Most Depressing Olympic Fact Ever

[Cottonshirt]

American track fans are probably well versed in the story of Frank Lane, so I won't repeat it here. I should imagine that in the land of the free and the home of the brave he is an icon, an upright pillar of society and an example spoken of in proud words in school assemblies from coast to coast.

Anyone not sure who he is can click here.

Well, I found out today that the first man to be eliminated from the Olympic games, in any event, was an Englishman.

Charles Gmelin finished 3rd in the very first heat of the very first event and was eliminated!

I think that probably sums up the last 112 years of Olympic history very nicely.


Martin

[imaginative]

Seeing that Gmelin won a bronze in the 400m, I think he could over-come his
depression;-)

[Daisy]

Re: Most Depressing Olympic Fact Ever

American track fans are probably well versed in the story of Frank Lane, so I won't repeat it here.

Even the link does not seem to clarify. What is the story?

[Cottonshirt]

If you scroll down a little bit and read the story it says that Francis "Frank" Lane of Princeton won the very first heat of the very first event in the very first Olympic Games.

[dj]

Obviously not Trader Frank Lane, who swapped Rocky Colavito for Harvey Kuenn in 1960, and later that summer traded managers, giving up Joe Gordon for Jimmie Dykes!

[gh]

or who doubled by singing the themes to both High Noon and Blazing Saddles!

[eldrick]

Re: Most Depressing Olympic Fact Ever

Well, I found out today that the first man to be eliminated from the Olympic games, in any event, was an Englishman

means nothing

american sports fans may have been bit more pissed off in knowing initial 16 winners of US Open golf tourney were brits !

[rasb]

Obviously not Trader Frank Lane, who swapped Rocky Colavito for Harvey Kuenn in 1960, and later that summer traded managers, giving up Joe Gordon for Jimmie Dykes!

Harvey Kuehn, wasn't it? And thanks for bringing up a depressing early sports memory - Who could say Rocky Colavito, from the Cleveland Indians, and not realize they belonged together? My guy, my team, as a kid-let...

[bambam1729]

If you click on the link to Frank Lane on SR/olympics, you'll find a but more about his life story.

It’s safe to say that Frank Lane is unknown by today’s generations of sports fans, but he has an exalted place among United States Olympians. Lane was a member of the first U.S. team that competed at the 1896 Olympics in Athens. On 6 April 1896, he toed the line in the first heat of the 100 meter dash, winning the heat, and becoming in the process the first American to compete in the modern Olympic Games. Lane went to the finals of the 100m but finished only fourth in his only Olympic event. Frank Lane competed in the first Olympics while in his junior year at Princeton. Of the four Princetonians on the first U.S. Olympic team, Lane was probably the one least well known athletically, as he never won any sort of major championship. After graduation in 1897 he went to medical school at Washington University in St. Louis. He practiced medicine as an ophthalmologist, becoming the head of that department at Rush Medical College and the Presbyterian and Illinois Central Hospitals in Chicago.

I know we're not supposed to copy directly from other websites but I think its OK in this case.

[Cottonshirt]

It’s safe to say that Frank Lane is unknown by today’s generations of sports fans...

That surprises me. I thought you guys were just trivia crazy, and would spend all day swapping stories of who went to which college and which HS they graduated from, and did they swap schools or whatever, and what their mother's maiden name was and, ...just everything. I figured Frank would be like a National Hero on a pedestal in the National T&F Hall of Fame or something. Whereas over here we tend to worship heroes who never quite did it, a glorious failure seems to appeal to us more than a real champion. Everyone here knows about Captain Scott, who perished with his men after not quite doing what they set out to achieve, and even the fact that he made all the wrong choices doesn't seem to have dented his reputation at all. But I absolutely guarantee not one person you ask has ever heard of Charles Bennett, our very first Olympic Champion. I guess we're just weird that way.

american sports fans may have been bit more pissed off in knowing initial 16 winners of US Open golf tourney were brits !

