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

First topic message reminder :

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.

Then why did a third of the track cycling events get dismissed and entrants reduced to 1 per country all of a sudden?

Haven't got time to look into how many swimming events there are but I don't see as there need to be more than 10 mens and 10 womens.

a third sounds a bit high...I recall a couple that are not around anymore (like the 1km) but there is a new one now (omnium). if you dont see the point in so many swimming events then other people might argue that 2 events in track cycling is enough as its mainly sprint anyway.

different variations in the sprint are like different strokes in the swimming. That fact there are about 4 or 5 different distances and then medleys and multiple relays just takes the piddle compared to cycling.

Individual pursuit was considered the blue-ribbon event and got dropped The omninium (sp?) is not a fair replacement for the 4 or 5 events dropped, and as Cav says, arguably shouldn't be in the Olympics anyway. OG is meant to be the pinacle of the sport and ominium is a training event for young cyclists, not what the best of the best aim to compete in.

SO are people suggesting that there should be more sports that pikey's and benefit recipients can afford to take part in?

I'm really not sure why sports need to be inclusive. Some by their very nature are expensive, doesn't devalue the winner or the sport in general.
I'm sure little Gary in his Romford slum doesn't dream of dressage.

TopHat24/7 wrote:different variations in the sprint are like different strokes in the swimming. .

sorry, didnt realise the legs were moving differently!

TopHat24/7 wrote:different variations in the sprint are like different strokes in the swimming. That fact there are about 4 or 5 different distances and then medleys and multiple relays just takes the piddle compared to cycling.

Individual pursuit was considered the blue-ribbon event and got dropped The omninium (sp?) is not a fair replacement for the 4 or 5 events dropped, and as Cav says, arguably shouldn't be in the Olympics anyway. OG is meant to be the pinacle of the sport and ominium is a training event for young cyclists, not what the best of the best aim to compete in.

The track cycling programme for these games are a bit stupid - 3 events for specialist sprinters, 2 for hybrid riders (team pursuiters now are not really endurance riders, but are drilled to undertake a series of sprint efforts, while the omnium program is similarly well suited to this type of rider) and none for genuine endurance (track) riders. For the next games, they should lose either the kierin or team sprint and the omnium and reintroduce both individual pursuits and points races, plus get rid of the silly 'one rider per country' rule - the sprint competition for example would have been much tougher if GB, France and Germany had 2 entrants each.

whocares wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:different variations in the sprint are like different strokes in the swimming. .

sorry, didnt realise the legs were moving differently!

They're all variations on a theme.

dummy_half wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:different variations in the sprint are like different strokes in the swimming. That fact there are about 4 or 5 different distances and then medleys and multiple relays just takes the piddle compared to cycling.

Individual pursuit was considered the blue-ribbon event and got dropped The omninium (sp?) is not a fair replacement for the 4 or 5 events dropped, and as Cav says, arguably shouldn't be in the Olympics anyway. OG is meant to be the pinacle of the sport and ominium is a training event for young cyclists, not what the best of the best aim to compete in.

The track cycling programme for these games are a bit stupid - 3 events for specialist sprinters, 2 for hybrid riders (team pursuiters now are not really endurance riders, but are drilled to undertake a series of sprint efforts, while the omnium program is similarly well suited to this type of rider) and none for genuine endurance (track) riders. For the next games, they should lose either the kierin or team sprint and the omnium and reintroduce both individual pursuits and points races, plus get rid of the silly 'one rider per country' rule - the sprint competition for example would have been much tougher if GB, France and Germany had 2 entrants each.

Agreed. But don't see it happening unless the Yanks suddenly get good at it.

TH
I guess if Sarah Hammer wins the omnium then there's no chance of that being dropped...

To be fair, the omnium got a lot of derision when it was first announced as the Olympic event, replacing all the other endurance events.

What's happened since then have been people still lamenting the demist of the IP, Points and Madison, but have at the same time, very much taken to the omnium.

It's been one of the best events at the World Champs over the past few years.

I've really enjoyed the Omnium, particularly the Elimination race.

The dressage appears to be the definition of posh

I'm surprised this thread is still being discussed at all. It seems to have no mileage in it except as a vehicle for disgruntlement about haves and have-nots.

I'm not entirely sure how many of the posters on this thread are personally involved in sports such as cycling, equestrianism or any other participation sport that the uber-proletariat could describe as "posh".

