vcjack
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,875
|
Post by vcjack on Aug 11, 2008 13:27:10 GMT -5
I don't have a problem with the weight classes. In events where there is an inherent advantage to being bigger -- boxing, wrestling, weightlifting etc.. -- it makes sense to have the weight classes. I'd never really considered racing events. I guess you could make a case that there is some advantage there as well. But I'm with you on all the new events. THe one that jumped out at me when I saw the preview edition in the paper was Trampoline. Yep, there is an olympic sport for trampoline. I haven't seen it yet, but I am "eagerly awaiting" ... Of course there need to be some weight classes in combat sports. But weightlifting? Why that and not weight classes for speed events like track and swimming? Why does it make more sense to give people of all shapes and sizes a shot at being strongest, but when it comes to foot speed we accept that we only give a damn about the fastest? But even for combat sports, does there really need to be 11 classes? That seems like double a reasonable number. And they need to be recalibrated. 155 pounds is "middle weight" on a man? It's like these weight classifications are biases against those of normal height, to say nothing of tall people. I assume these classifications are very old and need to be refreshed. For the same reason, we need to re-visit shower head and toilet height. Check out how low to the ground a non-handicapped toilet is next time you are in the head. No imagine that was a chair. Can we make toilets for adults now? Wait, am I on the wrong board for this? I agree that there are too many classes but I think the "average" weight is fine. It may not be average for an American man but its might be close to a worldwide average. But what I really don't like about Olympic boxing is the judging, I'm having trouble understanding it
|
|
thebin
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,848
|
Post by thebin on Aug 11, 2008 13:29:38 GMT -5
Of course there need to be some weight classes in combat sports. But weightlifting? Why that and not weight classes for speed events like track and swimming? Why does it make more sense to give people of all shapes and sizes a shot at being strongest, but when it comes to foot speed we accept that we only give a damn about the fastest? But even for combat sports, does there really need to be 11 classes? That seems like double a reasonable number. And they need to be recalibrated. 155 pounds is "middle weight" on a man? It's like these weight classifications are biases against those of normal height, to say nothing of tall people. I assume these classifications are very old and need to be refreshed. For the same reason, we need to re-visit shower head and toilet height. Check out how low to the ground a non-handicapped toilet is next time you are in the head. No imagine that was a chair. Can we make toilets for adults now? Wait, am I on the wrong board for this? I agree that there are too many classes but I think the "average" weight is fine. It may not be average for an American man but its might be close to a worldwide average. But what I really don't like about Olympic boxing is the judging, I'm having trouble understanding it Then why is "middle weight" the 8th classification on a scale of 1-11? Why are there 6 or 7 "lightweight" classes but only one "super heavy?" That seems balanced to you? Why should the weight classes be calibrated on a Phillipino/Thai scale?
|
|
thebin
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,848
|
Post by thebin on Aug 11, 2008 13:34:38 GMT -5
The "average" or middle weight class for Olympic boxing if you just select the class in the middle of the 11 is "Light Welter Weight" or under 64 kg, which means you have to be UNDER 140 pounds to qualify. How many men do you know UNDER 140 pounds? THink of all your skinniest and shortest friends. I don't know one who I suspect is close to the 130s. Seriously, not a single one. A very good friend of mine is by all accounts on the short and skinny side dude and he has to be 160. That means more than half of the boxing medals will go to men who weigh less than ANYBODY I KNOW. Yeah, Americans are taller and a whole lot wider than they used to be, but do you really think 140 pounds is a good cuttoff point for an average human male? I bet these classfifications are 100 years old.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 11, 2008 13:39:37 GMT -5
As long as we are on the subject, I think this would be an appropriate time to bring up a new suggestion for Olympic consideration: Mixed Martial Arts. They already have boxing, judo, wrestling and TaeKwonDo. How about an MMA discipline? With the popularity of the sport, that seems like it would be a natural to me. Did you not read my last post? EDIT: And it wouldn't be a new suggestion... they considered bringing pankration back for several Olympics, most recently Athens, but it didn't have enough traction.
|
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Aug 11, 2008 13:44:25 GMT -5
So we are in agreement then? That might be a first.
|
|
vcjack
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,875
|
Post by vcjack on Aug 11, 2008 14:08:13 GMT -5
. How many men do you know UNDER 140 pounds? I might know I guy... [looks around nervously] But seriously, I don't think its that far fetched that 155 is an average weight, especially when you have a lot of poor countries bringing the average down. I've been on a soccer field against Central American men in their 30's and even my skinny ass was throwing them aside. And when a certain much larger hoyatalk member was on the field *coughRBHoyacough* it wasn't even a contest. Now should they have 9 or so different lightweigh events? probably not
|
|
|
Post by atlasfrysmith on Aug 11, 2008 14:10:59 GMT -5
But what I really don't like about Olympic boxing is the judging, I'm having trouble understanding it I absolutely agree. As bizarre and corrupt as judging in professioinal boxing can be, the Olympic idea that you get a point every time you hit the other guy, regardless of where or how hard, makes no sense to me. If you pepper a guy with weak jabs throughout a round and then he times you and knocks your block off with one solid shot to the jaw, you should lose. That said, it does seem that the Olympic champions do tend to be successful professionals, but maybe that's because they're the best amateurs anyway. Regular amateur boxing doesn't have the screwy points-per-punch system, does it?
