Olympic Games - What events would you ditch?

First topic message reminder :

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 slow-bike race in school was a lot of fun and should be considered for inclusion

The way I see it in regards to the pinnacle sport argument and the cycling argument is kinda simple..

lets forget the Road race for a moment- the pinnacle is the TDF anyway- by the way i have no problem with events being in the olympics that have other pinnacle events anyway- but i do understand the argument..

Track cyclings pinnacle event is/was the olympics..

Now by limiting countries to one rider each- It will invalidate its quality! its that simple. So not only does the olympics have sports that have other pinnacle events it is also creating (in the cyclings case anyway) other events as the pinnacle for that sport. So it isnt helping its self out here at all

The cycling is different though. The Tour de France might be the highest honour in cycling but it is very specific. Its not the same as things like golf, football or tennis being in there. In most other cycling events the gold medal is what athletes strive for.

Gordy wrote:The cycling is different though. The Tour de France might be the highest honour in cycling but it is very specific. Its not the same as things like golf, football or tennis being in there. In most other cycling events the gold medal is what athletes strive for.

Get off my thread you goon...........

Gordy wrote:The cycling is different though. The Tour de France might be the highest honour in cycling but it is very specific. Its not the same as things like golf, football or tennis being in there. In most other cycling events the gold medal is what athletes strive for.

However by limiting one Cyclist per nation we are dilluting the quailty and eventually the gold medal wont be as big a deal!

mystiroakey wrote:

Gordy wrote:The cycling is different though. The Tour de France might be the highest honour in cycling but it is very specific. Its not the same as things like golf, football or tennis being in there. In most other cycling events the gold medal is what athletes strive for.

However by limiting one Cyclist per nation we are dilluting the quailty and eventually the gold medal wont be as big a deal!

That's too complex a notion for the goon to understand mysti.

Shelsey93 wrote: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.

Its a nice dream, but I think the expense and difficulty in staging it becomes an issue. Could you imagine the security and logistics nightmare it would be trying to have an Olympic stage races through the mountains of Brazil? (Twice if you include the women) It certainly wouldve been a huge issue doing in in Britain, we had to have a looped course as it was. They also dont get the full support set up you would on an event like TDF, more of that would be required for a longer event.
Its something Id like to see, and it wouldnt be impossible...but I suspect very difficult...plus you wouldnt get the likes of Wiggo entering if it were within a couple of weeks of one the TDF....two short events is on thing but an extended tour would be a bit much.

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

Have they got rid of the one in one out rule then?

The road race may have appeared to be a lottery but it doesn't often turn out that way in a one day race, the sensible money would have been on GB controlling the peloton and delivering Cavendish for the sprint win. The tour de france finishing a week before made it more of a lottery than it normally would have been as Wiggins, Froome and Millar were unable to control the pace as they normally would. A quick look at the world championships would give a very indication of how long a turn Wiggins and Froome can have at the head of the peloton, in short it was too much in too short a timeframe to control.

It wasn't really anything to do with the TDF, it was 5 riders per team that did for GB. They had 8 guys at the WC, so guys like Wiggins didn't have to do any real work until the last couple of laps of the race.

It served them right for setting a Cavendish course really. It'll be better next time if they set a nice Ardennes type route and let the hilly classics guys have their day as usual.

The team size will have had an effect but I don't for a second believe that Froome in particular was 100%, here's a guys who's just led Wiggins to victory up and down the mountains of France yet found the pace of a fairly flat and not massively fast race too much.

They had 4 guys to control a 250km road race with little help.

A big group got away over the last hill and it was game over from there.

Are you suggesting that Froome and Wiggins (after having done a lot of work over Box Hill) should have been able to bring a group back including a fresh Cancellara in that situation. Absolutely no chance, I don't care how good you are.

The fact that is was fairly flat had zero to do with it. He still spent a ridiculous amount of time on the front and paid the price.

Those arguing for more entrants per country in track-cycling must surely also argue for the same in Judo, Taekwondo, rowing, canoe slalom (and probably sprint), etc.?