It's fair to say that everybody is entitled to an opinion.... that is a given..... but speaking for myself, I usually have the most confidence in those who offer an informed opinion, for instance, Maesteg's posts about the sailing have been intelligent, well thought out and have offered insights and opinions that make a genuine contribution to greater understanding of what is going on.

I see nothing of that in this thread.

What I see instead, is a collection of lowbrow, poorly informed grudge-posts against sports that the posters appear to have no connection to, or interest in other than to deride.

Can somebody please.... and I ask this question very genuinely.... inform me as to WHY the format of the sports in question should not include the elements that they do.? What is it about those elements that is wasteful or irrelevant and if they can adequately explain what they would remove, then what would they put in their place to improve the sport.

If the answers are nothing more than "It's a f***ing waste of time for poncy rich ba***rds", then I would rather not have any reply at all. Their silence will tell me exactly where the posters coming from.


.

GSC wrote:The dressage appears to be the definition of posh

This is what intrigues me. Can I ask you please.... if "posh" it is, then what is wrong with that..?

Are "posh" sports not supposed to be contested...? Are "posh" people not supposed to be allowed to participate in sport..? Does a certain level of personal wealth disqualify an individual from participation at the Olympics..?

I fail to understand the mentality of this, or to see how people can hold this sort of grudge for no other apparent reason than that somebody has more than you do..

I've no problem with the vast majority of sports in the games, but synchronised swimming and dressage are fairly pointless as far as I can see.

super_realist wrote:I've no problem with the vast majority of sports in the games, but synchronised swimming and dressage are fairly pointless as far as I can see.

Do you not consider that synchronised swimming may be a form of aquatic artistic gymnastics..?

Diving is a discipline in its own right because it requires athleticism, gymnastic skills and physical strength. It involves the skills required to artistically enter the water.

Swimming races involve speed, strength and endurance at a variety of stroke methods, and over different distances.

But synchronised swimming embraces different elements. It displays the elements of co-ordination, teamwork and gymnastic artistry IN the water.

Try thinking of ballet in water. That might help.


Dressage is a contest of teamwork between horse and rider. A horse can be ridden in a forward movement, which would be racing. It can be urged to jump a fence by riding towards the obstacle and pulling on the reins.

But how do you communicate commands to a horse and tell it to trot, or perform steps and movements that are not obvious to it's instincts? Dressage is a matter of teamwork between horse and rider to produce a set of disciplined manoeuvres with poise, balance and grace.

Again, it's a form of artistry.

.


.

I don't really hold with a sport which requires artistic merit really. I want to see a competitive contest with a clear winner, not one which is dependent on the judgement of a panel like X-Factor holding up a score.

super_realist wrote:I don't really hold with a sport which requires artistic merit really. I want to see a competitive contest with a clear winner, not one which is dependent on the judgement of a panel like X-Factor holding up a score.

So you have a grudge against art..?

OK... you don't like scoring by judges.? What are your proposals (sensible ones, please) for scoring such an event..?

.

What i'm saying Jen is that I don't consider such events as being proper sport.

I'm sure they require skill, but they seem to be based more on artistic merit than sporting credentials.

Art is art, sport is sport. Not sure the two work that well together.

Jennifer, why do you end all your posts

.

??

I likewise don't like the sports that are judged. Far too subjective and I always get the feeling the the guy that has been pre-ordained as the best will always get the best marks because he's the best if you get me.

I've no problem with their inclusion mind you, I just don't watch them.

Jennifer1984 wrote:

super_realist wrote:I don't really hold with a sport which requires artistic merit really. I want to see a competitive contest with a clear winner, not one which is dependent on the judgement of a panel like X-Factor holding up a score.

So you have a grudge against art..?

OK... you don't like scoring by judges.? What are your proposals (sensible ones, please) for scoring such an event..?

.

I think his point would be not to have it at all, thus eradicating any need for an alternative scoring method.










.

super_realist wrote:What i'm saying Jen is that I don't consider such events as being proper sport.

I'm sure they require skill, but they seem to be based more on artistic merit than sporting credentials.

Art is art, sport is sport. Not sure the two work that well together.

Yes, I understand what you're getting at.

I feel that sports such as gymnastics, dressage in equestrianism and diving require athletic ability, clearly defined skillsets, physical strength / endurance and teamwork / co-oridination, all of which are most definitely sporting attributes.

I can understand that some may be mistrustful of judges, particularly if we look back at some of the dreadful marking that has happened in the past.... and I think particularly of the marking of the women's gymnastics in Atlanta.....

