thebin
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,848
|
Post by thebin on Aug 18, 2008 14:40:52 GMT -5
Trampoline is up there on the contrived sports. I'm pretty sure I invented that in my backyard when I was about eleven. If I had known I could win a medal for doing flips... And it is pretty cool, but when every participant is someone who didn't make the team in "Real" gymnastics, doesn't that tell you something? WE already have a contrived fake sport for inadequate gymnasts; rythmic gymnastics. Now we have two. Or 8 if you count all the diving events. I've been keeping quiet on trampoline because honestly I prefer to ignore it. I forget that it's there and it's better for my general well being that way.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,732
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Aug 18, 2008 14:44:46 GMT -5
I actually wouldn't chop so many actual events -- but I would chop derivations. No need for trampoline or rhythmic if it isn't good enough to be included in the All-Around. No need for mixed doubles badminton.
However, if we're going to be so ridiculously inclusive, you simply cannot chop baseball and softball. You must include golf.
What gets me is not the proliferation of sports -- it's that the sport choices are so obviously chosen politically and for no appreciation of the players/athletes involved.
|
|
thebin
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,848
|
Post by thebin on Aug 18, 2008 14:46:52 GMT -5
"I'd like a little more of that air to go to sports that aren't going to get it otherwise."
I can agree to that. It's the excution of this principle where we differ. I think those sports that shine every 4 years are track, swimming, and gymnastics. Yes, they are marquee olympic events, but only in the olympics do they make headlines. If the Olympics become a joke, they won't even be popular once every 4 years.
Where we diverge is you seek (as I see it) to water down the magnitude of the Olympic Medal as a very rare thing- which won't hurt basketball or soccer much but will certainly hurt swimming and track and gymnastics. Where we diverge is that you give sports the benefit of the doubt that they are really wide spread sports with grass roots supports in different geographical areas. You don't think it's too important to worry about that, and I do because I think it's important that Olympic champions be world class athletes who have had to rise to the top of a sport that actually has a middle and bottom.
DO you think women's competitive weightlifting or synchronized diving has a middle and a bottom to rise above?
|
|
thebin
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,848
|
Post by thebin on Aug 18, 2008 14:53:34 GMT -5
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIBA_World_Championship is the world championship. Bin and Saxa: As bin had put it, we're coming at this from opposite perspectives. I see Saxa's list of sports on the chopping block and I don't really see the point of eliminating them. But then again, I'm the guy that is more interested in field hockey and team handball and who found trampoline strangely compelling. The Olympics come at a lull in most sporting calendars, and draws a lot of air. I'd like a little more of that air to go to sports that aren't going to get it otherwise. And I'd disagree with the "everybody gets a trophy" idea - if enough people compete in a sport, throw it in there. Triathlon is different that running or swimming or biking on their own, and a lot of people do it - throw it in under the big tent. I think the fact that someone on a basketball board might not be aware of the basketball Worlds is proof that the Olympic basketball tourney has more prestige these days.
|
|
SirSaxa
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 747
|
Post by SirSaxa on Aug 18, 2008 15:07:20 GMT -5
"I'd like a little more of that air to go to sports that aren't going to get it otherwise." I can agree to that. It's the excution of this principle where we differ. I think those sports that shine every 4 years are track, swimming, and gymnastics. Yes, they are marquee olympic events, but only in the olympics do they make headlines. If the Olympics become a joke, they won't even be popular once every 4 years. Where we diverge is you seek (as I see it) to water down the magnitude of the Olympic Medal as a very rare thing- which won't hurt basketball or soccer much but will certainly hurt swimming and track and gymnastics. Where we diverge is that you give sports the benefit of the doubt that they are really wide spread sports with grass roots supports in different geographical areas. You don't think it's too important to worry about that, and I do because I think it's important that Olympic champions be world class athletes who have had to rise to the top of a sport that actually has a middle and bottom. DO you think women's competitive weightlifting or synchronized diving has a middle and a bottom to rise above? I agree with theBin's post -- essentially, the more watered down the Olympics become, the less each individual event means, and the less prestigious the medal. Winning classic Olympic events like the 100m Dash, the 1500, the high jump, hurdles, swimming titles, etc., Those mean something. I personally can't put the air pistol shooter on the same plane as the former guys/girls. Second thing... something is good? Make it bigger. Big Mac? make it Double Big Mac. No, it doesn't work that way. The Olympics are getting out of hand. There is the dilution factor, There is also the challenge of staging an Olympics. Ideally, the Olympics will be held in different parts of the world every four years. OK, it is. But, how many times has it been in the USA? How many countries have the resources for an Olympics? The bigger it gets, the more demanding the need for facilities, housing, TV coverage, etc... how many cities/countries can actually mount one? It's like every time MLB, or NHL, or NCAA or whomever wants to add more playoff teams. What? There are already too many playoff teams. There are so many playoff teams they diminish the importance of the regular season. 65 teams in the NCAA basketball tournament and now they want more?!?! The NBA has so many teams in the playoffs, no one cares about the regular season any more. The Olympics are a great thing. Don't spoil it by constantly expanding. And as for the Triathlon. What skill is there in that? Endurance. Stamina. If you are a really good cylcist, you'll be in the cycling events. Running.. you're in the marathon or the 10,000m. Swimming... you get the idea. Not good enough for any of those? OK, here's another one. None of the triathletes are as skilled at their individual components as the people in those specialties. Triathlon is not at the top of my list of events to be eliminated. Of course one has to be a really dedicated, hard working athlete to win one. But the idea of devaluing the real, classic, Olympic events by constantly adding more? Not a good one.
