|
Post by Panda on Aug 15, 2012 17:43:08 GMT 1
It's an interesting point but it comes down to each sport's individual governing body, which is responsible for the running of that sport at the Olympics, hence the lack of consistency.
For what it's worth, the IRB initially propsosed 12-team tournaments for the rugby in Rio but have said they would be willing to include more.
|
|
|
Post by suedehead on Aug 15, 2012 17:47:35 GMT 1
The way they handled hockey was terrible. They had two groups of six with the top two going through. That meant the group stage went on interminably and I lost interest.
|
|
|
Post by Panda on Aug 15, 2012 17:50:43 GMT 1
They've used that format for decades. Before women's hockey was included, they used to have two groups of eight!
|
|
|
Post by Johnny on Aug 15, 2012 17:59:02 GMT 1
I know individual Sports governing bodies set their own rules - that might be fine for their particular World Championship but shouldn't there be more of a standardisation for the Olympics? Shireblogger made the point that GB would have won more cycling medals if more than one competitor was allowed per country. At the same time though you wouldn't want too many events an individual could take part in. I mentioned three. The 'premier' sports in the Olympics tend to be Athletics, Swimming and Cycling (?). If you were comparing Olympic Sports to Tennis Grand Slams wouldn't Athletics be the Wimbledon, Swimming be the US Open and Cycling and perhaps Gymnastics the French and Aussie Opens? Tennis would be Queen's Club or Eastbourne - at best. The sprinters have got it right - 100m, 200m or 100m relay they can compete it - and up to three per country in the individual aevents. Other sports should follow that 'role-model'. Normally,I used only really watch the Athletics at the Olympics - but this time round I got into more sports: Cycling, Swimming and Triathlon in particular. The Triathlon is a good sport - swimming, cycling and running. That should be the sport held on the final day - not the Marathon - and the medalists get their gongs at the Closing Ceremony.
|
|
|
Post by Shireblogger on Aug 15, 2012 17:59:32 GMT 1
But if I were on the governing body of any sport, I'd want more competitors. That would mean more air time and more nations represented.
Take men's handball as an example. The teams which came closest to qualifying but didn't make it were Japan, Brazil, Poland and Algeria. I don't know how much Olympic handball was shown in those 4 countries, but I'd be pretty confident that considerably more of the tournament would have been shown if they had been represented.
The International Handball Federation would have increased its potential viewers by 400 million people if it had run a tournament with 16 teams not 12. Indeed, the combined population of the 12 nations in the men's tournament is only 300 million, so handball could have more than doubled its "interested" audience by increasing its team count by just 33%.
A lucky example to land on perhaps, but the point is clear. Why doesn't each federation maximise its biggest once-every-4-years marketing opportunity ?
|
|
|
Post by suedehead on Aug 15, 2012 18:39:02 GMT 1
I know individual Sports governing bodies set their own rules - that might be fine for their particular World Championship but shouldn't there be more of a standardisation for the Olympics? Shireblogger made the point that GB would have won more cycling medals if more than one competitor was allowed per country. At the same time though you wouldn't want too many events an individual could take part in. I mentioned three. The 'premier' sports in the Olympics tend to be Athletics, Swimming and Cycling (?). If you were comparing Olympic Sports to Tennis Grand Slams wouldn't Athletics be the Wimbledon, Swimming be the US Open and Cycling and perhaps Gymnastics the French and Aussie Opens? Tennis would be Queen's Club or Eastbourne - at best. The sprinters have got it right - 100m, 200m or 100m relay they can compete it - and up to three per country in the individual aevents. Other sports should follow that 'role-model'. Normally,I used only really watch the Athletics at the Olympics - but this time round I got into more sports: Cycling, Swimming and Triathlon in particular. The Triathlon is a good sport - swimming, cycling and running. That should be the sport held on the final day - not the Marathon - and the medalists get their gongs at the Closing Ceremony. I enjoyed the triathlon but the marathon has a special place in Olympic history so I can't see it losing its special place.
