NationStates Jolt Archive

After nearly two weeks of the Olympics, wading through what NBC thought we should see in an attempt to watch what interested me, I have achieved Olympic burnout.

Some sports just don't do it for me. I don't like boxing or basketball, volleyball I can take or leave. But, at least, these are sports.

I fail to see where the sport and/or athleticism is in synchronized swimming, or rhythmic gymnastics. Admittedly, I'm neither graceful nor flexible enough for dancing with implements (aka rhythmic gymnastics). And, while I am perfectly capable of putting on enough makeup to make me look like a clown, I can't hold my breath under water for very long, so I can't really do synchronized swimming. Even so, I don't consider these sports, let alone worthy to be included in the Olympics.

But, enough of my rant (and please don't tell me to get a blog). Which so-called Olympic "sports" could you do without?

all of them.

Your post answers itself. Synchronizing any two people is difficult enough. Do it in impossible underwater positions in time to music with legs in the air and torsos underwater for more than a few seconds. Try really watching a routine and analyzing what they're actually doing. Now add six more synchronous swimmers in the group event. I mean no offense, but you have to be seriously stunted in perceptive and reasoning capacities to not realize how difficult synchro is.

Ditto rhythmic gymnastics, which is more about grace, timing and flexibility than the tumble-fest that apparatus gymnastics has become (though the grace of Nastia Liukin was indeed rewarded this year, to my surprise).

Thankfully, what you don't consider to be sports is an opinion not needed by the IOC.

As for my opinion on events, if enough nations compete (which is what happened with baseball/softball -- a dearth of truly competitive nations, though the US's defeat in both sports highlighted that parity isn't an issue, total number of competing nations is still an issue, though it may be solved for 2016) and successfully lobby the IOC, competition is competition, and each event has its own set of skills and difficulties. Determining the best of the world every four years should be an inclusive, not exclusive affair.

I saw too much coverage of Beach Volleyball, but by no means do I think it should be excluded. I'd like to have seen more coverage of archery, team handball, badminton, soccer (football), tennis, sailing, cycling and martial arts. I want to see things I don't already see every year. Even in track & field, events were glossed over (field events) -- I never once saw a camera shot from the bar-cam during the high-jump. In fact, the high jump was ultra-condensed for prime-time viewing.

Which is the rub. "Prime time" means airing what "sells", and like or not, Beach Volleyball means women (and sometimes even men) scantily dressed, as does swimming, diving, gymnastics and the like. Thing is, you'd think that once every four years, we'd get some coverage parity.

I also remember when US network coverage didn't demand a US presence in order to show an event. How else would I remember the affable Soviet weightlifter, Alexei Vassiliev from the 70s and 80s and rooting for the guy? Or in winter, getting to see legends like Franz Klammer, despite him not being from the USA? I miss Jim McKay (RIP) and the far more egalitarian coverage of my younger days.

holy shit? I missed the olympics!!!

holy shit? I missed the olympics!!!

If you say so. They were near your time zone too, mate.

I fail to see where the sport and/or athleticism is in synchronized swimming, or rhythmic gymnastics. Admittedly, I'm neither graceful nor flexible enough for dancing with implements (aka rhythmic gymnastics). And, while I am perfectly capable of putting on enough makeup to make me look like a clown, I can't hold my breath under water for very long, so I can't really do synchronized swimming. Even so, I don't consider these sports, let alone worthy to be included in the Olympics.

But, enough of my rant (and please don't tell me to get a blog). Which so-called Olympic "sports" could you do without?
well, in another two years, we'll be back with the Winter Olympics.

I'd like to have seen more coverage of archery, team handball, badminton, soccer (football), tennis, sailing, cycling and martial arts.

I daresay football ("soccer") and tennis get plenty of coverage outside the Olympics and also have plenty of huge international events - where the matches are vastly more interesting. As such, they do not add much to the Olympics in my opinion.

I daresay football ("soccer") and tennis get plenty of coverage outside the Olympics and also have plenty of huge international events - where the matches are vastly more interesting. As such, they do not add much to the Olympics in my opinion.

In the US? I wish. I rabidly watch the World Cup and any UEFA or European league action I can find on cable.

Also, kindly refrain from the sarcastic "quotes" on soccer. I didn't use them when I parenthesized (football). I only did that because soccer is what it's called here. Blame the English who didn't want confusion with the infant US football when real football was introduced here. The last thing I'd hope for this thread is a jock'jack on the merits of either game.

My point is that those sports don't get that much network coverage here. Especially not soccer. You'll see the "important" matches in tennis at the four major tourneys (Aussie, French, & US Opens + Wimbledon), and some minor tourneys on cable.

In the US? I wish. I rabidly watch the World Cup and any UEFA or European league action I can find on cable.

The USA is indeed the exception. However, globally speaking, football gets plenty of attention.

You'll see the "important" matches in tennis at the four major tourneys (Aussie, French, & US Opens + Wimbledon), and some minor tourneys on cable.

Which, (at least here ;)) is at least four more than e.g. an archery tournament.

Personally, I consider rythmic gymnastics and synchronised swimming particular forms of dancing. They require basically the same skills, and if I'm not mistaken things like choosing the right piece of music and matching it with your routine is even a criterion considered by the judges.

That doesn't diminish the achievements of competitors and coaches, but I think that those two run the borderline between what is and isn't sport.