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Aug 18, 2008 15:19:40 GMT -5
You all realize it's only a matter of time before most of this X Games nonsense gets added to the Summer Games, right?
I believe skateboarding is already in (or close to it) for London.
Not that that stuff isn't fun to watch sometimes, but I think that falls pretty well into the "unnecessary expansion" category.
|
|
thebin
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,848
|
Post by thebin on Aug 18, 2008 15:20:27 GMT -5
SirSaxa: "It's like every time MLB, or NHL, or NCAA or whomever wants to add more playoff teams. What? There are already too many playoff teams. There are so many playoff teams they diminish the importance of the regular season. 65 teams in the NCAA basketball tournament and now they want more?!?! The NBA has so many teams in the playoffs, no one cares about the regular season any more."
I can't tell you how violently I agree with this. There is no justification for the 16th best team in a league to make the playoffs after an interminable regular season.
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Aug 18, 2008 15:22:43 GMT -5
I'm not sure if I've ever seen someone "violently agree" with something.
That would be fun to watch too. Let's make that an Olympic event.
;D
|
|
Jack
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,411
|
Post by Jack on Aug 18, 2008 15:23:29 GMT -5
And as for the Triathlon. What skill is there in that? Endurance. Stamina. If you are a really good cylcist, you'll be in the cycling events. Running.. you're in the marathon or the 10,000m. Swimming... you get the idea. Not good enough for any of those? OK, here's another one. None of the triathletes are as skilled at their individual components as the people in those specialties. Triathlon is not at the top of my list of events to be eliminated. Of course one has to be a really dedicated, hard working athlete to win one. Couldn't this same argument be used against the Decathalon, a long-recognized track event and at one time or another thought to be the measure of the greatest athlete in the world, in spite of the fact that the winner would be unlikely to even qualify for the Olympics in any of the 10 individual events? Or even more random, but certainly well-established- the modern pentathlon, which combines fencing, shooting, equestrian, swimming, and cross-country and has been in the Olympics since 1912.
|
|
thebin
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,848
|
Post by thebin on Aug 18, 2008 15:26:21 GMT -5
And as for the Triathlon. What skill is there in that? Endurance. Stamina. If you are a really good cylcist, you'll be in the cycling events. Running.. you're in the marathon or the 10,000m. Swimming... you get the idea. Not good enough for any of those? OK, here's another one. None of the triathletes are as skilled at their individual components as the people in those specialties. Triathlon is not at the top of my list of events to be eliminated. Of course one has to be a really dedicated, hard working athlete to win one. Couldn't this same argument be used against the Decathalon, a long-recognized track event and at one time or another thought to be the measure of the greatest athlete in the world, in spite of the fact that the winner would be unlikely to even qualify for the Olympics in any of the 10 individual events? Or even more random, but certainly well-established- the modern pentathlon, which combines fencing, shooting, equestrian, swimming, and cross-country and has been in the Olympics since 1912. There is no rule that once popular events can't be eliminated to catch up with the times. Established as it may well be, the Winter biathalon is one of the silliest things I've ever seen in my life. I think being an "established sport" is a necessary but not sufficient criterion then I guess.
