BBC Home

Explore the BBC

Articles/ all comments

These 22 comments are related to an article called:

Is the Commonwealth Games Still Relevant?

Page 1 of 1

posted Jun 28, 2010

its just a reminder of a dictatorship that cost many of the inhabitants of the countries involved their lives, 'commonwealth' is just a cutesy name for an empire and we've all seen star wars to know what they are all about!!!

| complain about this comment

comment by Diggers (U2300584)

posted Jun 28, 2010

Forgetting the politcal nonsense yes it is relevant. Athletics is only a part of the CWG's but it is of course in many ways the showpiece that the games needs.
The Games will be a great help for other sportsmen who will go onto compete in 2012, invaluable experience of a big meeting with big media coverage.
But ultimately the Games will not happen unless they are in some way financially viable for the host nation. But as long as they are being held and athletes from all sports want to compete and people want to watch then they are totally relevant.
I know I would have given my right arm to have been good enough at any sport to represent England at a CWG.

| complain about this comment

posted Jun 28, 2010

Just because some Jamaicans decide they don't want to go doesn't devalue the Championships. The event is bigger than Usain Bolt.

For many nations this is the only opportunity their athletes will get to compete in a huge scale multi-sport competition and it's still a great competition all round that means a lot to the athletes and nations that take part. They are there through choice.

Convict - would you like a broom to help with your sweeping?

| complain about this comment

comment by Saz (U14065016)

posted Jun 28, 2010

In what way is it irrelevant? That's rude and condescending to those athletes who have won medals at past games and those who are aiming for medals or even qualification this year. Yes, the games are not in the top tier of sporting excellence but nor do they claim to be - they serve a purpose to provide devloping athletes with a competition environment that they are totally unused to. We can't all be world beaters, and to just because the commie games produce results that are not world class that doesn't mean that they aren't worthwhile or an achievement for those who compete at them

| complain about this comment

posted Jun 28, 2010

I still think that the Commonwealths are relevant, although the competition may not be as high as other Championships in many events.

The previous 2 games have been well supported by top athletes and the events have taken place in front of big crowds. I think it's just the timing this year that is leading to some big names such as Ennis & Bolt deciding not to compete.

| complain about this comment

posted Jun 28, 2010

To GB athletes being European, World or Olympic Champion have more value then Commonwealth Champion? Unless you are not in the top league.

Perhaps the only value is that it gives Wales, Scotland, England etc to compete against each other.

| complain about this comment

comment by shivfan (U2435266)

posted Jun 29, 2010

Very good points, jamminya....
ok
The CWG are coming at a bad time for athletes who are prearing for next year's World Champs. Quite a few of those athletes who are in with a realistic chance of getting a medal at the world Champs are likely to give the CWG a miss.

Last CWG, a number of Jamaican female sprinters gave the 100 metres a miss. As a result, who won the gold medal in the women's 100? Sherri-Ann Brooks, who would struggle to get a medal in the 100 at the World Champs. She would even struggle to make the four to represent Jamaica, with Shelly-Ann fraser, Sherone Simpson, Kerron Stewart and VCB in the reckoning....

As the CWG draws near, we will see quite a few athletes electing to give the games a miss - not just Jamaicans.

| complain about this comment

comment by Diggers (U2300584)

posted Jun 29, 2010

"Perhaps the only value is that it gives Wales, Scotland, England etc to compete against each other."
Providing they make the standard it actually means a lot more British athletes get experience of a big games. We only get to send 3 at most per event to an Olympic or Worlds, quite often less as the qualifying standards will be higher.
At a CWG you might well have 8 or more British athletes competing in an event, not just against each other but against a host of other nations in front of a big crowd. Might just turn out that the 7th fastest athlete thrives on the occasion and makes strides forward they never would have made otherwise.
Why do you have to compare the CWGs with the Worlds, they are entirely different with differing expectations and atmosphere. That doesnt make them any less relevant though.



| complain about this comment

posted Jun 29, 2010

Once again the Jamaican's seem to think that the only events in existence involves being a sprinter.

Now the enormous chip in the shoulder of Jamaican support seems to think the entire CWG's is irrelevent simply because a few of their sprinters aren't going to be there?

Talk about deluded arrogance!

There are plenty of sports in the CWG's that provide the highest quality competition.

If Jamaica think they are too good to go to the CWG's then they can stay at home.

Fact is they aren't. Your top few sprinters may find the competition too easy but that's the only assurances of medals you would have

Melbourne 2006

England - 110 Medals
Jamaica - 22 Medals (less than Scotland)

We will see how they look on the medals table overall at the end of the games and then we can see the excuses flooding in from Shiv about how none of their sportsmen or women care about the games enough to turn up.

