OK - oldbloke's mutterings
Which "sports" shouldn't be in the Olympics?
The artyfarty bit of the gymnastics
Beach volleyball can stay if they get rid of the stupid costume rules: it's 2-a-side volleyball on a difficult surface.
I watched the rhythmic gymnastics today and I was amazed. There's more throwing & catching in there than track & field. Just because they all look weird doesn't mean it's not amazing. And the synchro swimmers are doing everything the water polo teams do, except upside down without the ball.
I think they should cut out the 200m. It's just like the 100m only a bit longer. Same athletes, same results. Same with some of the swimming. Just get everyone to swim 20 lengths alternating strokes each time.
They could combine the diving and the trap shooting, so they have to shoot the divers as they twist & turn on the way down.
Triathlon with the entire field swimming at the same time in a 25m pool and using BMX bikes would be interesting.
You know that the main point of the Modern Olympics was to demonstrate "the art of sport", right? This is precisely why dressage and gymnastics and synchro should be there. Producing a carbon copy of the World Athletics Championships is not the ideal at all.
|Date:||August 13th, 2012 08:27 am (UTC)|| |
Get rid of the music. The rhythmic gymnastics would work just as well without it, and would put fewer people off, at the moment it's viewed by most of us as "music and movement" (until we watch a bit).
|Date:||August 14th, 2012 02:39 pm (UTC)|| |
You don't need music for rhythm.
|Date:||August 16th, 2012 09:34 am (UTC)|| |
Change the name. The men don't have to be rhythmic, why do the women?
|Date:||August 16th, 2012 09:53 am (UTC)|| |
Yes, that's my point. Get them doing the same things.
|Date:||August 13th, 2012 08:31 am (UTC)|| |
The BMX bit where you're entirely dependent on the chap behind not bumping into you. In fact, anything where you're dependent on other people not falling over. Fancy spending your entire life training for a race which someone else can randomly bump you out of.
Dressage. I'm not keen on sport that involves the nonhuman species which cannot consent to participating. But the other things make sense because sport doesn't have to be butch or ugly in order to be sport, and without the "arty-farty", society loses or devalues those athletes whose natural responses are driven by that combination of factors rather than to merely testosterone or pure competitiveness.
Probably. Didn't watch any so can't say.
None of them shouldn't be there; consider this a deliberate double negative in favour of retention.
I'll grant you that judged sports are less pure than absolute ones, though everyone needs a referee to ensure there is no cheating, but they're all valid and worthy. I'd be inclined towards making the thing even bigger and even longer, though there is the self-interest of someone living in a privileged nation at heart.
Not wild about golf joining in 2016, though.
Crazy golf would be OK. Had a bit of fun playing that today.
Only if cricket is allowed.
Eventually, not least because baseball is a good old British game at heart.
In this mad crazy "if I ran the IOC and picked the sports..." fantasy, I have a vague preference for individual sports over team sports, and a vague preference for sports with open tournaments over ones with size divisions, so they're not at the top of the list - but, in the fullness of time, I don't see why not.