|
|
Nevada Hoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 18,409
|
Post by Nevada Hoya on Aug 18, 2008 15:28:45 GMT -5
Hey Nevada, What happened to Anthony Famiglietti in the 3000m steeplechase finals? After his 8:17 opening round, I was thinking he might actually medal, but looks like he crapped out in the finals. I had heard a story about him on NPR; he sounds like quite the character. I am having a hard time keeping up with the results. I tend to shy away from the results page, because I want to see it on TV/internet first, but on NBC they show a lot from 10-12 midnight, so I tape that, and don't have any time to watch it. Bottom line, I did not see or hear the results of the final. I took it for granted that Kenya won at least two medals and another African country another if Kenya didn't sweep. Running a 8:17, especially the way Fam did in the heats, does not bode well for his final, which I gather it didn't. But nobody can fault him for taking the race into his own hands in the prelims and qualifying that way. I think that was probably his goal, and to make the final was great for him. Gone are the days when we can challenge (ala Henry Marsh) in the finals. This Olympics will probably represent a low point in the US performance. Too many countries are getting involved and are very good in some events. No finalists for us in the long jump or high jump, or 1500m (in which we have the world champ) only one medal in the shot put and 100m, none for the women in the 100m. Only unexpected medal for us was Shalene Flanagan.
|
|
thebin
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,848
|
Post by thebin on Aug 18, 2008 15:33:38 GMT -5
Yeah while swimming was a good games even by American standards for team USA the track is not shaping up so good. We are usually good for 5-6 medals on shot and 100M and long jump alone. I think we got 2 and no golds.
Expecting big results from the 200 and 400 guys and gals.
|
|
|
Post by atlasfrysmith on Aug 18, 2008 15:41:56 GMT -5
Sports that by virtue of their reasonable level of multi-national popularity and athletic legitimacy should be (and stay) in the Olympics instead of trampoline: Rugby, Golf, Baseball, Softball, Cricket, maybe Squash/racquetball
Sports that probably shouldn't be in but have at least as much claim to an Olympic spot as trampoline:
Horse racing--like equestrian, but citius. Ballroom dance--Ever try impressing a girl by asking her out to go synchronized diving? Paintball--The Georgia-Russia air pistol final could have been so much better... Darts--ONE HUNDRED AND EEEIIIGGHHHTTTYYYYY
Sports that aren't sports at all but at least you can tell who wins without corrupt judging: Auto racing, fishing, chess, HORSE, competitive eating
|
|
theexorcist
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,506
|
Post by theexorcist on Aug 18, 2008 15:52:39 GMT -5
A few last points - this horse seems to be wheezing, if not dead.
1. There really is no Olympic ideal. The IOC is run by a bunch of cronies and some of the sports federations are crooked.
Chess is recognized by the IOC as a sport. The IOC also used to have artistic competitions, so the "cheapening" of the Olympics happened a while ago.
2. At a certain point, the Olympics aren't logistically feasible. They may have crossed that point already - so you can't add events, deserving though they may be, unless you take others.
3. How much can you chop athletics events? Do we need a 100M, 200M, 400M, 800M, 1500M, 5K, 10K? Do we need a 20K walk AND a 50K walk? Track competitors would probably say that there's a massive difference between prepping for each, and I think few would disagree.
Micahel Phelps won two separate golds in both the 200 free and 200 butterfly. One could argue that there should just be a 200 free rather than forcing people to swim different ways - track doesn't have one discipline where your arms have to be straight.
I'm not seriously suggesting either of the above, but when you want to whack air pistol at five paces and keep air pistol at seven paces, you need a consistent methodology.
4. What other events deserve inclusion? ESPN's been running something on Page 2 on this, and some of the "winners" have been croquet, bowling, and golf (bocce, ballroom dance, and fishing died). Golf to me seems like a no-brainer - lots of people play it, it's pretty much a sport, and you can bet on it and cheat at it (thank you, Lewis Grizzard).
To satiate this, consider destroying those sports like the pentathlon that have very few competitors - make it more based on the sport's popularity than its history (it cheapens the medal less when there are 100,000 world-class competitors instead of 1,000.
5. Really what this boils down to is that I think that the Olympics are a celebration of sports that nobody really cares much about, and ESPECIALLY individual sports. Yes, I wouldn't care about swimming if FINA had its World Cup, but the Olympic brand brings me in. And people buy Ravens jerseys, but few if any buy Phelps jerseys. The Olympics give these people their moment in the sun, and they do it when nothing else is on TV.
