It’s just down the road from me. I wonder if there were any natural stretches of water that were suitable. If so, given the British weather, the conditions could vary wildly from day-to-day, or even hour-to-hour.
It’s not quite that simple, as different strokes use different muscle groups and each stroke is a different technique to learn. Swimming is a very technical discipline. There aren’t many swimmers who are good at both backstroke and freestyle. IIRC, backstroke favours tall swimmers more than the others.
Swimming events that include 200m or less freestyle
200m Free
100m Free
50m Free
4x100 Free relay
4x200 Free relay
4x100 Medley (you swim the freestyle leg)
4x200 Medley
Running events 200m or less
200m
100m
4x100 relay
*honorable mention here for the long jump, while not a running event, is one that sprinters have historically been able to compete in.
While I agree that there are too many swimming medals, that is not a fair comparison, because distances are not directly comparable. It would be fairer to compare by time, and on that basis 200m swimming is more like 800m running:
But at the world class level, you don’t see the 400/800 crossover much if ever and the 100/200 guy don’t run the 400. Even Bolt is ordinary at the 400. His best 400 is well off the WR.
Other than the vault, I don’t think the gymnastics equipment has changed appreciably in, I don’t know, at least 30 years? And for the record, the “padding” on the beam is pretty darn insubstantial and is there mainly to improve traction.
Personally, I’d trash all the team sports. Soccer, basketball, volleyball, water polo, etc. I guess we can keep the relays and the pairs events, if we must, but I strongly prefer the individual events. I love gymnastics more than anything, but I’d happily can the team finals.
Heck, in '08 Angelo Taylor and Kerron Clement won gold in the 4x400 relay – after coming up gold and silver, respectively, as 400-meter hurdlers earlier that week. (Four years earlier, that hurdling silver went to Danny McFarlane; it looks great next to his 4x400 relay silver; Kriss Akabusi had to settle for a bronze in both events in '92, because the silver that year went to hurdler Winthrop Graham – who’d already earned Olympic silver in the 4x400 relay, four years after Akabusi likewise earned Olympic silver in the 4x400 relay.)
I agree with everyone on the subjectively judged sports. I’m a bit torn on some of the big team sports. Men’s football would be out since already have competitions more prestigious than the Olympics. And as mentioned above, many are overpaid prima donnas who see the Olympics as a second-rate tournament. I’d keep women’s football since it gets much less exposure. Team GB playing in front of 70,000 at Wembley will be a once-in-a-lifetime event for most of them. Another reason for keeping it is that I have tickets for the final at Wembley next week.
Tennis would be right out, too many other big tournaments.
Basketball is overexposed in the US, but we don’t see much of it in Europe. Maybe just kick the Americans out
How about enforcing the “Faster, Higher, Stronger” criteria? If a winner can’t be objectively chosen using one or more of those then the sport is out. So weightlifting would be in, but archery (which I like) and the shooting disciplines would be out.
I don’t care about judging, mostly because I don’t care about who wins. For my money, any Olympic performance that involves being upside down part of the time is better than one that doesn’t. Snowboarding, gymnastics, high diving, probably trampolining? Awesome. Soccer, weightlifting, swimming, probably croquet? Yawn.
I would nominate any sport where winning an Olympic Gold is not the Most important achievement in the sport.
So Basketball is out. NBA Championship is better.
as is Soccer. World Cup is better.
Tennis: Any Grand Slam is better
And next time in Brazil we have Olympic Golf. (And a tempest brewing in the course design). Not needed.
Certainly these sports are not as bad as Sync Diving, Rhythmic Gymnastics, Trampoline Jumping but at least the Olympics is what everyone strives for in these sports.
I don’t mind swimming, but I think it should be reduced to getting from point A to point B as fast as possible. Using the different strokes is like having runners do 100 meters, then 100 meters sideways, then backwards, then all together. It’s different techniques…but I just don’t care.
I’ll tolerate any sport as long as there are countries that legitimately play it as part of their culture. Curling? Great! Handball and trampoline…not so much (I apologize if these are part of some country’s culture).
Any sport involving horses, dirt bikes, pogo sticks, or anything where better equipment or technology helps the athletes. No country should win because they have more money to buy stuff or have better scientists (I’m not talking training, but actual gear). Maybe have standardized gear or something.
I’ve heard this argument before, but it doesn’t eliminate the fact that there are way too many medals. The fact that the top swimmers win multiple medals pretty much reinforces the fact that there are too many medals. So phelps has some obscene number of Olympic medals. It’s hard to get too excited about that since swimming has so many goddamn medals to give out.
Who would you be more impressed with, a guy who won 5 gold in swimming or a guy who won 5 gold in wrestling*?
I know even less about wrestling than I know about swimming, but I’m under the assumption that the maximum number of medals a wrestler can win in an olympic games is one. So to get 5 gold a wrestler would need to be the best over a span of 16 years. If I’m wrong, then “Ooops; but you get the idea.”
I understand that you ended your post with a wink, but PLEASE get this through your skull: The people who call football soccer are the people who saved you from annahilation, many times. ANd allow you to have the wonderful health care and work conditions you so enjoy! Show some appreciation! (Sorry, I just couldn’t let this attitude go unchallegened again)
