Sports that are in the Olympics but shouldn't be

[Biff]

Also, the equestrian events are one of the few (if any others?) where men and women can compete against and alongside each other...

Only sport in Olympics where men and women can compete against and alongside each other.

I'm curious as to why the shooting events aren't bisexual mixed. In what way would men have an advantage?

[rogerzilla]

I'm curious as to why the shooting events aren't bisexual mixed. In what way would men have an advantage?

Less difficulty dealing with recoil, I suppose.  However, some of the men have also probably practised on real people in Iraq.

[Jacomus]

I'm curious as to why the shooting events aren't bisexual mixed. In what way would men have an advantage?

Less difficulty dealing with recoil, I suppose.  However, some of the men have also probably practised on real people in Iraq.

I suppose that it is an anachronism, more than anything. The maximum weight of a rifle is 8kgs and they fire 5.6x15mm rounds which have a very low recoil, so I can't see a problem there. The top shooters also seem to be very slightly built for both the men and the women.

The biggest reason that it looks like an anachronism to me is the format. The men fire twice the number of rounds as the women in the three position shoot and the women don't have a 50m prone event or some of the shotgun ones (which I don't know anything about), they even fire 40 rounds vs. 60 rounds in the 10m air rifle.

If you look at the scores for the men and women, on the assumption that the women could maintain their accuracy over 120 shots fired, they would be scoring higher than the men. So, accounting for the decline in accuracy towards the end of the shoot, it seems very likely indeed that the two could compete on an even keel.

[Biggsy]

Boxing.  Exciting but disgusting.

[Bledlow]

Re. excluding events which are inaccessible or difficult to access for competitors from particular countries. This would mean the complete abolition of the Winter Olympics, definitely no canoe slalom, & probably the dropping of all rowing & sailing. Swimming would become problematical to include (there are countries where the only water bodies accessible to most of the population are unsafe due to schistosomiasis), & others where very few people have access to anywhere one could practice).

You'd end up with a very truncated competition, & one which would still be dominated by countries with the resources to spend on facilities & intensive training.

[Justin(e)]

Rationalise any event where an athlete can win three golds.

That's a good point. Anyone winning three gold medals is basically having their event duplicated. Jess Ennis had to do all kinds of shit and she only got 1 medal!

I'd get rid of all those silly multi-event competitions.  Basing a gold medal on the Prussian officer training regime is simply daft.   Watching those decalthletes doing a 10.35 for the 100m is wrong.  Giving medals to people who are half baked at a number of different genres is not about the sporting ideal.  Hell, why not include chess-boxing if the others get to stay in.

[Justin(e)]

Swimming would become problematical to include (there are countries where the only water bodies accessible to most of the population are unsafe due to schistosomiasis), & others where very few people have access to anywhere one could practice).

Agreed.  Hence the obligation would be on FINA to develop the sport all over the world.  It is silly that Oz & the USA used to sweep up most of the medals in the pool (until China came along).  Olympic swimming should be more than just a glorified PanPacs.

[Jasmine]

Rowing needs changes, it's bloody dull to watch (even speaking as an ex-rower) and excludes different types of athlete because everythings over the same 2,000 meters.  Not practical to go for longer, marathon type distances but no reason why you can't follow the canoeing jonnies and go shorter - imagine having a boat full of discus-throwing types sprinting over 500 meters?  Awesome.

Not sure which rowing events you'd drop to make space for it though, because taking out the lightweights would exclude a lot of naturally-slighter asian countries (although they've won nearly nothing, so perhaps it's not inclusive anyway so might as well do away with them...)

The thing that would make rowing more interesting is corners.  And waves.  The events could be much longer if they put a few buoys out and made them all do some 90 degree turns.  There could be massive shifts in the skill set required with the addition of some turns.  Sea rowing is often over 10 km. 

[Justin(e)]

Why are so many of you down on the Equestrian events?  Inverted snobbery?

Charlotte Dujardin's mother Jane on BBC One after watching her daughter win gold in the dressage: "All the pressure was really on her. I'm so proud - it's unbelievable. When my mother died I knew I had to use the money I inherited to buy Charlotte a horse. She could make a donkey do anything. Not that he's a donkey, but she has made him a grand prix horse. I knew she had all the talent, but didn't have the break until I could buy her the horse."

In the original olympics, it was the owner of the chariots who got the gold medal.   I think Charlotte's grandmother should get the gold, she did more than anybody to secure this win - simply by karking it.
Money = Dressage gold. 
That is not sport.

[Biggsy]

I don't like seeing horses doing circus-style tricks.  I couldn't care less who's riding them or what money is behind them.

[Cudzoziemiec]

Rationalise any event where an athlete can win three golds.

That's a good point. Anyone winning three gold medals is basically having their event duplicated. Jess Ennis had to do all kinds of shit and she only got 1 medal!

I'd get rid of all those silly multi-event competitions.  Basing a gold medal on the Prussian officer training regime is simply daft.   Watching those decalthletes doing a 10.35 for the 100m is wrong.  Giving medals to people who are half baked at a number of different genres is not about the sporting ideal.  Hell, why not include chess-boxing if the others get to stay in.

