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.

They do not play rugby in the majority of south london mate!!

yes it is 90% ethinic minorities in most schools- but you really clearly havent got a scooby about the framework of schools- There build mosques before rugby pitches mate!

I have contracts at 200 state schools across london, I see more schools than you eat hot dinners and am allways asking about how things are going

mystiroakey wrote:Thats the point your missing SR- My point is that they dont play rugby or cricket in the state schools were i am from.. That was allways the point

I actually went to private school and didnt even play rugby - but there you go!

You went to private school and they didn't teach you the difference between your and you're or were and where? Reckon your parents should be in for a refund Mysti old bean.

Westwood 28/1. Get on.

TopHat24/7 wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:SR who has told you that schools only do one sport- because that certainly isnt me!

I am arguing against the point someone made on here that football and rugby is available to all. Yet i am arguing that there are very much classist sports(100% factual i may add) and that maybe if we played rugby in all schools as we do with football it may chnage that attitude and we could utilse more of the population

a 100% subjective statement

Do you know the english football teams backrounds, do you know the english rugby teams backrounds- 100% factual if you do..

Rugby is just as accessible as football. Perhaps there are less clubs, but that only reflects the popularity of the sports. More want to play football therefore there are more football clubs.

You can't force people to like sports that they don't want to.

Crimey wrote:Rugby is just as accessible as football. Perhaps there are less clubs, but that only reflects the popularity of the sports. More want to play football therefore there are more football clubs.

You can't force people to like sports that they don't want to.

Just remembered, when I lived in Kilburn for two years the state school at the end of my road had a ruddy great rugby pitch. So to say rugby isn't played in state schools in London is, to quote Jennifer, fallacious.

Crimey wrote:Rugby is just as accessible as football. Perhaps there are less clubs, but that only reflects the popularity of the sports. More want to play football therefore there are more football clubs.

You can't force people to like sports that they don't want to.

Exactly, and Rugby is gash to watch and even gasher to play.

In the South West plenty of state schools play rugby and even cricket. Possibly why we are so bad at football in the South West. I went to public school and Football wasn't even an option at all until my final year

Hibbz wrote:

Crimey wrote:Rugby is just as accessible as football. Perhaps there are less clubs, but that only reflects the popularity of the sports. More want to play football therefore there are more football clubs.

You can't force people to like sports that they don't want to.

Exactly, and Rugby is gash to watch and even gasher to play.

Not sure your opinion added much there

Yep the same in london but reversed chqs

mystiroakey wrote:They do not play rugby in the majority of south london mate!!

yes it is 90% ethinic minorities in most schools- but you really clearly havent got a scooby about the framework of schools- There build mosques before rugby pitches mate!

I have contracts at 200 state schools across london, I see more schools than you eat hot dinners and am allways asking about how things are going

Now you just sound bitter and twisted. Daily Mail fan?

I always assumed you were an ethnic minority mystiroakey.

TopHat24/7 wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:They do not play rugby in the majority of south london mate!!

yes it is 90% ethinic minorities in most schools- but you really clearly havent got a scooby about the framework of schools- There build mosques before rugby pitches mate!

I have contracts at 200 state schools across london, I see more schools than you eat hot dinners and am allways asking about how things are going

Now you just sound bitter and twisted. Daily Mail fan?

nothing bitter or twisted about that. You clearly dont have an understanding of schools- sorry if you think it sounds bitter

Crimey wrote:I always assumed you were an ethnic minority mystiroakey.

what?

So you go into 200 schools and always ask what the access to Rugby is?

Its kind of clear that certain people will not relate to rugby - so its not in the cirriculun- if you lads cant understand that them there isnt much hope!

The reason they cant relate is because rugby is seen as a toff sport!

Whereas in the south-west, we are closer to Wales and have loads of grassy space to use for pitches and our feet are too clumsy to play football

used to volunteer in one actually, mum and two aunties were teachers, 4 friends are currently teachers. And I went to one (within the last 10 years). All state schools. Think I have enough of an understanding....

super_realist wrote:So you go into 200 schools and always ask what the access to Rugby is?

no not in the slightest, not really the point i was making..

But i have heard some pretty ridculas stories.

5 schools in the balham area- 70% asian schools btw.. They spent 2 mill per school(10 mill in total) on astroturf football pitches with everything. There dont even get used. These are kids that love cricket yet they dont put a penny into it!