Yes, but golf is a just a long walk spoiled...

The one that still gets me is the 1904 Olympics. Of the athletic (T&F) events on the programme back then sixteen of them are still contested today. That means 48 Olympic medals up for graps, and the US went home with 44 of them.

They had clean sweeps in the 100m, 200m, 400m, 800m, 1500m, 110m H, and 400m H. Of the nine running events on the programme they failed to get the silver in the steeplechase and the silver in the marathon, but took everything else.

On the field, they had clean sweeps in the PV, LJ, TJ, SP, and HT, leaving a bronze in the HJ and a bronze in the DT for their visitors.

I know the home team are supposed to get a bump in Olympic years, but that is not a "bump", that's a total roadblock.

Gotta admire them for it though.



Martin

[Davidokun]

The one that still gets me is the 1904 Olympics. Of the athletic (T&F) events on the programme back then sixteen of them are still contested today. That means 48 Olympic medals up for graps, and the US went home with 44 of them.

They had clean sweeps in the 100m, 200m, 400m, 800m, 1500m, 110m H, and 400m H. Of the nine running events on the programme they failed to get the silver in the steeplechase and the silver in the marathon, but took everything else.

On the field, they had clean sweeps in the PV, LJ, TJ, SP, and HT, leaving a bronze in the HJ and a bronze in the DT for their visitors.

I know the home team are supposed to get a bump in Olympic years, but that is not a "bump", that's a total roadblock.

Gotta admire them for it though.

Easily understood when you consider the entries:

• 60: Canada 1, Hungary 1, USA 10[/*:m:1gxj49wj]
• 100: Canada 1, Hungary 1, USA 9[/*:m:1gxj49wj]
• 200: Canada 1, USA 5[/*:m:1gxj49wj]
• 400: Canada 1, Germany 1, USA 10[/*:m:1gxj49wj]
• 800: Canada 2, Germany 1, USA 10[/*:m:1gxj49wj]
• 1500: Canada 1, Germany 1, USA 7[/*:m:1gxj49wj]
• Marathon (40 km): Cuba 1, France 1, Greece 9, South Africa 3, USA 18[/*:m:1gxj49wj]
• 110 hurdles: Australia 2, USA 5[/*:m:1gxj49wj]
• 200 hurdles: USA 5[/*:m:1gxj49wj]
• 400 hurdles: USA 4[/*:m:1gxj49wj]
• 2590 steeplechase: Great Britain 1, USA 6[/*:m:1gxj49wj]
• 4-mile team: mixed 1, USA 1[/*:m:1gxj49wj]
• Standing high jump: Hungary 1, USA 4[/*:m:1gxj49wj]
• High jump: Germany 1, Hungary 1, USA 4[/*:m:1gxj49wj]
• Pole vault: Germany 1, USA 6[/*:m:1gxj49wj]
• Standing long jump: USA 4[/*:m:1gxj49wj]
• Long jump: Australia 2, Hungary 1, USA 7[/*:m:1gxj49wj]
• Standing triple jump: USA 4[/*:m:1gxj49wj]
• Triple jump: USA 7[/*:m:1gxj49wj]
• Shot put: Greece 1, USA 7[/*:m:1gxj49wj]
• 56-lb weight throw: Canada 1, USA 5[/*:m:1gxj49wj]
• Discus throw: Greece 1, USA 5[/*:m:1gxj49wj]
• Hammer throw: USA 6[/*:m:1gxj49wj]
• All-around: Great Britain 2, USA 5[/*:m:1gxj49wj]

[Cottonshirt]

Yes, but why are the entries that way?

France virtually invented the modern Olympics; Baron Pierre de Coubertin was French, right? So, why is there only one French entry in St. Louis? Have they gone off the idea? Have they forgotten the battle of Yorktown? Great Britain had from the very beginning been very enthusiastic about the Olympics and sent teams to both Athens (5 men, one of whom one lived in Athens anyway) and Paris (5 men), but only three athletes to St. Louis. Sweden had also sent athletes to the first two games (1 to Athens and 7 to Paris), but none at all to the 1904 edition. Denmark (3 to Athens, 4 to Paris) were not represented in 1904 either.

