Re: Olympics - which sports should be there?
 

They are two distinct sports aren't they? Different rules etc? Bit like Rugby Union and Rugby League if that makes sense.

Re: Olympics - which sports should be there?
 

Are they? I know Olympic boxers are required to wear head protection, but other than that it's just a matter of beating your opponent to pulp?

Either way, I don't see why professionals can't compete. I saw Amir Khan interviewed on the beeb the other day. He said he'd love to compete but couldn't.

Re: Olympics - which sports should be there?
 

The scoring is different as well. In amateur boxing all that counts is if the punch lands where as in pro boxing a powerful punch will score more.

---------- Post added at 12:13 ---------- Previous post was at 12:11 ----------

A jab and a haymaker would score the same in amateur, but in pro boxing a haymaker would be scored higher.

Re: Olympics - which sports should be there?
 

Ah. I still don't see why that should exclude professional boxers from the Olympics though.

Re: Olympics - which sports should be there?
 

Because to be eligible you have to be a member of the AIBA and you can't be if you are a professional.

Expect to see professional boxers in 2016. Though only boxers who compete in the new AIBA Professional Boxing program will be eligible so might not see the big names.

Re: Olympics - which sports should be there?
 

Yes, I understand those are the rules, but I was just wondering why those are the rules. Mind you, I don't particularly like boxing, so I couldn't care either way. Just wondering.

Re: Olympics - which sports should be there?
 

Two distinct sports is the simple answer.
Plus pro boxing doesn't have one organisation in charge of the sport so I'd imagine it has something to do with this as well.

Re: Olympics - which sports should be there?
 

WWF of cause

Re: Olympics - which sports should be there?
 

The World Wide Fund for Nature isn't a sport :p

Re: Olympics - which sports should be there?
 

My main thought is that sports like football, rugby and the like take a long time to complete and take up a whole venue. The smaller versions 5-a-side, rugby sevens can have multiple games in the same venue over the same period and seem better suited to an event like the olympics that runs for 14 days. Also the smaller team size may allow smaller nations to participate which would be good.

I also like the idea of levelling the field so that smaller and poorer nations can compete and have chances of winning. A big problem with the professional level is that the split between the top (pro) teams and the more amateur is so great the latter just don't stand a chance. Surely it would be more sporting to have closer results and a more "friendly" atmosphere. Don't think we can ever go back though as people want to see the best not just good competition.

Re: Olympics - which sports should be there?
 

You have to have the professional level. The Olympics is a globalised televised event.

As you say people want to see the best athletes in the world compete. It becomes a mockery of sport if you can have a 'Olympic Champion' who can't compete at the professional level. Imagine a gold medal winning tennis player who can't make the ATP/WTA tours. The whole thing would be a joke. Also the Olympics is often the only time a lot of people are exposed to different, more niche, sports. So they might as well watch the best it can offer.

For this reason I agree that sports whose Olympic contests aren't taken seriously by the best athletes should be dropped. Football is the only one that springs to mind but that is taken seriously by South America and (I think) Asia.

Re: Olympics - which sports should be there?
 

Seeing we've got the long jump and the high jump in Athletics, I'd propose a new event, called the 'deep jump'. The idea would be for athletes to jump from a tower with platforms at varying heights, with optional added blocks for additional height. Athletes are expected to land feet first (no roll-overs allowed) on a concrete platform. A critical aspect of this new discipline would be the ability to climb the tower after a jump. A result will therefore only stand if the athlete manages to return to the starting position (unaided) within a time of, say one minute. Athletes may receive treatment for injuries, but such treatment does not allow for additional time in reaching the starting position.

The winner will be the athlete that managed a successful jump from and return to the highest starting position.

I'm sure we can all agree that this new discipline will be thoroughly entertaining to watch, and an absolute crowd pleaser.

Re: Olympics - which sports should be there?
 

Do we have ping pong/table tennis?

Re: Olympics - which sports should be there?
 

Yes we do already have Table Tennis.

Re: Olympics - which sports should be there?
 

That sounds feasible.... provided that I am allowed to nominate the victims ,... I mean athletes.