|
|
|
Post by greendemon on Aug 15, 2012 21:36:50 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. well, if you get rid of dressage, you can't really have eventing, so the only equestrian event left would be the showjumping (there's no separate cross-country competition). as i'm a bit of a fan of equestrian sports, that would make me quite sad. but there are alternatives - shireblogger suggested polo and carriage driving, and my suggestion of horseball was very much a serious one. it's a very entertaining game both to watch and participate in and i think could do with a higher profile. horsey sports aren't all gymkhanas and rosettes!
|
|
|
Post by Maximo Mark on Aug 15, 2012 21:40:48 GMT 1
I'd like to agree with limiting the amount of events athletes can enter. As much as the achievements of Michael Phelps are utterly phenomenal I disagree that they make him the best Olympian of all time, they just make him the most decorated and best swimmer of all time. It would take Usain Bolt winning everything possible in 6 Olympics just to be able to equal him, that hardly seems a fair comparison, whereas if they included the 200m relay, 150m, 100m backwards running....
The thing is though it would just mean the best swimmers don't compete, the only races Phelps and Lochte would've done together would've been a relay.
|
|
|
Post by greendemon on Aug 15, 2012 21:43:09 GMT 1
3. Oddball sports Modern Penthalon i think the modern pentathlon is a fantastic event - alright, it does very much fall into the 'oddball' category but as the only event which essentially forces athletes to excel in five very different disciplines, it's always going to be great to watch. given that it was invented by the founder of the olympics, baron de coubertin, i'd also argue that it's integral to the olympic spirit. agreed here.
|
|
|
Post by Maximo Mark on Aug 15, 2012 21:48:51 GMT 1
The modern pentathlon was fantastic, didn't see any of the men's but followed the women's quite closely, it was also the only time I could bring myself to watch anything with horses. I know people like those events but they do absolutely nothing for me, I never even watched highlights of the GB golds in them....
I'd definitely drop tennis, I'd drop weightlifting as well to be honest. Don't think it's been suggested by anyone else but I struggle to classify lifting heavy things as a sport. It's absolutely horrible to watch too.
|
|
vastar iner
Member
I am the poster on your wall
Posts: 17,578
|
Post by vastar iner on Aug 15, 2012 22:39:28 GMT 1
well, if you get rid of dressage, you can't really have eventing, so the only equestrian event left would be the showjumping (there's no separate cross-country competition). There could be a separate cross-country contest, it would make a lot of sense. One thing that I would definitely stamp down on - and again despite us winning medals in them - is having team events that are not really team events. Showjumping is a classic example. I could win a gold medal while doing almost literally nothing - I could have the horse collapse before the first fence, but if the other team members go clear then I am an Olympic champion. For having decent team-mates...same with the gymnastics; this year a Japanese chap DID win a silver when injuring himself on the first or second bit of kit. Arguably I had a better Olympics - I managed to do what I had to do without buggering myself up.
|
|
|
Post by suedehead on Aug 15, 2012 23:02:15 GMT 1
Weightlifting is part of the "higher, faster, stronger" Olympic principle but it is mind-numbingly boring to watch so I haven't watched any for many years.
So we've got votes for lifting heavy things, horse dancing, falling in the water, doing the same pointless thing in the water as someone else...
|
|
Elmer
Member
Posts: 7,318
|
Post by Elmer on Aug 15, 2012 23:22:34 GMT 1
I once won a county cross country gold medal for the team event despite finishing only 19th. My team mates finished 1st, 2nd and 4th. Easiest gold medal I've ever earned
|
|
|
Post by Mart!n on Aug 16, 2012 9:34:44 GMT 1
So we've got votes for lifting heavy things, horse dancing, falling in the water, doing the same pointless thing in the water as someone else... Can you add handball and wrestling to the list.
|
|
|
Post by suedehead on Aug 16, 2012 10:59:44 GMT 1
So we've got votes for lifting heavy things, horse dancing, falling in the water, doing the same pointless thing in the water as someone else... Can you add handball and wrestling to the list. You mean catch and homo-erotic grappling.
