The next Olympic sport?

[Criston of House Shapper]

9 minutes ago, baxus said:

Wow, yeah... It's just 1 of the top 10 for either gender. Except it's not.

Raonic, Berdych, Thiem (all top 10), Isner, Kyrgios, Tomic, (all top 20) Lopez (#21), Simona Halep, Karolina Pliskova (#5 and #17 in WTA rankings) 

Who cares about those, they wouldn't win even if they were there, Raonic is basically the only one of those who would even have a chance. As long as Federer, Murray, Djokovic, Wawrinka and Nadal (if he's healthy, I'm not sure) are there, it's a worthy field. Just ask Federer if he wants to skip it, and he'll laugh in your face.

Edit: Oh, and Zika.

[David Selig]

26 minutes ago, Which Tyler said:

 

Similar to baseball (although much better) - you don't get the elite players, and it's not even close to the pinnacle of the sport.

That is not true at all. In the last few Olympics most elite players were present. The 2012 US Olympic team roster included all of the biggest US stars at the time who were not injured at the time - LeBron, Durant, Kobe, Chris Paul, etc. And the other countries always bring their top players. All the top players at the time were at the tournament unless they were injured or their country did not qualify for it.

This year the US team is less star heavy, but that is mostly due to the Zika concerns.

 

 

[David Selig]

Just now, Arch-MaesterPhilip said:

Without question. It is easily the pinnacle, much more prestigious than the FIBA World Cup.

[Which Tyler]

11 minutes ago, baxus said:

Wow, yeah... It's just 1 of the top 10 for either gender. Except it's not.

Raonic, Berdych, Thiem (all top 10), Isner, Kyrgios, Tomic, (all top 20) Lopez (#21), Simona Halep, Karolina Pliskova (#5 and #17 in WTA rankings)... And lots and lots of those raising their voice because neither money nor points are to be won in the tournament.

That makes it what? 7 out of top 21 men? At least do a quick Google search before dismissing other people's arguments.

Saying that shooting is as physically demanding as poker just shows how little you know about it. It requires intense focus and control over your body - staying still is a lot more difficult than you might imagine especially while holding a gun/rifle and trying to shoot it as close to perfectly as humanly possible. And let's not even go to how "easy" it is to keep your heart rate under control under all that pressure.

Nice that you ignore my edit... 20 minutes after a make that edit.

I did google, and found 3 players; commented on them as well - my googling didn't bring up those other names; though I'll admit I didn't bother looking past the first page of results. How many are health fears and how many financial / ranking points?

As for shooting versus poker - at least keep arguments to what I've said; you'll find it helps. Shooting does need good body control - now how much improvement does improved fitness bring? otherwise you're just arguing against a straw-man.

 

3 minutes ago, David Selig said:

That is not true at all. In the last few Olympics most elite players were present. The 2012 US Olympic team roster included all of the biggest US stars at the time who were not injured at the time - LeBron, Durant, Kobe, Chris Paul, etc. And the other countries always bring their top players. All the top players at the time were at the tournament unless they were injured or their country did not qualify for it.

This year the US team is less star heavy, but that is mostly due to the Zika concerns.

Fair enough; I was under the impression that that was a real one-off; am happy to be wrong though.

[Criston of House Shapper]

8 minutes ago, Which Tyler said:

As for shooting versus poker - at least keep arguments to what I've said; you'll find it helps. Shooting does need good body control - now how much improvement does improved fitness bring? otherwise you're just arguing against a straw-man.

That's a really weird definition of sports, though. There are many more elements in any sport than in what shape you're in.

[baxus]

24 minutes ago, Criston of House Shapper said:

Who cares about those, they wouldn't win even if they were there, Raonic is basically the only one of those who would even have a chance. As long as Federer, Murray, Djokovic, Wawrinka and Nadal (if he's healthy, I'm not sure) are there, it's a worthy field. Just ask Federer if he wants to skip it, and he'll laugh in your face.

Edit: Oh, and Zika.

