On Sat, 9 Aug 2008 at 19:41:15, Bing Trotsky
gmail.com>
wrote in uk.legal :
>In article
blueyonder.co.uk>, pah@invalid.invalid
>says...>> On Sat, 9 Aug 2008 at 14:02:18, Depresion <
127.0.0.1@?.?.invalid> wrote
>> in uk.legal :
>>
>>>How many people watched the opening yesterday and how many watched today's
>>>events?
>>
>> But the early events tend to be ones with only minority interest - even
>> in the ancient Olympics, it was the athletics that attracted the
>> greatest interest.
>>
>
>So football and cycling are minority interest sports?
In Olympic terms, yes.
>Then there's also
>swimming, hockey, judo and weightlifting.
Snore.
>
>There seems to be some sort of effect by which in many places people see
>the Olympics as a track and field meet with some other stuff going on
>around it. So I'm quite happy to accept that there are large numbers of
>people who watch the opening and closing ceremonies and some of the
>athletics and believe they have watched everything that matters about the
>Olympics.
>Just as it's a certaintly that should a British track and field
>athlete get a bronze medal they will be lauded to the skies in the media
Only an unexpected one.
>
>whereas if, as is expected, Vickie Pendleton picks up multiple gold
>medals in the track cycling it may make a footnote on the sports pages of
>the broadsheets.
Like Mark Cavendish's 4 TDF stage wins?
>Yet in a few weeks time the same British athlete could
>break a world record and not have it noticed in the UK.
>
>It's got absolutely nothing to do with the level of interest in the
>sports, and absolutely everything to do with the mindless sheep effect
>that has vast numbers of people interested in tennis for a fortnight
>during Wimbledon and in cycling for three weeks during the Tour de
>France, and then completely unaware of the sport's existence for the
>following twelve months.
>
OK...
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham
