The next Olympic sport?

[baxus]

14 hours ago, Criston of House Shapper said:

You're describing the biggest problem of the football tournament, it's not representative of the actual strength of a nation at all. The equivalent in tennis would be, if all players had to be younger than 21 except three of them. As long as that's not the case, everyone of the top players who wants to be there, has the opportunity to compete. And if someone doesn't want to play, that person can't win, so it's their bad and that doesn't diminish the legitimacy of the competition for the players who care.

The point I was trying to make is that football tournament is made weaker on purpose while in tennis quite a few players aren't that bothered about Olympics and are eager to find excuses to avoid it.

Neither is a good option and that's why neither should be in the Olympics.

13 hours ago, Notone said:

Isn't it U23 squads +3 older players? But essentially, yes. FIFA did not want to water down the value of their World Cup by allowing the IOC to set up a similarly prestigious tournament. Neymar is still supposed to play the Olympics I think. That's why he was left out of Brazil's Copa squad, so he can play the Olympics at home. Apparently there was agreement in place between the Brazilian (and other) FA(s) and the clubs and the players. That was also the reason why Bayern's Douglas Costa did not play the Copa. But he picked up an injury and will miss the Olympics, too. Same story with the European FAs. Players that played the Euros won't be called up for the Olympics. I think the German FA issued some more assurances to the German clubs, something like not more than 2 players from the same club. But that doesn't solve the problem that there are quite a few players who prefer to compete for playing time at their clubs. E.g. Karius will stay at Liverpool to compete for the starting spot there, instead of fighting with Horn over who gets to play in goal at the Olympics.

Officially it's U21 squads, but due to regulations a player must be younger than 21 when the qualifiers start to be eligible. It practically becomes U23 squads.

[David Selig]

46 minutes ago, baxus said:

The point I was trying to make is that football tournament is made weaker on purpose while in tennis quite a few players aren't that bothered about Olympics and are eager to find excuses to avoid it.

But that seems to be mostly due to Zika concerns, not because they do not find the Olympics prestigious enough and worth the bother. Back in 2012 all the top players who were not injured at the time were at the Olympics. Same for 2008.

[baxus]

1 hour ago, David Selig said:

But that seems to be mostly due to Zika concerns, not because they do not find the Olympics prestigious enough and worth the bother. Back in 2012 all the top players who were not injured at the time were at the Olympics. Same for 2008.

Back in 2012 and 2008 ATP/WTA points were awarded for participation in the Olypmics.

This time around, that's not the case.

I'm afraid Zika is little more than a convenient excuse. Did you notice participants in swimming, weightlifting or athletics bowing out and citing Zika as the reason?

[Which Tyler]

Just out of interest for tennis; since it's been back in the olympics in 1998, here are the players who've reached the singles semi-final (singles career high in brackets):

 

1988 Seoul: Miloslav Mečíř (4); Tim Mayotte (7); Stefan Edberg (1); Brad Gilbert (4)

Steffi Graf (1); Gabriela Sabatini (3); Zina Garrison (4); Manuela Maleeva (3)

 

1992 Barcelona: Marc Rosset (9); Jordi Arrese (23); Andrei Cherkasov (13); Goran Ivanišević  (2)

Jennifer Capriati (1); Steffi Graf (1); Mary Joe Fernández (4); Arantxa Sánchez Vicario (1)

 

1996 Atlanta: Andre Agassi (1); Sergi Bruguera (3); Leander Paes (73); Fernando Meligeni (25)

Lindsay Davenport (1); Arantxa Sánchez Vicario (1); Jana Novotná (2); Mary Joe Fernandez (4)

 

2000 Sydney: Yevgeny Kafelnikov (1); Tommy Haas (2); Arnaud Di Pasquale (39); Roger Federer (1)

Venus Williams (1); Elena Dementieva (3); Monica Seles (1); Jelena Dokić (4)

 

