vastar iner
Member
I am the poster on your wall
Posts: 17,579
|
Post by vastar iner on Aug 15, 2012 8:43:02 GMT 1
Dressage would have been the first on my list, even though (a) we won 2 golds and a bronze and (b) Sark now has won more medals than Bangladesh, but I assume it falls within the equestrian rubric. I'd get rid of half the swimming events as well on the basis that they don't test different skills - so many swimming medals are won by the same people. These Games were a bit better, but go back in the previous couple and you won't find many gold medallists who won just the one.
|
|
Elmer
Member
Posts: 7,318
|
Post by Elmer on Aug 15, 2012 9:32:43 GMT 1
Squash must be added. It would be the complete pinnacle of that athletes career unlike a lot of Olympic events.
|
|
|
Post by Johnny on Aug 15, 2012 10:32:55 GMT 1
We need fewer events and fewer cases of people winning multiple medals.
Sports that should be excluded..
1. Olympics is NOT the pinnacle of success for that sport Football Tennis Boxing Basketball
2. Subjective scoring is used Diving Dressage Gymanstics Synchronised Swimming
3. Oddball sports Beach Volleyball Handball Modern Penthalon
In swimming it is so easy for a country or individual to win many medals. There need to be a cull here. I would like to see a maximum of 3 events that an individual could enter.
|
|
|
Post by Johnny on Aug 15, 2012 10:37:08 GMT 1
Drop synchro swimming and gymnastics. Judged sports are never satisfactory. what about dressage? and diving? Get rid off them too!
|
|
|
Post by Razzle Dazzle on Aug 15, 2012 11:03:00 GMT 1
get rid of 100m because they all run in the 200m anyway
|
|
|
Post by Johnny on Aug 15, 2012 11:27:08 GMT 1
^ Get rid of the 100m because it is so over-rated. Blink and it's over.
I'm serious though about culling the number of events in swimming and competitors having a maximum of 3 events.
|
|
|
Post by Panda on Aug 15, 2012 11:35:02 GMT 1
1. Olympics is NOT the pinacle of success for that sport Boxing There's a strong argument for keeping boxing due to it being completely amateur at the Olympics and therefore being very much the pinnacle of amateur boxing. Plus the rules and scoring system make it very different from pro boxing as well. 3. Oddball sports Handball Handball is hugely popular in other parts of the world, particularly the rest of Europe. It only seems to the the UK that doesn't really get it but the atmosphere at the Copper Box during the Games was said to be one of the best across the different venues.
|
|
|
Post by rubcale on Aug 15, 2012 12:29:58 GMT 1
Get rid of tennis and golf (as from now golf is an Olympic sport) on the basis as several others have said that it is not the pinnacle of their sport. The points awarded for the tennis rankings are little over a third of those for a Slam and even less than for the Masters events.
There is also an imbalance in the allowed nuimber of entries from any country - I wonder what will happen in Golf where in particular there are a large number of Brits or Americans among the top ranked players? Should we let a country enter 5 or 7 athletes in the 100m for example if they are good enough? I doubt anyone would want that to happen.
Subjective sports are a conundrum. On the whole I think you have to go on the basis that the judges are the best available and impartial. Of course there will always be times when they won't be.
The diving scoring seemed fair enough when they had 7 judges, took off the 2 top and bottom marks and used the other 3. But even in individual marks you could see a difference between 10 and 8.5 which is huge at that level.
It also gives people a chance to gripe that they were robbed. Even in boxing judges may disagree whether a particualr punch was a scoring one or not.
On the whole I'm reasonably happy with these type of events becasue the Olympics is their Holy Grail.
I don't know whether there are any sports popular in Africa which could be used - they seem to be underrepresented but the obvious one for me to include would be Squash - hugely popular worldwide plus possibly Karate.
Rugby is spreading quite quickly worldwide and the Sevens inclusion in 2016 is overall a good move, I think.
|
|
Elmer
Member
Posts: 7,318
|
Post by Elmer on Aug 15, 2012 12:34:47 GMT 1
One thing I would particularly like to see especially in Swimming and Athletics is that anyone who has ever been an Olympic champion in that event or is the reigning world record holder they should have automatic entry into that event as long as they want to complete.
E.g Mo Farah to get automatic entry in the 5000m and 10000m in Rio irrespective of form and selection policy.
|
|
|
Post by Shireblogger on Aug 15, 2012 12:52:32 GMT 1
What to keep, and what to a drop - a great discussion topic.
First and foremost, part of the appeal of the Olympics is that it has so many sports, which means different nations have interest in different aspects of it, and there is always something going on. Therefore, I'd argue to make it even bigger, and perhaps extend it to 3 weeks, thus helping the investment equations, because the cost wouldn't rise by much, but the revenue earned would grow by up to 50%.
Remove:-
football (definitely men's, less sure about women's) tennis golf synchronised swimming rhythmic gymnastics
Fundamentally, the Olympics should the pinnacle of the sport, and it must be a sport, not a form of dancing. (I'd also remove ice dance from the winter Olympics).