|
|
thebin
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,848
|
Post by thebin on Aug 11, 2008 15:15:17 GMT -5
But what I really don't like about Olympic boxing is the judging, I'm having trouble understanding it I absolutely agree. As bizarre and corrupt as judging in professioinal boxing can be, the Olympic idea that you get a point every time you hit the other guy, regardless of where or how hard, makes no sense to me. If you pepper a guy with weak jabs throughout a round and then he times you and knocks your block off with one solid shot to the jaw, you should lose. That said, it does seem that the Olympic champions do tend to be successful professionals, but maybe that's because they're the best amateurs anyway. Regular amateur boxing doesn't have the screwy points-per-punch system, does it? If Olympic champs tend to be succesful pros, why the dearth of US boxing medals the last 20 years? As far as I know we still do very well in the pros.
|
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Aug 11, 2008 15:19:04 GMT -5
I think that they developed the Olympic scoring system specifically to eliminate/minimize judging abnormalities (bias/cheating etc...). I remember hearing something about that in 2000 I think -- the idea being that if you have 3 judges and all they are doing is registering a connected punch, then there should be more consistency and less ambiguity than subjectively "scoring" a fight. Personally, I don't like it a bit, for some of the reasons listed. A punch simply isn't a punch. Although I won't take it to the extreme. I remember Sugar Ray Leonard getting criticized because he would win rounds and fights yet not inflict any damage on his opponent. I guess the key is that there has to be a happy medium. If your style of fighting is to dance around and use your speed -- to stick and move -- and you can do it effectively, controling the fight and making the opponent fight your fight then you should get a degree of reward for doing so. But to take it to the level the Olympics does, making each punch count the same is far too extreme in my opinion.
|
|
Nevada Hoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 18,414
|
Post by Nevada Hoya on Aug 11, 2008 15:24:22 GMT -5
Yes, that was a great race in the 4x100 free. Unfortunately, I didn't see it live or on "live tape" (agree with kchoya on the west coast being shut out on the live action), because I went to be at 10:30 pm PDT. I was awakened by my wife's screaming at 11:30 pm, so I saw the aftermath of the race and, of course, some replays.
And, bin, I am less than 170 pounds, and in my 30's, when I was doing marathons, I was less than 140.
|
|
|
Post by HoyaSinceBirth on Aug 11, 2008 15:27:47 GMT -5
Yeah i actually know quite a few guys around college age who are are less than 140.
|
|
PDRHoya99
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 766
|
Post by PDRHoya99 on Aug 11, 2008 15:33:26 GMT -5
Agreed with a few of you, comparing your desk-jockeying fat ass to people competing at the international levels in almost any sport probably isn't fair.
As for all the weight classes, it's no sillier than swimming. Let's award medals for 4 different ways to move through the water at all different distances. It's the equivalent of having a medal for hopping on one foot or crawling or running backwards in 100, 200 and 400 meter distances. I guess the walking medals are somewhat like that, but those are equally ridiculous.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,736
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Aug 11, 2008 16:00:58 GMT -5
The weight class concept is fine, though they may take it to extremes at times.
My bigger issue is some of the "sports" and the logic behind what's in the Olympics and what isn't.
For some reason, "Trampoline Gymnastics", which only occurs in government sponsored Olympic training facilities (I'm pretty sure) is in, but baseball is gone after this Olympics. Baseball is huge in US, Cuba, Japan, Dominican Republican, PR, Venezuela, Mexico, Korea, Taiwan and pretty big in other places. You're telling me synchronized diving and trampoline -- entirely made up to jack up medal counts -- are more legitimate than sports that were created to play and complete in, not to create medals?
Reality is, the IOC openly tried to eliminate sports the U.S. would do well in and constantly adds in other sports that no one actually competes in unless they are doing it solely for the Olympics.
Baseball and Rugby are out, and Field Hockey is in? There's no golf -- but we get synchronized diving and swimming? Ping Pong has more medals than tennis? Really?
