Olympic Games - What events would you ditch?

So, after a fantastic London Olympics, where I (and I'm sure many others) have watched a whole host of events many of us had never shown any interest in before, having been swept up in the excitement of Olympic fever, to help cope with my withdrawal symptoms I thought I'd ask the question: Which events would you pull from the Olympic programme if you had the choice?

I've listed off some of the best examples I can think of (some of which I agree with, some I don't), if I have missed something and you wish to tick 'other' post up what and we'll see what interesting debate we can get going......

The swimming programme is my biggest bug-bear at the moment. 34 events is frankly ridiculous - there are only 47 in the athletics!! The next best represented sport is wrestling with 18.

4 strokes x 2 distances x 2 genders is all it needs. Maybe add 1 relay (per gender). Otherwise kick it out the games altogether and give swimming it's own Games.

Synchronised swimming is just an aquatic form of rhythmic gymnastics.

Rhythmic gymnastics in turn is not a sport, but an art (dancing)

Mohammed Ali only ever won one olympic gold medal, yet Phipps has won 21, I doubt Phipps is 21 times the athlete, or contributor to his sport than Ali.

The qualification with the Ali point is that Phelps doesn't have a professional code to (irrevocably) move in to.

Then all the more respect for Ali, because he cant carry on picking up olympic gold medals in four yearly instalments.

There do appear to be too many opportunities for swimmers to take multiple titles - maybe its less about the number of events per se (although there seem to be too many relays), and more about the number of events an individual can be entered into. If you can participate in 7 or 8 different events over the course of a 1 week / 10 day competition and are racing 2 or 3 times in a session then clearly the physical demands of each race are not that high. Does somewhat devalue a gold medal if you can win a handful per Games.

As far as other sports are concerned, I'm not a great fan of the likes of basketball and tennis, where the Olympics is not the top event in the sport - I'd not necessarily remove them from the Games, but would look for ways to make the events distinctive (age group or amateur for basketball, some sort of team competition for tennis). Similarly, I would prefer golf to not be a simple 72 hole strokeplay event - maybe have a team matchplay with the best performing individuals from that going forward to a 36 hole strokeplay event.

Football I have less problems with, as limiting the men's competition to age group players gives the tournament an distinct character (although I'd get rid of the over-age players). The women's game definitely has a place in the Games though.

The inclusion of BMX opens the way for more X Games type events to be included in future games (as some already are in the winter Olympics) - imagine having Olympic freestyle motorcross...

While events like rhythmic gymnastics, synchronised swimming, dressage etc may not be everyone's cup of tea, I can't see any reason for their removal from the Games - they are competetive sports and the Olympics is their showpiece event. If the argument is that they are judged on a purely subjective basis, then you'd also have to exclude gymnastics (one of the big Olympic sports), diving and arguably boxing.

TopHat24/7 wrote:The swimming programme is my biggest bug-bear at the moment. 34 events is frankly ridiculous - there are only 47 in the athletics!! The next best represented sport is wrestling with 18.

4 strokes x 2 distances x 2 genders is all it needs. Maybe add 1 relay (per gender). Otherwise kick it out the games altogether and give swimming it's own Games.

Yep. I'd go for the Following program:

Crawl
50M Men and Women
100M Men and Women
800M Women
1500M Men
4x100M relay Men and Women

Breast Stroke
100M Men and Women

Butterfly
100M Men and Women

Backstroke
100M Men and Women

Medley
400M Men and Women
4x100M relay Men and Women

Plus

10K open water Men and Women

That's 20 medals with all strokes represented.

I'd get rid of the medley events then agree with you Andyi.

TopHat24/7 wrote:I'd get rid of the medley events then agree with you Andyi.

I'd keep them as they can be the decathlon/heptahlon of the pool and produce the best all round swimmer.

Swimming should be cut.

Only one stroke required, the others are slower so serve no purpose.

