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.

Sailing Clubs and Rowing clubs etc will only ever turn someone away if they believe that that person is un-lawful, that they may degrade the reputation of the club.

That is no different to any other club I have ever joined.

With regards to sailing and rowing clubs they are always on the look out for members.. Sailing clubs often host courses for beginners that offer a years free membership, (membership to most local sailing clubs is around £100 a year, Royal Yacht Clubs around £250).

THey are both fantastic sports, the clubs are friendly, great for families and in general have great prices for drinks, loads of fun BBQs and club meals for you to join in...

I highly recommend anyone reading this check out the RYA website and find a sailing club near you and get down there and give it a go... I dont think you would regret it...

If i can assist in anyway, recommendations or any such please post or PM me...


http://www.rya.org.uk/wheresmynearest/Pages/WheresMyNearest.aspx

Female boxing.

IT'S JUST WRONG. WRONG I TELL YOU.

Those poor breasts

It's breast abuse.

It's absolutely gross.

I mean what the hell is the point of it?

Some sports are better left to the appropriate sex.

And I am the emancipator so I don't give a s*1t about political correctness.

I mean do you see men doing synchronised swimming.

I say get rid of it NOW. Now I say. What say you oh minions?



emancipator - intergalactic and global sport expert.

Emancipator- i didnt realise they were women- because they havent got any breasts mate!

They've been flattened by all those blows.

Poor breasts

Beach Volleyballs is too posh. It originates from the filthy rich jet setters playing games on the golden beaches of California, Rio and Bondi.

Nore Staat wrote:Beach Volleyballs is too posh. It originates from the filthy rich jet setters playing games on the golden beaches of California, Rio and Bondi.

what stops Brits playing it on the not so golden beaches of Blackpool?

some sports will be posh in some countries and not in others. in uk, tennis in posh (I mean at least in London from my own experience) whilst in france it's pretty much a middle class thing. golf I believe is the other way around.
if you want to remove all sports that involve expensive high tech material, then you can also get rid of the track cyclist and their 20,000 GBP bikes.

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

Technically, yes, but "Shamateurism" was rife for a long time before the Games finally went open. The US has always had a Collegiate system, which is little more than full time athletes competing as "Students". The Communist States of Eastern Europe would take their greatest athletes and put them in the army so they were technically "soldiers". In reality, they were all full time athletes.

It was argued, back in 1923 that Harold Abrahams compromised his amateur status by paying to hire a coach..!! (please, no gags about four wheels... you all know exactly what sort of coach I'm talking about).

As far as it goes, it is fair to say that in the modern day, the Games are probably as close to 'amateur' as possible because no prize money is on offer, and athletes are not paid to participate. Indeed, an attempt, before the start of London 2012, by American athletes to be allowed to openly endorse products for money during the Games was not supported by prominent British athletes and was eventually denied by the IOC.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/aug/01/london-2012-olympics-ennis-greene

It is true that highly paid professional athletes take part in the Games. That's ok by me. If an Olympic medal is to be a mark of excellence then the cream of the world's sportsmen and women must take part. If you want to be the best, you have to beat the best. Without the best taking part, the Games would lose the global support it currently enjoys.

I think there is a good balance at present. The best of the world's athletes have to earn a living and they do that year in year out, but every four years, they're happy to participate for the title of Olympic Champion and a gold medal without any monetary gain from the competition.

That, by today's standards, is nobility in itself.

.

emancipator wrote:They've been flattened by all those blows.

Poor breasts

flattened- dont tell me that is not on

Strawberry Jam wrote: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.

Under Rule 47 of the Olympic Charter, The IOC reviews the Olympic programme at the first session following each Olympiad. A two-thirds vote of the IOC is required to amend the Charter to promote a Recognised Federation to Olympic status and therefore make the sports it governs eligible for inclusion on the Olympic programme.

The Olympic Charter requires that for any sport to become a part of the Olympic Games, Rule 45, By Law 1.6 states: Prior to any decision on the inclusion of any sport in the programme, the Session may establish specific criteria or conditions for inclusion.

Generally, the standard criteria most usually adopted is that the sport in question must be participated in at least 80 countries and on at least three continents. By "Participation", it means that the country has a national association which organises regular programmes for sport in that country, and is a member of the international governing body for that sport.

The IOC has a "Core" of 24 sports which are recognised as Olympic Sports and are therefore eligible for inclusion at the Games, but the Charter allows for up to 28 sports to participate.

I hope that answers your question.

.

The issue I (and many others) have with swimming is the volume of events...

50m Breast stoke
50m Front Crawl
50m Backstroke
50m Butterfly etc...

These variations of swimming is no different to having a backwards running race. Totally pointless.

In fact, many events outside swimming are pointless too. A Walking Race, really? What is the point of that when I could turn up a jog round faster. Waste of time.