You didn't even get a medal in Netball.

| complain about this comment

posted Jun 29, 2010

No, they aren't an irrelevance unless you're only interested in numbers. The Commonwealth Games gives a chance for athletes from small nations to compete on a big stage, and not just in athletics. It fosters good relations and friendship between all the participating countries and it promotes sport across parts of the world where otherwise it would barely exist. Yes, if you want world leading times and world records then it may not be the games for you (although the Kenyans on the track and the Australians in the pool may argue with that), but how can an event of such magnitude ever be argued to be an irrelevance?

| complain about this comment

posted Jun 29, 2010

"The CWG are coming at a bad time for athletes who are prearing for next year's World Champs."

How very true Shivfan. Are you finally learning?

| complain about this comment

posted Jun 29, 2010

It is not just because the timing is bad this year and I know athletics is not the only sport in the Commonwealth. However, as this thread is about athletics let us just say that if you are a GB or Australian athlete and you have the World Championship in Athletics a year after a Commonwealth Games given the choice, the main focus would on World Championship just as it would be on a European Championship for GB athletes.

In any case, what is the CWG suppose to represent? I can understand when someone says they are the best in England, GB, Europe, Asia, Africa, Americas and the World but, what does it really mean to be the best in the Commonwealth?

Does anyone know if the French or Spanish have an equivalent 'empire games'?

| complain about this comment

comment by Diggers (U2300584)

posted Jun 29, 2010

But they aren't the Enpire Games anymore are they. Nobody forces any of the countries to compete do they. So if they don't have an issue with it why should you?

| complain about this comment

posted Jun 29, 2010

Jeux de la Francophonie is held evey 4 years for French speaking nations. Not sure about Spanish games, but it wouldn't surprise me. The main difference I guess is that the Queen was head of state in most of these countries until comparatively recently, and still is for some, and she's still widely respected and they're her games. That's different to most of the French and Spanish speaking nations.

| complain about this comment

posted Jun 29, 2010

it was relevant in 2002 wasn't it? shame that consecutive games have neither been july/august but such is life. i'll be cheering come glasgow.

it is also a tangible goal for mere mortals, more so than ogs.

| complain about this comment

posted Jun 30, 2010

There's a 'Lusophony Games' for Portuguese-speaking nations that started in 2006, according to the font of all knowledge that is Wikipedia

| complain about this comment

comment by 2 of 3 (U233398)

posted Jul 6, 2010

"The Commonwealth Games gives a chance for athletes from small nations to compete on a big stage, and not just in athletics."

So why then are they so many sports that small nations cannot compete in.

With the exception of the home nations, Canada, NZ and AUS, it's mainly 3rd world countries - and some of the poorest in the world too.

Yet the sports list doesn't reflect this.

Unless you mean that they'll get the chance to send some complete novice because there are fewer serious competitors.

2/3

| complain about this comment

posted Jul 6, 2010

Each candidate city looking to host a Commonwealth Games must include a minimum of 10 core sports on their Programme; Aquatics-Swimming, Athletics, Badminton, Boxing (Men only), Hockey, Lawn Bowls, Netball (Women only), Rugby 7s (Men only), Squash and Weightlifting.

They can then include up to an additional 7 from a list of optional sports/disciplines; Archery, Aquatics-Diving, Aquatics-Synchronised Swimming, Basketball, Canoeing, Cycling-Road, Cycling-Mountain Bike, Cycling-Track, Gymnastics-Artistic, Gymnastic-Rhythmic, Judo, Rowing, Sailing, Shooting-Clay Target, Shooting-Pistol, Shooting-Small Bore, Shooting-Full Bore, Softball, Table Tennis, Taekwondo, Tennis, Tenpin Bowling, Triathlon and Wrestling with a maximum of 4 team sports on their Programme.

What other sports would you like them to include for small or poor nations? I guess football would be good, but there is no way they'd get the profesional game to agree to releasing players so it would have to be amateur football, and that's highly unlkely.

| complain about this comment

comment by 2 of 3 (U233398)

posted Jul 6, 2010

Football is a definite no since the CW games are held the same year as the World Cup.

Cricket would be good.

Lawn Bowls is a core sport?! That sums it up!

2/3

| complain about this comment

posted Jul 6, 2010

the CWG's are hardly "summed up" by lawn bowls.

If you don't like the champs then don't watch them 2/3 don't devalue people sports just because you don't get them

| complain about this comment

posted Jul 7, 2010

Lawn Bowls is included because practically every nation plays it, including many of the small island nations.

| complain about this comment

posted Jul 15, 2010

Well, I went to the Commonwealth Games in Manchester and loved it! It was great to see a major sporting event 'up north' for once. It was well organised and very well attended. A CWG is a good place for young athletes to start to gain experience. Lawn bowls is a sport. Just because it doesn't fit in with some people's idea of sport doesn't mean it isn't a sport! Roll on Glasgow (oh, and London of course!)

| complain about this comment

Page 1 of 1

HINTS & TIPS

Deleting comments

You are in charge of your own space - if you see an offensive comment, you can delete it

Reasonable debate is allowed - please don't delete a comment just because you don't agree with it

If you are not sure, or feel a comment warrants further attention, you can refer it to a moderator instead