1 stroke, 8 distances plus a couple of relays will do.

dummy_half wrote:There do appear to be too many opportunities for swimmers to take multiple titles - maybe its less about the number of events per se (although there seem to be too many relays), and more about the number of events an individual can be entered into. If you can participate in 7 or 8 different events over the course of a 1 week / 10 day competition and are racing 2 or 3 times in a session then clearly the physical demands of each race are not that high. Does somewhat devalue a gold medal if you can win a handful per Games.

As far as other sports are concerned, I'm not a great fan of the likes of basketball and tennis, where the Olympics is not the top event in the sport - I'd not necessarily remove them from the Games, but would look for ways to make the events distinctive (age group or amateur for basketball, some sort of team competition for tennis). Similarly, I would prefer golf to not be a simple 72 hole strokeplay event - maybe have a team matchplay with the best performing individuals from that going forward to a 36 hole strokeplay event.

Football I have less problems with, as limiting the men's competition to age group players gives the tournament an distinct character (although I'd get rid of the over-age players). The women's game definitely has a place in the Games though.

The inclusion of BMX opens the way for more X Games type events to be included in future games (as some already are in the winter Olympics) - imagine having Olympic freestyle motorcross...

While events like rhythmic gymnastics, synchronised swimming, dressage etc may not be everyone's cup of tea, I can't see any reason for their removal from the Games - they are competetive sports and the Olympics is their showpiece event. If the argument is that they are judged on a purely subjective basis, then you'd also have to exclude gymnastics (one of the big Olympic sports), diving and arguably boxing.

This is a very good point, I think they have already capped the cycling so that multiple events can't be dominated by a single person. If they do it for them (argubably because Britain were head and shoulders above the others) then surely America are benefiting from a guy like Phelps. I know it is now Lockte (if thats his name) that is now the future from the look of things but the point remains.

I voted Golf but agree with all apart from Modern Pentathlon in that list.

As much as it pains me would have to add Road Cycling as well. The argument there is along the lines of why Tennis and Golf shouldn't be in i.e. they are not the pinnacle of the sport.

To flip this on its head what about worthy sports that aren't in? Squash springs to mind.

none.

Golf may prove to be more trouble than its worth though. But its the olympics- get all sportsmen/women involed how ever important it is or isnt. Its a celebration of sports

i think it is a celebration of athletics, that's its origins. if we're going to spread the catchment wider there use the event to champion less high profile/mainstream sports like gymnastics, rowing, track cycling, wrestling, badminton etc. I generally subscribe to the view that if the Olympics isn't the pinnacle of the sport, it probably shouldn't be there.

VTR
The absence of squash from the Olympics programme is a glaring anomaly - an internationally played racket sport (mainly Commonwealth, but also elsewhere in Europe and Egypt) surely deserves a place. Also, the Olympics would clearly be the big prize, so fits well with the traditions of the games.

Netball? Again, an internationally played team sport, not requiring too much logistically to add to the Games programme.

Polo? Might not be the easiest logistically, because of the need for a dedicated playing area and necessitating the transport of the ponies, but why not?

I'm pretty sure there are a few Latin American sports that should be included as well.

TopHat24/7 wrote:i think it is a celebration of athletics, that's its origins. if we're going to spread the catchment wider there use the event to champion less high profile/mainstream sports like gymnastics, rowing, track cycling, wrestling, badminton etc. I generally subscribe to the view that if the Olympics isn't the pinnacle of the sport, it probably shouldn't be there.

I think the fact is they are there. So its that simple really. I am not for taking any sport away= just including more.

I understand your point completly and kind off agree(pinnacle etc) but lets face it we are always gonna have these sports so it is what it is..

