Separate any and all events where the results depend at all on opinion and put them in their own division, or in a different Olympiad entirely. And give something other than medals for them. Necklaces, pendants, bracelets, I don’t care, so long as they’re not medals. I don’t begrudge synchronized swimming or rythmic gymastics or ice dancing their moment in the sun, but it’s the height of idiocy that they have the same awards as a legitimate sport. Does the champion of American Idol get a Lombardi Trophy?
No already-done-and-way-better-elsewhere team sports. I’m looking at you, tennis. Does anyone give a damn about Olympic tennis? Andre Agassi is the most influential, popular, successful superstar of his generation, he doesn’t need some stupid metal disk. Soccer, too. When its very existence brings up unfavorable comparions to another, far more prestigious soccer tourney, it’s just not gonna work. Baseball can go, too; we have more than enough of that as it is. Basketball is a bit borderline, but I’d actually rather see the World Tournament or whatever it is go.
And boxing has got to go. Just horrible in every way imaginable.
It really galls me to say this, but once the NHL stops sending players to the Olympics after the 2010 games, you might as well axe men’s ice hockey – the annual U20 tournament(the World Juniors) will probably feature higher-quality teams.
Not a boxing fan… but… it’s hard to argue against its place at the Olympics. i guess one could argue that its judging is often subjective (K.O.s notwithstanding).
I would like to see the number of swimming events cut, along with rhythmic gymnastics.
But I am torn over synchronized swimming - an incredibly demanding sport requiring discipline, athleticism, and years of training, and ending up as the most ridiculous event since roller derby. I make it a point to seek out the finals for the sheer entertainment value.
I guess if you consider raw physical strength or coordination (other than a superior sense of dynamic balance) a necessary prerequisite for an Olympic event, I can see where you are coming from. However, sailing has a long and storied history at the Olympics. It has been an event at all modern Olympics except for the first one.
Nevertheless, as a skill event, it’s an extremely challenging sport. Bunches of Olympic gold medal winners have gone on to captain America’s Cup winners. It’s actually a fairly accessible sport in the small classes like the Laser.
I certainly consider it way more of a sport than the equestrian events.
My point being more that an inhibited respiratory system not being a disadvantage implies its a game rather than a sport, Mr. Nitpicky McNitpickerton. Why not have checkers an Olympic event then?
First of all, again, top curlers don’t smoke while they play, because it WOULD harm their game.
As to your question:
Checkers is not a game of physical skill. Curling is. That’s what a sport is. If you don’t believe me, play a curling video game, and then see how you do in an actual curling match. You’ll do terribly, no matter how well you understand the strategy, you’ll be in awful pain, and you’ll probably notice not a lot of fat people curl at an international level. Chess has a long and storied history of international play and is played by millions, but it’s not at the Olympics because it isn’t a sport.
Checkers doesn’t have an international federation that sets out rules and qualifications for entry, which is a necessity for inclusion in the Olympics.
I realize curling isn’t as exhausting a sport as, say, the marathon. But if you eliminate as a sport any sport that’s less exhausting as another sport, you’ll end up with just a few sports, all long distance/endurance events. You certainly wouldn’t have archery or shooting, neither of which is any more physically demanding than curling.
Curling meets all the requirements of an Olympic sport. It IS a sport; it’s played at a competitive level in a sufficient number of countries; it’s ruled by an international governing body. Advantageously, it’s also a sport in which there is no subjective judging; either your rock’s closer to the button of your opponent’s is, and either you get points or they do and there’s no opinion call about it.
I also believe billiards should be an Olympic sport.
I don’t care if lots of countries do it and it’s internationally regulated. And I’m not going to argue that the Olympic committee has decided it’s a sport, but if you call sliding a rock on ice a physical activity then going to the fridge and cooking a pot pie can have international rules and be in the Olympics also.
There are a lot of “sports” that I enjoy watching that I don’t believe belong in the Olympics, and I agree with what seems to be a consensus: If it requires subjective judging for things like “artistry,” I don’t think there should be Olympic medals for it. Synchronized swimming and ice dance are the first two that come to mind.
I also have a problem with equestrian events because the horse isn’t just a piece of standardized equipment like a hockey stick or a vaulting pole. The horse’s athletic ability is as important as the human contestant’s ability, and (as much as I enjoy equestrian events) I don’t think they should get Olympic medals either. I mean, if you can get Olympic gold for riding a well-trained athletic horse, why not for running your dog through an obstacle course?
The original Olympics focused much more on human athletic skill and much less on the ability to buy or build a really good boat.
One thing to note about soccer, it doesn’t quite directly compete with the World Cup as it’s an age restricted event. Each team gets 3 exceptions, but everybody else has to be 23 or under.