I wouldn't mind seeing full-contact mixed martial arts in the program (though it's never gonna happen) and timbersport.

My definition of a Sport:

1. Requires athleticism. If John Daly could do it while sipping a scotch and smoking, it's not a sport.

2. Requires skill. If you won because you picked up some weights that were five pounds heavier than anyone else could lift, it's not a sport.

3. Impartial scoring system. If the Australian judge gave you a 9.5 and the East German judge gave you a 7.0, it's not a sport.

This eliminates gymnastics, rhythmic gymnastics, diving, boxing, judo, taekwondo, synchronized swimming, weightlifting and wrestling.

Of those, I really think we should get rid of rhythmic gymnastics, synchronized swimming and weightlifting, at the least.

Personally, I consider rythmic gymnastics and synchronised swimming particular forms of dancing. They require basically the same skills, and if I'm not mistaken things like choosing the right piece of music and matching it with your routine is even a criterion considered by the judges.

That doesn't diminish the achievements of competitors and coaches, but I think that those two run the borderline between what is and isn't sport.

I wouldn't mind seeing full-contact mixed martial arts in the program (though it's never gonna happen) and timbersport.

Timbersport? So we could see ax throwing, tree climbing, and something like this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E9x8rBKC4BE

Or like this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-2IXcDtdWtc

He even made it to Tree #5!

I think the Olympics are fine the way they are. There are more than enough sports, and if you go to the actual stadium(s) you can see things happening in excellent detail. Bring a pair of binoculars, though. Without them, you can't see crap.

I fail to see where the sport and/or athleticism is in synchronized swimming, or rhythmic gymnastics. Admittedly, I'm neither graceful nor flexible enough for dancing with implements (aka rhythmic gymnastics). And, while I am perfectly capable of putting on enough makeup to make me look like a clown, I can't hold my breath under water for very long, so I can't really do synchronized swimming. Even so, I don't consider these sports, let alone worthy to be included in the Olympics.
Personally, I consider rythmic gymnastics and synchronised swimming particular forms of dancing. They require basically the same skills, and if I'm not mistaken things like choosing the right piece of music and matching it with your routine is even a criterion considered by the judges.

That doesn't diminish the achievements of competitors and coaches, but I think that those two run the borderline between what is and isn't sport.
From what I saw I would agree that rhythmic gymnastics is comparable to professional dancing - which of course is very much a sport, just as ice dancing is very much a sport.

Synchronized swimming seems infinitely harder still than any of these. It's very underreported here so I only saw the winning Russians' team performance, the first synchronized swimming I've seen in several years.
And holy shit - I was offended on their behalf by all the disrespect their sport gets. The physical strength, endurance, and precision they need far surpasses that of, for example, the synchronized diving - yet nobody says synchronized diving isn't a sport, most probably because they're doing somersaults and twists which seem to bestow instant sports cred.
You could even argue that synchronized swimming is harder than the swim racing events because it requires precision and artistic impression on top of physical strength and mastering a certain technique in the water.

When you step back for a moment and look at it - how exactly is the long jump (a few running steps and a jump) more of a sport than what are basically endurance gymnastics that have to be done underwater and have to look perfect on top of it? Not at all, I'd think, yet nobody (myself included) would ever come out and say the long jump or all of track-and-field, really, "isn't a sport". Quite to the contrary - track-and-field is often our very definition of a sport.

I never once saw a camera shot from the bar-cam during the high-jump.
Ack. That really must have been ultra-condensed coverage.

Your post answers itself. Synchronizing any two people is difficult enough. Do it in impossible underwater positions in time to music with legs in the air and torsos underwater for more than a few seconds. Try really watching a routine and analyzing what they're actually doing. Now add six more synchronous swimmers in the group event. I mean no offense, but you have to be seriously stunted in perceptive and reasoning capacities to not realize how difficult synchro is.

Ditto rhythmic gymnastics, which is more about grace, timing and flexibility than the tumble-fest that apparatus gymnastics has become (though the grace of Nastia Liukin was indeed rewarded this year, to my surprise).

Thankfully, what you don't consider to be sports is an opinion not needed by the IOC.

As for my opinion on events, if enough nations compete (which is what happened with baseball/softball -- a dearth of truly competitive nations, though the US's defeat in both sports highlighted that parity isn't an issue, total number of competing nations is still an issue, though it may be solved for 2016) and successfully lobby the IOC, competition is competition, and each event has its own set of skills and difficulties. Determining the best of the world every four years should be an inclusive, not exclusive affair.

I saw too much coverage of Beach Volleyball, but by no means do I think it should be excluded. I'd like to have seen more coverage of archery, team handball, badminton, soccer (football), tennis, sailing, cycling and martial arts. I want to see things I don't already see every year. Even in track & field, events were glossed over (field events) -- I never once saw a camera shot from the bar-cam during the high-jump. In fact, the high jump was ultra-condensed for prime-time viewing.

Which is the rub. "Prime time" means airing what "sells", and like or not, Beach Volleyball means women (and sometimes even men) scantily dressed, as does swimming, diving, gymnastics and the like. Thing is, you'd think that once every four years, we'd get some coverage parity.

