Most Depressing Olympic Fact Ever

[Halfmiler2]

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

His theme to Rawhide (also played by the Blues Brothers) is the best of all. :wink:

[Cottonshirt]

Do you really mean this "ad absurdum" generalization, or is it "tongue-in-cheek"?

I do not mean it in the literal sense. They obviously have a word for organisation, it's just that when they say it they do not, in my experience, mean quite the same thing I mean when I say organisation. They are quite laid back about things, the shops don't open when they are supposed to and if someone says they will meet you at lunchtime they turn up at half past three and it never occurs to them that they might be (at least) two hours late.

I find it quite infuriating, especially when I have given up a whole day to get the ferry over to France and expect to use my time effectively. There are also things I really like about them and I try to put up with the infuriating things in order to enjoy the nice things, but I do not always succeed.

But I have only ever been to one small part of France, repeatedly. Maybe elsewhere they are quite different.

Martin

[Pego]

But there is no word for "organisation" in their vocabulary. They have no concept of what "punctual" means; something will be ready when it's ready, not when the clock says any particular time.

Do you really mean this "ad absurdum" generalization, or is it "tongue-in-cheek"?

[Cottonshirt]

Thank you.

That the French were responsible does not surprise me in the least. They're great people, don't get me wrong I love their country and I go shopping there once a month. But there is no word for "organisation" in their vocabulary. They have no concept of what "punctual" means; something will be ready when it's ready, not when the clock says any particular time.

It's what makes them good at the things they are good at; hospitality, wine and cheese... and something beginning with s that we shouldn't talk about in public, family oriented forums.



Martin

[tandfman]

David Wallechinsky

[ppalmer]

Yes, but why are the entries that way?

(trimmed for brevity)

As I understand it the Paris Olympics (1900) almost killed the whole thing. It extended over 3 months or so, was not well organized, and events were scattered all over in space as well as time. There were reports of elite athletes showing up and finding that they were at a race for school kids, etc. Apparently many Eurpoean countries decided it was not worth sending teams to St. Louis. However, after St. Louis went off pretty well, there were second thoughts, and a (now unofficial) Olympics was held in Athens in 1906. After that, things got back on track. (Well, at least until 1916.)

Pat Palmer

(I probably learned most of what I know about this from that thick book on the Olympics by the guy whose name starts with W. You guys who read the History section will know who I mean.)

[bambam1729]

South Africa actually had more competitors than the two Kaffir marathoners. They had a team in the tug-of-war as well.

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

In fact, the actual list of events that should be considered olympic in 1900 is disputed.

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

I take it you are not disputing the events on the current Olympic programme?


Martin

There's a book on the 1904 Olympic Games that may answer a lot of your questions concerning them:

The 1904 Olympic Games: Results for All Competitors in All Events, with Commentary. Jefferson (NC): McFarland, 1998

[Cottonshirt]

South Africa actually had more competitors than the two Kaffir marathoners. They had a team in the tug-of-war as well.

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

In fact, the actual list of events that should be considered olympic in 1900 is disputed.

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

I take it you are not disputing the events on the current Olympic programme?


Martin

[bambam1729]

South Africa actually had more competitors than the two Kaffir marathoners. They had a team in the tug-of-war as well.

Cuba's "team" was only Felix Carbajal, the marathoner, who hitchhiked his way on a boat to the US and then hitchhiked his way cross-country to St. Louis, working odd jobs along the way to earn his travel money.

The nationalities of those who competed in Paris in 1900 is highly disputed. In fact, the actual list of events that should be considered olympic in 1900 is disputed. So its difficult to say which nations actually competed definitively, although most of those European nations you mention had much shorter travel to Paris than to St. Louis.

[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)

[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.

[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.

[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)

[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]

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