Travel must have something to do with it, and also cost I suppose, but Australia still sent 2 athletes, the same number they sent to Paris, Greece (hardly the most prosperous of European countries in 1904) still managed to send 9 marathon runners! There were still 117 entries in total, exactly the same as in Paris. I don't think it's enough just to say, "yes, but look at the entries". I, for one, want to understand why the entries were "skewed" that way. It's understanding the social nuances that make these differences that turns Olympic history from being the rote memorisation of obscure numerical data into an interesting historical detective story with real human drama going on behind the scenes.

I just love, for example, that story about Prinstein and Kraenzlein at the 1900 long jump. To me it's almost irrelevant how far they jumped, or whether it was farther than anyone else had ever jumped before. What interests me is whether or not they actually agreed not to jump again on Sunday and whether Kraenzlein did in fact renege on their deal. Why would Prinstein, a Jew, decide not to jump on a Sunday after competing in the qualifying round on Saturday, his own sabbath?

Or at least that's the way I look at it.

Martin


(my figures refer only to events on the current Olympic programme)

[bambam1729]

Yes, but why are the entries that way?

France virtually invented the modern Olympics; Baron Pierre de Coubertin was French, right? So, why is there only one French entry in St. Louis? Have they gone off the idea? Have they forgotten the battle of Yorktown? Great Britain had from the very beginning been very enthusiastic about the Olympics and sent teams to both Athens (5 men, one of whom one lived in Athens anyway) and Paris (5 men), but only three athletes to St. Louis. Sweden had also sent athletes to the first two games (1 to Athens and 7 to Paris), but none at all to the 1904 edition. Denmark (3 to Athens, 4 to Paris) were not represented in 1904 either.

Travel must have something to do with it, and also cost I suppose, but Australia still sent 2 athletes, the same number they sent to Paris, Greece (hardly the most prosperous of European countries in 1904) still managed to send 9 marathon runners! There were still 117 entries in total, exactly the same as in Paris. I don't think it's enough just to say, "yes, but look at the entries". I, for one, want to understand why the entries were "skewed" that way. It's understanding the social nuances that make these differences that turns Olympic history from being the rote memorisation of obscure numerical data into an interesting historical detective story with real human drama going on behind the scenes.

I just love, for example, that story about Prinstein and Kraenzlein at the 1900 long jump. To me it's almost irrelevant how far they jumped, or whether it was farther than anyone else had ever jumped before. What interests me is whether or not they actually agreed not to jump again on Sunday and whether Kraenzlein did in fact renege on their deal. Why would Prinstein, a Jew, decide not to jump on a Sunday after competing in the qualifying round on Saturday, his own sabbath?

Or at least that's the way I look at it.

Martin


(my figures refer only to events on the current Olympic programme)

Mostly it was the travel and the fact that the Olmpics were not yet well-known. The only "French" entry, in fact, was barely that - Albert Coray, who represented the Chicago AThletic Association, but had emigrated to the USA only in 1902 and was still a French national.

[bambam1729]

But I absolutely guarantee not one person you ask has ever heard of Charles Bennett, our very first Olympic Champion. I guess we're just weird that way.

Actually, here is his bio from SR/olympics:

Charles Bennett of Finchley Harriers, a railway engine drive at Bournemouth Central Station, won the AAA 4 mile title in 1897 and in 1899 he was the National cross-country champion and won both the AAA 4 miles and 10 miles on the track. Early in 1900 he retained his cross country crown, but by the summer he had developed a certain measure of speed and defeated a rather undistinguished field to take the AAA mile title. His winning time of 4:28.2 seconds did not augur well for his Olympic chances but 1900 was not a vintage year for milers and the best time recorded in the world that year was a modest 4:24.4 seconds by the American John Cregan. Cregan withdrew from the 1,500 metres at the Paris Olympics on sabbatical grounds and Bennett’s main challenger was Henri Deloge, the local idol and the world record holder at 1,000 metres. There were no heats for the 1,500 metres and after a close race Bennett beat Deloge by two metres in 4:06.2 seconds. This was said at the time to be a “world record,” although clearly many athletes had passed the 1,500 metres mark in a faster time during the course of a mile race. Nevertheless Bennett achieved the distinction of being the first British athlete to win an Olympic track and field event.