I also remember when US network coverage didn't demand a US presence in order to show an event. How else would I remember the affable Soviet weightlifter, Alexei Vassiliev from the 70s and 80s and rooting for the guy? Or in winter, getting to see legends like Franz Klammer, despite him not being from the USA? I miss Jim McKay (RIP) and the far more egalitarian coverage of my younger days.

Great post.

Not one of the sports is anywhere as near as bad as the coverage. The networks have got an embarassment of intense sport, they've got high definition cameras pointed at it, and still they have to sell every minute of it to us, hype it up with their descriptions of how much the athletes want to win (like we can't see that) and make a stupid circus out of it with their "medal tallies" and skin-shallow "you must be feeling stoked/shattered right now" dumbass interviews.

About the only sport I would dispute the Olympic value of is Equestrian. It's impressive, but it's more about what a horse can do than what its rider can. If they put the horses up on the podium, and hung the medals around their necks, I guess it wouldn't worry me so much.

Or like this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-2IXcDtdWtc

He even made it to Tree #5!

Lol, I have said it before and I will say it again those Japs are crazy. I like it how he didn't catch it and everybody just walked off dejected.

About the only sport I would dispute the Olympic value of is Equestrian. It's impressive, but it's more about what a horse can do than what its rider can. If they put the horses up on the podium, and hung the medals around their necks, I guess it wouldn't worry me so much.

Yes and no, but it is still a sport and it does take quite a bit to train a horse to do exactly what you want it to when you want it to, this applies to the dressage especially, that would have to be hard to get a horse to hop one-two-three then switch feet and do it again.

My definition of a Sport:

1. Requires athleticism. If John Daly could do it while sipping a scotch and smoking, it's not a sport.

Motor racing? Chess?

I mention these because neither requires athleticism directly, but both require mental endurance, the brain burns a lot of sugar when so heavily engaged, so for both physical fitness is a huge advantage.

Not to mention self-discipline, and dedication to training, in common with directly "athletic" sports.

2. Requires skill. If you won because you picked up some weights that were five pounds heavier than anyone else could lift, it's not a sport.

The hell it's not. I don't weight-lift, but I lift heavy things in the pursuit of my meagre 'living.' Balance and control over the skeleton is essential, and just because it isn't graceful doesn't mean that all lifting takes is "brute" strength.

Weightlifting requires skill, and if that is lacking you break bones, dislocate joints, damage cartilage ... and never even get to the Olympics.


3. Impartial scoring system. If the Australian judge gave you a 9.5 and the East German judge gave you a 7.0, it's not a sport.

It's a sport. Every one of us watching gets to see the best compete, and if we pull our head out of the "gold gold gold" asshole (who won was the best) we can judge for ourselves a strong floor routine, which the gymnast spoiled by falling off the bar three times ... or a good fight against a physically stronger martial artist ... or a young boxer who almost scores several points but doesn't convince the judges each time.

It's not a sport, though we can watch it and see excellence, unless we can trust the judges to tell us who won?

This eliminates gymnastics, rhythmic gymnastics, diving, boxing, judo, taekwondo, synchronized swimming, weightlifting and wrestling.

Wrestling ... isn't an Olympic sport for you?

Of those, I really think we should get rid of rhythmic gymnastics, synchronized swimming and weightlifting, at the least.

Your opinion has been noted.

Yes and no, but it is still a sport and it does take quite a bit to train a horse to do exactly what you want it to when you want it to, this applies to the dressage especially, that would have to be hard to get a horse to hop one-two-three then switch feet and do it again.

It takes quite a bit to train a horse, yes. But not all horses have equal potential.

We could just presume that all riders at that level have access to excellent horses. But that's a pretty unfair assumption, given the cost of a good horse. Equestrian is inherently elitist! (Of course, this could apply to other sports which require specialized equipment or access to unusual training facilities, but not one of them is as expensive as buying and keeping a horse.)

Give the medals to the horses, and I'd be happy.

the olympics is big enough to include any sport that has enough countries interested in participating. it makes no sense to me to suggest removing ANY.

the track and field, swimming and weighlifting seem to me to be the essense of competition

who can run 100 meters the fastest? well ok how about 200 meters? 400? what if you had to jump over stuff at the same time? what if it was kinda high? what if you got a bunch of guys together and had them race in relay? what if you had to go 26 freaking miles?

who can jump the highest? what if you used a stick to help you? well ok, who can jump the LONGEST? what if you got a running start?

who can throw a heavy ball the farthest? what if it was flattened? well what if it was a long sharp stick?

it amuses me.

same with swimming of course.

and the weightlifters who spend their whole lives lifting heavy stuff. what a silly waste of time. "what did you when you were a kid daddy?" "i lifted heavy stuff"

there was alot of coverage this year with usa, cnbc and msnbc showing events too. too many of them were vollyeball, basketball, soccer and handball qualifiers but maybe that was what more people wanted to see. i wouldnt know. all i know is that i didnt get to see but one hour or so of the equestrian stuff and i would have liked to see more.

and no i dont care if the horse receives the medal or not. its still sport and still cool to be able to work with a partner who isnt human.

I didn't really understand why both baseball and softball were included. Maybe someone could explain the important differences and it'll make more sense (other than the difference of the balls).

I think more emphasis should be placed on multiple-event competitions as these take more overall skill and dedication than just specialising in one event, and seem more in keeping with the original Olympics (I think).

Another thing - should swimming have so many events? In no other sector of sport could someone compete and win in eight events, is this not unfair on athletes who compete in other disciplines?