Add:-
squash netball rugby 7s futsal kabbadi carriage driving &/or polo - I like horse sports, and the nations which dominate include the likes of Mexico & Argentina - i.e. broad geographical appeal another martial art, but not expert enough to know which one croquet (as per suedehead) roller sports (as per mrh) cross-country running or fell running (as per vastariner) more track relays - e.g. 4x1500m, 4x400m hurdles tug-of-war more multi-disciplinary sports like the triathlon and modern pentathlon
Keep boxing amateur. Keep windsurfing - it's down to be replaced by kite surfing at Rio, I think. Keep diving & artistic gymnastics. Although they're judged, the rules of judging, and the difficulty ratings, plus the dropping of highest and lowest scores, mean that there is rarely controversy and the best participants rise to the top. Keep basketball. I know the US always win, like GB does for cycling and rowing, but for every other nation it is an open competition for the other medals. Team sports at the Olympics are a good thing. And it is the pinnacle of the sport for women. Keep volleyball & beach volleyball. They're massively different from one another. Don't add T20 cricket, as the Olympics wouldn't be the pinnacle of the sport. Having watched a session of Greco-Roman Wrestling at this Olympics, I can verify that it is a true sport, which requires technical brilliance and true athleticism. And it is really exciting to watch.
|
|
|
Post by Razzle Dazzle on Aug 15, 2012 13:09:29 GMT 1
i think everyone has their own idea of what should be in the olympics, i would definetly not introduce golf for a start
i would prefer
roller derby kabbadi and squash
|
|
|
Post by LittleChristmasTurkey on Aug 15, 2012 13:33:44 GMT 1
I woudn't remove archery, but I would make them shoot with a stick and a piece of string, instead of these fancy-pants bells-and-whistles bits of plastic with all kinds of enhancements stick out fo them.
Personally I'd argue for more events rather than less. The more different types of sport that are celebrated as part of the Olympics, the better.
|
|
|
Post by suedehead on Aug 15, 2012 13:36:58 GMT 1
Drop synchro swimming and gymnastics. Judged sports are never satisfactory. I would also remove basketball. 21 times out of 28 the same nation has won gold, and two of those missing ones were down to boycotts. Not competitive enough to be an Olympic sport. Tell it to come back when other countries can play to the highest standard. Replace with squash and T20 cricket. Both sports are played by a large proportion of the planet and on almost every continent. They are both far more popular than many sports in there and a gold medal would be the number 1 achievement in each. Another sport worthy of a shout into the Games would be cross country running, which I find astounding that it's not in, but if that counts as athletics then MMA may be worth a punt - after all, its ancient equivalent (pankration) was in the Greek Games. Basketball is one of the few sports that gets more boring the better the players are. There are just too many points scored. I don't like the idea of introducing T20 cricket. If you can't introduce a sport in its purest form (and, with cricket, you clearly can't), then don't introduce it at all. Cross-country running, on the other hand. makes a lot of sense.
|
|
|
Post by Panda on Aug 15, 2012 13:45:10 GMT 1
I don't like the idea of introducing T20 cricket. If you can't introduce a sport in its purest form (and, with cricket, you clearly can't), then don't introduce it at all. The problem with that is spreading the global appeal of cricket is very limited when there are only 10 test playing nations. T20 cricket offers the chance to open cricket up to the whole world and I think any Olympic tournament would be held in higher regard than the existing World T20. On the cross-country issue, that could easily be included if the IAAF wanted it to be. The only problem is they'd have to drop something else.
|
|
|
Post by Johnny on Aug 15, 2012 13:57:27 GMT 1
There seems to be a consensus not to include sports for which the Olympics are not the pinnacle, notably men's football and tennis...and as for next time, golf.
What about limiting the number of events a competitor can compete in or reduce the number of events in certain sports eg swimming?
|
|
|
Post by davyboyb on Aug 15, 2012 15:20:36 GMT 1
Several people have argued in favour of dropping sports for which Olympics is not the pinnacle but have also been positive towards the inclusion of Rugby.
This seems inconsistent as the pinnacle of Rugby is the now well-established World Cup, as with football.
If the point is that including Rugby is OK because it's the 7s form of the game rather than the full 15-a-side, then what about changing the football to a 5-a-side tournament?
I get the point about these sports where Olympics is not the pinnacle but actually I would argue (using tennis as an example) that from GB's perspective at least, both the Olympics and the sport of tennis benefited from its inclusion at the games at a high profile venue with a high profile winner. I'm not sure who or what would benefit by having it removed.
All the other events have their individual world championships, world cups etc as well - it's only perception (by the athletes themselves, the public, and/or the media) which make one more valuable than the other. So that seems like a bit of a loose criterion to judge whether something is worthy of inclusion. Although I do think that sports ranking bodies should be required to give Olympics maximum weight in their respective ranking systems if they want their sport included in the games.