Id widely agree with the choices above

Soccer, Tennis (and Golf now thats in)..these are huge global professional sports missing half the good players. Womens soccer I can see an argument for because they are incapable of organising a competition anyone cares about.
Basketball is different, its the only serious international competition out there and they do get all the top internationals turn up, Spain did push the US in the final this time which was great. Its the only time the US team competes.
Dancing horses, infact all horses..its either grossly unfair (like the penathlon) or an exersize in who can buy the best beasts. At least bikes require some serious effort and EPO use from the riders.
Walking...its just stupid
Synchronised Swimming
Some of the swimming programme
Some of the rowing and some of the canoe sprints ( seriously what s the difference between 4 men and 8 men rowing a boat over the same distance?)
Make the triathlon longer so its not just a bunch of people refusing to swim quickly followed by cycling behind their mate before they get down to actually racing in the run.
Bike road race
TKD till they can find a way to make the scoring work,infact its pretty ridiculous anyway. Replace it with pankration based on UFC rules
The Keiran...its really stupid. Probably the omniuin too as the ctyclists themselves dont consider it a serious event even if it is fun to follow.
Couple of sailing classes, notably the "fun class" which is swithching from windsurfing to kite surfing ( seriously?)
Cut some shooting too ...theres a ridiculous number of golds and its the least spectator friendly sport you could possibly imagine.


Theres good reasons to keep the games lean, most notable is ensuring a gold medal still means something.
Im certainly in favour of one in one out

Wouldnt it be easier PSW if you just listed the events you want.

Running and jumping yeah?

And beach volleyball.

I just dont see the need to have the same thing twice (forgot to add diving to the list, why the heck do they have 3 heights? are they going to start havuing the high bars and the really high bars and the christ those bars are a bit too high events in gynastics?)

So just the 100m then?

No 200m, 400m 1500m, 5000m or 10000m?

Why do you want beach volley ball PSW?

Aye i get ya.

But surely there is a better way of getting a ball over a net..

I'm with Peter Seabiscuit on this one.

I'm also going for any sport that I'm not smart enough to understand.

TopHat24/7 wrote:So just the 100m then?

No 200m, 400m 1500m, 5000m or 10000m?

No because they are quite different events. Id question the need to have the 300m, the 600m, the three legged race, the running backwards, the running forwards then backwards, running indoors and outdoors though....which is essentially the argument people have against so many swimming golds. (although there is a reasonable argument to have hill running in)

It could be trimmed mind, but then track and field is the heart of the Olympics...so if anything gets to be overburdened with samey events it should be athletics.

Leave us with something DJ.......

I understand the 100 metres. That's the one where they run in a straight line and the winner gets the gold.

Anything with a bend gets confusing because I don't get how they don't all bump into each other.

Go with Shot Putt too. That's just 'big man throw heavy thing'. Perfect.

The rest makes me cry so should all be banned. It doesn't matter what anyone else thinks, my opinion is the only one that counts on these matters. I don't understand therefore any other opinion, even it's the popular one, should be discounted.

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:So just the 100m then?

No 200m, 400m 1500m, 5000m or 10000m?

No because they are quite different events. Id question the need to have the 300m, the 600m, the three legged race, the running backwards, the running forwards then backwards, running indoors and outdoors though....which is essentially the argument people have against so many swimming golds. (although there is a reasonable argument to have hill running in)

It could be trimmed mind, but then track and field is the heart of the Olympics...so if anything gets to be overburdened with samey events it should be athletics.

You've completely undermined your own argument there, well done

10000m and 100m are totally different events but 100m and 200m are no more diverse than 3m and 10m diving, especially as one of those is springboard and the other platform.

Definately get rid of the football. Its pointless and not well followed. Some other thoughts.

1. Only sports where the gold medal is the pinnacle of the sport should feature. In tennis and football a gold medal is nice but its not valued as highly or taken as seriously as the top competiion in those sports.
2. If you are going to let pros into basketball, football, tennis and have these sports in then pros should be allowed into boxing. The Olympics should be about the best athletes competing against each other.
3.I agree the swimming programme could be reduced but the Americans like to have it big so they can dominate the medals table every year! Im not sure what events I would cut out though.

ultimate fighting should come to the olympics.

also skateboarding and roler blading(racing and half pipes and street trick stuff)
motor racing, loads of kinds
t20 cricket
football should be 5 aside not 11
beach football
squash
racket ball
mountain climbing
motor boat racing
redbull sky racing

Darts?

pool?

snooker?

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:So just the 100m then?

