Sports which are just too posh, rich and over-represented at the Olympics

Swimming/Gymnatics - have too many medals on offer
Equestrian/Yachting/Shooting etc. require loads of dosh to just get on the first step (and I'll include the Pole vault in that)
And filthy rich sports like football, tennis, golf, rugby and basketball should never even have a sniff of Olympic participation - well, not the multimillionaires anyway. If the Olympics ain't the pinnacle of the sport, then they shouldn't be in.

You cant get much more behind the times than archery, but I bet Robin Hood would have loved one of those new fandangle bows.

There is an issue with some sports being over-represented - and some even represenetd at all.

Agree that Swimming and Gymnastics have too many medals on offer.

And cannot believe they still have beach volley ball at the Olympics. From an Olympic purist point of view, this is a farce!

They should also scrap football from the Olympics too.

And there are sports that have considerably less participation than others. So calling someone an Olympic champion in that event can sometimes feel a bit hollow!

There does need to be an overhaul.

aucklandlaurie wrote:
You cant get much more behind the times than archery, but I bet Robin Hood would have loved one of those new fandangle bows.

I suspect that Robin Hood (if he ever existed) might have used the best technology available. But that doesn't question Olympian values.

Didnt the Olympics used to be for amateurs?

eirebilly wrote:Didnt the Olympics used to be for amateurs?

Yes Billy. I think that it was the Winter skiers that put the knife into that back.

We never had archery in our country, when New zealand started, everyone was up to Canons and rifles.

But surely sports like skateboarding etc should be in the games? I see a lot more young people running round with skateboards as opposed to bows and arrows. or are the Olympics only for the old countrys?

What? What's wrong with the likes of Somalia, Ethiopia, Namibia and Australia getting the occasional success?

Portnoy wrote:

eirebilly wrote:Didnt the Olympics used to be for amateurs?

Yes Billy. I think that it was the Winter skiers that put the knife into that back.

Its a real shame as it used to be a great springboard for the amateurs to get noticed professionally.

Did they all have archery? Aborigines had boomerangs.

aucklandlaurie wrote: Did they all have archery? Aborigines had boomerangs.

Only to come back and hit them laurie.

Citius, Altius, Fortius, Ozziedeservius.

Cycling seems to have a ridiculous amount too, are you only not including it as Britain were successful there? Just wondering as you could argue for it's inclusion on your list. I see no problem with having the different disciplines in swimming there. It's like having the 100m, 1500 and then 5000m. All different and require different skillsets.

I don't think it matters, one sport getting lots of medals does not detriment any other sports. In the same way that football being included doesn't affect the 100m...

I enjoy all the different sports, all the different disciplines of swimming, and I think it's purely subjective whether you like certain sports or not, that doesn't mean they shouldn't be included.

Thomond wrote:Cycling seems to have a ridiculous amount too, are you only not including it as Britain were successful there? Just wondering as you could argue for it's inclusion on your list. I see no problem with having the different disciplines in swimming there. It's like having the 100m, 1500 and then 5000m. All different and require different skillsets.

Cycling was badly chopped after the last Olympics.

What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Athletics, Swimming and Gymnastics have the ability to have multiple contestants for the same event.

So what's your problem with it so?

Rowing. They all have posh accents in rowing. You never see a scouser/northerner in the GB team of rowers.

Thomond wrote:So what's your problem with it so?

In English please?

Josiah Maiestas wrote:Rowing. They all have posh accents in rowing. You never see a scouser/northerner in the GB team of rowers.

Thats not rowings fault, isnt that just selection policy?

While there are lots of "posher" sports, there are also a lot of sports more tailored for the working class. The boxing and football sports are not very posh really, and while the footballers are rich now, most will have come from a pretty poor background.

You complain about swimming having too many disciplines yet you say it provides great competition and excitement. So what's wrong with having all them? Apologies, should have mentioned the sport I was referring to.

I think medals South Africa win must be tripled.

biltongbek wrote:I think medals South Africa win must be tripled.

Or their poisoning abilities improved?

We poison in rugby only billy,and only when we host. Our chefs don't work in London, well maybe a few strategically placed ones.

Missed a trick the Biltong

swimming is just way to over represented- the top 5 medal winners allways come from swimmers- the disciplines and distances are not different enough.

Cycling has been chopped to pieces since last time around- and even then it had nothing like the amount of swimming events- So they is certainly no 'same' argument for cycling. The fact that Individual swimmers end up with so many medals also should tell you that the disciplines are not different enough

Bar Phelps and Lochte most swimmers don't end up with a lot of medals. People fail to realise that the disciplines are vey though to master. I wonder if GB had success in the pool would people be wanting it cut. I may be wrong here but that's what it feels like. Apologies if I have the wrong end of the stick.

top 5 are swimmers thom- and historically allways are, so its not just phelps..

the point that also needs to be made is that if GB were great at swimming there probally wouldnt be as many events anyway- Its big money stuff keeping events in the olympics. USA has big power

Before the games this was the all time table:
1 Larisa Latynina USSR Gymnastics 18
2 Michael Phelps USA Swimming 16
3 Nikolay Andrianov USSR Gymnastics 15
=4 Boris Shakhlin USSR Gymnastics 13
=4 Edoardo Mangiarotti Italy Fencing 13
=4 Takashi Ono Japan Gymnastics 13
=7 Alexei Nemov Russia Gymnastics 12
=7 Birgit Fischer Germany Canoeing 12
=7 Paavo Nurmi Finland Athletics 12
=7 Jenny Thompson United States Swimming 12
=7 Sawao Kato Japan Gymnastics 12
=7 Dara Torres United States Swimming

Swimming does not dominate it.

actually at present the top 11 are swimmers!

ok swimming has ended- so others will get inside- but thats the only argument we need when disputing the amount of swimming events there are

Thomond you dont understand the point i am making - i am not talking all time- all time is an immaterial stat. Its about each individual olympics.

