Olympics thread
- Thread starter Throatpunch
- Start date
I was talking to some people today and they thought archery and bullseye shooting should not be olympic sports because "it takes no effort".
Not only is that horrendously wrong, but I think someone forgot the origins of the damn Olympics.
Not only is that horrendously wrong, but I think someone forgot the origins of the damn Olympics.
MutantScalper
Dogmeat
Couple of days ago I saw a guy at the town who was a part of the Finnish archery team that won silver in the Barcelona olympics. Dude was, and probably still is, pretty sharp with the bow.
IMHO it takes a lot of strenght to pull that bow, and of course to keep it steady and shoot accurately.
valcik
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
And this is the first time we send our very own Slovak bow shooter to Olympics after splitting of Czechoslovakia. No way, this discipline cannot be cancelled! 
Throatpunch
Banned
Hot damn. She is incredibly good looking.And this is the first time we send our very own Slovak bow shooter to Olympics after splitting of Czechoslovakia. No way, this discipline cannot be cancelled!
She can pull my strings anytime.
Throatpunch
Banned
My arrow can hit her target.
Dr Fallout
Centurion
A sporting competition between multiple usually hostile states to please their gods?
I don't know what shit you're on, but Bullseye shooting and archery have no connection to the Olympics... and so don't many sports.
I think he was talking about the ideals of the modern Olympics.
Coubertin's Olympic ideals are expressed in the Olympic creed:
But I could be wrong, and he really means competition between multipe hostile states to please their god, preferebly with some deaths at the game. Those where the days!
Coubertin's Olympic ideals are expressed in the Olympic creed:
The most important thing in the Olympic Games is not to win but to take part, just as the most important thing in life is not the triumph but the struggle. The essential thing is not to have conquered but to have fought well
But I could be wrong, and he really means competition between multipe hostile states to please their god, preferebly with some deaths at the game. Those where the days!
Bring back Pankration!
MutantScalper
Dogmeat
Possible leg break in a women's wrestling match, China vs. India. Earlier there was a gruesome arm dislocation by an Armenian weight lifter.
Do sports, kids. You'll stay healthy.
Do sports, kids. You'll stay healthy.
That's the mistake you made. You assumed that this is about sport :p.
The original Olympics were comprised of athletics and combat skills. Running, chariot racing, wrestling, javelin throw, boxing,... I don't quite see how archery and marksmanship doesn't fit into that. It's a logical extension.
Throatpunch
Banned
WE BASK IN OUR GLORY
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-37108833
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-37108833
I think people are just confused that there are brits at a sporting event and didn't all drop out in the preliminaries as usual.
Throatpunch
Banned
You win all the preliminaries, we win all the World Wars.
You mean the Americans win the wars for you.
Last edited:
Throatpunch
Banned
We held out for two years agains all odds before they showed up. We did pretty well.
Suuuuure, if that makes you feel better 
. I would say it had more to do with the fact that German tanks couldn cross the chanel.
But in all seriousness, I doubt that the Brits alone would have stood against the Germans. If they had an easy way to push their troops to Britain in 1940? They would have probably marched right to London and the Scottish border before anything stoped them. There was literaly no home defence after the fall of France, and their troops got beaten very hard during the French campaign. And the British industry was not yet in full war production at that point. Britain also saw support from the US pretty much from day one, not so much in troops, but in terms of food, weapons, amunition you name it. It was a very crucial moment. There is a famous quote from Churchill, the moment he got the message about Nazi Germany invading the USSR, he said something like, that's it lads! The war is won. And right he was. Wining the war against Nazi Germany and Italy was a joint effort in the end. And I think what is very often neglected in history, is the incredible support to the USSR in terms of resources by both Britain and the US. Particularly Britain supported the USSR between 1941 and 43 with small, yet very crucial supplies. Between 1941 and 42 the Soviets relocated most of their industry out reach from German bombers. They pretty much build whole cities over night in remote locations to manufacture tanks, weapons and all kinds of shit. But in that crucial moment, those few months where their production was at an all time low, they had the luck to fall back on British supplies in tanks, amunition, food and all kinds of other resources. Particularly trucks, radios and transport vehicles have been a crucial resource. I personaly think, the Soviets might have even lost against the Germans, if they hadn't got some supplies in early in the war.
. I would say it had more to do with the fact that German tanks couldn cross the chanel.But in all seriousness, I doubt that the Brits alone would have stood against the Germans. If they had an easy way to push their troops to Britain in 1940? They would have probably marched right to London and the Scottish border before anything stoped them. There was literaly no home defence after the fall of France, and their troops got beaten very hard during the French campaign. And the British industry was not yet in full war production at that point. Britain also saw support from the US pretty much from day one, not so much in troops, but in terms of food, weapons, amunition you name it. It was a very crucial moment. There is a famous quote from Churchill, the moment he got the message about Nazi Germany invading the USSR, he said something like, that's it lads! The war is won. And right he was. Wining the war against Nazi Germany and Italy was a joint effort in the end. And I think what is very often neglected in history, is the incredible support to the USSR in terms of resources by both Britain and the US. Particularly Britain supported the USSR between 1941 and 43 with small, yet very crucial supplies. Between 1941 and 42 the Soviets relocated most of their industry out reach from German bombers. They pretty much build whole cities over night in remote locations to manufacture tanks, weapons and all kinds of shit. But in that crucial moment, those few months where their production was at an all time low, they had the luck to fall back on British supplies in tanks, amunition, food and all kinds of other resources. Particularly trucks, radios and transport vehicles have been a crucial resource. I personaly think, the Soviets might have even lost against the Germans, if they hadn't got some supplies in early in the war.
Last edited:
Dr Fallout
Centurion
AHEM.
Fucking Soviet Union... grrr...
Also Crni, it wasn't British supplies but American ones. The majority of supplies we got were from the US. Britain was starving and lacked enough food or supplies without trade, remember?