I can appreciate that they are the best at what they do, but why is this an O event? Of course they are going to dominate this sport. This is primarily an American sport isn’t it? Where else do women play softball as routinely as they do here? No where that I know of. To my knowledge this is a regional sport to the utmost degree. This is why there is no Olympic (pigskin) Football.
Why not have Olympic Football or Cricket? It would be the same thing.
I understand that it’s a sport. I’m not debating that. What I’m asking is why are we playing an American sport on the world theatre when there are VERY few countries that competitively play this sport? Our girls play this sport from a very young age (5 or so in my home town).
Like I said, why not make Football and Cricket an Olmpic sport?
…Calm Kiwi, its two minutes to four in the morning-you should be in bed!
The way international competition works, there was only one qualifying spot for the Oceania/Pacific region, so while we were ranked six at the last world cup, we couldn’t qualify for the olympics because Australia got through…
Regarding cricket: I’ve said it in another thread, but, in a nutshell, the top players don’t want it, the national associations don’t want it, and the International Cricket Council doesn’t want it. The International Cricket Council has no interest in detracting from its World Cup, and the players and associations do not want qualifying tournaments and the Olympic competition itself being added to an already overloaded international schedule.
The only way it would ever happen, IMHO, is if the IOC agrees to make Olympic competition under-23, the way it used to be in soccer (football).
Actually why don’t YOU tell ME how many other countries have had substantial competitive womens softball leagues since before it was let into the O in 96. Your link says makes mention of 80+ countries that have softball teams but that doesn’t mean anything. Just like Jamaican bobsledding proved, any country can have a participant for any sport, but not all of them can be competitive when the big games start firing up.
Any country can assemble a team for international competitions but none of them will come near US teams crushing ability because they don’t have the lifetime of competitive playing behind them.
So far the only 2 people in this thread that have said that they have softball in their homeland are both from NZ. I never said that the USA was the ONLY place in the world where there is competitive softball, just one of the very few. It shouldn’t be an O sport IMHO.
For a sport to be an Olympic event, it must be “widespread in at least 75 countries and four continents” for men’s and “widespread in at least 40 countries and three contintents” for women. If there are 80 countries with women’s softball, what’s the problem? So what if only a relative few of those countries are realistically contendors for Olympic medals? If every athlete who wasn’t a contendor for a medal stayed home the Olympics would have about 1/10 the athletes. I’m willing to bet that no one thought the Iraqi soccer team was a medal contendor and they’re now guaranteed at least a bronze. The 1980 men’s hockey team wasn’t expected to perform well and look what happened there.
If cricket and American football become played in 75 countries on four continents, then they too become eligible for Olympic status. What’s the problem?
Why should I have to back up your assertions? Isn’t that your job? There are leagues in China, New Zealand, Australia, Japan, the Netherlands, for goodness sake-in the recent Championship Cup Australia beat the USA Elite Team and then Canada to take out the trophy. New Zealand are former world champions. http://www.championscup.org/
…as pointed out above-the US team is not unbeatable. They lost to Australia just a few months ago. So yes, teams have come near to the US’s crushing ability.
…well, you did post your OP at 3 o’clock in the morning NZ time, about 1 in the morning Australian time, and you happened to catch a couple of kiwi’s who had classic cases of insomnia. Your whole arguement against softball being an olympic sport seems to come down to the fact that the US is dominating at the moment and noone else can compete. Am I correct in your opinion?
So feel free to show how softball is a “regional” sport to the utmost degree, that softball isn’t played to the degree that they do in the US, that the US is so “crushing” that noone will come near them, and that softball is primarily a US sport. These are all assertions that you have made, not us, and you have provided us with nothing but your opinion to back it up.
“Any country can assemble a team for international competitions but none of them will come near US teams crushing ability because they don’t have the lifetime of competitive playing behind them.”
I read in some AP newspaper story (sorry, no cite) prior to the start of this year’s Olympics that Australia held a 2-1 edge over the Americans in previous competition. Hardly an indication of the American’s “crushing ability”.
What an amazingly sensible attitude. Sports like soccer and tennis, where winning an Olympic gold is less prestigious than winning the World Cup or Wimbledon/the U.S. Open/French Open/Australian Open, could learn a lesson.
American football isn’t, but cricket is. There are 24 countries (counting all of West Indies’ constituent nations) on five continents which are “full members” of the International Cricket Council, and 26 “associate member” nations (not counting Scotland). 52 other nations have “affiliate member” status, which means that at the very least there is a national association, club competitions are played annually, and the national sides can compete in regional tournaments. A quick glance through the affiliate member roster suggests that at least half of the 52 would qualify as “cricket-playing nations” under IOC rules, which would put the total over 75.
But, as I say, cricket is not an Olympic sport for other, good, reasons. The ICC will not apply for Olympic status for the foreseeable future.