We're not talking about only those who can win it, are we?

If we are then who cares if Federer or Nadal show up? They have about the same shot at winning it as Raonic.

24 minutes ago, Which Tyler said:

As for shooting versus poker - at least keep arguments to what I've said; you'll find it helps. Shooting does need good body control - now how much improvement does improved fitness bring? otherwise you're just arguing against a straw-man.

Improved fitness brings improvement to everything and shooting is not an exception.

It sure is not as physically demanding as a triathlon or boxing or some other sports but comparing it to poker is silly.

[Criston of House Shapper]

2 minutes ago, baxus said:

We're not talking about only those who can win it, are we?

If we are then who cares if Federer or Nadal show up? They have about the same shot at winning it as Raonic.

I just don't see your point. Just because a negligable number of players, who don't have a shot at winning, decide to skip it due to Zika phobia, it shouldn't be in the Olympics? That's absurd, the field is still highly competitive, even with those absences.

[Philokles]

I'd like to see t20 cricket get in. With the West Indies split up there would be 20+ teams who would take it seriously and be a major medal chance for some of the large but marginalised Asian countries.

[dooog]

37 minutes ago, Criston of House Shapper said:

Who cares about those, they wouldn't win even if they were there, Raonic is basically the only one of those who would even have a chance. As long as Federer, Murray, Djokovic, Wawrinka and Nadal (if he's healthy, I'm not sure) are there, it's a worthy field. Just ask Federer if he wants to skip it, and he'll laugh in your face.

Edit: Oh, and Zika.

 

Wouldn't win? Berdych would be one of the top seeds. Raonic just reached the Wimbledon final, beating Federer in the semis. Dominic Thiem is regarded by many as the next big up and coming and he just made the semis of Roland Garas this year.

Take a look at past gold medalist in tennis. Nicolas Massu in 2004 a guy who never made it out of the 3rd round in any slam. Marc Rosset winner in Barcelona 92 - he beat none other than Jordi Arrese in the final (who?)

The bottom line is, ask any professional tennis player would they rather win a Wimbledon, Aussie Open etc or the Olympics and not one player would choose the Olympics. The Slams hold all the prestige and significance

 

[baxus]

8 minutes ago, Criston of House Shapper said:

I just don't see your point. Just because a negligable number of players, who don't have a shot at winning, decide to skip it due to Zika phobia, it shouldn't be in the Olympics? That's absurd, the field is still highly competitive, even with those absences.

1. It's not a negligable number of players, it's 7 out of top 21 players in the world.
2. We don't really know if they have a chance of winning it, do we? If we knew who's the one who'll win it then there would be no point in having a tournament in the first place.
3. Thiem made it to Roland Garros semifinals, Raonic made it to Wimbledon finals. Olympic tournament will be held on hard court which is different to clay and grass, but saying they don't have a chance at winning it is just wrong. And bear in mind that there are 3 medals up for grabs in the Olympics, not just one trophy.
4. Not all of those cancellations are because of Zika - Kyrgios has had a falling out with Australian federation and Tomic and Lopez had scheduling conflicts, meaning they'd rather play in a third-rate tournament than in the Olympics.
5. And how is the field actually highly competitive with #7, #8, #9, #16, #18, #19 and #21 out of it when even they, as you put it, don't have a shot at winning it? Do players who'll replace them increase the competitiveness and quality of the tournament?

With Djokovic in the tournament, tennis is one of my national Olympic team's best shot at gold but that doesn't mean that in tennis Olympics are a second-rate competition and it shouldn't really be in the Olympics.

[baxus]

3 minutes ago, dooog said:

Wouldn't win? Berdych would be one of the top seeds. Raonic just reached the Wimbledon final, beating Federer in the semis. Dominic Thiem is regarded by many as the next big up and coming and he just made the semis of Roland Garas this year.

Take a look at past gold medalist in tennis. Nicolas Massu in 2004 a guy who never made it out of the 3rd round in any slam. Marc Rosset winner in Barcelona 92 - he beat none other than Jordi Arrese in the final (who?)