Lumbering_Jack wrote:The issue I (and many others) have with swimming is the volume of events...

50m Breast stoke
50m Front Crawl
50m Backstroke
50m Butterfly etc...

These variations of swimming is no different to having a backwards running race. Totally pointless.

In fact, many events outside swimming are pointless too. A Walking Race, really? What is the point of that when I could turn up a jog round faster. Waste of time.

What I can't figure out is why anybody should have a problem with any event.

The event is in the Games because the IOC have included it. If you don't like it, don't watch it. Simple.

Personally, I don't like boxing. How anybody can get any pleasure from watching two humans attempting to pummel each other into unconsciousness is beyond me. In my opinion, it's barbaric. But do I call for it to be banned..? No. Do I say it shouldn't be included in the Olympics..? Erm.. I don't think so. Rather than attempt to pee on other people's enjoyment, no matter how inappropriate I find it personally, I simply leave them alone to get on with it. It really.... REALLY is that simple.

There is a thing in this world called "Tolerance". It's best summed up in a simple phrase: "Live and let live". Walking races... multiple swimming events... organised head punching....whatever. They aren't doing you any harm and they fulfil the criteria as laid down by the IOC for inclusion and so they're there. If you don't like them, the answer, as I've already said, is quite simple:

Don't watch them.

.

This morning I watched the fastest human on the Planet, and he wasnt splashing around like a fish.

aucklandlaurie wrote:
This morning I watched the fastest human on the Planet, and he wasnt splashing around like a fish.

Or doing backstroke

Jennifer1984 wrote:

Lumbering_Jack wrote:The issue I (and many others) have with swimming is the volume of events...

50m Breast stoke
50m Front Crawl
50m Backstroke
50m Butterfly etc...

These variations of swimming is no different to having a backwards running race. Totally pointless.

In fact, many events outside swimming are pointless too. A Walking Race, really? What is the point of that when I could turn up a jog round faster. Waste of time.

What I can't figure out is why anybody should have a problem with any event.

The event is in the Games because the IOC have included it. If you don't like it, don't watch it. Simple.

Personally, I don't like boxing. How anybody can get any pleasure from watching two humans attempting to pummel each other into unconsciousness is beyond me. In my opinion, it's barbaric. But do I call for it to be banned..? No. Do I say it shouldn't be included in the Olympics..? Erm.. I don't think so. Rather than attempt to pee on other people's enjoyment, no matter how inappropriate I find it personally, I simply leave them alone to get on with it. It really.... REALLY is that simple.

There is a thing in this world called "Tolerance". It's best summed up in a simple phrase: "Live and let live". Walking races... multiple swimming events... organised head punching....whatever. They aren't doing you any harm and they fulfil the criteria as laid down by the IOC for inclusion and so they're there. If you don't like them, the answer, as I've already said, is quite simple:

Don't watch them.

.

Jenny,

I dont watch them. My point is that it vastly cheapens the value of a gold medal. People blab on about Phelps being the greatest olympian ever... Do me a favour. The only reason he has so many is because of the sheer volume of events open to him.

Winning an event should mean nobody else could beat you... The fact is that I could tip up at the start line of a walking race and jog round faster than them all, making the whole thing pointless for me. Likewise with the multiple swimmings events. Front crawl is the fastest, why would you want to swim any other way...

Maybe we can introduce a 100m backwards/sidestep race just so Bolt can get 30 gold medals.

Also, boxing is etched in history, Man v Man etc... I suspect you know that but like to sit in your ivory tower being judgemental.

Lumbering_Jack wrote:

Jennifer1984 wrote:

Lumbering_Jack wrote:The issue I (and many others) have with swimming is the volume of events...

50m Breast stoke
50m Front Crawl
50m Backstroke
50m Butterfly etc...

These variations of swimming is no different to having a backwards running race. Totally pointless.

In fact, many events outside swimming are pointless too. A Walking Race, really? What is the point of that when I could turn up a jog round faster. Waste of time.

What I can't figure out is why anybody should have a problem with any event.

The event is in the Games because the IOC have included it. If you don't like it, don't watch it. Simple.

Personally, I don't like boxing. How anybody can get any pleasure from watching two humans attempting to pummel each other into unconsciousness is beyond me. In my opinion, it's barbaric. But do I call for it to be banned..? No. Do I say it shouldn't be included in the Olympics..? Erm.. I don't think so. Rather than attempt to pee on other people's enjoyment, no matter how inappropriate I find it personally, I simply leave them alone to get on with it. It really.... REALLY is that simple.