I have no problems with having everything in (though it cheapens the medal count severely), but how can you justify getting rid of baseball?
|
|
thebin
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,848
|
Post by thebin on Aug 11, 2008 16:12:39 GMT -5
Yeah i actually know quite a few guys around college age who are are less than 140. "Quite a few" is a pretty relative term. Granted by point of emphasis I said don't know ANY, but let's remember that was the middle classification at that weight, not super light bantam jockey. Do you know a few or a lot of MEN under 140 pounds? Because the ancient boxing classifications that we still cling to have the 140 pound cuttoff in the 6th class out of 11 classes, not where you would expect it around 1 or 2 for an adult sport. Do you know an equal amount of people under and over 140 pounds who are adult males? Somehow I doubt it unless you live in the jungles of Peru. As to the "fat desk jockeying"....muscle weighs more than fat. One would expect that someone who is as in tremendous shape as an olympic boxer would actually be quite heavy for his frame. What you have is a weight class system that that is geared very heavily towards much shorter (and smaller) men than average height and who are always incentived to cut down even further to dangerous weights to maximize their competitive advantages. It's dangerous and stupid. One lightweight boxer this week passed out from trying to get to weight and is now out of the Olympics. He was one of our gold medal hopefuls.
|
|
thebin
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,848
|
Post by thebin on Aug 11, 2008 16:21:26 GMT -5
To be clear, I DO want a weight class system in combat sports. It just needs updating so that we don't have 8 classes for men under 180 pounds and 3 classes for those over. And we DO NOT need 11 classes. I think 5 or 6 will do.
But for say weightlifting....there is NO reason to have a weight classification if you don't have one in say track sprinting or throwing events.
Just explain to me why weight classifications for clean and jerk but not the discus?
|
|
thebin
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,848
|
Post by thebin on Aug 11, 2008 16:33:54 GMT -5
Agreed with a few of you, comparing your desk-jockeying fat ass to people competing at the international levels in almost any sport probably isn't fair. As for all the weight classes, it's no sillier than swimming. Let's award medals for 4 different ways to move through the water at all different distances. It's the equivalent of having a medal for hopping on one foot or crawling or running backwards in 100, 200 and 400 meter distances. I guess the walking medals are somewhat like that, but those are equally ridiculous. On the one hand I agree with you- there are a whole lot of swimming medals when you think the fastest stroke maybe should do it. But the fact is swimming different strokes has grass roots appeal and tradition. It's a globally competitive sport- we just didn't make up the backstroke to help the Azerbaijanis win more medals. Ultimately that is my biggest gripe by far- we have sports there really is no widespread love for. Local hobbies which are mildly athletic should not be made into Olympic events for the hell of it. Curling, synchronized anything, are just too limited in appeal to have been taken seriously- and yet they were given medal status. Mixed friggen doubles PING PONG? I don't even want to know how many badmitton medals we give out. We sure seem to give out a lot of shooting medals, using guns that are not really guns, that are won by people who are from countries where you really can't own a gun to begin with so...are these sports really popular sports anywhere? Can we eliminate local niche sports? And yeah I know 200 million people watch ping pong- but in how many countries? If it's 199 million in China alone, get rid of it. I have a feeling we have a lot of medal sports that are popular only in a limited local sense and are THAT popular only because you can now medal in them.
|
|
The Stig
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,844
|
Post by The Stig on Aug 11, 2008 16:42:49 GMT -5
If they do weight classes for track and field, they've got to have a Half Ton Four by One. It's a 4x100 relay, and the total weight of the team has to be at least 1000 lbs.
|
|
thebin
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,848
|
Post by thebin on Aug 12, 2008 8:09:21 GMT -5
How is it that the US, a country with a pretty damn deep and broad weightlifting culture, can't place a guy in the top 30 for the men's 62-69 KG weightlifting event? We didn't even have a guy in the event. Why? Because nobody who is a world class strength athlete should weight 150 pounds. The only way that happens is in third world countries or those with sports politboros who make 10 year-old kids clean and jerk until their growth is stunted by age 12. They'll never walk properly in their 40s, but medal they will because it's their for the taking.
Combat sports I agree need weight classes, but you'll never convince me that we need to know who the best tiny clean and jerker is anymore than we need to know who the best tiny discus thrower is or who is the best high jumper under 5 feet tall. Why do we accept that some sports like shot put and long distance running are only for certain body types, but we need to pretend that we care who the strongest tiny person is?
|
|
thebin
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,848
|
Post by thebin on Aug 12, 2008 8:33:49 GMT -5
Did anyone watch the men's gymnastics? Two things stuck out; the US high bar routine in particular was spectacular to watch; and the US men's team are the biggest bunch of tools you have ever seen. Think the flaired-up Flingers waiter who worked with Jennifer Anniston in Office Space but with a dose of world class athlete cockiness.
|
|
thebin
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,848
|
Post by thebin on Aug 12, 2008 9:39:10 GMT -5
In all the ridiculous sports we've gone over, somehow we've neglected to ridicule rythmic gymnastics, AKA Twirling, which is every bit as stupid as synchronized swimming and diving.
|
|