The bottom line is, ask any professional tennis player would they rather win a Wimbledon, Aussie Open etc or the Olympics and not one player would choose the Olympics. The Slams hold all the prestige and significance

Exactly this.

[David Selig]

20 minutes ago, dooog said:

The bottom line is, ask any professional tennis player would they rather win a Wimbledon, Aussie Open etc or the Olympics and not one player would choose the Olympics. The Slams hold all the prestige and significance

I am pretty sure Federer will pick the Olympics.

[Philokles]

You only need to look at how big a positive impact winning gold in 2012 had on Andy Murray to see that it is of great importance. Maybe not quite at the same level as the slams but certainly ahead of the Masters or Tour finals.

[baxus]

Winning the Davis Cup in 2010 had an even bigger positive impact on Djokovic.

Still doesn't mean it's anywhere nearly as important as Grand Slam, does it?

[David Selig]

Steffi Graf  has said that for her winning an Olympic gold was bigger than any Slam title:

http://www.thenational.ae/sport/tennis/the-importance-of-an-olympic-gold-in-tennis

Quote

 

Agassi's wife, Steffi Graf, who won all the four grand slams in 1988 and also took the gold at the Seoul Games, says the Olympic gold is more precious to her than her 22 majors.

"To me this was bigger than a grand slam, it was more special," the German said. "Standing on the podium and listening to your national anthem and getting the medal around your neck, seeing the other athletes there that supported."

 

And I have seen other tennis players make similar claims.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

1 hour ago, Which Tyler said:

 

Similar to baseball (although much better) - you don't get the elite players, and it's not even close to the pinnacle of the sport.

 

Actually you used to see a lot of the elite players. Just look when the pros were allowed to play there for the first time in '92. 

The only real problem with Basketball is, that it is somewhat lopsided. As most elite players happen to be Americans. Ok, they managed to miss the final in '04 despite having a loaded team with Iverson, James, Wade etc. An US gold medal there has something inevetibale about it, which make the whole thing a bit less interesting.

1 hour ago, Which Tyler said:

Ice Hockey - I don't follow winter olympics enough to really hold an opinion; but if it doesn't meet my (subjective and personal) requirements then I'd be fine with it not being there.

That's a bit of argument between the players and the clubs in the NHL. The players usually want to play it, the clubs are not that thrilled to shut down the league for the duration of the tournament and risk losing their key players before the play-offs (but it is a great opportunity to show case their players internationally on a big stage). Before the Sochi Olympics in 2014 Ovechkin had made it clear he will play there no matter what, and the Washington Capitals owner had agreed to let him play. Whether the NHL clubs will allow their players to participate in South Korea is afaik atm heavily discussed. Because the players need to have an insurances when they play the olympics and the premiums are quite high. In the past the IOC had apparently paid some compensation to the clubs or paid at least a significant part of the premiums. And the clubs and the IOC are pretty far off in the negotiations. Add to that, that next Olympics are in S. Korea, which is not exactly a TV market for hockey, and you can see that the league is not that eager to shut down for it, since there'S not really and additional marketing value for them by showcasing their biggest stars.

[Criston of House Shapper]

2 hours ago, dooog said:

 

Wouldn't win? Berdych would be one of the top seeds. Raonic just reached the Wimbledon final, beating Federer in the semis. Dominic Thiem is regarded by many as the next big up and coming and he just made the semis of Roland Garas this year.

Take a look at past gold medalist in tennis. Nicolas Massu in 2004 a guy who never made it out of the 3rd round in any slam. Marc Rosset winner in Barcelona 92 - he beat none other than Jordi Arrese in the final (who?)

The bottom line is, ask any professional tennis player would they rather win a Wimbledon, Aussie Open etc or the Olympics and not one player would choose the Olympics. The Slams hold all the prestige and significance

 

Well, sometimes you're going to have someone win, who isn't expected, it happens with Grand Slams, too, and in any other sport as well. In 2012 the final was Murray vs Federer, I'd call that pretty high quality tennis, especially at that time. The one thing that makes it kind of a free-for-all is the best-of-three format.