There is a thing in this world called "Tolerance". It's best summed up in a simple phrase: "Live and let live". Walking races... multiple swimming events... organised head punching....whatever. They aren't doing you any harm and they fulfil the criteria as laid down by the IOC for inclusion and so they're there. If you don't like them, the answer, as I've already said, is quite simple:

Don't watch them.

.

Winning an event should mean nobody else could beat you... The fact is that I could tip up at the start line of a walking race and jog round faster than them all, making the whole thing pointless for me. Likewise with the multiple swimmings events. Front crawl is the fastest, why would you want to swim any other way...

I'd be World Darts Champion if I could just walk up to the board and stick them in.

Il Gialloblu wrote:

Lumbering_Jack wrote:

Jennifer1984 wrote:

Lumbering_Jack wrote:The issue I (and many others) have with swimming is the volume of events...

50m Breast stoke
50m Front Crawl
50m Backstroke
50m Butterfly etc...

These variations of swimming is no different to having a backwards running race. Totally pointless.

In fact, many events outside swimming are pointless too. A Walking Race, really? What is the point of that when I could turn up a jog round faster. Waste of time.

What I can't figure out is why anybody should have a problem with any event.

The event is in the Games because the IOC have included it. If you don't like it, don't watch it. Simple.

Personally, I don't like boxing. How anybody can get any pleasure from watching two humans attempting to pummel each other into unconsciousness is beyond me. In my opinion, it's barbaric. But do I call for it to be banned..? No. Do I say it shouldn't be included in the Olympics..? Erm.. I don't think so. Rather than attempt to pee on other people's enjoyment, no matter how inappropriate I find it personally, I simply leave them alone to get on with it. It really.... REALLY is that simple.

There is a thing in this world called "Tolerance". It's best summed up in a simple phrase: "Live and let live". Walking races... multiple swimming events... organised head punching....whatever. They aren't doing you any harm and they fulfil the criteria as laid down by the IOC for inclusion and so they're there. If you don't like them, the answer, as I've already said, is quite simple:

Don't watch them.

.

Winning an event should mean nobody else could beat you... The fact is that I could tip up at the start line of a walking race and jog round faster than them all, making the whole thing pointless for me. Likewise with the multiple swimmings events. Front crawl is the fastest, why would you want to swim any other way...

I'd be World Darts Champion if I could just walk up to the board and stick them in.

Silly comparison...

Lumbering_Jack wrote:

Il Gialloblu wrote:

Lumbering_Jack wrote:

Jennifer1984 wrote:

Lumbering_Jack wrote:The issue I (and many others) have with swimming is the volume of events...

50m Breast stoke
50m Front Crawl
50m Backstroke
50m Butterfly etc...

These variations of swimming is no different to having a backwards running race. Totally pointless.

In fact, many events outside swimming are pointless too. A Walking Race, really? What is the point of that when I could turn up a jog round faster. Waste of time.

What I can't figure out is why anybody should have a problem with any event.

The event is in the Games because the IOC have included it. If you don't like it, don't watch it. Simple.

Personally, I don't like boxing. How anybody can get any pleasure from watching two humans attempting to pummel each other into unconsciousness is beyond me. In my opinion, it's barbaric. But do I call for it to be banned..? No. Do I say it shouldn't be included in the Olympics..? Erm.. I don't think so. Rather than attempt to pee on other people's enjoyment, no matter how inappropriate I find it personally, I simply leave them alone to get on with it. It really.... REALLY is that simple.

There is a thing in this world called "Tolerance". It's best summed up in a simple phrase: "Live and let live". Walking races... multiple swimming events... organised head punching....whatever. They aren't doing you any harm and they fulfil the criteria as laid down by the IOC for inclusion and so they're there. If you don't like them, the answer, as I've already said, is quite simple:

Don't watch them.

.

Winning an event should mean nobody else could beat you... The fact is that I could tip up at the start line of a walking race and jog round faster than them all, making the whole thing pointless for me. Likewise with the multiple swimmings events. Front crawl is the fastest, why would you want to swim any other way...

I'd be World Darts Champion if I could just walk up to the board and stick them in.

Silly comparison...

Not really.

Rules make sports what they are by restricting how people can achieve the aim. Competitors must have contact with the ground at all times in a walking race. You'd be disqualified as soon as you started jogging.

I might stop watching boxing now. After all, I could turn up with a taser and beat Vitali so what's the point?

Il Gialloblu wrote:

Lumbering_Jack wrote:

Il Gialloblu wrote:

Lumbering_Jack wrote:

Jennifer1984 wrote:

Lumbering_Jack wrote:The issue I (and many others) have with swimming is the volume of events...

50m Breast stoke
50m Front Crawl
50m Backstroke
50m Butterfly etc...

These variations of swimming is no different to having a backwards running race. Totally pointless.

In fact, many events outside swimming are pointless too. A Walking Race, really? What is the point of that when I could turn up a jog round faster. Waste of time.