Mac, every country has itss national sport. IN the UK it is football, with Cricket and Rugby etc coming down the line somewhere.

If you went to Norway it would be skiing and if you went to china it would be Table Tennis. It reflects what is popular in our culture. Football will always be number one.

So called minority sports are accessible if you want to do them, nothing to do with whether you are a toff or not.

dont call me mac pal.

I know they are accesable if you really want them to be SR, never my argument..

So why try to make them popular in schools Oakey?

I must have really wound you up for you to call me that btw!

mystiroakey wrote:

Crimey wrote:I always assumed you were an ethnic minority mystiroakey.

what?

I've always thought you were foreign.

super_realist wrote:So why try to make them popular in schools Oakey?

Because he seems to believe that the way to get better at sports is to force people to play them at school, which is ridiculous.

For a start, the fact that all the schools play football hasn't helped us improve on the world stage in football.

I think Rugby's popularity is hindered not to do with it being a "toffs" sport whaever that is, but because the rules are complicated and frankly a bit silly and it can be a bit rough and intimidating for young kids.

Football can play played in tons of forms and even against a wall with a tennis ball. MOst other sports don't have a playground equivalent.

Crimey wrote:

super_realist wrote:So why try to make them popular in schools Oakey?

Because he seems to believe that the way to get better at sports is to force people to play them at school, which is ridiculous.

For a start, the fact that all the schools play football hasn't helped us improve on the world stage in football.

Team GB is full of wonderful inspirational female athletes. 98% of girls at my school were on their period every Wednesday to avoid PE. Trying to force them to play sports didn't achieve anything!

The biggest successes we've had at the Olympics are rowing and cycling, two sports that aren't part of most schools' curriculum.

force them to play at school. when have i said that?

super_realist wrote:I think Rugby's popularity is hindered not to do with it being a "toffs" sport whaever that is, but because the rules are complicated and frankly a bit silly and it can be a bit rough and intimidating for young kids.

Football can play played in tons of forms and even against a wall with a tennis ball. MOst other sports don't have a playground equivalent.

Hopefully NZ style baby-rugby and touch and sevens will help that. It is growing more popular, gradually. How did this debate boil down to rugby and football anyway?

Crimey wrote:The biggest successes we've had at the Olympics are rowing and cycling, two sports that aren't part of most schools' curriculum.

do you not understand why we are good at those sports? because we have concentrating on them and spent bundles whilst understanding that most countries dont have the facilities to compete..We targetted them..

All the developed nations in the world have them, but we've thrashed them, is that because the toffs are so good at it?

super_realist wrote:I think Rugby's popularity is hindered not to do with it being a "toffs" sport whaever that is, but because the rules are complicated and frankly a bit silly and it can be a bit rough and intimidating for young kids.

Football can play played in tons of forms and even against a wall with a tennis ball. MOst other sports don't have a playground equivalent.

Interestingly rugby is becoming a very popular sport in the States, particularly in tougher areas/schools as it emphasises so much on teamwork and because there is a role for everyone in the team. The small nippy kid can go on the wing, big lumps can make good props, the tall guys excel in the line-out and make good locks, etc.

Chris Hoy and Bradley Wiggins, what a pair of Toffs.

ChequeredJersey wrote:

super_realist wrote:I think Rugby's popularity is hindered not to do with it being a "toffs" sport whaever that is, but because the rules are complicated and frankly a bit silly and it can be a bit rough and intimidating for young kids.

Football can play played in tons of forms and even against a wall with a tennis ball. MOst other sports don't have a playground equivalent.

Hopefully NZ style baby-rugby and touch and sevens will help that. It is growing more popular, gradually. How did this debate boil down to rugby and football anyway?

Elitism and accessability in sport.

super_realist wrote:Chris Hoy and Bradley Wiggins, what a pair of Toffs.

Could you throw a bigger insult at Wiggo??

Rowing is more about the time spent training than te equipment, Oakey. You can train people in a pretty average boat and compared to a Velodrome, a boat is bloody cheap! We are actually really lucky that a private institution, Eton, spent money in a totally non-National way on such a brilliant lake ages ago, and that the Thames and Tyne are very good Rivers to have available. Rowing is expensive for schools to do, but as I have said elsewhere, several of our Gold Medal Winners did not row at school and the equipment costs for a country are not that high as crews will inevitably share boats in training

super_realist wrote:All the developed nations in the world have them, but we've thrashed them, is that because the toffs are so good at it?

sorry i think your worrying about a perception of what a toff or elitest sport is. Certain sports are know as toff sports or elitist sports. Its a perception , we have discussed that before

We concentrated on rowing and cycling and we have made it work from an engineering , development and training standpoint.