Men play baseball, women play softball. In softball, the ball is bigger, the field is smaller, the game is shorter, the mound is flat, and the pitching style is different. My understanding is that women are more susceptible to rotator cuff injury, which is why the pitching style is underhand rather than overhand. I'm not sure the reasoning for the other differences, though.

edit: palindrome postcount

Men play baseball, women play softball. In softball, the ball is bigger, the field is smaller, the game is shorter, the mound is flat, and the pitching style is different. My understanding is that women are more susceptible to rotator cuff injury, which is why the pitching style is underhand rather than overhand. I'm not sure the reasoning for the other differences, though.

edit: palindrome postcount

So why not just call them both 'baseball' but with a 'men's' or 'women's' prefix? Small differences like this are used in other sports without a name change.

From what I saw I would agree that rhythmic gymnastics is comparable to professional dancing - which of course is very much a sport, just as ice dancing is very much a sport.

Synchronized swimming seems infinitely harder still than any of these. It's very underreported here so I only saw the winning Russians' team performance, the first synchronized swimming I've seen in several years.
And holy shit - I was offended on their behalf by all the disrespect their sport gets. The physical strength, endurance, and precision they need far surpasses that of, for example, the synchronized diving - yet nobody says synchronized diving isn't a sport, most probably because they're doing somersaults and twists which seem to bestow instant sports cred.
You could even argue that synchronized swimming is harder than the swim racing events because it requires precision and artistic impression on top of physical strength and mastering a certain technique in the water.

When you step back for a moment and look at it - how exactly is the long jump (a few running steps and a jump) more of a sport than what are basically endurance gymnastics that have to be done underwater and have to look perfect on top of it? Not at all, I'd think, yet nobody (myself included) would ever come out and say the long jump or all of track-and-field, really, "isn't a sport". Quite to the contrary - track-and-field is often our very definition of a sport.



For me, sport is something that is not judged on aesthetic or artistic values, but purely on athletic ability (it's why I also consider motorsport and equestrian events second class sports, there's too much inteference between the competitor and the result).

There's a part of me that'd prefer to say if the winner isn't decided by faster, higher, stronger, or further then it shouldan't be at the olympics. I'm dubious on that, but I don't think rhythmic gymnastics, dressage, synchro etc should be there.

Another thing - should swimming have so many events? In no other sector of sport could someone compete and win in eight events, is this not unfair on athletes who compete in other disciplines?
hey whos to say who is the better swimmer?

sure he is fastest if he swims 100 meters on his BACK but what if it was 200 meters instead? what if he had to swim face DOWN? what if he had to do the butterfly instead? what if they swam even longer? what if you got a bunch of guys and did all those things in relay?

they have the damned pool, why not use it as many ways as there are to compete?

So why not just call them both 'baseball' but with a 'men's' or 'women's' prefix? Small differences like this are used in other sports without a name change.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_baseball_and_softball

Ignore slowpitch softball; that's for middle-aged rec leaguers.

The USA is indeed the exception. However, globally speaking, football gets plenty of attention.

Which, (at least here ;)) is at least four more than e.g. an archery tournament.

That's terrific, but I'm posting from the USA, see. Y'know, the exception?

Personally, I consider rythmic gymnastics and synchronised swimming particular forms of dancing. They require basically the same skills, and if I'm not mistaken things like choosing the right piece of music and matching it with your routine is even a criterion considered by the judges.

That doesn't diminish the achievements of competitors and coaches, but I think that those two run the borderline between what is and isn't sport.

I wouldn't mind seeing full-contact mixed martial arts in the program (though it's never gonna happen) and timbersport.

You were already soundly spanked by WYTYG for this erroneous viewpoint, so I won't pile on. I do agree that the judging process can be occasionally faulty, given that humans are the ones doing the judging. However, there's no way in hell I'd want a computer doing it.

Have you seen the physiques of the men and women who compete in those sports you decry? Hell, even if you're going to stick with the "dancing" comparison, have you ever seen a professional dancer's physique? The vast majority are impressively built and have to train, work out and rehearse a hell of a lot. I'd rank their regimen with most of those which you'd consider "athletic".

My definition of a Sport:

*snip*

2. Requires skill. If you won because you picked up some weights that were five pounds heavier than anyone else could lift, it's not a sport.

So the Olympic motto, citius, altius, fortius doesn't apply?

3. Impartial scoring system. If the Australian judge gave you a 9.5 and the East German judge gave you a 7.0, it's not a sport.

This eliminates gymnastics, rhythmic gymnastics, diving, boxing, judo, taekwondo, synchronized swimming, weightlifting and wrestling.

Yikes -- that's an awful lot of sports there, pal. The International Federations of each sport do as good a job as possible regulating the judges. There are some necessary evils with regard to judging form and execution given that the judges are human, no matter how experienced or well trained. But the alternative is not to eliminate the sport because of that. The alternative is to define the judging parameters as strictly as possible and work things into the system (like the removal of the highest/two-highest and lowest/two-lowest judge scores in order to get a better pure score).

Thing is, I can't see how the mode of assessment in any way diminishes the value of an event as a sport.