Bennett won a second gold medal and set a second world record seven days later when he led Britain to victory in the 5000 metres team race and he had, in the interim, won a silver medal in the longer of the two steeplechase events. Despite his two world records and his Olympic titles, Charles Bennett remains a much under-rated athlete, particularly in historical rather than temporal terms. His performance at Paris in July 1900 was possibly the finest double by a British athlete since Fred Elborough achieved the remarkable feat of breaking the world record for both the 220 yards and the 880 yards in one afternoon in October 1876.

Bennett’s Olympic season closed in October with a challenge match against Alfred Tysoe at Bellevue, Manchester. Tysoe was the AAA and Olympic champion at 880 yards/800 metres and Bennett held identical titles at the mile/1500 metres distance, and a meeting was arranged over three-quarters of a mile, which was mid-way between their championship distances, to decide which of these two fine athletes was Britain’s leading middle-distance runner. Tyson won a close race in 3:13.0 seconds but Bennett’s British record of 3:10.6 seconds survived.

[Cottonshirt]

...and the fact that the Olmpics were not yet well-known

I have heard this argument before. As a counter argument I offer: Countries that have been to previous games but did not go to St. Louis. = Bohemia, Denmark, Great Britain, India, Italy, Luxemburg, Norway, and Sweden. (And you have disallowed the only Frenchman so they didn't go either, whose side are you on?) All these countries knew about the Olympics because they had been to previous games. In addition, countries that went to St. Louis for the first time = South Africa and Cuba. These are extra countries that have heard about them and decided to go, the message is spreading. (The two South Africans were actually at the Expo and only decided to run the marathon after they got there. But South Africa had heard about the Expo, so why not the Olympics too?). And, not even Baron Pierre himself went to St. Louis for the games.

I accept that this does not "prove" that you are wrong. But it does indicate to me that you are not really on the right track.

I would prefer not to have a long drawn-out argument about this, I just threw it up there as something to think about because I find it interesting. This whole discussion is further complicated (made more interesting) by the fact that "Countries" were not entering the games at all. Individual athletes were entering from different countries but under their club or University affiliation. There were four Canadian athletes in St. Louis but there is no sense in which these can be considered a genuine Canadian National Team, for example. Which then raises a further interesting question: How do nine practically illiterate, dirt-poor Greek chappies pay their way to St. Louis to run in the marathon? (see Davidokun's post up above) and what happened when they got home and had to tell their sponsor that only two of them actually finished!

If anyone has any info on how to travel from say London To St. Louis in 1904 and how much that might have cost and how long it would have taken (or any clues as to how I might find out) that would be just brilliant.

Actually, here is his bio from SR/olympics:

At the risk of sounding pedantic, what I actually said was..."Everyone here knows about Captain Scott ... not one person you ask has ever heard of Charles Bennett..." The "over here" was meant to apply equally to asking people if they know who Charles Bennett was. I was contrasting the British people's utter lack of knowledge of their real heroes with my perception of the American people's fascination for trivia. Posting Charlies biography (however innacurate it might be) from an Olympic website doesn't exactly refute what I said (IMHO). I guarantee that if you walk up any High Street in Britain and ask five hundred people who Charles Bennett was all you will get is blank looks. (In fact, in the current climate in this country you might just get stabbed, so maybe you shouldn't try this). But I bet every American who read my post above got the reference to Yorktown and understood what I was talking about. Hands up if you didn't.



Martin


(my figures refer only to events on the current Olympic programme)