What I can't figure out is why anybody should have a problem with any event.

The event is in the Games because the IOC have included it. If you don't like it, don't watch it. Simple.

Personally, I don't like boxing. How anybody can get any pleasure from watching two humans attempting to pummel each other into unconsciousness is beyond me. In my opinion, it's barbaric. But do I call for it to be banned..? No. Do I say it shouldn't be included in the Olympics..? Erm.. I don't think so. Rather than attempt to pee on other people's enjoyment, no matter how inappropriate I find it personally, I simply leave them alone to get on with it. It really.... REALLY is that simple.

There is a thing in this world called "Tolerance". It's best summed up in a simple phrase: "Live and let live". Walking races... multiple swimming events... organised head punching....whatever. They aren't doing you any harm and they fulfil the criteria as laid down by the IOC for inclusion and so they're there. If you don't like them, the answer, as I've already said, is quite simple:

Don't watch them.

.

Winning an event should mean nobody else could beat you... The fact is that I could tip up at the start line of a walking race and jog round faster than them all, making the whole thing pointless for me. Likewise with the multiple swimmings events. Front crawl is the fastest, why would you want to swim any other way...

I'd be World Darts Champion if I could just walk up to the board and stick them in.

Silly comparison...

Not really.

Rules make sports what they are by restricting how people can achieve the aim. Competitors must have contact with the ground at all times in a walking race. You'd be disqualified as soon as you started jogging.

I might stop watching boxing now. After all, I could turn up with a taser and beat Vitali so what's the point?

Another silly comparison... A taser is a piece of equipment, the comparison I made was man v man with no aids...

Walking races are pointless when I could do a slow jog and beat them.

The Olympics is a celebration of all sports, so I don't think any of them 'don't deserve' to be there. I enjoy watching all of them, and experiencing sports I haven't ever properly watched or given the time of day to.

I agree that certain sports should try and retain the 'amateurish' status, and that for the players involved, the Olympics should be the pinnacle of their achievements thus far. For more developed and professionalised sports for which the Olympics doesn't represent the most treasured achievement, amateur of lower league players should be selected.

Just because a sport is 'filthy' rich, that doesn't make becoming successful in it less of an achievement.

Lumbering_Jack wrote:

Il Gialloblu wrote:

Lumbering_Jack wrote:

Il Gialloblu wrote:

Lumbering_Jack wrote:

Jennifer1984 wrote:

Lumbering_Jack wrote:The issue I (and many others) have with swimming is the volume of events...

50m Breast stoke
50m Front Crawl
50m Backstroke
50m Butterfly etc...

These variations of swimming is no different to having a backwards running race. Totally pointless.

In fact, many events outside swimming are pointless too. A Walking Race, really? What is the point of that when I could turn up a jog round faster. Waste of time.

What I can't figure out is why anybody should have a problem with any event.

The event is in the Games because the IOC have included it. If you don't like it, don't watch it. Simple.

Personally, I don't like boxing. How anybody can get any pleasure from watching two humans attempting to pummel each other into unconsciousness is beyond me. In my opinion, it's barbaric. But do I call for it to be banned..? No. Do I say it shouldn't be included in the Olympics..? Erm.. I don't think so. Rather than attempt to pee on other people's enjoyment, no matter how inappropriate I find it personally, I simply leave them alone to get on with it. It really.... REALLY is that simple.

There is a thing in this world called "Tolerance". It's best summed up in a simple phrase: "Live and let live". Walking races... multiple swimming events... organised head punching....whatever. They aren't doing you any harm and they fulfil the criteria as laid down by the IOC for inclusion and so they're there. If you don't like them, the answer, as I've already said, is quite simple:

Don't watch them.

.

Winning an event should mean nobody else could beat you... The fact is that I could tip up at the start line of a walking race and jog round faster than them all, making the whole thing pointless for me. Likewise with the multiple swimmings events. Front crawl is the fastest, why would you want to swim any other way...

I'd be World Darts Champion if I could just walk up to the board and stick them in.

Silly comparison...

Not really.

Rules make sports what they are by restricting how people can achieve the aim. Competitors must have contact with the ground at all times in a walking race. You'd be disqualified as soon as you started jogging.

I might stop watching boxing now. After all, I could turn up with a taser and beat Vitali so what's the point?

Another silly comparison... A taser is a piece of equipment, the comparison I made was man v man with no aids...

Walking races are pointless when I could do a slow jog and beat them.

Okay, fair point about the equipment.

However, the other point (which you ignored) still stands. You'd either break the rules and be disqualified or follow the rules and lose. Do you not think the Olympic champions do everything in their power to go quickly without breaking the rules? I seriously doubt you'd find a previously undiscovered way to legally go quicker.