Not one of the sports is anywhere as near as bad as the coverage. The networks have got an embarassment of intense sport, they've got high definition cameras pointed at it, and still they have to sell every minute of it to us, hype it up with their descriptions of how much the athletes want to win (like we can't see that) and make a stupid circus out of it with their "medal tallies" and skin-shallow "you must be feeling stoked/shattered right now" dumbass interviews.

Agreed. And while I can deal with a certain amount of athlete back-story for flavor, I can't stand the mawkish degree to which coverage (the US is one of the worst at this, but even the Canadians tag along for a bit) practically demands you feel for these athletes or their families or situations. But once again, we're forced to endure it because it sells to the middlebrow.

As for the "dumbass interviews", I have to hand a special citation of anti-merit to Andrea Kremer of NBC, who should never be allowed to go near another athletic telecast again. I can tell she's not really comfortable in the sports setting just from looking at her, and her questions are so amazingly inane as to defy belief.

In the US? I wish. I rabidly watch the World Cup and any UEFA or European league action I can find on cable.

Also, kindly refrain from the sarcastic "quotes" on soccer. I didn't use them when I parenthesized (football). I only did that because soccer is what it's called here. Blame the English who didn't want confusion with the infant US football when real football was introduced here. The last thing I'd hope for this thread is a jock'jack on the merits of either game.

My point is that those sports don't get that much network coverage here. Especially not soccer. You'll see the "important" matches in tennis at the four major tourneys (Aussie, French, & US Opens + Wimbledon), and some minor tourneys on cable.
US soccer is surprisingly popular (http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/6904077.stm)



Have you seen the physiques of the men and women who compete in those sports you decry? Hell, even if you're going to stick with the "dancing" comparison, have you ever seen a professional dancer's physique? The vast majority are impressively built and have to train, work out and rehearse a hell of a lot. I'd rank their regimen with most of those which you'd consider "athletic".
Needing to be fit does not make something a sport.

US soccer is surprisingly popular (http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/6904077.stm)

Sure it is. Among young people and those who played it as young people. I'm talking about coverage, not popularity.

EDIT: Good article. When a major network schedules a regular soccer telecast, I'll concede this point.

Needing to be fit does not make something a sport.

No, but it certainly helps. I said "look at the physiques". These people are not just "fit", they're in upper echelon shape. Their chosen physicality is in competition with others seeking the same goal. That makes it a sport.

Look, if you're just looking to take the piss out of sports you don't personally like, that's fine. But to seriously contend that anyone using their physical prowess in competition is not athletic, especially on the world stage? That's just plain denial of reality, no matter how weird you think the sport is.

No, but it certainly helps. I said "look at the physiques". These people are not just "fit", they're in upper echelon shape. Their chosen physicality is in competition with others seeking the same goal. That makes it a sport.

Look, if you're just looking to take the piss out of sports you don't personally like, that's fine. But to seriously contend that anyone using their physical prowess in competition is not athletic, especially on the world stage? That's just plain denial of reality, no matter how weird you think the sport is.

I'm not saying they're not athletic, I'm saying that dancing is separate to sport, imho dancing has an artistic and aesthetic element inherent in it, while sport does not. And I don't think that definition necessarily lessens them in any respect.

If you use as criteria the original reasons for the ancient Olympics, which were:

1. The glorification of the Gods (i.e. providing entertainment for them).
2. The demonstration of skills useful in war.
3. The demonstration of health and, therefore, qualification to mate.
4. Entertainment.

and then demonstrated that the events fit all those criteria, particularly 2 and 4, that would pretty much leave, by ancient standards, running, jumping, lifting heavy things, some body contact sports (wrestling, boxing, other martial arts) and throwing things.(there were limited women's sports in the ancient Olympics, primarily races, to demonstrate the health of the young women involved, thus showing their fitness to be wives and mothers).

If you add in modern standards, you would have target shooting, cavalry sports (equestrian), swimming, team sports and some few others.

The modern Olympics seems to have eliminated all but one of the motivations for the ancient games - the lone remaining motive seems to be entertainment value. But given any of those motivations, I still would want to eliminate rhythmic gymnastics and synchronized swimming - but this is imho.

The Japanese would probably disagree.

I could do without the Olympics.

I'm not saying they're not athletic, I'm saying that dancing is separate to sport, imho dancing has an artistic and aesthetic element inherent in it, while sport does not. And I don't think that definition necessarily lessens them in any respect.

Fair enough. I'll offer this, then: rhythmic gymnastics and synchro offer those who have background in dance-type athleticism a chance to compete without the attendant prejudices some who judge actual dance competitions. It shows the human form using dance-related athletic prowess in a non-dance setting where they may be judged far more objectively on their performance rather than with the need either for a traditional dance partner or the constraint of the required steps involved in an actual dance routine.

If we can take shooting from its hunting/war context to judge the base skill, surely we can take leaping, timing, flexibility and the rest from their ballet/dance context.

If you use as criteria the original reasons for the ancient Olympics, which were:

1. The glorification of the Gods (i.e. providing entertainment for them).
2. The demonstration of skills useful in war.
3. The demonstration of health and, therefore, qualification to mate.
4. Entertainment.

and then demonstrated that the events fit all those criteria, particularly 2 and 4, that would pretty much leave, by ancient standards, running, jumping, lifting heavy things, some body contact sports (wrestling, boxing, other martial arts) and throwing things.(there were limited women's sports in the ancient Olympics, primarily races, to demonstrate the health of the young women involved, thus showing their fitness to be wives and mothers).

