I love the olympics, but I agree with this:
I don’t think the little add-ins are necessary, and they take away air time from the number of actual competitions we can see.
(That said, I haven’t been watching much of them, because I am posting here too much.)
Whether or not theuglytruth is capable of good ballroom dancing isn’t really the point. It’s perfectly okay to criticize something without necessarily being a world master of it. Have you ever criticized the President of the United States? I would imagine so. Well, you obviously don’t understand what it’s really like to be the President of the United States, so how could your criticism have any credibility, under your theory?
Are you saying that, anytime someone doesn’t like ballroom dancing, it automatically follows that they’re stupid? Let me postulate that, somewhere in the world, there are people who are quite intelligent and still don’t see much interest in ballroom dancing, much less seeing it in the Olympics, just because that’s their thing.
It’s not a character flaw because neither theuglytruth nor I feel the need to go apeshit over every goddamn sport that comes down the pike. I think I’d prefer to see the Olympics scaled back to pure track and field. That’d be better than what’s happening now – everyone involved in a pursuit that involves more physical activity than lying dead in the street wants a ticket into the Olympics.
On second thought, I’m sure that, someday, we will be treated to the 100-meter lying-dead-in-the-street competition. And it will be GRIPPING!
snickers uncontrollably
OK guys. Who else is thinking about Monty Pythons “100 Meter Dash for the Orientationally Challenged” now?
Or the race for the incontinent.
Snooooopy– it’s an interesting analogy. I have at times criticized our public leaders; usually because I do not follow their logic. Do I personally “know” what it’s like to be the U.S. President? No, I do not. But I feel comfortable in criticizing as I am coming from the same position he is; logic balanced with a firm knowledge in current events. Do I have the right? Yes, I do. I vote and am involved at all levels of government in my own small way.
The difference here is that theuglytruth isn’t criticizing what they are doing he/she is criticizing that it (ballroom dancing) is a “stupid sport”. He/she is calling the entire idea of it stupid. I have never called the entire idea of having a president of the U.S. stupid. In fact, I have never called the President “stupid”. And for your information, I did not call theuglytruth stupid; do not put words in my mouth.
I said that he/she was calling it (ballroom dancing) stupid because he/she didn’t fully understand. I never said that theuglytruth was stupid for taking this position. It seems to me you need to work on your reading comprehension skills. Hell, I’m not calling YOU stupid but just pointing out that I don’t think you fully understood the point I was making.
I’m not asking you or anyone else to go “apeshit” over every sport that is considered an Olympic event. I’m asking you to understand that what moves you is not the same as what moves another. There are many events that I do not care to watch. Frankly, ballroom dancing is one of them. However, I do not slight those athletes in the least. I don’t know if you’ve ever tried it but it’s damn difficult and if nothing else I can have an appreciation for the skill these folks demonstrate.
My point in telling him/her to put on a suit and go to it is that it’s a lot harder than it looks.
YOU may think it’s stupid or pointless; that is fine. But recognize that you are not the only voice. Rather than call these events “stupid” it might be better to say that you do not see the value of the competition inherent in them. That statement gives others a much greater opportunity to expand your mind about WHY they do, indeed, have artistic and athletic, merit.
I think we could narrow the argument down to this:
“Should events that require make-up (M/F) and/or music be considered (Olympic) sports?”
Answer as you wish. My answer is more of a no, I’m afraid. But that doesn’t mean that I don’t see these events as skillful: they are. They’re just not a sport, that’s all.
Coldfire – you ignorant slut! I’d beat you to death but like the phoenix you’d just come right back! Make-up and music are the defining criteria? Oh, be still my flaming head! You must be one of those hard core, “If it doesn’t bash out your teeth it must not be a sport” kind of guys; how sad!
And I thought you had DEPTH! I thought you had SOUL!
(Hangs head in abject pain and goes back to the Pit where her heart is not so easily broken)
Just trying to put it into a more civil form, that’s all. I’m not here to bash any sport. It’s just that there needs to be a line between sports and entertainment. Neither is better than the other, just different.