But they're not "half baked at a number of different genres", they're excellent but not quite excellent enough to compete in that particular event. Instead of rewarding the person who sprints 100m in 9.6s but can't run long distances, jump, throw, etc, it's rewarding the person who comes 4th in everything. A true all-round talent, requiring dedication and versatility, not to mention a lot of hard work. I think that is a sporting ideal.

[Arch]

Why are so many of you down on the Equestrian events?  Inverted snobbery?

Charlotte Dujardin's mother Jane on BBC One after watching her daughter win gold in the dressage: "All the pressure was really on her. I'm so proud - it's unbelievable. When my mother died I knew I had to use the money I inherited to buy Charlotte a horse. She could make a donkey do anything. Not that he's a donkey, but she has made him a grand prix horse. I knew she had all the talent, but didn't have the break until I could buy her the horse."

In the original olympics, it was the owner of the chariots who got the gold medal.   I think Charlotte's grandmother should get the gold, she did more than anybody to secure this win - simply by karking it.
Money = Dressage gold. 
That is not sport.

Sport doesn't equal money and vice versa?

Which world do you live in?

Just out of interest, who owns the bikes the team ride? Do Chris Hoy have to pay for his own bike? - I doubt it. Someone does though, they don't just grow on trees. If that someone/organisation gets any public funding, then we are all paying for the bikes.  At least that rider (or her mother) paid for that horse herself.

[Bledlow]

Rationalise any event where an athlete can win three golds.

That's a good point. Anyone winning three gold medals is basically having their event duplicated. Jess Ennis had to do all kinds of shit and she only got 1 medal!

I'd get rid of all those silly multi-event competitions.  Basing a gold medal on the Prussian officer training regime is simply daft.   Watching those decalthletes doing a 10.35 for the 100m is wrong.  Giving medals to people who are half baked at a number of different genres is not about the sporting ideal.  Hell, why not include chess-boxing if the others get to stay in.

But they're not "half baked at a number of different genres", they're excellent but not quite excellent enough to compete in that particular event. Instead of rewarding the person who sprints 100m in 9.6s but can't run long distances, jump, throw, etc, it's rewarding the person who comes 4th in everything. A true all-round talent, requiring dedication and versatility, not to mention a lot of hard work. I think that is a sporting ideal.

Jessica Ennis has set one national record, equalled another one, & equalled a gold medal winning performance in the previous Olympics, in a time which would have placed her 4th this year. She'd have qualified for the final of another event - and not finished last. '[H]alf baked"? Hardly. That's world class at a number of different events.

[Pingu]

How come a country can have two sitters in the individual mincing about on horses but only one competitor in the track cycling?

[Eccentrica Gallumbits]

Jamaica just got all three medals in the men's 200m final.

[Jaded]

Why are so many of you down on the Equestrian events?  Inverted snobbery?

Charlotte Dujardin's mother Jane on BBC One after watching her daughter win gold in the dressage: "All the pressure was really on her. I'm so proud - it's unbelievable. When my mother died I knew I had to use the money I inherited to buy Charlotte a horse. She could make a donkey do anything. Not that he's a donkey, but she has made him a grand prix horse. I knew she had all the talent, but didn't have the break until I could buy her the horse."

In the original olympics, it was the owner of the chariots who got the gold medal.   I think Charlotte's grandmother should get the gold, she did more than anybody to secure this win - simply by karking it.
Money = Dressage gold. 
That is not sport.

Sport doesn't equal money and vice versa?

Which world do you live in?

Just out of interest, who owns the bikes the team ride? Do Chris Hoy have to pay for his own bike? - I doubt it. Someone does though, they don't just grow on trees. If that someone/organisation gets any public funding, then we are all paying for the bikes.  At least that rider (or her mother) paid for that horse herself.

+1

[rogerzilla]

How come a country can have two sitters in the individual mincing about on horses but only one competitor in the track cycling?

My understanding is that the IOC take recommendations from the UCI about the content and format of the cycling programme, and it's all the UCI's fault.

More to the point, the UCI wanted to stop GB dominating as they did at Beijing.  They failed.

[Gaston Lagaffe]

Why are so many of you down on the Equestrian events?  Inverted snobbery?

Charlotte Dujardin's mother Jane on BBC One after watching her daughter win gold in the dressage: "All the pressure was really on her. I'm so proud - it's unbelievable. When my mother died I knew I had to use the money I inherited to buy Charlotte a horse. She could make a donkey do anything. Not that he's a donkey, but she has made him a grand prix horse. I knew she had all the talent, but didn't have the break until I could buy her the horse."

In the original olympics, it was the owner of the chariots who got the gold medal.   I think Charlotte's grandmother should get the gold, she did more than anybody to secure this win - simply by karking it.
Money = Dressage gold. 
That is not sport.

Sport doesn't equal money and vice versa?

Which world do you live in?

Just out of interest, who owns the bikes the team ride? Do Chris Hoy have to pay for his own bike? - I doubt it. Someone does though, they don't just grow on trees. If that someone/organisation gets any public funding, then we are all paying for the bikes.  At least that rider (or her mother) paid for that horse herself.