2 hours ago, baxus said:

1. It's not a negligable number of players, it's 7 out of top 21 players in the world.
2. We don't really know if they have a chance of winning it, do we? If we knew who's the one who'll win it then there would be no point in having a tournament in the first place.
3. Thiem made it to Roland Garros semifinals, Raonic made it to Wimbledon finals. Olympic tournament will be held on hard court which is different to clay and grass, but saying they don't have a chance at winning it is just wrong. And bear in mind that there are 3 medals up for grabs in the Olympics, not just one trophy.
4. Not all of those cancellations are because of Zika - Kyrgios has had a falling out with Australian federation and Tomic and Lopez had scheduling conflicts, meaning they'd rather play in a third-rate tournament than in the Olympics.
5. And how is the field actually highly competitive with #7, #8, #9, #16, #18, #19 and #21 out of it when even they, as you put it, don't have a shot at winning it? Do players who'll replace them increase the competitiveness and quality of the tournament?

With Djokovic in the tournament, tennis is one of my national Olympic team's best shot at gold but that doesn't mean that in tennis Olympics are a second-rate competition and it shouldn't really be in the Olympics.

1. 7 of the more lower ranking ones of the top 21.

2. & 3. Legitimate points, but they probably have less of a chance than a Murray or a Djokovic.

4. Those three really don't have a shot. I could see Raonic or Thiem, or even Berdych, but not those three you mentioned.

5. They don't increase the quality, but it's not like all the top athletes of every single sport will be there. I don't see how tennis is different. And at least some of the absences are because of all that Zika stuff, there probably were less absences in London, though I haven't looked it up.

I just don't want tennis to get lumped into the likes of the totally useless Football tournament. There, you probably have more than 7 of the top 21 players missing, no matter how you define those, and probably more than 7 of the top 21 teams as well. So, in comparison, the tennis competition holds up quite well.

[baxus]

Once again, everyone in the tournament has a shot at winning a medal. Some are more and some are less likely to do it, but everyone has a shot.

And the overall quality would be much higher with than without those seven players taking part.

If you want to compare football, football has rules against national teams fielding their strongest squads. It's an U21 tournament with a few (I believe it's three, but am not certain) older players. That's mainly to avoid Olympics getting in the way of World Cup.

I'm pretty sure quite a few big names would like to play in it if their clubs allowed it. There was talk of Neymar taking part in these Olympics and unless I'm mistaken Messi played in 2008. They are probably not the only ones, but I must say I don't follow football in the Olympics and agree it should be removed from it.

[Criston of House Shapper]

17 minutes ago, baxus said:

If you want to compare football, football has rules against national teams fielding their strongest squads. It's an U21 tournament with a few (I believe it's three, but am not certain) older players. That's mainly to avoid Olympics getting in the way of World Cup.

I'm pretty sure quite a few big names would like to play in it if their clubs allowed it. There was talk of Neymar taking part in these Olympics and unless I'm mistaken Messi played in 2008. They are probably not the only ones, but I must say I don't follow football in the Olympics and agree it should be removed from it.

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.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

1 hour ago, baxus said:

Once again, everyone in the tournament has a shot at winning a medal. Some are more and some are less likely to do it, but everyone has a shot.

And the overall quality would be much higher with than without those seven players taking part.

If you want to compare football, football has rules against national teams fielding their strongest squads. It's an U21 tournament with a few (I believe it's three, but am not certain) older players. That's mainly to avoid Olympics getting in the way of World Cup.

I'm pretty sure quite a few big names would like to play in it if their clubs allowed it. There was talk of Neymar taking part in these Olympics and unless I'm mistaken Messi played in 2008. They are probably not the only ones, but I must say I don't follow football in the Olympics and agree it should be removed from it.

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.