I noticed during the commonwealth games,and its continuing in the European championships, that the best of those who finish outside the automatic qualification places but still go through as the fastest of the rest are no longer referred to as "fastest losers". Instead the term seams to be " fastest non automatic qualifiers". For example Its the first 3 from each heat + 4 fastest losers that advance to the next round becomes the first 3 from each heat +4 fastest non automatic qualifiers that advance to the next round Its a real mouthful for the commentators to say Anyone know why the change - is it some wierd PC initiative because if you finish 4th you aren't a loser you just weren't quite fast enough even though you did your best? Is it just the BBC or are other channels doing the same - does anyone know?
It’s a bit of a mouthful but you’re not really a loser if you’ve gone through to the final with everyone else. They might not know at the exact moment their race ended that they’d done enough to qualify but they still actually had. It’d be like calling whoever gets promoted through the play offs ‘best loser’. I don’t think anyone would call the team getting promoted a loser when they’ve actually gone up and, as you allude to with the PC comment, it sounds a bit harsh. The real problem with it though is that the term wasn’t correct, they didn’t lose anything, they qualified, just the same as the ones who came 2nd and 3rd who also didn’t ‘win’.
Was anybody else bad enough at sport as a kid that they're the proud owner of a 'most improved player' award?
I once won young player of year award in our local sunday team. I was about 16, the rest were 30+ if it helps.
At the risk of coming over all @Stephen Dawson - if you come 4th in your heat you didnt win - therefore you are a loser surely or am I missing something? Dont get me wrong to come 4th in a finals heat or semi finals is something really quite impressive but the person who comes 4th in the final has lost even though its a great achievement - I agree you win a bronze medal despite losing the race but your dont win just missing out on the medals - you lost.
With any heats there aren't winners/losers - only qualifiers or non-qualifiers. (a qualifier may well have performed better than an automatic qualifier from another heat.) I think the BBC whose Sports coverage is brilliant is now using the correct terminology.
I don't know why they bother with fastest losers anyway. Just put the British athletes on a plane and send them home after they get their PB. Joking aside thankfully they aren't that bad that every interview they're nursing a niggle, happy to get their PB and glad to compete. Times have changed.
The only point of the qualifying races is to qualify though. If there are X amount of qualification spots and the person who goes through gets one, then what have they lost? If it was the final then fair enough as the point is the medal but your opening post only spoke about the qualifying heats where the point is to qualify - which they did, whether that was in 3rd place or 4th - they’re through and therefore didn’t lose.
I got one of those! ‘Club colours’ at uni. It meant I got to go to a fancy meal with a free bar so I’ll take it