2004 Athens: Nicolás Massú (9); Mardy Fish (7); Fernando González (5); Taylor Dent (21)

Justine Henin-Hardenne (1); Amélie Mauresmo (1); Alicia Molik (8); Anastasia Myskina (2)

 

2008 Beijing: Rafael Nadal (1); Fernando González (5); Novak Djokovic (1); James Blake (4)

Elena Dementieva (3); Dinara Safina (1); Vera Zvonareva (2); Li Na (2)

 

2012 London: Andy Murray (2); Roger Federer (1); Juan Martín del Potro (4); Novak Djokovic (1)              

Serena Williams (1); Maria Sharapova (1); Victoria Azarenka (1); Maria Kirilenko (10)

Sorry, I'm not about to go through the entire fields of 64 players of each gender, or their rankings at the time of each specific olympic games.

Good luck finding any of those players to say that the Olympics does not have prestige; you will, however, find many who prize their olympic medal above all other achievements, or equal only to their first grand slam.

I see 2 absolute shockers there - Paes and Di Pasquale.

[The Anti-Targ]

Animal welfare would be the main reason i'd be against jousting. I don't care so much about the danger to willing human participants who fully understand and consent to the risks. But for the horses I think the risks are too much, and they can't understand or consent to the risks. I think the current 3-day equestrian event is borderine too risky as it is. Since 2009 12 3-day eventing horses have died during competition. It's also a fairly lethal sport for the riders.

I'd be down for bicycle jousting, but not horse jousting.

[Jo498]

Tennis does not belong, IMO. I'd also cut soccer. They have enough more important tournaments already. (With the European Championship expanded there is really no point in having soccer anymore)

But of course it is naive to hope to see the Olympics reduced in scale and mainly focussed on the sports traditionally forming its core (track&field, swimming, rowing, gymnastics etc.) and the ones that have hardly any publicity outside Olympic games (like judo or field hockey). I would not miss the really boring stuff like shooting but it's been there for ages (yes, I think tradition is a valid appeal for a 120 yo institution)

Boxing still makes some sense because it gives pre-professionals a field but in other fields where there used to be a sharp divide and the real professionals would not compete at the Olympics (IIRC cycling also used to be like that), the division does not make sense anymore and the sport should be cut from the Olympics.

[Criston of House Shapper]

I have changed my opinion on this issue.

 

Fuck tennis.

[dbunting]

On ‎7‎/‎25‎/‎2016 at 0:37 AM, The Anti-Targ said:

Animal welfare would be the main reason i'd be against jousting. I don't care so much about the danger to willing human participants who fully understand and consent to the risks. But for the horses I think the risks are too much, and they can't understand or consent to the risks. I think the current 3-day equestrian event is borderine too risky as it is. Since 2009 12 3-day eventing horses have died during competition. It's also a fairly lethal sport for the riders.

I'd be down for bicycle jousting, but not horse jousting.

I couldn't agree more. If a human wants to joust so be it, but don't hurt a horse because you want to poke a guy with your stick.

On ‎7‎/‎25‎/‎2016 at 3:04 AM, Jo498 said:

Tennis does not belong, IMO. I'd also cut soccer. They have enough more important tournaments already. (With the European Championship expanded there is really no point in having soccer anymore)

But of course it is naive to hope to see the Olympics reduced in scale and mainly focussed on the sports traditionally forming its core (track&field, swimming, rowing, gymnastics etc.) and the ones that have hardly any publicity outside Olympic games (like judo or field hockey). I would not miss the really boring stuff like shooting but it's been there for ages (yes, I think tradition is a valid appeal for a 120 yo institution)

Boxing still makes some sense because it gives pre-professionals a field but in other fields where there used to be a sharp divide and the real professionals would not compete at the Olympics (IIRC cycling also used to be like that), the division does not make sense anymore and the sport should be cut from the Olympics.

I also agree with you, I wouldn't mind seeing all of the "pro" sports pulled entirely. I would like to see just the truer amateur events.

20 minutes ago, Criston of House Shapper said:

I have changed my opinion on this issue.

 

Fuck tennis.