With golf I'd like to see it as an event focused on team rather than individual performance - e.g. foursomes games of nation vs nation rather than just another standard four-day individual golf tournament. I believe there has been some talk of this being the case as although we know golf's included in Rio the format of the competition is yet to be confirmed.
Agree that in general if there are individuals winning six medals at a games that's probably a sign that there are too many similar events, rather than that the individual is six times better than most other medal winners. Michael Phelps is a tremendous athlete by any measure but history will always show his achievements in statistical terms dwarfing those of someone like Steve Redgrave which I don't think necessarily gives an accurate picture.
Also the fact that in some equestrian events, people's scores for the team then count partly towards an individual medal as well, just seems plain wrong. You can't have the same thing counting towards two medals. We don't take Usain Bolt's time in the final leg of the 100m relay and then add it to his individual race time to see if he wins. If there are any horsey people who can explain why this needs to happen I'd be interested to hear any arguments in favour.
|
|
|
Post by Panda on Aug 15, 2012 15:35:03 GMT 1
Several people have argued in favour of dropping sports for which Olympics is not the pinnacle but have also been positive towards the inclusion of Rugby. This seems inconsistent as the pinnacle of Rugby is the now well-established World Cup, as with football. If the point is that including Rugby is OK because it's the 7s form of the game rather than the full 15-a-side, then what about changing the football to a 5-a-side tournament? I get the point about these sports where Olympics is not the pinnacle but actually I would argue (using tennis as an example) that from GB's perspective at least, both the Olympics and the sport of tennis benefited from its inclusion at the games at a high profile venue with a high profile winner. I'm not sure who or what would benefit by having it removed. With golf I'd like to see it as an event focused on team rather than individual performance - e.g. foursomes games of nation vs nation rather than just another standard four-day individual golf tournament. I believe there has been some talk of this being the case as although we know golf's included in Rio the format of the competition is yet to be confirmed. Also the fact that in some equestrian events, people's scores for the team then count partly towards an individual medal as well, just seems plain wrong. You can't have the same thing counting towards two medals. We don't take Usain Bolt's time in the final leg of the 100m relay and then add it to his individual race time to see if he wins. If there are any horsey people who can explain why this needs to happen I'd be interested to hear any arguments in favour. People are in favour of rugby for the exact reason you mentioned. The Olympics tournament will be more prestigious than the regular IRB Sevens series. Shireblogger mentioned adding futsal which is an indoor version of football, though slightly different from traditional 5-a-side. I'd welcome it as a replacement for football in the Olympics. As far as I'm aware, the golf in Rio will just be men's and women's individual events, though it's yet to be decided whether they will be regular medal play tournaments or match play. Regarding the team/individual equestrian query one reason could be to save repetition and cut the workload for the horses. It would be particularly gruelling for a horse to have to go through an entire three-day event twice in the space of a week, particularly when you consider the cross country phase is of a similar distance to two circuits of the Grand National course.
|
|
vastar iner
Member
I am the poster on your wall
Posts: 17,579
|
Post by vastar iner on Aug 15, 2012 15:55:54 GMT 1
On the cross-country issue, that could easily be included if the IAAF wanted it to be. The only problem is they'd have to drop something else. It took me about an atto-second to think that cross country running would be about a trillion times better an event than race-walking.
|
|
|
Post by Panda on Aug 15, 2012 16:09:38 GMT 1
On the cross-country issue, that could easily be included if the IAAF wanted it to be. The only problem is they'd have to drop something else. It took me about an atto-second to think that cross country running would be about a trillion times better an event than race-walking. I agree but another problem could be the people taking part as many of those who you see taking part in the championship cross-country events are the same athletes who take part in the middle/long distance track events. Not a problem for the likes of Kenya or Ethiopia with their incredible strength in depth but could be an issue for other countries and would result in the quality of either the cross-country or track events being weakened. At least with the walking events, the field is as strong as it can be.
|
|
|
Post by Shireblogger on Aug 15, 2012 17:31:14 GMT 1
Another point to debate is how many athletes / teams can be entered for each sport ?
For example, 3 athletes per nation in track & field, 3 tennis singles players, 2 table tennis & badminton doubles teams, 2 slalom canoeists, but only 1 rower, judoka, boxer & fencer. We'd have won even more track cycling medals if we were allowed multiple entries, and the taekwondo controversy wouldn't have arisen if we'd been able to enter two players per weight category. But we might have won fewer medals in some other sports (diving, gymnastics and judo perhaps), if other nations had been allowed to enter more athletes.
It also makes me wonder on the total field size. For example, the 200m first round had 7 heats with 8 runners in each = 56 of the best in the world. And the singles tennis started with a round of 64. But the greco-roman wrestling (and many other sports, I think) started with just 16 per weight category.
There were 12 women's and men's teams in each of the team sports:- handball, volleyball, football, hockey, basketball & water polo, except men's football which had 16. Why not make everything 16 (or 24), and widen participation in team sports ?
|
|