You might not like walking races, I find them rather dull yet strangely comical myself, but a sport isn't pointless just because you could do better by breaking the rules.

Do you need me to say something about scoring more than Messi if I could pick the ball up and chuck it into the goal or do you understand what I'm getting at?

I have problems with the inclusion of Golf in Rio - their earnings are so far away from the ideals of Pierre de Coubertin it would make him creak with pain.

Rugby sevens is not even the sport it purports to represent.

Tennis and Basketball are ungeared against hyper-waged players.

Gymnastics has far, far too many medals for repeats of essentially the same routines. That's why it along with swimming has so much representation in the list of multi-medal winners.

I would, however tentatively support the top twenty of world performers to have automatic qualification for any event to qualify plus one other national qualifier. OK, that might lead to (say) Kenya having ten 1500m Athletics qualifiers - but that represents the motto - altius citius fortius. The best of the best.

I don't have a problem with Golf's inclusion at all, but rather the players that will be playing. It should be amateur players- a chance for them to appear on the world stage and show what they have to offer.

not sure what you mean about Rugby Sevens not being the sport is purports to be...

Gymnastics I think to the untrained eye, looks like they have similar competitions, but actually are all subtly different.

My advice Portnoy? Embrace and enjoy it. It's one hell of an event, and I'm enjoying it more than I ever thought I would be. London's done us proud, and GB are performing so incredibly well, what's not to enjoy?

Walking races are pointless when I could do a slow jog and beat them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/50_kilometres_race_walk

The men's world record for the 50 km race walk is held by Denis Nizhegorodov, through his race of 3:34:14 in Cheboksary in 2008.

That's sub 7 min miles over more than 31 miles.

Personally, i believe Mens Football and Tennis should NOT be Olympic Sports...............nor should Golf.........................lets face it, the Mens Football was pretty tepid stuff.............

I have no issue with Basketball because there isin't an International dimension there already......................

bluestonevedder wrote:I don't have a problem with Golf's inclusion at all, but rather the players that will be playing. It should be amateur players- a chance for them to appear on the world stage and show what they have to offer.

not sure what you mean about Rugby Sevens not being the sport is purports to be...

Gymnastics I think to the untrained eye, looks like they have similar competitions, but actually are all subtly different.

My advice Portnoy? Embrace and enjoy it. It's one hell of an event, and I'm enjoying it more than I ever thought I would be. London's done us proud, and GB are performing so incredibly well, what's not to enjoy?

bluestone

not sure what you mean about Rugby Sevens not being the sport is purports to be

It's a short-form of the sport. Rugby is 15-a-side. And sevens is nothing like rugby. Personally I think that cricket 20/20 has a better claim on a sporting basis. At least that is eleven-a-side. And rugby is my sport. Also the Olympics is not the pinnacle of the sport.

Gymnastics I think to the untrained eye, looks like they have similar competitions, but actually are all subtly different.

Subtle differences indeed! My son is a national trampolining referee (and aspires (and has extremely good chances) to be in Rio) agrees with me that the medal count is wrong.
I love watching gymnastics but that's not my point.

With Rugby Sevens, the basic skills are the same, and the over arching rules are still in place. I think that's why it warrants the name '7s Rugby'.

Maybe the medal count is wrong, I agree with you regarding the swimming. At some points, this Olympics did feel like swimming was the only bloomin' event. But that's just the way it is.

John Cregan wrote:Personally, i believe Mens Football and Tennis should NOT be Olympic Sports...............nor should Golf.........................lets face it, the Mens Football was pretty tepid stuff.............

I have no issue with Basketball because there isn't an International dimension there already......................

Basketball is a world sport. Just a shame that the football team age constraints are not imposed. All the strength is in the US, but no U-23 constraint. It must be deeply disheartening for the other nations. Football has got the balance right. Spain went straight out this time despite being the best at the pro game.

Football is more a worthy Olympic sport because of its personnel constraints.

I have no issue with Basketball because there isn't an International dimension there already.imposed

.
Balls.

Balls?? What do you mean??

John Cregan wrote:Balls?? What do you mean??

Basketball is one of the top International sports globally both in participation and spectatorship even beyond the US boundaries.

In what way do you have to be posh to shoot, row or sail?

You dont have to be posh, but unlike working mans sports where you can turn up and pay £2 to train, these sports require memberships at expensive clubs, usually for those in the upper echlons of society.

They really don't. You can join clubs for very little, it's just a myth that clubs like that are always expensive.

People even say tennis is elitist. Juniors can play for less than £50 a year in many areas.

The swimming is a bit stupid with all the different strokes.

It would be like having Usain Bolt competing in the 100m Backwards Sprint, and the 100m Sidestepping Dash to boost his medal count.