But systems of judging now have more clearly defined structures that make "dodgy marking less likely. A gymnast (or whatever) will perform a routine that has a set tariff and is awarded that mark from the start. It is the performance (execution) of their routine that will determine whether they achieve the full mark or are given deductions that reduce their score.

Some deductions are open to challenge if the loser feels they have been treated unfairly, such as in the men's team gymnastics where the Japanese gymnast fell off the pommel horse during his dismount and was deducted a whole mark. On appeal, it was found that he was, according to the rules, entitled to 0.5 of a mark and this therefore relegated GB from team silver down to the bronze medal position.

The safeguards that have been put in place to prevent poor marking worked and a fair result was achieved.

I think your concerns are that the marking system is similar to the Eurovision Song Contest where Russia can vote for Ukraine and vice versa because they're mates. That doesn't happen at the Olympics because the system is so well structured, and everything is televised and open to challenge.

There have been several successful appeals which have changed medal outcomes in the gymnastics. I think that says much for the security of the marking system.


.
.

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Jennifer1984 wrote:

super_realist wrote:I don't really hold with a sport which requires artistic merit really. I want to see a competitive contest with a clear winner, not one which is dependent on the judgement of a panel like X-Factor holding up a score.

So you have a grudge against art..?

OK... you don't like scoring by judges.? What are your proposals (sensible ones, please) for scoring such an event..? .

I think his point would be not to have it at all, thus eradicating any need for an alternative scoring method. .

OK, so..... WHY eradicate it...? Having a grudge against art in sport is an untenable argument. Sport is not the exclusive domain of Philistines.


.










.[/quote]

How much athletic ability does dressage require? I imagine you need excellent balance and coordination which are physcial attributes but I don't think strength and stamina are required to the same extent as most other Olympic sports (apart from shooting and archery).

Jennifer1984 wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Jennifer1984 wrote:

super_realist wrote:I don't really hold with a sport which requires artistic merit really. I want to see a competitive contest with a clear winner, not one which is dependent on the judgement of a panel like X-Factor holding up a score.

So you have a grudge against art..?

OK... you don't like scoring by judges.? What are your proposals (sensible ones, please) for scoring such an event..?

.

I think his point would be not to have it at all, thus eradicating any need for an alternative scoring method.


OK, so..... WHY eradicate it...? Having a grudge against art in sport is an untenable argument. Sport is not the exclusive domain of Philistines.


.

.

With all due respect Jennifer, I think that's as arrogant and ignorant a view as any other posted on this thread.

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Jennifer1984 wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Jennifer1984 wrote:

super_realist wrote:I don't really hold with a sport which requires artistic merit really. I want to see a competitive contest with a clear winner, not one which is dependent on the judgement of a panel like X-Factor holding up a score.

So you have a grudge against art..?

OK... you don't like scoring by judges.? What are your proposals (sensible ones, please) for scoring such an event..?

.

I think his point would be not to have it at all, thus eradicating any need for an alternative scoring method.


OK, so..... WHY eradicate it...? Having a grudge against art in sport is an untenable argument. Sport is not the exclusive domain of Philistines.

.

With all due respect Jennifer, I think that's as arrogant and ignorant a view as any other posted on this thread.

LOL.... I think you're seeing the paucity of your argument and are now resorting to bluster.

Methinks the gentleman doth protest TOO much.

.

More flippancy and arrogance.

SR has presented his argument perfectly well and you've chosen to disregard it in your usual haughty manner.

OK..... I think I've made my point here.

It looks like it's going to turn nasty now and I'm not going to get dragged down to the level of somebody who is clearly getting annoyed. If you want a fight, Tophat, then I'm not going to indulge you.

I've had my say and made my point. If somebody doesn't get it by now, then they are the ones with a problem, not me.

I'm out of this discussion.


.

A reminder of the site rules:

5) Replies should only address the points of a post. Do not make personal attacks on posters whose points you disagree with. Debate the point not the poster. Moderators and/or Admins have the right to decide what constitutes a personal attack.

If Dressage is in the Olympics, which is basically getting a horse to move to your whims, then you might as well have dog handlers in there too as it amounts to the same thing.

It's nothing to do with wealth, I just don't think it's a worthy sport of the Olympics, and don't think it lives up to the Olympic ideal

Crimey wrote:A reminder of the site rules:

5) Replies should only address the points of a post. Do not make personal attacks on posters whose points you disagree with. Debate the point not the poster. Moderators and/or Admins have the right to decide what constitutes a personal attack.

