allowed to fail an exam ...
Don't know what stream you were watching but I agree with the previous poster that the NBCSports.com feed was an A. Comprehensive, well-researched and entertaining. No jingoism either they just focused on the athletes that deserved attention. It has cut-ins to field events here and there, but I didn't mind that at all as they waited until events were over.
Jonathan Gault wrote:
adflkj;laac.hoh wrote:
Here's the thing. You simply can't trust Gault to be fair or objective anymore. He has Chavez disease. He's too busy trying o suck up to the pros so they "like" him as opposed to doing his job covering the sport. Plus he's been dishonest in the past
What do you mean "dishonest in the past"? Please give an example.
I won't speak for the poster but 1) you watch meets on TV, write them up as if you are they and (most importantly) fail to mention it or dishonestly use a dateline from the place of the meet.
2) you have failed to disclose inside information and used it for yourself in contests.
the rojo variant wrote:
Brianruns10 wrote:
Honestly, given all the renewed attention on the mental health and wellbeing of athletes, I find this whole exercise to be gross. They made it to the goddamn Olympics. That in and of itself is a triumph. We don't need to be slapping people with grades. Do we need to pile on more on Centro and Coburn, when they are surely coping already with their feelings.
I agree, this entire thread and most of the "grades" are mean-spirited. rojo is hack#1
Grading players performances is common in sports (see below thread grading the NBA players in the final). Is it mean-spirited to grade the USA basketball team players? Somehow I think people like KD can handle it as part of their job. I'm sure Centro and Coburn understand this as well.
On the other hand, it doesn't seem right to grade non-professional athletes in the same way, especially young ones that are in college or barely out of high school. So it's one thing to grade multimillionaire athletes, but it would seem tasteless to grade the athletes in an NCAA or high school meet or tournament.
https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2945808-grading-every-player-so-far-in-milwaukee-bucks-phoenix-suns-2021-nba-finalsrojo wrote:
AP5000 wrote:
Totally agree with you on these inflating grades. Giving Bs to runners who weren't even remotely competitive in a race is absurd. We were flat out terrible in the 10k both male and female. How on earth is Rupp, who by all accounts was competitive in the marathon except the last few miles, getting the same grade and our 10k women who were all LAPPED by two runners?
The grades are totally based on expectations. The women actually ran close to their PBs in horrific heat. Rupp is a two-time medallist. He's basically expected to contend for a medal.
Michael S wrote:
LOL Rojo gives the same grade to Cole Hocker, a 6th place finisher, as Paul Chelimo, bronze medal winner.
God people are not all that observant. Those arne't my grades. They are Jonathan Gault's grades. I only wrote a few comments mainly in places where when I was editing his article I wanted to yell at the screen because I thought his picks were way, way off.
So Gault is trying to pander to his bosses racism...by being racist. Have you ever employed a non-white person?
adflkj;laac.hoh wrote:
rojo wrote:
What do you think of our grades?
https://www.letsrun.com/news/2021/08/grading-the-american-mid-distance-distance-runners-at-tokyo-2020/Here's the thing. You simply can't trust Gault to be fair or objective anymore. He has Chavez disease. He's too busy trying o suck up to the pros so they "like" him as opposed to doing his job covering the sport. Plus he's been dishonest in the past
Gault is pretty fair and consistent. Other than simping for Shelby of course.
He's nowhere near as fan boy and brown nose as Chavez or Billy Cvecko.
girl watcher3 wrote:
Iron Bars wrote:
A few more:
NBC = F on the coverage. What a goddamn sh!tshow with Peacock. F U x 10000000
Tokyo = F for not allowing vaccinated fans and for robbing Jewitt of his spot in the finals.
NBC Live Internet Stream = A. Superb commentary, showed every single running event from heats to finals, not simply "US only". Full marathon coverage. Not possible to show every round in every field event but they did a great job with excellent critique and build up to the dramatic (and emotional) events like the men's and women's HJ and PV. Great camera work, lots of panning to athletes in the stands who were cheering on their compatriots.
The main presenter would give an eloquent lead in speech to the major events, especially the women's 100m.