Lumbering_Jack wrote:

Il Gialloblu wrote:

Lumbering_Jack wrote:

Il Gialloblu wrote:

Lumbering_Jack wrote:

Jennifer1984 wrote:

Lumbering_Jack wrote:The issue I (and many others) have with swimming is the volume of events...

50m Breast stoke
50m Front Crawl
50m Backstroke
50m Butterfly etc...

These variations of swimming is no different to having a backwards running race. Totally pointless.

In fact, many events outside swimming are pointless too. A Walking Race, really? What is the point of that when I could turn up a jog round faster. Waste of time.

What I can't figure out is why anybody should have a problem with any event.

The event is in the Games because the IOC have included it. If you don't like it, don't watch it. Simple.

Personally, I don't like boxing. How anybody can get any pleasure from watching two humans attempting to pummel each other into unconsciousness is beyond me. In my opinion, it's barbaric. But do I call for it to be banned..? No. Do I say it shouldn't be included in the Olympics..? Erm.. I don't think so. Rather than attempt to pee on other people's enjoyment, no matter how inappropriate I find it personally, I simply leave them alone to get on with it. It really.... REALLY is that simple.

There is a thing in this world called "Tolerance". It's best summed up in a simple phrase: "Live and let live". Walking races... multiple swimming events... organised head punching....whatever. They aren't doing you any harm and they fulfil the criteria as laid down by the IOC for inclusion and so they're there. If you don't like them, the answer, as I've already said, is quite simple:

Don't watch them.

.

Winning an event should mean nobody else could beat you... The fact is that I could tip up at the start line of a walking race and jog round faster than them all, making the whole thing pointless for me. Likewise with the multiple swimmings events. Front crawl is the fastest, why would you want to swim any other way...

I'd be World Darts Champion if I could just walk up to the board and stick them in.

Silly comparison...

Not really.

Rules make sports what they are by restricting how people can achieve the aim. Competitors must have contact with the ground at all times in a walking race. You'd be disqualified as soon as you started jogging.

I might stop watching boxing now. After all, I could turn up with a taser and beat Vitali so what's the point?

Another silly comparison... A taser is a piece of equipment, the comparison I made was man v man with no aids...

Walking races are pointless when I could do a slow jog and beat them.

You could also have man vs man and one guy uses martial arts. Same as your comparison with jogging in a walking race.

I heard some hoity on R5 claiming that equestrianism a wasn't posh exclusive sport.

I reckon what she meant that any pre-adolescent girl/community service offender can pitch dung for free.

Portnoy wrote:

John Cregan wrote:Balls?? What do you mean??

Basketball is one of the top International sports globally both in participation and spectatorship even beyond the US boundaries.

Oh i see you were just being rude............ my ACTUAL POINT is that Countries don't compete against each other in Basketball therefore the Olympics is an ideal stage to have an international competition..................the Football is always going to be a contrived damp squib..............

Portnoy wrote:I heard some hoity on R5 claiming that equestrianism a wasn't posh exclusive sport.

I reckon what she meant that any pre-adolescent girl/community service offender can pitch dung for free.

To be honest, I live in a rural area in Yorkshire and I know loads of people who do equestrianism competitively, and funnily enough, very few of them could ever be described as 'posh'. It's certainly not particularly exclusive.

An awful lot of the competitors at the Olympics are not necessarily rich, they tend to ride for rich horse owners.

djlovesyou wrote:

Portnoy wrote:I heard some hoity on R5 claiming that equestrianism a wasn't posh exclusive sport.

I reckon what she meant that any pre-adolescent girl/community service offender can pitch dung for free.

To be honest, I live in a rural area in Yorkshire and I know loads of people who do equestrianism competitively, and funnily enough, very few of them could ever be described as 'posh'. It's certainly not particularly exclusive.

An awful lot of the competitors at the Olympics are not necessarily rich, they tend to ride for rich horse owners.

My Mum and Dad did show jumping and they were by no means rich.

djlovesyou wrote:

Portnoy wrote:I heard some hoity on R5 claiming that equestrianism a wasn't posh exclusive sport.

I reckon what she meant that any pre-adolescent girl/community service offender can pitch dung for free.

To be honest, I live in a rural area in Yorkshire and I know loads of people who do equestrianism competitively, and funnily enough, very few of them could ever be described as 'posh'. It's certainly not particularly exclusive.

An awful lot of the competitors at the Olympics are not necessarily rich, they tend to ride for rich horse owners.

To be honest, I think that most of those who make derogatory comments about "hoity's" and "posh sports" are just indulging in working class snobbery.... and yes, there is such a thing.

"Oh, look at me.... I'm working class. That makes me salt of the earth and I'm better than the rich parasites who should be wiped off the face of the planet".