No 200m, 400m 1500m, 5000m or 10000m?

No because they are quite different events. Id question the need to have the 300m, the 600m, the three legged race, the running backwards, the running forwards then backwards, running indoors and outdoors though....which is essentially the argument people have against so many swimming golds. (although there is a reasonable argument to have hill running in)

It could be trimmed mind, but then track and field is the heart of the Olympics...so if anything gets to be overburdened with samey events it should be athletics.

You've completely undermined your own argument there, well done

10000m and 100m are totally different events but 100m and 200m are no more diverse than 3m and 10m diving, especially as one of those is springboard and the other platform.

Except 60m 300m, 3000m etc are all standard athletcis distances that arent used at the olympics, many of the intermediates have already been cut.
Anyway if youd bothered to read what I said you that I do recognise that its still overburdened with similar disciplines but if anythings going to have a stack of golds it should be the premium sports, and atheltics is the heart of Olympic sport. Diving is just gymnastics falling into a pool, if youre going to cut stuff...cut that (However I didnt realise that the low bopard was sprung, even so it hardly makes it grounbreakingly different and yes we can apply that to some stupid atheletics events like the steeplechase too)

mystiroakey wrote:ultimate fighting should come to the olympics.

Yes as I pointed out previously, pankration (hybrid wrestling and boxing) was one of the original olympic sports, for some reason not bought through to the modern olympics. It would be great to get some kind of federation together that coule enable it in the olympics, although it inevitably would be watered down massively ( no headshots, point scoring, heavy padding etc) not just for safety reasons but also to ensure theres a slim chance competitors could make it through 4 bouts in 3 weeks without been too smashed up (this is why amataure boxing does everything it can to discourage people from hitting hard). It couldnt be as stupid as sports TKD though...those folk can barely move in all the get up.

mystiroakey wrote:also skateboarding and roler blading(racing and half pipes and street trick stuff)
motor racing, loads of kinds
t20 cricket
football should be 5 aside not 11
beach football
squash
racket ball
mountain climbing
motor boat racing
redbull sky racing

Trick skating sports are the preserve of the X games, they are better off there too where they can keep their own identity. I like the BMX racing mind, its a lot more exciting than most sports, although that may be due some kind of reshake as most races are won before the first corner. "Roller sports" is sticking itself forward, but that covers speed skating (done by people who cant get to an ice rink) , roller hockey (played by people who cant get to and ice rink) and a stupid version of roller derby nothing like the one thats widely played (written by speed skaters for speed skaters). I could do without.
Motor racing...dont be silly. Obviously the argument is if we allow horsey/boaty events why not motor racing ... but no.
Cricket ... yeah seems reasonable. Whats good again is that several of the top nations are not big olympic nations (notably India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka), its not just the usual suspects. It is played pretty globally now and has massive TV appeal. Its also possible to get the tournament done in 2 weeks.
Beach football? Five aside (Fusball) yes. Beach cricket?
Squash..think most of us agree on that , but racket ball? Does anyone outside of American movies play that? Whats that one with the ball on a string attached to a big stick...i like that
Sports climbing is quite reasonable

Surfing has been mooted recently, although thats probably just marketing from the makers of the new artificial wave machines.

Modern Pentathlon- Outdated and quite frankly the showjumping stage is a lottery and very little to do with skill or ability

Synchronised swimming- It's dire and adds absolutely nothing to the games

Tennis, Gold and Football- with the world cups, regionals, majors and the grand slams the olympics pales in comparison. Murray did well winning the olympic title but Federer won the match that really mattered at wimbledon.

Beach Volleyball- we already have proper volleyball, why not play hockey on sand with less players.

Swimming- Needs a serious rejigging, Phelps quite frankly isn't the greatest olympian of all time he simply has the greatest opportunity to win more. Hoy for instance could have had six events to compete in if they were all included which rightfully they are not; Kilo 500m, Sprint, Team Sprint, Time Trial (200m) and the keirin.