And one last agreement, never liked tennis so fuck it!

 

 

And BTW, in my world, one single doping violation in any competition, and you can never compete in the Olympics. Same standard testing for everyone at every major event. 

If your country has several, seems systemic, then your whole country is banned from the next one. Sick and tired of hearing about people who get the gold medal 6-7 years later after testing reveals the original winner cheated. Their lives are dramatically altered by someone else cheating.

[The Anti-Targ]

Doping is getting out of hand. Take Sharapova's case for example. She'd been taking a performance enhancing drug, for performance enhancement IMO, for years. It just happened to not be on the banned list. So we have performance enhancing drugs that are legal, we have performance enhancing drugs that are illegal and we have performance enhancing drugs that are not yet illegal.

This particular war on drugs is fast becoming as ineffective as the war on recreational drugs.

The only way to get performance enhancing drugs out of sport is an attitudinal shift among athletes, not ever stronger drug testing and enforcement. Problem is you can't effect an attitudinal shift among pro / elite athletes. The attitude starts when you are a kid, playing sports at school or local clubs. The win win win attitude starts there. When you have that approach to sports ingrained at a young age you are invariably creating a niche of people who will do and take whatever it takes to keep on winning. When you add $$ to the mix you get an added, synergistic, incentive to do whatever it takes.

Question is, do we want our sporting culture to change? Do we want a sporting culture where winning is good, but more important is striving through hard work and dedication to improve yourself regardless of winning or losing. While the emphasis is on the binary outcome of winning or losing, or 2nd place is just being the best loser, then performance enhancing drugs will be a permanent feature of sport. And we either keep on fighting a rear-guard but increasingly failing action, or we realise it's a losing battle and come up with something different, which might include reforming the way in which we recognise achievements in sport.

[Which Tyler]

6 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Doping is getting out of hand. Take Sharapova's case for example. She'd been taking a performance enhancing drug, for performance enhancement IMO, for years. It just happened to not be on the banned list. So we have performance enhancing drugs that are legal, we have performance enhancing drugs that are illegal and we have performance enhancing drugs that are not yet illegal.

You mean, medical knowledge changes over time? oh no.s! We should ban all research and everything should stay static as of today!

[baxus]

11 hours ago, dbunting said:

I also agree with you, I wouldn't mind seeing all of the "pro" sports pulled entirely. I would like to see just the truer amateur events.

This is very noble of you, but where would the line be drawn?

Earning millions of dollars/euros/pounds from your club would be a clear violation of course, but what of various stipends athletes get from their national Olympic associations or sport's national federation?

Would athletes be allowed to get sponsorships? Or make commercials for certain products? Would that be that different than signing a pro contract with a club?

Would an athlete be required to maintain a full-time job in order to be eligible to take part in Olympic competition? Remember how Soviet basketball players were all relatively high-ranking military officers in order to get paid rather well for basically training and playing their sport?

The point I'm trying to make is that the line between amateur and pro athletes gets too blurry well below Olympic level and true amateur athletes are a rather rare sight above purely recreational level.

[dbunting]

3 hours ago, baxus said:

This is very noble of you, but where would the line be drawn?

Earning millions of dollars/euros/pounds from your club would be a clear violation of course, but what of various stipends athletes get from their national Olympic associations or sport's national federation?

Would athletes be allowed to get sponsorships? Or make commercials for certain products? Would that be that different than signing a pro contract with a club?

Would an athlete be required to maintain a full-time job in order to be eligible to take part in Olympic competition? Remember how Soviet basketball players were all relatively high-ranking military officers in order to get paid rather well for basically training and playing their sport?

The point I'm trying to make is that the line between amateur and pro athletes gets too blurry well below Olympic level and true amateur athletes are a rather rare sight above purely recreational level.

Well, wasn't aiming to be noble so sarcasm is noted and appreciated!

I am talking about, Tennis, Basketball, Hockey, Golf, etc. Sports where the pro players earn millions a year on average. Hell even the worst pro's in these sports make more in a year than most people in the world make in a lifetime.

