Sports that don't need to be Olympic events:

Yet they removed softball....

Sometimes I wonder....

My husband says anything that is judged should not be an Olympic event - too subjective. This includes gymnastics, diving etc. I have to listen to this point of view every time the Olympics comes on.

I remember when beach volleyball became an Olympic sport. I thought it was a pretty lame choice but now it is one of my favorite events to watch.

My thoughts exactly.

Why you hating on trampoline jumping?

But it's HUGE over in Europe/Asia. 

Just because it isn't big in the states, doesn't mean it shouldn't be an Olympic sport

Try it sometime.  Those athletes have to be able to lower their heart rate on command.  I would say it takes a pretty good amount of athletic ability.

Trampoline. 
Synchronized anything. 
Rhythmic gymnastics. 
Equestrian (unless the horse gets the medal).
Skateboarding, BMX, Luge, Skeleton, Motocross, Car racing, and the like.
Softball, baseball, cricket. 

For the most part, I think that three rules of thumb, for me, shape what should or shouldn't be in the Olympics: 1) has to offer all nations a chance to complete (not cost prohibitive and accessible), 2) has to be popular enough in all parts of the world, and 3) should be related to building skills, strength, and athleticism that are useful in life / battle (true to the Olympic spirit).  

ETA: Forgot to add a 4th rule of thumb: the outcome of the competition should be primarily independent of the equipment used by the athlete (think bobsled). 

I love these threads that always seem to crop up around Olympics-time ... invariably devolve into a stunning display of ignorance with a tiny sprinkling of a decent idea buried deep if you look really hard.

I can't blame folks for thinking a sport is a certain way if you've never been exposed to it, but you think at least you might then refrain from making declarative statements when you have absolutely no idea about what it involves. It's bizarre. I really don't get it.

If THIS is what your family does in the backyard and on picnics, I really hope you have single relatives!!!

Seriously, that comparison is like what the Nerf football backyard game is to pro pigskin.

Pics below are pretty typical stuff in a badminton game in order to return or send a shuttlecock traveling between 150-200 mph. Yes, that's MILES per hour, not km.

(Badminton stretch.jpg)

(badminton vertical 2.jpg)

As for equestrian, there ain't no fat horse riders. You have to be in great shape. Period.

Now there are kinda tubby archers and shooters, but the main aspect of those sports, as well as of equestrian, is that you do have to have extreme physical SKILL to do it. Not necessarily physical exertion, but skill nevertheless.

As for types of arguments that have any merit at all, I can definitely see where the "subjective judgement" (scoring) one does. Unfortunately, that would mean axing way too many sports. But it is a good basis for argument.

Another one is the inclusion argument--that a sport should have some kind of popular base. How you would make that judgment is difficult, but it does argue against including niche sports that a couple or few countries consistently dominate.

On that token, I think it's a much more interesting and productive debate regarding which sports should be further INCLUDED in the Olympic program.

Ok, I'll bite (against my best judgement).  Why no synchronized swimming?  And if you're taking that & rhythmic gymnastics out, are you also taking gymnastics & figure skating out?  I actually believe there are a lot of people who very much enjoy watching synchronized swimming at the Olympics and they only talk about it then because it's only ever aired then.  And it only gets about 15 minutes of coverage despite having 2 events, each with a technical & free portion.  My argument would be that showing some of the less 'common' sports a bit more could raise their profile, raise the number of athletes entering the sport and give the viewing public more understanding of what they're watching.  Today for example was the first event and it got ZERO tv coverage on the Canadian & American channels that I get.  I think if people never see a sport it becomes hard to say it's not "popular".  Every sport, even the ones I don't enjoy watching, has a big following of its own even if it's somewhat under the radar. 