We can do those things better than most because we are a rich economy. You cant make those gains in truely worldly sports that dont require equipment and facilities due to the popularity and population

Yeah, people seem to be forgetting that we're not the only country who spend money on those sports. We're competing with the rest of the developed world. Yeah, Kenya won't be competing in the Velodrome any time soon, but there are still plenty of countries who can.

It wasn't an insult. It was proof that Cycling (like most other sports) aren't elitist or toff sports.

mystiroakey wrote:

super_realist wrote:All the developed nations in the world have them, but we've thrashed them, is that because the toffs are so good at it?

sorry i think your worrying about a perception of what a toff or elitest sport is. Certain sports are know as toff sports or elitist sports. Its a perception , we have discussed that before

We concentrated on rowing and cycling and we have made it work from an engineering , development and training standpoint.

We can do those things better than most because we are a rich economy. You cant make those gains in truely worldly sports that dont require equipment and facilities due to the popularity and population

There are lots of rich countries who we are better than at those sports though.

What even is your point mysti?

TopHat24/7 wrote:

super_realist wrote:I think Rugby's popularity is hindered not to do with it being a "toffs" sport whaever that is, but because the rules are complicated and frankly a bit silly and it can be a bit rough and intimidating for young kids.

Football can play played in tons of forms and even against a wall with a tennis ball. MOst other sports don't have a playground equivalent.

Interestingly rugby is becoming a very popular sport in the States, particularly in tougher areas/schools as it emphasises so much on teamwork and because there is a role for everyone in the team. The small nippy kid can go on the wing, big lumps can make good props, the tall guys excel in the line-out and make good locks, etc.

Yeah I've read a lot about US school (American) Football and Basketball teams using rugby as conditioning etc in the offseason!

Crimey wrote:What even is your point mysti?

]

You come on here calling me forign and then making stuff up. I certainly didnt say kids should be forced to play sports. i said we should allow kids from all backgrounds to play all sports at school level rather than concentrating so much on football , and rugby isnt even played in the schools around here. Is that simple enough for you...Seriously what the heck is your point?

Crimey wrote:Yeah, people seem to be forgetting that we're not the only country who spend money on those sports. We're competing with the rest of the developed world. Yeah, Kenya won't be competing in the Velodrome any time soon, but there are still plenty of countries who can.

who is forgetting that?

I dont know anyone that has forgotten that

"There are lots of rich countries who we are better than at those sports though."

We are the best - we have proved that on the worlds stage- Its great!- what is your point

mystiroakey wrote:

Crimey wrote:What even is your point mysti?

]

You come on here calling me forign and then making stuff up. I certainly didnt say kids should be forced to play sports. i said we should allow kids from all backgrounds to play all sports at school level rathering than concentrating so much on football , and rugby isnt even played in the schools around here. Is that simple enough for you...Seriously what the heck is your point?

You want all schools to have the facilities to offer all sports? That is unrealistic. The reason schools do football more than anything else, is because football is more popular. Why do you think all schools should offer all sports? What would that achieve? "All schools" providing football hasn't led to the England national football side to any glory.

I didn't call you foreign, I just said that I thought you were foreign.

mystiroakey wrote:"There are lots of rich countries who we are better than at those sports though."

We are the best - we have proved that on the worlds stage- Its great!- what is your point

It means that your comments about us only winning those sports because other countries can't compete in them is irrelevant, there are still a lot of countries that can compete with us, do compete with us who we are better than. So our investment into the sport doesn't give us the advantage that you're implying in.

Crimey wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:"There are lots of rich countries who we are better than at those sports though."

We are the best - we have proved that on the worlds stage- Its great!- what is your point

It means that your comments about us only winning those sports because other countries can't compete in them is irrelevant, there are still a lot of countries that can compete with us, do compete with us who we are better than. So our investment into the sport doesn't give us the advantage that you're implying in.

When did i say we only won those events because....- are you actually ok mate? Because you are starting to sound abit nuts by making all this stuff up

I clearly said we concentrated on those sports because it gave us a great chance of success- which has been 100% quantified!

Or it could be argued we focussed on sports with the greatest amount of competition to give us a chance in them.