If you add in modern standards, you would have target shooting, cavalry sports (equestrian), swimming, team sports and some few others.

The modern Olympics seems to have eliminated all but one of the motivations for the ancient games - the lone remaining motive seems to be entertainment value. But given any of those motivations, I still would want to eliminate rhythmic gymnastics and synchronized swimming - but this is imho.

The Japanese would probably disagree.

Okay, well, that's why they call it the "MODERN Olympic movement", and not the ANCIENT Olympic movement. Although I wouldn't mind seeing nude competitors.

Also, how would synchro and RG not be a patent demonstration of your #3 criterion? I see someone with the lung capacity and sheer muscle to perform synchro routines, and with the flexibility to stretch and twirl and the athleticism to leap and tumble and the acumen to time throws and catches of RG implements, and I'm thinking veeeeery "healthy" thoughts.

I could do without the Olympics.

Thank you for your opinion.

hey whos to say who is the better swimmer?

sure he is fastest if he swims 100 meters on his BACK but what if it was 200 meters instead? what if he had to swim face DOWN? what if he had to do the butterfly instead? what if they swam even longer? what if you got a bunch of guys and did all those things in relay?

they have the damned pool, why not use it as many ways as there are to compete?

By this logic, backwards running should be an event. Not that I'm opposed to that. :tongue:

I am mildly annoyed by the lack of objective means to find a winner in gymnastics and other similarly artistic sports. It obviously requires a lot of effort on behalf of the sportsman, but the choice of the judges often doesn't make any sense.

Personally, I'd like to see more warlike types of sport. For instance, paintball would've been a thoroughly exciting type. Perhaps some sort of a sport to imitate one-on-one tank battles.

You were already soundly spanked by WYTYG for this erroneous viewpoint, so I won't pile on. I do agree that the judging process can be occasionally faulty, given that humans are the ones doing the judging. However, there's no way in hell I'd want a computer doing it.
Well, the whole idea of a sporting competition is to find out how far a body can be pushed in preparation for some real-world event. Sprinting is a preparation for having to run away from a lion, throwing a javelin for hunting or war and so on and so forth. That's how it got started.

Things that must be judged by their beauty aren't objective like that. That's what my issue is, and WYTYG didn't address it, nor do I think she set out to. If synchronised swimming was done with a stop watch alá "who can keep doing a routine the longest", that'd be fine. But if it is made to look pretty, that is if there is a category called "artistic impression", then it is different to a competition based on objective measurement.

Have you seen the physiques of the men and women who compete in those sports you decry? Hell, even if you're going to stick with the "dancing" comparison, have you ever seen a professional dancer's physique? The vast majority are impressively built and have to train, work out and rehearse a hell of a lot. I'd rank their regimen with most of those which you'd consider "athletic".
What does any of this have to do with what I consider athletic? I know perfectly well how hard these people have to train, and how fit they have to be. But that's not the deciding factor of whether or not a skill should really have a place in the Olympics.

I'm not decrying anything and I don't for a second aim to diminish what these people achieve. I just wonder that if rythmic gymnastics should be in the Olympics, why not interpretive dance? Or ballet, or breakdancing, for that matter? Go a step further, and playing the piano also requires much talent, skill and determination to get good at.

Thing is, I can't see how the mode of assessment in any way diminishes the value of an event as a sport.
Because the idea of a competition is to find the best person of the day, objectively. If I win the long jump because I jumped half a cm more than you, it doesn't matter who looks at it, it's still true. If I win the gymnastics, there always remains the possibility that if it was close enough, the result would have been different had there been a different judge on the seat. It's not about whether that happens all that often or not, it's about the fact that measurement by judges is not objective and can not be to the degree that would be required.

And yes, that includes martial arts events. If they're going to be part of the program, they should include them properly, rather than limiting to certain techniques and having randoms decide whether a hit would have hurt or not.

After nearly two weeks of the Olympics, wading through what NBC thought we should see in an attempt to watch what interested me, I have achieved Olympic burnout.

Some sports just don't do it for me. I don't like boxing or basketball, volleyball I can take or leave. But, at least, these are sports.

I fail to see where the sport and/or athleticism is in synchronized swimming, or rhythmic gymnastics. Admittedly, I'm neither graceful nor flexible enough for dancing with implements (aka rhythmic gymnastics). And, while I am perfectly capable of putting on enough makeup to make me look like a clown, I can't hold my breath under water for very long, so I can't really do synchronized swimming. Even so, I don't consider these sports, let alone worthy to be included in the Olympics.

But, enough of my rant (and please don't tell me to get a blog). Which so-called Olympic "sports" could you do without?

Get a blog.

Also, synchronized swimming is incredibly difficult. Those who participate in it on the Olympic level are every bit as much athletes as the track and field competitors are, and more than you'll ever be. To do it correctly takes an enormous degree of practice. To even do some of the techniques used takes a great deal of training. Just because it looks graceful doesn't mean it doesn't take an incredible amount of hard work and athleticism.

I admit, my opinion is biased, given that my grandmother is a swim coach and my aunts as well as my mother were all swimmers. But then, I also know what I'm talking about when it comes to the sport.


As for sports I could do without? Pretty much just the equestrian events. So I just don't watch them. I'd rather they had jousting than this jumping over bushes and stuff.