Also in need of cuts are shooting and sailing. Weightlifting needs individual titles for the clean and jerk and the snatch which are usually won by different lifters with different strengths. On a side note Taekwondo needs to get rid of the ridiculous repechage bronze medal, if you lose your first bout you shouldn't get a chance of medal if your conqueror wins gold or silver.

Hey, I liked that skeet shooting, using the fluoro clay pidgeons.

If everyone's so keen on ditching swimming events because of the overkill you could make quite a case for cutting back the track & field, Jamaica won a total of 12 medals, every one in the sprinting. People complain about how much the USA won in the pool but the amount of medals available for track sprinting is a bit OTT, especially when you consider it's a sport your dog could do better.

I'd go along with introducing more sports but keeping with the proviso someone mentioned earlier that the Olympics would have to be the pinnacle of the sport, hence no football, tennis, golf. Think the road cycling should be kept but broken into 2 races - a team race on a flat course & another race on a hilly course where only 1 rider per country is allowed. Regarding people criticising sports they don't enjoy or that look a bit odd (eg walking, synchronised swimming etc) - don't watch then, there's plenty else on.

Galted wrote:If everyone's so keen on ditching swimming events because of the overkill you could make quite a case for cutting back the track & field, Jamaica won a total of 12 medals, every one in the sprinting. People complain about how much the USA won in the pool but the amount of medals available for track sprinting is a bit OTT, especially when you consider it's a sport your dog could do better.

I'd go along with introducing more sports but keeping with the proviso someone mentioned earlier that the Olympics would have to be the pinnacle of the sport, hence no football, tennis, golf. Think the road cycling should be kept but broken into 2 races - a team race on a flat course & another race on a hilly course where only 1 rider per country is allowed. Regarding people criticising sports they don't enjoy or that look a bit odd (eg walking, synchronised swimming etc) - don't watch then, there's plenty else on.

Then again you could probably say that a fish could do the swimming better.

Yep, apparently thresher sharks are brilliant at backstroke.

you could change the rules on football (only allow uncapped players etc.) but its far easier just to dump it i guess, although you could keep wimmin's football in (if youre allowed to have one and not the other)

agree that golf and tennis shouldn't be in (unless you go back to amateurs only)

In athletics there are 3 sprint races for men and women compare that to upwards of 10 for the swimming equivalents, there is only one way to run but four ways to swim.

I don't see the problem with the imbalance of medals between different sports as there is no overall winner of the Olympics. It just provides fodder for people bleating on about who is/isn't the greatest Olympian ever be it Phelps/Owens/Lewis/Bolt blah-de-blah, does anyone really care? We're in a technological age where any event can be watched so if it's so upsetting for people to watch others win multiple medals just watch something else.

I don't mind the size of the Swimming programme - its still smaller than Athletics, and the distances are pretty varied.

Modern Pentathlon is an interesting one. Good to watch and Brits go well but you get the impression that the athletes are jacks of all trades and masters of none - few are particularly impressive on horses or in the swimming pool.

Its debatable whether Rhythmic Gymnastics and Synchro Swimming are sports, but whilst they remain defined as sports I don't have a problem with them being in the Olympics. Certainly Synchro presents a physical challenge.

My bugbear is Men's Football. You get the impression that most people in the sport don't care, which is an indication to me that we shouldn't bother. Its also the one sport which doesn't fill out stadiums every match.

Women's Football is a different case entirely - provides exposure to the game, and is arguably not far off being the greatest prize.

Tennis and Golf are debatable. Yes, majors are slightly more prestigious. But I get the impression that the tennis players enjoy representing their countries in this individual sport where they rarely get to do so. I assume Golf will be the same.

Agree with you on the women's football, I did watch bits of it & was quite impressed.

Regarding tennis - would be more for it if it wasn't just a watered-down version of a grand slam, it's just a run-of-the-mill tournament except you get a gold medal instead of a novelty cheque & huge crystal trophy. If they did away with tie-breaks as happened with Davis Cup ties until recently might make it a bit more interesting.