As snobbery goes, it's no different to the other end of the scale.... wealthy people looking down on those they consider their social inferiors..... There is no dignity or moral high ground to be had from taking cheap shots at other people in the social spectrum from whatever end it comes.

Working class resentment is just another form of soul destroying self-destruction that does nobody credit and doesn't further their prospects.

Wealthy people.... if such they are..... in sport aren't winners because they're rich. They have to train just the same, they sweat just the same and they feel elation at winning or desolation at losing just the same. They are winners because they worked hard, but just happen to have a few bob.

The "money" argument doesn't work either. Any athlete in this country who has the talent and ability to succeed will get sponsorship or lottery funding. Being "working class" in Britain is no barrier to success........ If you're good enough.

If any athlete doesn't get any sort of funding or sponsorship, it's probably because they didn't come up to scratch, not because they come from some arbitratily defined "social class". Usually, those who claim they were discriminated against just can't admit they weren't bloody good enough.

One of the first steps to success is to get rid of that working class chip on your shoulder and concentrate on becoming a determined winner instead of a whingeing loser.

.

Another way to consider whether a sport is over-represented at the Olympics is to compare how many events / medals are available in the Olympics compared with their own World Championships -

Athletics: Looks like the Olympics schedule is (now) the same as the Worlds, including the women's hammer and steeplechase as relatively new events.

Swimming: I believe the Worlds has a couple of additional sprint races (50m breaststroke, 50m backstroke) that are not in the Olympics.

Gymnastics - Team, individual and individual apparatus titles. Looks like a full programme to me.

I am in agreement with those who think there are too many titles available in swimming and gymnastics compared with other events - yes, Phelps is a great swimmer, but why should he be able to contest 8 events at one games when Bolt (for example) can go for 3? Perhaps there should be a limit on how many events an individual can enter.

Cycling - As already mentioned, the track programme was seriously rejigged after the last Olympics. The motivation was at least in part to even up the number of events between men and women, although to do this has also removed the women's individual pursuit (along with the men's IP, points race and madison - the women's 500m and men's kilo went before Beijing)). The Omnium is a somewhat controversial addition, as it is normally a bit more of a fun event, especially with the inclusion of the elimination race.
The main problem with the track cycling programme is it is now unbalanced towards sprint events (team sprint, Kierin, match sprint) compared with endurance events (team pursuit, omnium). Really needs the individual pursuit reintroducing, and the silly one rider per nation rule removing from the individual events.

It's deluded to think some sports don't exclude those of lower social class.

Try compete seriously in sailing, cycling, equestrian etc without a few quid behind you, the odd middle class amateur or rare lower class competitor does not change that.

Ent wrote:

Try compete seriously in sailing, cycling, equestrian etc without a few quid behind you, the odd middle class amateur or rare lower class competitor does not change that.

I'm presuming you've had this experience of trying in order to come to this conclusion?

Its naive to believe that Equestrian isnt class divided. Its impossible to get a start in the sport at a serious level without access to good horses, and even once successful theres a huge amount of networking required to get the best rides. It certainly doesnt hurt your chances if your relatives happen to be the owners.
Its true with many other sports as well that whilst you can participate fairly cheaply its unlikely you will progress unless you have access to good facilities and top coaching. The current UK sports funding gives a lot of chances to break that down, especially in the way they sought out many competitors for sports like rowing and athletics this time...selecting on physical potential and mental attitude with a long term view to bringing people through. The central funding takes a lot of the class/wealth/access division out, but thats limited to certain sports.
There is of course also a class division in who is attracted to a sport in the first place. Kids who go to schools with rowing clubs and whos parents rowed are more likely to take up rowing than people who grow up with nothing but soccer shoved down their throats. Its no coincidence the Olympic rowing lake was built right by Eton school. Its the kind of sport posh kids are expected to do, whereas inner city kids tend to have boxing, football, basketball and burglary marketed to them as aspirational activities.

Its wrong to compare swimmings tally directly with atheltics, essentially they are all running events. Stick diving in their to equate to jumping (high, long , triple, pole). Then maybe they could have underwater throwing (Id pay to see that). The swimming up and down a pool events with different strokes is the equivalent of having all the running distances done again as a running backwards, skipping and silly walks race (actually dont get me started on walking as a sport...) Dont forget we now also have swimming outdoors, swimming whilst throwing a ball and biting people, trying to keep a straight face whilst playing twister with your friends underwater, and swimming to find your baike then running home before your mum finds out what you are up to as events.
You do feel for someone like Ennis who busts her guts for one medal, someone with her level in swimming or cycling could come out with a whole bag full. I guess sprinters can get 3 medals (you dont see them long jumping anymore) but its rare for track and field athletes to be competitive in more that two events, swimming has a long history of multi medal winners and its far from unusual to see them contesting 5+ events .. that says to me the disciplines are either too similar or theres a very limited number of serious swimmers.
Thats not to say that there arent a lot of daft events in athletics too of course... pole vault? triple jump? hammer throw? steeple chase? hurdles? and of course walking the daftest sport in the whole games.
Gymnastics, cycling and horseplay also have the oddity of giving multiple medals for doing the same thing..although theres a fair bit of that in athletics too. Cycling is especially bad for having events that are basically the same thing.
People take a pop at events like beach volleyball but it is widely played across the globe, as are sports like handball and water polo even if we have almost no knowledge of them here. Im sure theres plenty around the world who will "wtf" when they see rugby sevens included. Roller sports could be the next daft one to get in ... its up for consideration (consisting of multiple speed skating distances, roller hockey and roller derby