Well, yes that is likely of course . Gymnastics is probably the only thing that would come close in terms of events.


Cutting the swimming events is unnecessary, in my opinion. It doesn't devalue the sport in any way and there's a reason why swimming is one of the most popular sports in the Olympics.

and thomond why didnt you put the correct list up anyway- you havent even put phelps in there mate- i dont need to look that up to reaolise your lost is wrong!


sorry you did

clearly gymastics is also a highly weighted olympic sport as well though

Phelps is in it. Most up to date one is this one and I found that on the second page: http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1279454-michael-phelps-and-the-top-olympics-medal-winners-of-all-time/page/2

yeah he was - My eyes missed him as i assumed he was top! aploigies

Gonna be honest if britain killed the pool i wouldnt be talking on these lines. But the reality is that they looked in to cycling being to prominant sincethe last olympics- yet swimming is much more represntated and they didnt do anything about that sport! it seems abit dodgy to me

How about the sports that are just plain silly? The triple jump? Hammer throwing (doesn't look like much of a hammer)? The discus? The shot putt? I must say I quite like the pole vault even though some may call it silly too.

Lorus i love all the athletics events- because they are historic and the olympics to me is all about the track and field! the more the merrier for me!

To me athletics is running and jumping. Sure they are a great spectacle but the shot putt?

I don't really like this discussion, it appears every year. Particularly when people describe sports as 'posh'.

You seem to think that people are somehow excluded from joining sailing clubs and rowing clubs based on their background and accent. I live near the coast and know loads of people that enjoy sailing, casually or competitively. Not many of them are what you would call 'posh'.

People seem to mistake 'posh' with being able to articulate yourself like an adult these days.

I think he means "posh" in that you need a lot of money to participate in them.

How do you need a lot of money to compete in rowing? It's not like they make you buy your own boats, is it?

Same with competitive sailing. You get the boats provided by the clubs and the competitions.

20k them rowing boats mate(sailing probally lots more)

the country needs the money, and you wont get as much chance from a council estate over a public school

lorus59 wrote:To me athletics is running and jumping. Sure they are a great spectacle but the shot putt?

its a field event- track and field is what athletics is about.

the javalin is a cool event? shot putt is abit strong man if truth be told- but its still worthy,

Having varied events is good IMO- it means people from all body shapes and genetics can have a chance at an event

mystiroakey wrote:20k them rowing boats mate(sailing probally lots more)

the country needs the money, and you wont get as much chance from a council estate over a public school

So to start rowing, you need your own rowing boat? Is that what you're trying to tell me?

The reason why rowing is perceived as a 'posh' sport (ironically, Steve Redgrave comes from a relatively modest background) is because it's a sport that people often start up at university. (Not just Oxford/Cambridge, a lot of universities, 'posh' or otherwise have rowing clubs). The misconception comes from that fact that a lot of the rowers are relatively well educated because of their university background and because they don't give interviews like Steven Gerrard, it's decided that they're posh people.

No thats not what i am saying at all?

So.....

What has the price of the boat got to do with anything?

everything?

its an expensive sport to get involved in. the individual may not have to be rich but Rich countries tend to do well in rowing due to the cost asscoiated- someone has to pay for it. Secondly you are more likly to be giving the oppunity to row if your from a richer background..

They arnt gonna take these 20k boats down the local council estate and let chavs row on the local marsh

Probably your state school/college being unable to purchase one to use or even having the facilities to get you into it from an early age - which is why most of the people who get to the top in rowing are posh - simply because they had the better resources.

You're more likely to be successful and have opportunities at most things if you're from a richer background.

But if someone from a council estate (do they have to declare that when joining the clubs, you seem to know about these things) goes to a rowing club - do they get turned away?

All sports need infrastructure in the given country. Rowing's relative simplicity makes it quite a good sport for poorer nations to get involved in. The issue is more with culture and history that holds nations make. (This is a world where a few millions is a drop in ocean, albeit obviously not for you and me.)

Relatively inexpensive sports like rugby are much much more difficult for a nation to become successful in because it requires a more extensive network of competitive opportunities to bring about improvement. A sport like rowing can build a programme from one place and develop individuals.

"But if someone from a council estate (do they have to declare that when
joining the clubs, you seem to know about these things) goes to a rowing
club - do they get turned away?"

no again DJ i am not saying that- Why are you trying to put words in my mouth pal!

DJ- i think what you are failing to understand in regards to rowing is that it is a throw away cost sport- it doesnt aid or stimulate the economy. Poor nations do not get invoilved because it is seen as a waste of money and resources- to compete in elite events you need money at the end of the spectrum, Its not just about the price of a boat, but the much greater cost or envioromental situation of a country to have perfect rivers close by to compete.. Its a sport that is just to much hassle to get loads of poeple into it(because you need those waterways local). Therefore why concentrate on this sport, Poorer nations will clearly try and get involved in sports where no specific infastrusture is needed. anyone can get a ball and kick or throw it about.

I also think you are taking the word 'posh' to heart here, Yes it is a factor- because your average joe isnt gonna look up to a rower as inspiration. But I am not concentrating on the elitest sentiment of the sport- IE being a closed shop to lower classes