Author Topic: Sports that are in the Olympics but shouldn't be  (Read 22835 times)

Re: Sports that are in the Olympics but shouldn't be
« Reply #50 on: August 08, 2012, 01:12:21 pm »
No, do it the other way. Keep the different strokes (because the world don't move to the beat of just one drum and what might be right for you might not be right for some) and cut down the millions of distances.

They can choose whatever stroke they like but the fastest wins. If that means that everybody does freestyle, fine. It is a race so choosing a slower stroke is just perverse. On that line, get rid of racewalking, they should be running.
No, they should be cycling. It's faster. Choosing to cover the distance the slow way is perverse. And get those hurdles off the track: they slow the runners down.
"A woman on a bicycle has all the world before her where to choose; she can go where she will, no man hindering." The Type-Writer Girl, 1897

Cudzoziemiec

  • Eating all the pies and drinking all the tea.
Re: Sports that are in the Olympics but shouldn't be
« Reply #51 on: August 08, 2012, 01:12:42 pm »
No, do it the other way. Keep the different strokes (because the world don't move to the beat of just one drum and what might be right for you might not be right for some) and cut down the millions of distances.
I think it depends whether these are separate disciplines, regardless of what sport we're considering. Does a 100 metre sprint require a different sort of talent to a marathon, although both are running? Is the 110 metre hurdles sufficiently different from the sprint? Or the steeplechase? Is a time trial on the track really a different thing to one on the road? Can a long jump champion be a good high jumper or win the triple jump - is all jumping just jumping or are they really separate skills?

I've no idea what the answers would be for swimming (or any other sport) but adopting this approach you could then allocate the same number of events to each sport, avoiding the situation where one country dominates the medal table because their best sport gets so many medals.
Days become simply the spaces between dreams, spaces between the shifting floors of time...

LittleWheelsandBig

  • Whimsy Rider
Re: Sports that are in the Olympics but shouldn't be
« Reply #52 on: August 08, 2012, 01:28:31 pm »
No, do it the other way. Keep the different strokes (because the world don't move to the beat of just one drum and what might be right for you might not be right for some) and cut down the millions of distances.

They can choose whatever stroke they like but the fastest wins. If that means that everybody does freestyle, fine. It is a race so choosing a slower stroke is just perverse. On that line, get rid of racewalking, they should be running.
No, they should be cycling. It's faster. Choosing to cover the distance the slow way is perverse.

Have you tried cycling underwater? Swimming is faster.
Wheel meet again, don't know where, don't know when...

dasmoth

  • Techno-optimist
Re: Sports that are in the Olympics but shouldn't be
« Reply #53 on: August 08, 2012, 01:31:03 pm »
Have you tried cycling underwater? Swimming is faster.

Pedal-hydrofoil?.
Half term's when the traffic becomes mysteriously less bad for a week.

LittleWheelsandBig

  • Whimsy Rider
Re: Sports that are in the Olympics but shouldn't be
« Reply #54 on: August 08, 2012, 01:40:16 pm »
Aren't they supposed to be mostly above-water, if you are doing it properly?
Wheel meet again, don't know where, don't know when...

Re: Sports that are in the Olympics but shouldn't be
« Reply #55 on: August 08, 2012, 01:53:52 pm »
None of the team sports where the Olympics are secondary to the world championships or equivalent. So, no football, no rugby (keep it out!), no cricket.

That's an excellent criteria. But lets apply it to individual sports as well.

No cycle road racing (because the tours are the big thing) but keep the time trial.

No tennis (cause the grand slam tournaments are the be all and end all)

No golf (same reasons as tennis).

<i>Marmite slave</i>

Justin(e)

  • On my way out of here
Re: Sports that are in the Olympics but shouldn't be
« Reply #56 on: August 08, 2012, 02:23:08 pm »
Rationalise any event where an athlete can win three golds.

If so, one has to go - they are too close together.  Let the athlete who wins all three choose which event to retire - kind of like retiring a basketballer's jersey.   It is akin to having the 90 metre dash, the 100 metre dash and the 110 metre dash.

Also, get rid of sports that favour technology, or limit participation based on wealth.  Why should a Tanzanian cyclist never be able to compete on the track because velodromes are only in a few wealthy countries and bicycles need the weight of a mighty cycling industry to develop.  Simple fairness means that track cycling does not belong (either that or make it egalitarian somehow).

