Options
Disapointing medal haul
Ingers
Posts: 401 Forum Member
✭
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.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Ingers
Posts: 401
Comments
3/10 for originality.
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
I think you be trolling and it's miles better then 1948
we certainly had the advantage in the diving and boxing, that's for sure
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
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
That's exactly what you did say, though.
Strange thread, this.
Despite being far higher than what Athens, Sydney, Barcelona and Seoul yielded for Greece, Australia, Spain and South Korea when they had home advantage?
No, I said that it was London's disappointment at our medal haul, not our country
Insignificant, insignificant
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.....
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.