I was able to watch all of the streams by kicking off the previous night's replay during the day (CST in US) and then watching the next morning event stream in the evening. Good thing I'm telecommuting but tried to get some work done too!
Not certain who the presenters were but it was an English guy, and Aussie woman who seemed to be a retired athlete, an American, and then a field event specialist who sounded English.
No interviews or human interest story lead-ins to the events, just the actions but also all of the medal ceremonies, victory laps, and emotional post-event action, no cutting away.
The only problem is trying to avoid learning the event outcomes since I was usually watching the replays.
This would be an A+ but sometimes had problems with the replay if the full program had yet to finish.
100%. They even had separate streams dedicated to full coverage of each field event.
One of the commenters was Jon Anderson. Former (or still current?) SportsCenter anchor. He was a high jumper in college and has worked on various track and field broadcast for ESPN over the years.
Runner10287 wrote:
girl watcher3 wrote:
NBC Live Internet Stream = A. Superb commentary, showed every single running event from heats to finals, not simply "US only". Full marathon coverage. Not possible to show every round in every field event but they did a great job with excellent critique and build up to the dramatic (and emotional) events like the men's and women's HJ and PV. Great camera work, lots of panning to athletes in the stands who were cheering on their compatriots.
The main presenter would give an eloquent lead in speech to the major events, especially the women's 100m.
I was able to watch all of the streams by kicking off the previous night's replay during the day (CST in US) and then watching the next morning event stream in the evening. Good thing I'm telecommuting but tried to get some work done too!
Not certain who the presenters were but it was an English guy, and Aussie woman who seemed to be a retired athlete, an American, and then a field event specialist who sounded English.
No interviews or human interest story lead-ins to the events, just the actions but also all of the medal ceremonies, victory laps, and emotional post-event action, no cutting away.
The only problem is trying to avoid learning the event outcomes since I was usually watching the replays.
This would be an A+ but sometimes had problems with the replay if the full program had yet to finish.
100%. They even had separate streams dedicated to full coverage of each field event.
One of the commenters was Jon Anderson. Former (or still current?) SportsCenter anchor. He was a high jumper in college and has worked on various track and field broadcast for ESPN over the years.
Another A for NBC Live Stream. I'm on the West Coast so I didn't watch the events live at 3 am but when I got up in the morning I just went straight to the site and watched the full coverage of the events I was interested in before checking here to see the results. I couldn't have asked for better coverage.
OTOH, Peacock gets an F. I couldn't even get it on my TV even though it's included in my cable bundle. And the online app never had anything i wanted to see. I feel sorry for those that paid for it.
Chelimo DESERVES A+ for bronze medal. I think he is the only American to win TWO 5K OLYMPIC MEDALS? A+ FOR CHELIMO. But no!!!’
Seidel gets an A+ for bronze, whereas Chelimo gets an A, the same grade as Hocker, who got SIXTH. And only Chelimo receives criticism.
What gives?
They docked him for some questionable tactics, but I agree if he's an A, maybe Hocker is an A-. After all he did beat many guys people were dubious he would like Knight, Katir, Wale, Kiplimo et al. Whereas Hocker did a little bit of that taking down Wightman, Hoare, McSweyn but also lost to Mechaal for instance.
Both guys were considered decent long shots for medals.
Jonathan Gault misses the mark on his grading of Aliphine Tuliamuk. She clearly deserved an F for all of her failures that led to her noncompetitive DNF at the Olympic Games. Gault gives her an Incomplete because she got pregnant the year of the Olympics. He goes further, giving Tuliamuk props for even making it to the starting line in Tokyo. Answer this question for me. Since when do we grade Olympic Games performances on a curve? I didn't see anybody in Tokyo giving Tuliamuk a head start because she chose to have a baby seven months prior. Nobody let Tuliamuk pass them during the race because she chose to get pregnant. The race was 26.2 for the entire field. Tuliamuk included. Gault needs to throw away his politically correct grading curve, and tell the truth about Tuliamuk's Olympic Games performance. She deserved a big fat F!