+1

FYI The horse is owned by Carl Hester and Rowena Luard. It's for sale if anyone's got a bit of spare cash. Her mum was referring to a different horse

[Arch]

Why are so many of you down on the Equestrian events?  Inverted snobbery?

Charlotte Dujardin's mother Jane on BBC One after watching her daughter win gold in the dressage: "All the pressure was really on her. I'm so proud - it's unbelievable. When my mother died I knew I had to use the money I inherited to buy Charlotte a horse. She could make a donkey do anything. Not that he's a donkey, but she has made him a grand prix horse. I knew she had all the talent, but didn't have the break until I could buy her the horse."

In the original olympics, it was the owner of the chariots who got the gold medal.   I think Charlotte's grandmother should get the gold, she did more than anybody to secure this win - simply by karking it.
Money = Dressage gold. 
That is not sport.

Sport doesn't equal money and vice versa?

Which world do you live in?

Just out of interest, who owns the bikes the team ride? Do Chris Hoy have to pay for his own bike? - I doubt it. Someone does though, they don't just grow on trees. If that someone/organisation gets any public funding, then we are all paying for the bikes.  At least that rider (or her mother) paid for that horse herself.

+1

FYI The horse is owned by Carl Hester and Rowena Luard. It's for sale if anyone's got a bit of spare cash. Her mum was referring to a different horse

Then it matters even less. She's 'borrowing' a horse to compete on, presumably a horse that wouldn't be loaned to her if she wasn't good enough to do it justice.

I'm just getting a teeny bit fed up of people dissing equestrian sports, especially dressage. I found basketball very dull when I watched a bit, but I'm not decrying the ability of the players. The finer points of the gymnastics or diving are incomprehensible to me, but I marvel at the skill. I'm not remotely jealous of anyone's opportunity to do any sports, any more than I am of anyone's chance to go to art school or join the RAF, if that's what they want to do.

For what it's worth, I've ridden a bit, and in the end lacked the courage to do much more than a gentle canter round the school, and the strength and skill to make a horse do exactly what I wanted, as opposed to just doing what the instructor was shouting or what it wanted to do. So I'm pretty impressed with all the equestrians.

[mrcharly-YHT]

You could take the two best riders in the world, with their horses, make them swap horses  . . . . and they would be rubbish.

Eventing is about training the horse almost more than the final competition. It's about establishing communication between horse and rider as well as the fitness of both.

It's common for the owner of a good horse to 'lend' it to an outstanding rider - if you had a really good horse, wouldn't you want to see it do it's best - but the training takes place over months.

I don't think equestrian events should be in the Olympics, but saying "It's just about the horse" is ignorant.

Riding an eventing horse is like taking a hormonal neurotic half-ton toddler for a walk through a riot.

[mattc]

Money = Dressage gold. 
That is not sport.

Sport doesn't equal money and vice versa?

Which world do you live in?

In the world I live in, success is more money-based in some sports than others. Clearly dressage is close to the far end of that spectrum.

You asked why people are down on equestrians. well I have no problem with horse-based sports (although i admit not much interest in them). But this is about the Olympics. I enjoy watching Formula 1, and admire mountain ultra-running - but I do NOT want them in the Olympics!

[Arch]

I don't think equestrian events should be in the Olympics,

Why not?

(That's not confrontational, I'm interested. You're absolutely right about the relationship between rider and horse etc)

I just don't see why equestrianism is any less 'Olympic' than running or swimming.  It's certainly an activity which has been pursued as sport for longer than many others...

[mattc]

I agree with almost all the posts already made against it.

But the most convincing is the money aspect, as you ask.

[mrcharly-YHT]

I don't think equestrian events should be in the Olympics,

Why not?

(That's not confrontational, I'm interested. You're absolutely right about the relationship between rider and horse etc)

I just don't see why equestrianism is any less 'Olympic' than running or swimming.  It's certainly an activity which has been pursued as sport for longer than many others...

Two reasons:

It's not a test of the athleticism of the rider

It is a very exclusive sport for the rich.


People will say "what about the cost of bikes".  You can compete to a pretty high level in cycling on a bike that costs less than £5k. Try even buying one mediocre eventing horse or horsebox for that money.

[Wowbagger]

It was specifically the equestrian event I was watching at the time which prompted me to start the thread about accessibility in sport.

The vast majority of youngsters wanting to start off in sport in this country would have no access whatever to equestrianism. That's my main reason for not wanting it, or certain aspects of it, in the olympics. It was dressage I was watching and I think that has no place at all in the olympics: it's nothing whatever to do with the strength or fitness of the athlete, just the training of their horse and the rider's relationship with it. In the past, there have been suggestions that horses have been trained using inhumane methods - Stroller for example, had an idiosyncratic kick every time he cleared a fence. I recall hearing a suggestion that hedgehog skins had been attached to his fences in training, which led to this.

Edit: my memory may be playing tricks on me.

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/cH4FZc6vSdE&rel=1" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/v/cH4FZc6vSdE&rel=1</a>

shows another horse with that kicking habit. It may have been Vibart, not Stroller.