How you deduct from my last post that only violent sports can have my preference is a mystery to me. I was seriously looking for some defining criteria that can shift Entertainment from Sport, and hell yeah, music and make-up fit the bill nicely.
Didn’t say you used those exact words. You did, however, have no other explanation for theuglytruth’s lack of interest but to talk about a lack of “fully understanding.” It certainly sounded condescending to me, if nothing else.
**
I feel very confident in my reading comprehension skills. Me good speller, too (grunt). So what’s the difference between calling into question my reading comprehension skills and just calling me stupid outright? A matter of subtlety, I think.
**
So what? Accounting’s a lot harder than it looks. I don’t want that in the Olympics, either.
I’m not sure that theuglytruth ever addressed the difficulty of ballroom dancing. But maybe that reading comprehension stuff … you know me.
**
And if someone tries to expand my mind and it doesn’t happen, does that mean I wasn’t trying hard enough to be flexible? Would the mind-expanders demand infinite chances until I crumble into a heap of ballroom-dancing-loving Jell-O? I fear for my eternal soul.
Just out of curiosity, what would your selection criteria be for what should be in? Is there a line for you? Would you want Olympic fishing?
About that blurry line …
A little while back, I saw ESPN2 televising a Magic: The Gathering tournament. It’s a card game, in case you’re not familiar, so there was no athletic prowess demonstrated beyond the ability to sit up straight and not fall out of a chair. The commentator didn’t do a bad job, I suppose. It was all, “Chris is about the deploy the Rising Waters strategy … there it is. Joe has no recourse from the mighty Rising Waters.” That’s drama for you.
Believe me, there are nights that just doing THAT takes all my ability and strength 
But your point is duely noted.
So we now have events that require make-up and/or music and/or events that solely rely on brain skills.
Deal?
As I’m reading over some of these posts, I’m thinking that one of the schisms seems to be the difference between sports that seem to be (please don’t flame me) traditionally masculine (rock-em sock-em, sweat pouring from the pores, that sort of thing), and those that are not.
I like the inclusion of the ballroom dancing, and I think that it is a difficult thing to draw a line between a sport and an art. It takes lots of skill, co-ordination and strength to do some types of ballroom dancing. (Maybe a useful division would be whether the event employs the large muscles more or the small muscles?)
One of the things I really like about the Olympics is that it brings people and countries together, even though they are competing with each other. So if there are people who practice a certain sport/art who want to compete and can provide to the Olympic Committee good reasons why their sport should be included, then why not?
Dancing is an art. And while it takes physical prowess and coordination, it is not a sport.
It’s always been a difficult one for me: If a ‘pastime’ requires both mental and physical conditioning and is also competitive, where is the dividing line between art and sport ?
FWIW, I don’t think it matters. The two don’t have to be mutually exclusive and as long as one way of doing that pastime involves competition and conditioning it is, by definition, a sport. No ?
If you introduce competition into it, as in ice dancing, it can become a sport.
I don’t think the Olympics now suck, but I whole heartedly believe NBC coverage of them does. Yeah, we can quibble over whether ballroom dancing, beach volleyball, tae kwon do, or chess should be included. But it doesn’t really matter, because they are all gonna be invisible on NBC (for us cable-impaired folk). I’m not a big sports fan, but I’ll watch some wacky stuff once in a while, whether it be extreme games, a bike race across the U.S., ski jumping, or whatever. But I can’t imagine why ANYONE would care to see a group of NBA allstars beat up on some amateurs from another country. (And NBA is my favorite sport). And didn’t we just see professional tennis players in the U.S. Open?
Unfortunately, the sports I find least interesting seem to get the greatest coverage. Swimming, gymnastics, diving, track and field, basketball. Gymnastics is awesome for a while, but then to me gets repetitive. Same with diving - I can never even count the number of spins. The dives all are incredible and nearly incomprehensible, I’m just comparing the sizes of the splashes.
But I would easily devote an hour to learning about the air rifle competition. Then an hour on pingpong. Then archery. What exactly is the difference between greco-roman and freestyle wrestling? But NBC can’t show me that, because Keving Garnett is about to dunk over some Chinese stiff for the 10th time.