|
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Aug 18, 2008 16:23:38 GMT -5
You all realize it's only a matter of time before most of this X Games nonsense gets added to the Summer Games, right? I believe skateboarding is already in (or close to it) for London. Not that that stuff isn't fun to watch sometimes, but I think that falls pretty well into the "unnecessary expansion" category. I hadn't really thought about it in those terms, but I wouldn't argue with you. I was thinking of it as more that the Olympics were becoming more like the X Games. The Olympics are an opportunity for amateur athletes, who compete for "nothing" more than the thrill of the game and sport itself, to do so on the international scale. OK, so not even I believe that is still the case, but I can dream can't I? Anyhow, that was on of my main points when I started this thread some 9 pages ago. I think that a lot of the criticisms people are giving, represent the exact reasons why my (and probably some of your) feelings towards the Olympics have changed through the years. I do think that it has gone to too much of a "circus" atmosphere. The grandeur of the Opening and Closing ceremonies, the addition of all of the fringe sports, the addition of non-sports and such aberrations such as having the fairer sex lifting 500 pounds have resulted in the product we now have. I will be fair though: I have watched more Olympics this year, than any year since 1984 probably. Actually, I have probably "watched" more this year, but since I was fortunate enough to attend some events in Los Angeles, I still think of it as being an entirely encompassing event. Getting back to the issue at hand, in Swimming, Track and Field and Gymnastics, we have "real" sports that for all intents and purposes, have no professional alternative. Again, I think the amateur status makes the competitions so much more intriguing. The addition of professionals only dilutes that natural attraction. Secondly, as sports like baseball and basketball are added, there is a further watering down. Not that I have anything against either sport, it's just that we already have an avenue for "the best" to get together and compete on an annual basis. The same goes for tennis. The bottom line to me is that to retain the level of "speciality" that the Olympics had -- at least in my mind -- they need to return to the "amateur only" status. Then even sports like basketball, baseball and tennis would be very intriguing, plus it wouldn't detract from all of the other sports such as swimming and track and field, where the Olympics is still what it used to be -- the Best of the Best. I think this movement should be accompanies with a cleaning out of some of the events that never should have been there in the first place. In this regard, I am sure that many of us will have differences of opinion, as to exactly what should stay and what should go. The equestrian event is one that has no place in the Olympics in my opinion. Sure, I can appreciate the talent that goes into it. I can certainly appreciate the long hours of practice and repetition that go into becoming the best, but so what? There are equestrian competitions all over the world dedicated specifically to the event. Now before you say it, I know that the same could be said of almost every other Olympic event, but in all honesty, we must draw the line somewhere. And remember the goal is to have an international competition every four years, matching the best from different countries together, to determine who really is the best in his or her "sport." Now I know that it's a stretch to consider rythmic gymnastics a sport, and in fairness, if you want to can that event as well, then I won't lose any sleep over it. But the glamorized dog shows that feature horses instead, simply have no sport value whatsoever. Hell, if we are going to include that in the Olympics, then why don't we add guitar competition? That would make more sense. Remembering that we are looking for strictly amateurs, I think the Olympics could be a huge springboard for individual musicians. Obviously I am speaking tongue-in-cheek, but I think the analogy is quite aprepos. I could go on and on with listing complaints of specific events and I am sure that most of us could make up our own lists. Still, here is where I would start: 1. Return to amateur only. Yes, I know that it means different things in different cultures. We've all heard the stories of the russians who were groomed nearly from birth to be competitive gymnasts. We've heard how they had everything paid for and lived like kings and queens. Still, I think that this must be the first step. 2. Weed out the increasingly cumbersome number of fringe sports. I know this will be met with opposition among some, but as I've mentioned, equestrian needs to go the way of ballroom dancing. That simply isn't an Olympic event. 3. Scale back the ever increasing derivative sports. Rythmic gymnastics, synchronized diving and most recently trampoline would certainly make this list. While it is easy to appreciate the talent and hard work that goes into these events and the internationally competitive level, they simply don't belong in the Olympics. Since they certainly don't fit the mold, they couldn't be added to the X games, so maybe creating a new competition -- in the case of these somewhat metrosexual events, they could be called the XY Games. In all seriosness, they shouldn't be in the Olympics. 4. Turn Olympic boxing back into real boxing. Now I know there are many safety issues at work here with amateurs, but there has to be a happy medium. I would rather be open to potential biases and have a scoring system similar to professional boxing than what we have now. The current system simply doesn't work. And I know many boxing fans, who love virtually every sport, but can't watch the Olympic boxing. The lack of credit on the scoreboard for legitimate work in the ring, yet the mysterious back to back points in almost random fashion for glancing blows off the shoulder create a haphazard, unwatchable event akin to a catfight on an elementary school playground. 5. Lastly, let's let the women be women. I'm not sexist, but I think there are some things women shouldn't do. Lifting 500 pounds fits on this relatively short list. Personally women's wrestling and boxing would also qualify, but since that product has now crossed over into the mainstream, in the form of Boxing, Mixed Martial Arts and even WWE professional wrestling, I guess I would have to give these events a free pass, as much as I hate to. I close with this: I am not attempting to blast the Olympics as it now is as much as I am trying to make it even better. As I said before, I have watched more coverage this year than any in recent memory. But let's be honest: it was a combination of the Michael Phelps story, the always competitive USA women's gymnasts and the heavy Florida Gator representation in the likes of Dara Torres, Matt LaPorta and Ryan Lochte that really fueled my interest. The key is it doesn't have to be like that.
