Disapointing medal haul

Comments

• [Deleted User] Posts: 3,362

  Forum Member

  ✭✭✭

  12/08/12 - 20:09 #2

  Funny...

  0
• Muttley76 Posts: 97,888

  Forum Member

  ✭✭✭

  12/08/12 - 20:09 #3

  I see the children are out tonight, time for bed little one....

  0
• friendlyguy2 Posts: 4,511

  Forum Member

  ✭✭✭

  12/08/12 - 20:10 #4

  In 1908 a third of the competing athletes were British.

  0
• Bester Posts: 9,698

  Forum Member

  ✭

  12/08/12 - 20:10 #5

  We also had a third of all athletes in the games.

  0
• Meepers Posts: 5,502

  Forum Member

  ✭

  12/08/12 - 20:10 #6

  2/10 for effort.
  3/10 for originality.

  0
• Welsh-lad Posts: 51,925

  Forum Member

  ✭

  12/08/12 - 20:10 #7

  Yeah, 3rd in the medals table for a small country is really pathetic :rolleyes:

  0
• [Deleted User] Posts: 2,425

  Forum Member

  ✭✭✭

  12/08/12 - 20:11 #8

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cYKvweBG-hY

  0
• Cellar_Door Posts: 2,275

  Forum Member

  ✭✭✭

  12/08/12 - 20:11 #9

  Oh dear somebody hasn't been taking their bridge stomping duties seriously.

  0
• Sandra Bee Posts: 9,430

  Forum Member

  ✭

  12/08/12 - 20:12 #10

  Ingers wrote: »

  In 1908 we got 146 medals with 56 gold. 29 golds is a bit of a disappointment imo, especially to the rest of the world.

  
  
  Nice try

  0
• nobabydaddy Posts: 2,701

  Forum Member

  ✭✭✭

  12/08/12 - 20:13 #11

  There were far less countries competing in 1908 than there are today.

  0
• Alrightmate Posts: 73,120

  Forum Member

  ✭✭

  12/08/12 - 20:13 #12

  Ingers wrote: »

  In 1908 we got 146 medals with 56 gold. 29 golds is a bit of a disappointment imo, especially to the rest of the world.

  
  In 1908 we also had 100% British judging officials.:D
  
  But we smashed the rest of the world's nations. All 22 of them.:D

  0
• xorosetylerxo Posts: 6,674

  Forum Member

  ✭

  12/08/12 - 20:15 #13

  and there was also less countries and as people have said before a third of the athletes were British
  
  I think you be trolling and it's miles better then 1948

  0
• Ingers Posts: 401

  Forum Member

  ✭

  12/08/12 - 20:17 #14

  Alrightmate wrote: »

  In 1908 we also had 100% British judging officials.:D
  
  But we smashed the rest of the world's nations. All 22 of them.:D

  
  we certainly had the advantage in the diving and boxing, that's for sure

  0
• Espresso Posts: 18,047

  Forum Member

  ✭✭

  12/08/12 - 20:22 #15

  Ingers wrote: »

  In 1908 we got 146 medals with 56 gold. 29 golds is a bit of a disappointment imo, especially to the rest of the world.

  
  Seeing as others have schooled you in the make up of the world in 1908, I've got a question - why would other countries be disappointed that the British athletes didn't get MORE medals?
  

  0
• Sandra Bee Posts: 9,430

  Forum Member

  ✭

  12/08/12 - 20:36 #16

  He hasn't thought this through

  0
• Ingers Posts: 401

  Forum Member

  ✭

  12/08/12 - 20:39 #17

  Espresso wrote: »

  Seeing as others have schooled you in the make up of the world in 1908, I've got a question - why would other countries be disappointed that the British athletes didn't get MORE medals?
  

  
  not saying that they would. Just that 29 golds is a rather insignificant amount for a country that has hosted the olympics

  0
• Prince Monalulu Posts: 35,900

  Forum Member

  ✭

  12/08/12 - 20:42 #18

  Cellar_Door wrote: »

  Oh dear somebody hasn't been taking their bridge stomping duties seriously.

  
  Tee hee, you know what, I'm going to watch the highlights show again, because it's uplifting, feel the joy people. feel the joy

  0
• Espresso Posts: 18,047

  Forum Member

  ✭✭

  12/08/12 - 20:43 #19

  Ingers wrote: »

  not saying that they would. Just that 29 golds is a rather insignificant amount for a country that has hosted the olympics

  
  That's exactly what you did say, though.
  

  Ingers wrote: »

  29 golds is a bit of a disappointment imo, especially to the rest of the world.

  
  Strange thread, this.

  0
• Coen Posts: 5,711

  Forum Member

  ✭

  12/08/12 - 20:44 #20

  Bit dissappointed we weren't able to get gold, silver and bronze in the tug of war like we did in 1908 myself!

  0
• Bester Posts: 9,698

  Forum Member

  ✭

  12/08/12 - 20:48 #21

  Ingers wrote: »

  not saying that they would. Just that 29 golds is a rather insignificant amount for a country that has hosted the olympics

  
  Despite being far higher than what Athens, Sydney, Barcelona and Seoul yielded for Greece, Australia, Spain and South Korea when they had home advantage?

  0
• Ingers Posts: 401

  Forum Member

  ✭

  12/08/12 - 20:49 #22

  Espresso wrote: »

  That's exactly what you did say, though.
  
  
  
  Strange thread, this.

  
  No, I said that it was London's disappointment at our medal haul, not our country

  0
• [Deleted User] Posts: 8,575

  Forum Member

  ✭

  12/08/12 - 20:49 #23

  Ingers wrote: »

  not saying that they would. Just that 29 golds is a rather insignificant amount for a country that has hosted the olympics

  
  Insignificant, insignificant Get real !! It has been tremendous
  
  Please tell me who apart from the USA, Soviet Union ( as was ) and China has got anywhere near 29 Gold Medals when hosting an Olympics.

  0
• Bester Posts: 9,698

  Forum Member

  ✭

  12/08/12 - 20:52 #24

  indiana44 wrote: »

  Please tell me who apart from the USA, Soviet Union ( as was ) and China has got anywhere near 29 Gold Medals when hosting an Olympics.

  
  Just a guess, but he'll come back with something pre-war.....

  0
• Espresso Posts: 18,047

  Forum Member

  ✭✭

  12/08/12 - 20:53 #25

  Ingers wrote: »

  No, I said that it was London's disappointment at our medal haul, not our country

  
  No. You did not say that.
  You said absolutely nothing like that, in fact.
  
  
  Ah well, not to worry. I shall leave you to it.

  0
• Sexbomb Posts: 20,005

  Forum Member

  ✭✭✭

  12/08/12 - 20:58 #26

  Is this Cudzndrips again?

  0