By this logic, backwards running should be an event. Not that I'm opposed to that. :tongue:

Backward Hurdles?

:p

Get a blog.

Also, synchronized swimming is incredibly difficult. Those who participate in it on the Olympic level are every bit as much athletes as the track and field competitors are, and more than you'll ever be. To do it correctly takes an enormous degree of practice. To even do some of the techniques used takes a great deal of training. Just because it looks graceful doesn't mean it doesn't take an incredible amount of hard work and athleticism.

I admit, my opinion is biased, given that my grandmother is a swim coach and my aunts as well as my mother were all swimmers. But then, I also know what I'm talking about when it comes to the sport.


As for sports I could do without? Pretty much just the equestrian events. So I just don't watch them. I'd rather they had jousting than this jumping over bushes and stuff.


I like the equestrian events. Probably because I understand the teamwork between horse and rider. I know that a good rider can make a mediocre horse much better and a bad rider can destroy a good horse.

I'll give you the demands on synchronized swimmers, I just find the event as boring as you find the equestrian events.

Fair enough, all round. Can we agree then to just not watch the events we don't like without having to have the quadrennial debate over what is or isn't a sport? These people are the best in the world at what they do.

Interpretive dance and piano aren't sports because the athletic aspect isn't the primary concern in either case. RG/synchro take the athletic aspects of dance as much out of context as is possible and presents them as sport. Sorry if you don't agree, but sports they are. No likey? No watchy. I'll enjoy them in your stead.

Fair enough, all round. Can we agree then to just not watch the events we don't like without having to have the quadrennial debate over what is or isn't a sport? These people are the best in the world at what they do.

Interpretive dance and piano aren't sports because the athletic aspect isn't the primary concern in either case. RG/synchro take the athletic aspects of dance as much out of context as is possible and presents them as sport. Sorry if you don't agree, but sports they are. No likey? No watchy. I'll enjoy them in your stead.

Spoilsport:p

Fair enough, all round. Can we agree then to just not watch the events we don't like without having to have the quadrennial debate over what is or isn't a sport? These people are the best in the world at what they do.

Interpretive dance and piano aren't sports because the athletic aspect isn't the primary concern in either case. RG/synchro take the athletic aspects of dance as much out of context as is possible and presents them as sport. Sorry if you don't agree, but sports they are. No likey? No watchy. I'll enjoy them in your stead.

Ok. Until 2010 and the Winter Olympics. Care to debate the athleticism required in curling?

These people are the best in the world at what they do.

Not true of all events, especially team sports. Pointing back at the earlier football/soccer topic: the games played at the Olympic are of vastly lower quality than regular ones.

Try really watching a routine and analyzing what they're actually doing. Now add six more synchronous swimmers in the group event. I mean no offense, but you have to be seriously stunted in perceptive and reasoning capacities to not realize how difficult synchro is.

Ditto rhythmic gymnastics,

I understand that it is difficult to do. They are however not sports in their own right. A woman running down a mat, and doing flips is part of a sport (gymnastics). A man who can hold to rings, and lift his body parallel to the ground, is engaging in sports. A man swimming to beat Hell against competitors that are neck and neck is doing a sport.

Jumping through hoops in time, and hopping around and tossing hoola hoops is dancing, and not really a sport. Seeing people do fancy underwater things however difficult does not grant an event 'sport' status.

Whats funny is that tonight while watching synchronized gymnastics, I too, was upset that it was somehow an olympic event. "Yeah, so I'm part of the best choreographed dance team in the world" What is that? something like "Im the best 100m swimmer in the world" or "I'm the best parallel bars gymnast in the world" those are bragging rghts, the first example... not really (IMO).

Backward Hurdles?

:p

This. Stupid length requierments.

I'm not saying they're not athletic, I'm saying that dancing is separate to sport, imho dancing has an artistic and aesthetic element inherent in it, while sport does not. And I don't think that definition necessarily lessens them in any respect.

Sport has an artistic and aesthetic element inherent in it, from MY viewpoint. The back dodging a tackle or the golfer playing a stroke has an artistic element ... and it's the measure of the very best that they can not only dodge the tackle or make the green, but do it with panache ... with a distinctive personal style.

In any case, you must show that the dancing has NO sporting element to show it not a sport ... not simply point to some other element it shares with art.

===========

This. Stupid length requierments.

I'm that close to trying the "backwards hurdles" myself ... but the wound still hasn't healed from the time I tried some tumbling in the vicinity of a solid wooden box ... so no.

I'll just guess instead: I could hurdle about half a shin height, backwards. :p

I understand that it is difficult to do. They are however not sports in their own right. A woman running down a mat, and doing flips is part of a sport (gymnastics). A man who can hold to rings, and lift his body parallel to the ground, is engaging in sports. A man swimming to beat Hell against competitors that are neck and neck is doing a sport.

Jumping through hoops in time, and hopping around and tossing hoola hoops is dancing, and not really a sport. Seeing people do fancy underwater things however difficult does not grant an event 'sport' status.

Whats funny is that tonight while watching synchronized gymnastics, I too, was upset that it was somehow an olympic event. "Yeah, so I'm part of the best choreographed dance team in the world" What is that? something like "Im the best 100m swimmer in the world" or "I'm the best parallel bars gymnast in the world" those are bragging rghts, the first example... not really (IMO).

Does "your opinion" include some rule which makes one a sport and the other not?