Galted wrote:If everyone's so keen on ditching swimming events because of the overkill you could make quite a case for cutting back the track & field, Jamaica won a total of 12 medals, every one in the sprinting. People complain about how much the USA won in the pool but the amount of medals available for track sprinting is a bit OTT, especially when you consider it's a sport your dog could do better.

I'd go along with introducing more sports but keeping with the proviso someone mentioned earlier that the Olympics would have to be the pinnacle of the sport, hence no football, tennis, golf. Think the road cycling should be kept but broken into 2 races - a team race on a flat course & another race on a hilly course where only 1 rider per country is allowed. Regarding people criticising sports they don't enjoy or that look a bit odd (eg walking, synchronised swimming etc) - don't watch then, there's plenty else on.

Athletics is the whole point and origination of the games and should be the fulcrum of the tournament.

The only reason sprinting should be highlighted is to highlight the perverse chages to the cycling programme forced through by the Americans. Can you imagine the 100m when Jamaica are only allowed to enter 1 sprinter?! Especially as Bolt had been beaten in the Jamaican nationals this year by Blake and may therefore not have even made it? Never. So why deny the world's greatest cyclists from competing?

Answer - none of them are American.

There's a bit of a difference with 100m as there is no tactics involved so it doesn't really matter how many are in the sprint - the Jamaicans can't team up to deny the Americans to their own cost, it's simply a case of who is quickest. I wasn't advocating that athletics be cut, I was pointing out that the arguments for the cutting of other sports apply equally to athletics.

The cycling road race was a weird mixture of individual skill, team tactics, flats & hills which, in the end, was just a lottery - the different aspects of road cycling should be represented in separate events.

Would happily take out the road race. Especially as the rest of the world seems content to not bother racing in order to screw us.

If sprinting had sprinting backwards, sprinting hopping and sprinting egg n spoon, I'd happily advocate cutting the programme down. But it doesn't.

The world wasn't trying to screw us, were just assuming that the GB riders would deliver Cav to the finish & were hoping to be drawn along & hijack the sprint - the GB riders ended up with too much to do & the peloton realised too late.

I'm not suggesting the athletics sprinting be cut, I wouldn't mind if it were expanded - the more finals the better as far as I'm concerned. My point is that the arguments for cutting other sports are often due to petty self-interest - because a particular sport isn't enjoyed or understood, or because athlete A in a sport I don't like gets more medals than athlete B in a sport which is my favourite. Hear the same drivel every Olympics, I don't know why I still get wound up by it.

The problem the cycling has ( certainly the sprinting) is the limited number of competitors who can take part. A running sprint has 8 comepitors, so in 4 rounds they can have 64 entrants. A 4 round cycling sprint has 16 entrants, keep adding extra rounds and you have issues of fatigue, overkill and other venue constraints. Allowing the top 2 from each nation means very few couniires with an interest in the race, and thats one of the key factors the olympic organisers look at when making rules on sports that get in and how they limit entrants.
Its just plain wrong to suggest that the Americans simply rule the IOC and IAAF and decide everything to benefit them, if they did they cost themselves some medals in the 100m and 200m by not limiting the Jamaicans to one runner.


With regard to swimming ... its on the outdoor "marathon" and mens indoor 1500 (its only 800 for women) that are wildly different distances. The other vary between 50 and 400 in freestyle, and 100 and 200 in the others. Theres very few entrants who only do one event, and most gold medal winners won medals in 3+ events. 30 gold medals went to muliple gold winners, and 19 swimmers came home with 3 or more medals... 6 with 4+ something no track and field athlete has done for as long as I can remember. this isnt anything new either, Thorpe and Spitz (who won 7 golds and in era when there was less events than there is now) are the obvious examples.
The disciplines are too similar. I wouldnt have such a problem with the size of the swimming programme is they changed the distances of the "odd" strokes to 100 and 400, but 100 and 200m swam in 3 styles relays and medleys is overkill.

I think that an Olympic stage Cycling race featuring a Time Trial (for which medals can be won), and 3 or 4 stages of various terains would be fairer than the current one-off road race which is a bit of a lottery.

If anything the number of events is going to increase in future though.