The defacto hierarchy of olympic achievement means that we all know what the blue ribband events are; keep those and gradually lose the others.

Re: Sports that are in the Olympics but shouldn't be
« Reply #57 on: August 08, 2012, 03:54:46 pm »
For a truly egalitarian sports tournament, we need look no further than Alice's Adventures In Wonderland;)
"Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster.
And when you look long into an abyss, the abyss also looks into you." ~ Friedrich Nietzsche

Re: Sports that are in the Olympics but shouldn't be
« Reply #58 on: August 08, 2012, 04:01:05 pm »
I'd be happy to get shot of football, but for two reasons:

1) It's good exposure for women's football. How many times can they have played in front of crowds like that?

2) Removing football for the games in Rio might annoy the Brazilians a bit...

Maybe retire it after Rio. Actually, how about letting each host nation nominate three or four events just for their games?

Re: Sports that are in the Olympics but shouldn't be
« Reply #59 on: August 08, 2012, 04:09:35 pm »
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...)

Re: Sports that are in the Olympics but shouldn't be
« Reply #60 on: August 08, 2012, 04:13:15 pm »
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!

Make the swimming like that. Anything under 400 - you do all of them. Likewise for the longer stuff. The most consistent wins gold. Then you wouldn't have the ridiculous situation you have now where you get another medal just for chucking in an extra couple of lengths...
Those wonderful norks are never far from my thoughts, oh yeah!

Re: Sports that are in the Olympics but shouldn't be
« Reply #61 on: August 08, 2012, 04:17:08 pm »
Jess Ennis had to do all kinds of shit and she only got 1 medal!
I want that on a tshirt
<i>Marmite slave</i>

Jacomus

  • My favourite gender neutral pronoun is comrade
Re: Sports that are in the Olympics but shouldn't be
« Reply #62 on: August 08, 2012, 05:10:22 pm »
Jess Ennis had to do all kinds of shit and she only got 1 medal!
I want that on a tshirt

Surely a POTD!

 ;D
"The most difficult thing is the decision to act, the rest is merely tenacity." Amelia Earhart

Jacomus

  • My favourite gender neutral pronoun is comrade
Re: Sports that are in the Olympics but shouldn't be
« Reply #63 on: August 08, 2012, 05:14:53 pm »
I'd be happy to get shot of football, but for two reasons:

1) It's good exposure for women's football. How many times can they have played in front of crowds like that?

2) Removing football for the games in Rio might annoy the Brazilians a bit...

Maybe retire it after Rio. Actually, how about letting each host nation nominate three or four events just for their games?

1) Never before. This was the largest crowd at a women's football match in the UK.

2) Haha! Maybe a tad!

That is a reservation that I hadn't thought of when I suggested scrapping football, though I suppose that the real test is how much enthusiasm is retained after the games. Hopefully a lot.
"The most difficult thing is the decision to act, the rest is merely tenacity." Amelia Earhart

Cudzoziemiec

  • Eating all the pies and drinking all the tea.
Re: Sports that are in the Olympics but shouldn't be
« Reply #64 on: August 08, 2012, 06:10:20 pm »
Isn't (what we call) football primarily a women's sport in some countries, eg USA? I don't know that's anything to do with the Olympics though, it probably reflects it being easier for a new/minority sport to grow among the traditionally under-sported half of the population. Perhaps cricket would catch on trans-pond as a women's sport but I doubt it's going to stop men playing baseball.
Days become simply the spaces between dreams, spaces between the shifting floors of time...

Re: Sports that are in the Olympics but shouldn't be
« Reply #65 on: August 08, 2012, 06:52:01 pm »
Rationalise any event where an athlete can win three golds.

If so, one has to go - they are too close together.  Let the athlete who wins all three choose which event to retire - kind of like retiring a basketballer's jersey.   It is akin to having the 90 metre dash, the 100 metre dash and the 110 metre dash.

Also, get rid of sports that favour technology, or limit participation based on wealth.  Why should a Tanzanian cyclist never be able to compete on the track because velodromes are only in a few wealthy countries and bicycles need the weight of a mighty cycling industry to develop.  Simple fairness means that track cycling does not belong (either that or make it egalitarian somehow).