Does "bragging rights" make something a sport? That would be terribly subjective, you're really just saying (over and over) "this activity is a sport, and that one isn't" and backing the opinion with "I respect this competitor's bragging, but not that one's."

Personally I would drop all team sports that don't involve a vehicle, remember the ORIGINAL Greek olympiads were about individual athletics.

So basicly if they aren't in a single hull going in one direction (rowing, bobsled, etc) or are not individual athlete events, I'd ditch them.

That means no more soccer, no more hockey, doubles tennis would be out, but singles would stay, relay races would be out, team biking where team tactic are used would be out but single bikers still in, synchronised swimming ditched, no more beach volleyball (I'd miss the womens events tho, nice arses and their tits jiggle nicely when the bounce around the sand ;))...



If I were running the olympics the only events would be individual prowess, whether of an individual athlete, or an individual vessel/vehicle.

Fair enough, all round. Can we agree then to just not watch the events we don't like without having to have the quadrennial debate over what is or isn't a sport?

Once every FOUR YEARS is too often for this subject?

Old fogey alert! :p

Personally I would drop all team sports that don't involve a vehicle, remember the ORIGINAL Greek olympiads were about individual athletics.

So basicly if they aren't in a single hull going in one direction (rowing, bobsled, etc) or are not individual athlete events, I'd ditch them.

That means no more soccer, no more hockey, doubles tennis would be out, but singles would stay, relay races would be out, team biking where team tactic are used would be out but single bikers still in, synchronised swimming ditched, no more beach volleyball

*snip voyeurism*

If I were running the olympics the only events would be individual prowess, whether of an individual athlete, or an individual vessel/vehicle.

That's well argued.

I'm inclined to agree, because national teams play into that "medal tally" nonsense, where viewers are more interested in the nationality of the winners than records or any studied appreciation of particular sports. It's also worrying that team sports are rarely played to the standard of domestic competitions in countries where they are popular sports.

On the other hand, the podium provided by the Olympics allows team-sport athletes from countries where their sport is NOT well covered (and hence, well funded) a chance to strut their stuff. That could be very significant in their careers, since the opportunity to emigrate and play in a better-funded league might come up.

But on the balance, I'm inclined to agree.

*snip*

Ooh, I struck a nerve with someone!

I'm only saying that my definition of a "sport" includes these three things. Obviously, every one of them is incredibly difficult and requires a lot of natural talent and hard work. I still don't consider them sports.

So no, I don't consider motor racing or chess to be sports. Ditto billiards, darts, golf, ultimate frisbee, sex, competitive eating, etc. They may be games that require a lot of skill, or brute athleticism, but they're not sports to me.

I realized it's a pretty unpopular view. :tongue:

So the Olympic motto, citius, altius, fortius doesn't apply? *snip*

I'm not saying they should all be taken out because they're not sports in my personal opinion, I'm just defining the necessary characteristics of a sport in my view. I think there's plenty of value, talent and entertainment in gymnastics, but in my mind a "sport" has a clear, objective scoring system that determines the outcome, instead of personal interpretation. Yes, refs interfere with this every day, and yes, it hurts sports.

Luckily for all of you, however, I don't have a clout of clout with the IOC.

In re: the Olympic motto, I certainly think strength is important. It's necessary, but not sufficient.

I think we may have over-idealized Olympic sports. The ancients participated in the following at the height of the ancient olympics

THE SPORTS


776 B.C. -- RUNNING

The first Games had one race called the stade (a measure of the length of the track). The Games eventually included four types of races of varying degrees of length.


708 B.C. -- PENTATHLON, WRESTLING

The pentathlon featured the long jump accompanied by flute playing, and discus, javelin, foot race and wrestling. According to Greek mythology, Jason (the Argonaut) invented the pentathlon. Wrestlers engaged each other in a competition that had no time limit. Also, a wrestler could break an opponent's fingers to gain an advantage.


688 B.C. -- BOXING

There were no rounds or time limits and boxers could use all kinds of blows except eye gouging. There was no rule against hitting an opponent when he was down, hitting below the waist, or even killing him. One story has it that Demoxenos of Syracuse jabbed his fingers into his opponent's rib cage, piercing the skin, then proceeded to yank out his intestines.


680 B.C. -- FOUR-HORSE CHARIOT RACE

This became one most popular events of the ancient Olympics, largely due to its savagery. Wrote Sophocles about one accident: "As the crowd saw the driver somersault, there rose a wail of pity, as he was bounced onto the ground, then flung head over heels into the sky. When his companions caught the runaway team and freed the blood-stained corpse from his rig, he was disfigured and marred past the recognition of his best friend."


648 B.C. -- PANKRATION

A sometimes-lethal combination of wrestling and boxing, pankration was largely a free-for-all. Its rules outlawed biting and gouging an opponent's eyes, nose, or mouth, but tripping, kicks and even genital punching and strangleholds were permissible. In fact, pankriatists could legally be strangled and the strangler was exempt from homicide charges. According Tony Perrottet, author of "The Naked Olympics," many cremations followed every ancient Olympics.

520 B.C. -- RACES-IN-ARMOR

Competitors wore armor and a helmet and carried a shield in a two stadium-length race. This race was considered useful in building the speed and stamina Greek men needed during military service.

Who here saw the Olympic ping pong?

Intense.