Personally I join those who don't like the men's football, but the women's football is ok. I'm not keen on tennis, and I don't imagine being keen on golf, for the reasons mentioned.

Swimming has fewer medals than the whole of athletics, and like athletics is the focus of one week of the olympics. Doesn't really bother me.

I'd like to see all the fencing disciplines represented rather than 10 out of 12 (the two not represented are done via a rotation system).

There was no way Cavendish was going to win that road race once he massacred the last two sprints at the TdF, because everyone knew if it came to a sprint he would win.

Mike Selig wrote:Those arguing for more entrants per country in track-cycling must surely also argue for the same in Judo, Taekwondo, rowing, canoe slalom (and probably sprint), etc.?

Personally I join those who don't like the men's football, but the women's football is ok. I'm not keen on tennis, and I don't imagine being keen on golf, for the reasons mentioned.

Swimming has fewer medals than the whole of athletics, and like athletics is the focus of one week of the olympics. Doesn't really bother me.

I'd like to see all the fencing disciplines represented rather than 10 out of 12 (the two not represented are done via a rotation system).

There was no way Cavendish was going to win that road race once he massacred the last two sprints at the TdF, because everyone knew if it came to a sprint he would win.

well of course, anything with 2 or more in a single team I think is where we need to draw the line,

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:

Shelsey93 wrote: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.

Its a nice dream, but I think the expense and difficulty in staging it becomes an issue. Could you imagine the security and logistics nightmare it would be trying to have an Olympic stage races through the mountains of Brazil? (Twice if you include the women) It certainly wouldve been a huge issue doing in in Britain, we had to have a looped course as it was. They also dont get the full support set up you would on an event like TDF, more of that would be required for a longer event.
Its something Id like to see, and it wouldnt be impossible...but I suspect very difficult...plus you wouldnt get the likes of Wiggo entering if it were within a couple of weeks of one the TDF....two short events is on thing but an extended tour would be a bit much.

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

Have they got rid of the one in one out rule then?

No but its only a matter of time. There will be pressure to expand in the future. Plus America and China are always looking for ways to ensure they top the medals table. This is why the swimming the schedule is so extensive.

It hasn't changed for god knows how many years so reason no evidence to suggest it will any time soon especially when sports are axed every games and others have their programs reduced.

The medals(300 gold oppurtunities) dont seem to chnage but the amount of sports allways fluctuate. I am sure they will get back to 30 plus soon(2012 was 26 sports- sydney was 31)

Or we end up with 5 sports but 250 medals in the pool!!

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

Lets hope the same doesnt happen with your posting on here.

two_tone wrote:

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

Lets hope the same doesnt happen with your posting on here.

His wummery is spreading, like herpes.

Not sure on what to take out at the moment but they should keep the Modern Pentathlon. Only sport made for the Olympics and the founder of the Olympics invented it.

You know, I dont mind sports like Football, tennis, or Basketball being in the Olympics but i would like to see it go back to being amateur only.

Id love one more event..............the 100metres for men and Doping is allowed............i want to see somene run it in 6 seconds

I also want bionic athletes alowed as well.

eirebilly wrote:You know, I dont mind sports like Football, tennis, or Basketball being in the Olympics but i would like to see it go back to being amateur only.

It would be a bit of a joke then though. At least amateur boxing (and wrestling) is a distinctly different sport to the professional one, requiring different skills. Non pro footballers would just be a bunch of blokes from the pub.
The current system of limiting players is very artificial and it just seems a bit random as to who bothers entering it.

Why worry about tossing events out ? The more the merrier , I say...

Perhaps bring back such gems as Live Pigeon Shooting (Paris , 1900) , Motor Boat Racing (London , 1908 )

Seriously , I'd sooner see squash than golf , but football has been in for years so you can't say it lacks a tradition. The under age , plus three , is a bit artificial , but I really don't have a problem with the sport being in the Games.

Then again , I'm not Scottish