The defacto hierarchy of olympic achievement means that we all know what the blue ribband events are; keep those and gradually lose the others.
Tanzanian cyclists might be deprived of local velodromes (the nearest two are colonial-era ones in Antanarivo & Kinshasa, & even from Google Earth one can see that they're derelict), but that doesn't shut them out completely. It makes competing a damn sight harder, because they'd have to practice on roads or athletic tracks on whatever bikes they could beg, borrow or steal, until they got recognition from someone, somewhere, who'd sponsor them to compete in a country (e.g. South Africa) with decent facilities - but that already happens with, e.g., Ethiopian & Kenyan runners. They're as successful as they are not because they're naturally more gifted than Ugandans, Tanzanians, or whoever, but because of a recently-developed local culture of running, supported by competition in richer countries & head-hunting foreign coaches.
"A woman on a bicycle has all the world before her where to choose; she can go where she will, no man hindering." The Type-Writer Girl, 1897

Re: Sports that are in the Olympics but shouldn't be
« Reply #66 on: August 08, 2012, 06:59:26 pm »
Why are so many of you down on the Equestrian events?  Inverted snobbery?

Having ridden, a little, badly, I'm in awe of the competitors. I also enjoy watching horses. I'd happily watch it regardless of who was likely to win (although the team jump off was very nail biting). Whereas I actually find a lot of the cycling events a bit dull, unless I'm rooting for a GB rider, although of course I appreciate the physical ability involved.

If I had a baby elephant, it could help me wash the car. If I had a car.

See my recycled crafts at www.wastenotwantit.co.uk

Re: Sports that are in the Olympics but shouldn't be
« Reply #67 on: August 08, 2012, 07:00:44 pm »
Also, the equestrian events are one of the few (if any others?) where men and women can compete against and alongside each other...
If I had a baby elephant, it could help me wash the car. If I had a car.

See my recycled crafts at www.wastenotwantit.co.uk

Rig of Jarkness

  • An Englishman abroad
Re: Sports that are in the Olympics but shouldn't be
« Reply #68 on: August 08, 2012, 07:17:15 pm »
I've got no problems with the equestrian events at all, or the sailing, or the rowing.  But, alas, I've got used to being in an often very small minority on YACF.
Aero but not dynamic

Re: Sports that are in the Olympics but shouldn't be
« Reply #69 on: August 08, 2012, 09:46:43 pm »
Why are so many of you down on the Equestrian events?

Because the Olympics is for humans, not horses!
Those wonderful norks are never far from my thoughts, oh yeah!

Re: Sports that are in the Olympics but shouldn't be
« Reply #70 on: August 08, 2012, 09:50:06 pm »
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.

Re: Sports that are in the Olympics but shouldn't be
« Reply #71 on: August 08, 2012, 09:54:35 pm »
It's the only sport where male and female horses compete against each other!

Not quite the same, but you have mixed doubles in both tennis and badminton...

Those wonderful norks are never far from my thoughts, oh yeah!

Re: Sports that are in the Olympics but shouldn't be
« Reply #72 on: August 08, 2012, 10:13:07 pm »
 
Rationalise any event where an athlete can win three golds.

VP could have won 3 gold medals in Olympics 2012.  Rationalise cycling further?

Also, get rid of sports that favour technology, or limit participation based on wealth.

Me thinks this would hit Team GB cycling very hard as it must cost quite a bit of money to work out all those 'marginal gains'.  I was reading a report today about how much effort has gone to determine the effect of moisture retention on clothing and how the clothing could affect time.  Things like this cost money and you need access to resources, so the bigger nations will also have an advantage.

We could of course issue all teams with exactly the same equipment, based on their measurements, but there are disadvantages in that.  Also, based on wealth, how many swimming pools etc can some countries afford and how about those without access to water regarding the events based on the water?

There will always be inequality and some countries will never be competitive at certain sporting disciplines due to a number of factors that include wealth and opportunity.  They find their niche and try to excel.  If we are to cull certain sports as they are not inclusive and favour particular countries, then very few events would remain.

Perhaps the ‘taking part’ is important and it is not all about winning.


Pingu

  • Put away those fiery biscuits!
  • Mrs Pingu's domestique
    • the Igloo
Re: Sports that are in the Olympics but shouldn't be
« Reply #73 on: August 08, 2012, 11:10:02 pm »
Rowing needs changes, it's bloody dull to watch...

Record it & watch it at 32x speed  :thumbsup:

Jaded

  • The Codfather
  • Formerly known as Jaded
Re: Sports that are in the Olympics but shouldn't be
« Reply #74 on: August 08, 2012, 11:21:40 pm »
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...)

Coxed Sculls.
If you don't like your democracy, vote against it.