|
|
|
Post by atlasfrysmith on Aug 18, 2008 16:35:20 GMT -5
hifi-- I agree with you on 2, 3, and 4. Especially 4. God I can't stand Olympic boxing. But I don't see the argument for returning to amateur status--the Olympics should have the best of everyone, and if that means professionals in some more popular sports and amateurs in niche events, then so be it. And as for "I'm not sexist, but there are some things women shouldn't do," umm, how is that not sexist? If a girl can lift 500 pounds, why shoudn't she? If she's actually a 'roided-up east german man, that's different. But what's the inherent problem with women's weightlifting?
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Aug 18, 2008 16:45:12 GMT -5
Yeah, but let's see him do it 3 or 4 different disciplines, sometimes with less than an hour between races AND setting a world record almost every time. Still, that race was very impressive. Exactly which 3 or 4 disciplines are you referring to? As far as I could tell he excelled in butterfly and freestyle and was so dominant in those two that his weaker strokes didn't hold him back in the IM. Yes, Phelps is good, but it's the nature of swimming that allows someone to get 8 medals (many similar races of the same or similar distances). If track held a race where you ran backwards or hopped on one foot for 100 meters I'd like Bolt's chances. Obviously, they don't translate exactly from one to the other (thus your silly example of hopping on one foot). He has to do all four types of strokes in the IM and be pretty good at all of them (not just two). I don't think you can really say he's only good in two of them. Plus, he's going up against swimmers, a lot of times, who only do the fly, or only do the freestyle, and he still beats them. If there really isn't a lot of difference between the types of strokes (and thus its easier to get a lot of medals), then why don't more swimmers excel at multiple disciplines. That would seem to defeat your argument that if you're a good swimmer it should be easy to get lots of medals. Doing the 100M, the 200M and 400M is kind of like doing 200M, 400M and 800M on the track - something that's never been attempted, let alone someone getting gold medals and world records at each distance. Finally, I read somewhere that of the top 20 medal earners in Olympic history, only three are swimmers (Spitz, Phelps and Biondi). If it were truly easy to get lots of medals in swimming, the numbers would seem like they would come out different.
|
|
SirSaxa
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 747
|
Post by SirSaxa on Aug 18, 2008 19:03:59 GMT -5
Couldn't this same argument be used against the Decathalon, a long-recognized track event and at one time or another thought to be the measure of the greatest athlete in the world, in spite of the fact that the winner would be unlikely to even qualify for the Olympics in any of the 10 individual events? Or even more random, but certainly well-established- the modern pentathlon, which combines fencing, shooting, equestrian, swimming, and cross-country and has been in the Olympics since 1912. Well Jack, that's a pretty good point. So I had to think about that for a minute. Two things. 1. I am not hugely opposed to triathlon. I know those men and women are pretty incredible. But I am opposed to having so many minor "sports" being added and then add some more. 2. But when I think about it, Decathlon has been around a long time and that does mean something. More importantly, it represents a wide variety of differing skills. From Pole vaulting, to sprinting, to distance running, to throwing javelins and discus... disci? whatever. I think you see where I am going. The triathlon, on the other hand, primarily is a test of endurance and stamina... we already have the marathon for that. Sure, an argument can be made for it. I live in Hawaii... where the ironman triathlon was developed. Those folks are amazing. Personally, I think the winner of the Olympic Decathlon Gold is an even more impressive all around athlete.
|
|
SirSaxa
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 747
|
Post by SirSaxa on Aug 18, 2008 19:19:43 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by HoyaSinceBirth on Aug 18, 2008 19:23:56 GMT -5
I mean honestly I say we either cut it back to just track and field, swimming, and gymnastics or we let it stand as it is.
I really don't think all the other sports detract from the important ones since most people ignore the other sports anyway. I mean look at what's been on prime time on NBC it's been swimming, track and field and gymnastics. Might've been some volleyball once.
If you told most people that certain things were olympic events they wouldn't even know it. I don't think it's a big deal. It's all politics it's not about logic or what we think.
|
|