Thank you Crimey. I could not agree more and I assure you I have no intention of getting into a petty bicker.

.

I havent got your point Jenny.. its not as simplistic as someone not liking art in sport

However following on from this point- Even sports like rugby and football have become x factor contests- to much judgment is required to ref these sports- A win draw or loss can solely be dictated by who refs the game,

The unltimate sports are the ones with clear winners with as little reffing based on judgement required.

Golf, running, jumping, cycling, swimming etc

Also great to see tennis and cricket doing there upmost to take judgement out of there sports as well

Im with SR on Dressage..........not worthy of the Olympics.

exactly John. What next, a sport where countries send out Squirrels with a flag attached to them to see who finds the acorn the quickest??

Its an abuse to the animal as the animal doesnt fight back, lets see them try partnering a human with a crocodile as a sport. Cowards.

i like the sound of the squirel sport .

the crocodile sounds even better- Weird sports are great- but not a fan of cruel sports like bull figthing- which clealy isnt a sport. But training squirrels or riding crocs- decent

I'd prefer the shooting to be done with real pigeons or perhaps seagulls.

or my evil parrots

Crimey wrote:A reminder of the site rules:

5) Replies should only address the points of a post. Do not make personal attacks on posters whose points you disagree with. Debate the point not the poster. Moderators and/or Admins have the right to decide what constitutes a personal attack.

Sorry Crimey, but someone needs to stand up to bullies.

I'm not annoyed in the slightest, just sticking up for someone whilst otherwise enthralled by the track cycling. I like art too, for the record, but in theatres, galleries and concert halls.

That's fine, just stick to attacking the points rather than the person.

I don't think anyone has made a personal attack on anyone have they?

Shut up you imbecile.

super_realist wrote:I don't think anyone has made a personal attack on anyone have they?

I think I flew a little close to the wind

Re the actual OP, funnily enough, I'm with Jen on this. Hate the way certain people try to fabricate issues to drive wedges in between sections of society with 'us and them' attitudes.

Crimey wrote:That's fine, just stick to attacking the points rather than the person.

Yeah nobody did, but it was heading in that direction. Thought I'd just nip it in the bud.

TopHat24/7 wrote:How much athletic ability does dressage require? I imagine you need excellent balance and coordination which are physcial attributes but I don't think strength and stamina are required to the same extent as most other Olympic sports (apart from shooting and archery).

Some sports require skill, some require strength, some require stamina - most require a combination in varying amounts.

Just because one sport doesn't require much of one of them doesn't really devalue it. Does anyone say the marathon shouldn't be a proper sport because of the lack of a skill requirement?

Just because a sport doesn't require obvious 'athletic ability' doesn't really disqualfy it as being a 'proper sport'.

Synchronised swimming is definitely OUT - Right NOW.

A bunch of women poncing around in a pool to some music (I'm assuming some music must be involved). Agree that it's more appropriate for saturday night entertainment if anyone actually finds it entertaining. How the hell did it get in the Olympics anyway? Whatever next? Knitting? Maybe we could get a bunch of grannies to start up an Olympic knitting competition.

Likewise the walkers are OUT. They don't even walk, they waddle like blooming ducks. Why not have a crawling competition if we're gonna allow waddling? It'd be more inclusive. We could get babies involved.

Female boxing - OUT RIGHT NOW. Breast abuse. Just distasteful.

Tennis, football, Golf, Basketball - not the pinnacle of their respective sports. Only included because they bring money and 'stars' to the games. Kick 'em out now.

That is it for now oh minions. I may be back later to kick some more 'sports' out.

Let the serve be with you.



emancipator

emancipator wrote: Likewise the walkers are OUT.
emancipator

I'm quite happy with the great majority of the programme. But I agree walking is an odd athletics event where most of the athletes look like they are cheating.

Definately against the inclusion of golf but accept that if tennis is in the programme, golf should be in it as well. Not sure why rugby 7s is in in in place of regular rugby union, as it is hardly the most popular version of the game.

Not sure why rugby 7s is in in in place of regular rugby union, as it is hardly the most popular version of the game.

rugby union bosses wouldnt want their players to be distracted by that.

rugby 7's is easier to handle and easier to promote worldwide, also much easier on the players to play games after each other- would like to see 20/20 come in as well