i agree with all your points PSW untill the daft events points

"Roller sports could be the next daft one to get in ... its up for consideration (consisting of multiple speed skating distances, roller hockey and roller derby"


that sounds perfect for the olympics tbh

nice one PSW : as if athletics is only about running as fast as you can

pole vault, hammer throw, triple jump, steeple chase and hurdle require specific training and skills that are altogether competely different and more complex than say running 100m or 10km. this is why people competing there only do that.

I do agree with most of your other points and it was a nice read. while we are at it why dont we also have surfing and freesbee (spelling?) in the olympics!

Swimming definitely has too many events. Not sure I agree with Gymnastics though. I think they have it about right in there being being team and individual all-round events and then individual apparatus.

I always think there are two categories for sports in the Olympics:-

1) Based on ancient Greece, hunting, war etc.

Here I would include sports like athletics, swimming, gymnastic, archery, wrestling, boxing, judo, rowing, sailing, horse riding, fencing, weightlifting.

Also based on this I would consider things like darts and angling and possibly more modern things like cycling and shooting.

2) Based on worldwide participation and interested of the sport.

Here I would put sports like football, tennis, golf

Portnoy wrote:

bluestonevedder wrote:I don't have a problem with Golf's inclusion at all, but rather the players that will be playing. It should be amateur players- a chance for them to appear on the world stage and show what they have to offer.

not sure what you mean about Rugby Sevens not being the sport is purports to be...

Gymnastics I think to the untrained eye, looks like they have similar competitions, but actually are all subtly different.

My advice Portnoy? Embrace and enjoy it. It's one hell of an event, and I'm enjoying it more than I ever thought I would be. London's done us proud, and GB are performing so incredibly well, what's not to enjoy?

bluestone

not sure what you mean about Rugby Sevens not being the sport is purports to be

It's a short-form of the sport. Rugby is 15-a-side. And sevens is nothing like rugby. Personally I think that cricket 20/20 has a better claim on a sporting basis. At least that is eleven-a-side. And rugby is my sport. Also the Olympics is not the pinnacle of the sport.

Gymnastics I think to the untrained eye, looks like they have similar competitions, but actually are all subtly different.

Subtle differences indeed! My son is a national trampolining referee (and aspires (and has extremely good chances) to be in Rio) agrees with me that the medal count is wrong.
I love watching gymnastics but that's not my point.

As you say Rugby 7's is not 15 a side Rugby but 15 a side Rugby was never going to get in the Olympics as its not Globally competitive enough (Especially with England, Scotland and Wales competing as Team GB) and it would take far too long to fit into the Olympic schedule.

So if Rugby 7's is a different sport, the Olympics will be the Pinnacle, because the IRB agreed to drop the Rugby 7's world cup after 2013 in order to be included in the Olympics.
There is some talk that the IRB maybe reverse that decision but that's very risky as the IOC may just remove Rugby 7's if they did.

Haven't got time for a full post on the OP and various discussions that have evolved but I don't think USA has a disgusting influence on the make-up of the Olympics. We (and a few others, but not the Yanks) dominate cycling, what happens? Cycling programme gets cut-down and restrictions placed on entrants numbers imposed. Yet the Yanks dominate the swimming and no such restrictions are imposed and the events proliferate. Swimming is MASSIVELY over-represented at the games - USA has 16 of it's 29 golds in the pool and 40 of its 63 medals in total.

Cut swimming down to 1 entrant per event per country and 4 strokes at 2 distances (say 200 and 800) plus 1 relay and watch America tumble down the medal table.

To be fair swimming is much more represented internationally that track cyclism although I'd agree that 4*200m relay for example is a bit of non event for instance...
The dominance of USA is another issue. seems this debate is unfortunately turning into "my country aint good at that sport so scrap it"...

I can't see why it matters whether one sport has more medals than others.

Every nation has the same opportunity to win in all the disciplines.

Surely the decision made on how many medals or events and entrants per sporting code is up for a vote, and one country can't be the sole determining factor?