|
|
|
Post by LittleChristmasTurkey on Aug 16, 2012 12:14:50 GMT 1
That should most definitely be an Olympic sport. Attractive people only though please.
|
|
vastar iner
Member
I am the poster on your wall
Posts: 17,578
|
Post by vastar iner on Aug 16, 2012 13:39:58 GMT 1
I'd like to agree with limiting the amount of events athletes can enter. As much as the achievements of Michael Phelps are utterly phenomenal I disagree that they make him the best Olympian of all time, they just make him the most decorated and best swimmer of all time. The problem with this is that you could have had Phelps and Lochte swim different events and each win 3 gold medals - and we'd never know which one was better. Each would have the taint of "you never swam against X when it mattered". It's more subtle than that in my view. If you have events where pretty much the same people compete in them, and get similar results, then those events are superfluous; they are not testing different skills or aptitudes, just the same thing done over again as a second chance. In 2008 for example the men's 200m and 400m medleys had the same 1-2-3 in that order; the women's had the same 1-2. And in 2012 the women's had the same gold. So drop one of those distances. The men's 100m and 200m butterfly this time out had the same first two. Drop one of those. 50% of the US and 75% of the French 100m relay team medalled at the 200m as well. In fact, looking at them throughout, the 200m seems to be the superflous distance - if you're a good 100m or 400m distance swimmer, you'll be good at 200m. There may indeed be an argument for removing it from the sprints as well. But dropping 200m as a distance in swimming would take away 12 golds that the "winners" will win somewhere else.
|
|
|
Post by davyboyb on Aug 16, 2012 15:54:40 GMT 1
I'd like to agree with limiting the amount of events athletes can enter. As much as the achievements of Michael Phelps are utterly phenomenal I disagree that they make him the best Olympian of all time, they just make him the most decorated and best swimmer of all time. The problem with this is that you could have had Phelps and Lochte swim different events and each win 3 gold medals - and we'd never know which one was better. Each would have the taint of "you never swam against X when it mattered". It's more subtle than that in my view. If you have events where pretty much the same people compete in them, and get similar results, then those events are superfluous; they are not testing different skills or aptitudes, just the same thing done over again as a second chance. In 2008 for example the men's 200m and 400m medleys had the same 1-2-3 in that order; the women's had the same 1-2. And in 2012 the women's had the same gold. So drop one of those distances. The men's 100m and 200m butterfly this time out had the same first two. Drop one of those. 50% of the US and 75% of the French 100m relay team medalled at the 200m as well. In fact, looking at them throughout, the 200m seems to be the superflous distance - if you're a good 100m or 400m distance swimmer, you'll be good at 200m. There may indeed be an argument for removing it from the sprints as well. But dropping 200m as a distance in swimming would take away 12 golds that the "winners" will win somewhere else. Totally agree. Let people enter as many events as they like but review the events themselves to ensure there's not so much crossover, and that different events are testing different abilities/skills rather than the same thing over and over. Getting rid of 200m in swimming sounds pretty sensible based on your analysis of the winners.
|
|
Elmer
Member
Posts: 7,318
|
Post by Elmer on Aug 16, 2012 18:01:06 GMT 1
There's not a chance of binning any of the swimming program. It's too steeped in history. Over the years they've tried to equalise the men's and the women's events of which they're almost there. I can see the women's 800m freestyle changing to the 1500m but that's it. They may even introduce the 50m for the other strokes too as they do in the world champs.
|
|
vastar iner
Member
I am the poster on your wall
Posts: 17,578
|
Post by vastar iner on Aug 16, 2012 18:48:04 GMT 1
One way around it then instead of scrapping the 200m distance - which would mean there would only be 1 breaststroke/backstroke/butterfly event - would be to keep the 200m, but replace the 400m with 1,500m. So it would test a different skill with the stroke. There wouldn't be many who could do the "sprint" and the long distance.
Disadvantage is that it would take a lot longer to finish the swimming; advantage is that it would take a lot longer to finish the swimming...
|
|