I couldn't care less about endorsement deals, I specifically said pro sports.

[baxus]

14 minutes ago, dbunting said:

Well, wasn't aiming to be noble so sarcasm is noted and appreciated!

I am talking about, Tennis, Basketball, Hockey, Golf, etc. Sports where the pro players earn millions a year on average. Hell even the worst pro's in these sports make more in a year than most people in the world make in a lifetime.

I couldn't care less about endorsement deals, I specifically said pro sports.

There was no sarcasm intended. It really is a noble notion of keeping the sport pure and whatnot.

The point I was trying to make is that it's not anywhere near as black and white as you seem to think it is.

What would make Michael Phelps (swimming was not on your list above so I used him as an example) getting paid a certain amount a year by Speedo, Under Armour and whoever else is endorsing him any different from some NBA player getting the same amount each year from his club and companies endorsing him? Both of them would be making money based on their athletic prowess and marketing potential, wouldn't they? And yet, you'd consider one of them an amateur and the other a pro.

99.9% of athletes that will be competing in Rio Olympics are pros - making a living from training and competing. The only difference is in the amount of money they earn.

[dbunting]

21 minutes ago, baxus said:

There was no sarcasm intended. It really is a noble notion of keeping the sport pure and whatnot.

The point I was trying to make is that it's not anywhere near as black and white as you seem to think it is.

What would make Michael Phelps (swimming was not on your list above so I used him as an example) getting paid a certain amount a year by Speedo, Under Armour and whoever else is endorsing him any different from some NBA player getting the same amount each year from his club and companies endorsing him? Both of them would be making money based on their athletic prowess and marketing potential, wouldn't they? And yet, you'd consider one of them an amateur and the other a pro.

99.9% of athletes that will be competing in Rio Olympics are pros - making a living from training and competing. The only difference is in the amount of money they earn.

I thought I had set it pretty clear when I quoted "pro". That means it's not clear and not black and white. I also clarified myself and my thoughts to not include endorsement deals.

Also, I am not thinking like this for purity sake, just that I can see basketball, hockey, tennis etc played at the highest level every day of the week, nationally televised. It's not often that you can see all of the worlds best wrestlers, swimmers or gymnast etc. in one tournament broadcast worldwide like this.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

5 hours ago, dbunting said:

Well, wasn't aiming to be noble so sarcasm is noted and appreciated!

I am talking about, Tennis, Basketball, Hockey, Golf, etc. Sports where the pro players earn millions a year on average. Hell even the worst pro's in these sports make more in a year than most people in the world make in a lifetime.

I couldn't care less about endorsement deals, I specifically said pro sports.

Golf isn't a sport.

[dbunting]

24 minutes ago, Notone said:

Golf isn't a sport.

Are we going to do the same tired what makes a sport a sport argument?

[A Horse Named Stranger]

I just felt the urge to simply point out that Golf isn't a sport. And honestly speaking, I did neither know, nor care about golf being an olympic discipline again, this year.

[Criston of House Shapper]

50 minutes ago, Notone said:

I just felt the urge to simply point out that Golf isn't a sport. And honestly speaking, I did neither know, nor care about golf being an olympic discipline again, this year.

Just because it's probably the most boring sport to watch besides Formula 1, Darts and Bowling, that doesn't make it not a sport.

[baxus]

IOC has agreed to add 5 sports to Tokyo Olympics.

THE INTERNATIONAL OLYMPIC COMMITTEE (IOC) TODAY AGREED TO ADD BASEBALL/SOFTBALL, KARATE, SKATEBOARD, SPORTS CLIMBING AND SURFING TO THE SPORTS PROGRAMME FOR THE OLYMPIC GAMES TOKYO 2020.

[Maltaran]

45 minutes ago, Criston of House Shapper said:

Just because it's probably the most boring sport to watch besides Formula 1, Darts and Bowling, that doesn't make it not a sport.

Golf may be a sport, but darts is most certainly not