I'm not actually as ranty & ravy as I may sound.  Synchro was my sport and I've endured a lot of crap over the years because of it.  On the flight on the way home form winning a world championship a bunch of guys made fun of my friend & I for "treading water and grinning stupidly" and spent the remainder of the flight doing a very poor synchro impression.  I've heard it all, it doesn't bug me.  But the suggestion of removing it from the only place it gets ANY coverage rubs me the wrong way.  If the 'obscure' sport of triathlon hadn't aired Simon Whitfield winning in Sydney, I wouldn't be on this forum at all.  I didn't even know there was triathlon shorter than Ironman distance then because all I ever saw was Kona coverage.

Now yachting I'd have to agree with.  

Those guys can probably walk faster then you or I can run..

Fixt. I'm including me in that. Those folks do just over 6:00/mile over 25K distance and just under 6:30/mile over 50K.

I really do hope this entire thread is in jest. It's the only way I can figure most of the comments.

Sigh.

I've seen runners in marathons and triathlons drinking beer when offered during the race. Want to hate on those too?

When I drank beer I have done the following Olympic sports while drinking beer:

Ran

Kayaked

Mountain Biked

Swam

Volleyball

Ping Pong

Badminton

Soccer

Downhill Ski

Played Hockey

Jeez, what fun would the Olympics be if we eliminated ALL of those sports

LaurenSU02 - 2012-08-05 5:53 PM

lamb_y2003 - 2012-08-05 5:14 PM

rkreuser - 2012-08-05 9:47 AM

Trampoline. 
Synchronized anything. 
Rhythmic gymnastics. 
Equestrian (unless the horse gets the medal).
Skateboarding, BMX, Luge, Skeleton, Motocross, Car racing, and the like.
Softball, baseball, cricket. 

For the most part, I think that three rules of thumb, for me, shape what should or shouldn't be in the Olympics: 1) has to offer all nations a chance to complete (not cost prohibitive and accessible), 2) has to be popular enough in all parts of the world, and 3) should be related to building skills, strength, and athleticism that are useful in life / battle (true to the Olympic spirit).  

ETA: Forgot to add a 4th rule of thumb: the outcome of the competition should be primarily independent of the equipment used by the athlete (think bobsled). 

 

Ok, I'll bite (against my best judgement).  Why no synchronized swimming?  And if you're taking that & rhythmic gymnastics out, are you also taking gymnastics & figure skating out?  I actually believe there are a lot of people who very much enjoy watching synchronized swimming at the Olympics and they only talk about it then because it's only ever aired then.  And it only gets about 15 minutes of coverage despite having 2 events, each with a technical & free portion.  My argument would be that showing some of the less 'common' sports a bit more could raise their profile, raise the number of athletes entering the sport and give the viewing public more understanding of what they're watching.  Today for example was the first event and it got ZERO tv coverage on the Canadian & American channels that I get.  I think if people never see a sport it becomes hard to say it's not "popular".  Every sport, even the ones I don't enjoy watching, has a big following of its own even if it's somewhat under the radar. 

I'm not actually as ranty & ravy as I may sound.  Synchro was my sport and I've endured a lot of crap over the years because of it.  On the flight on the way home form winning a world championship a bunch of guys made fun of my friend & I for "treading water and grinning stupidly" and spent the remainder of the flight doing a very poor synchro impression.  I've heard it all, it doesn't bug me.  But the suggestion of removing it from the only place it gets ANY coverage rubs me the wrong way.  If the 'obscure' sport of triathlon hadn't aired Simon Whitfield winning in Sydney, I wouldn't be on this forum at all.  I didn't even know there was triathlon shorter than Ironman distance then because all I ever saw was Kona coverage.

Now yachting I'd have to agree with.  

For what it is worth, I happen to love watching synchro swimming. And, I can't even keep my body as far out of the water as you guys do for more than a split second. I don't know how you do it. It is a physically grueling sport and synchro swimmers are extremely fit. I wish more people realized that. I wish I had the opportunity to try it when I was younger. My friends and I used to make up routines in my parents' pool. We called ourselves the Esther Williams Synchro Team .

& that's what it's all about.  How awesome is that??