Showing the events on tape wouldn’t bother me so much if they just showed them. Adding in all the “up close” bullshit, trying to manufactore drama when they already know the fucking result, strikes me as insultingly manipulative. And it really ticks me off, that they waste time profiling some swimmer’s school routine and family life, when they could actually be showing a kayaker excel at something I would otherwise never have an opportunity to see.
I’ve turned it on twice, and have not lasted a half hour either time. And this, from a guy who has made it through entire episodes of “VIP”. I mean to say, I am not immune to wasting time in front of the tube. But the NBC coverabe has me surfing over to the educational channel or looking for reruns of “Coach”.
I don’t know if it would do any good, but why don’t we all write to NBC at the address Ruffian so thoughtfully provided? (nbc_comments@recipio.com)
I went to the link, but I didn’t see the e-mail address right off; so thanx, Ruff!
Thanks Ruffian…I decided last night to email NBC, and the link just made it easier.
The coverage is pathetic. Setting aside complaints about what they cover (agree with the Dream Team Yawning Festival), how they cover what they cover is awful.
Case in point: last night. The gymnastics coverage was disjointed at best. I think they were trying to manufacture drama regarding who would get to the team finals - the U.S. or Australia. Only their cutting, seemingly at random, between athletes robbed the telecast of any sense of drama. The U.S. Athlete With The Hurt Ankle (sorry, no name) made some huge mistake on her floor ex, a 5/10 deduction, the equivalent of falling off the apparatus. No replay was shown, I still have no idea of what she did, except a vague notion that something untoward happened at the end of her 1st tumbling run. Then Amy Chow (?) did some amazing move on the beam - a twisting pike something or other that actually made me sit up. The replay? Her dismount. Come the very end of the coverage, they show three Russian women on the floor ex. After watching them, it is apparent that we had been watching the Junior Varsity all night. The Russian women were amazing. Instead of seeing more of them, or the Romanians, we got manufactured drama between the U.S. and Australia. I like to watch U.S. athletes as much as the next person, but, at Olympics time, if it comes down to mediocre U.S. athletes or world-class athletes clearly in a class above their U.S. counterparts, I’ll pick seeing the best in the world.
Ditto the “up close and personal” crap - a complete waste of time. And outside of feedback, there is no way to tell NBC that we hate it - we can’t vote with our remotes, because NBC has the only Olympic game in town. If the ratings are good, it they’ll think the “up close” stuff was justified, and even contributed to the ratings. Like keeping prisoners hungry all week, then feeding then donkey shit and saying “see, they like it, look at them eating it”.
I timed a 70 minute block of coverage. Discounting commercials and “interest stories” there was 32 minutes of actual competition coverage. And I was generous and included medal ceremonies in that. If NBC thinks the “up close” crap is so compelling, why don’t they try running a whole night of that and see how the ratings do?
Actually, maybe that’s just what they should do. Intersperse the opening ceremonies with all the profiles, fluff stuff, and interest pieces. Those who want the “inside scoop” on the athletes can watch it. Then when Ekatrina Whoever performs, they can say “oh, she’s the one whose mother’s father’s next door neighbor…” and leave the rest of us to enjoy thrilling competition.
Well, that was long…but hey, it’s only once every four years.
Shaky Jake
Extremely well stated, Jake.
I understand that for the last couple of Olympics, the decision to focus on human interest and manufactured drama was based on extensive research conclusively revealing that such coverage would result in the highest ratings. And NBC has already received committments for adverising which will bring a considerable profit on their $700 million investment (presumably dependent on delivering certain viewership. So I’ll just kick back and read my People magazine, eat a Big Mac, and await my lobotomy.
One aspect of the coverage I’m not clear on is who supplies it. I know, for example, the Equestrian 3 Day Event is an Australian feed (in the UK, anyway) but I haven’t worked out exactly how much is taken from the Aussie ‘feed the world’ coverage and how much is other nations with their own crews.
Obviously they switch when interviewing and doing the studio stuff but I’m really not sure how much control non-Aussie based networks have over content. Anyone clued up ?