Olympics - which sports should be there?
 

I am not a huge sport fan so probably am not the best to comment on this but what are folks feelings on the events in the Olympics (not the para as these have events tailored to competitors). Are there events you would see dropped? Are there events you'd like to see included?

----

I'd drop the major sports like football and tennis. This is split between the fact that the pro's dominate in some (why should grand slam winners simply be able to notch up another title, give a chance to those lower down the pecking order). The other reason is the time. A single event is simply too long.

To counter the above I'd add games like 5 a-side football and rugby sevens which I think are more in keeping with a 2 week mixed sport event. More games in single locations in quick succession. More chances of each team playing the other.

I'd also like to see field archery. Unlike the target archery with competitors firing 60+ arrows at a fixed target fixed range, field archery (can) have different ranges, different shaped targets, moving targets, obstacles and the like. The form I did at university had 20 targets in a range with upto 3 shots each. First arrow kill = 20 -> third arrow wound = 4, so a perfect round would be 400.

Re: Olympics - which sports should be there.
 

Re: Olympics - which sports should be there.
 

The sports that should be there are the ones in which the Olympics represents the pinnacle (or very close to it) of their achievement. IMHO there's no place for tennis and football.

Re: Olympics - which sports should be there.
 

Darts should be in there in my humble opinion.

Re: Olympics - which sports should be there.
 

Karate

Re: Olympics - which sports should be there.
 

Topless Mud wrestling :naughty:

Re: Olympics - which sports should be there.
 

With a Wado Ryu/Shito Ryu 1st Dan for a son how could I disagree? ;

Re: Olympics - which sports should be there.
 

Agreed.

If popular sports like football, golf and tennis are in the olympics then it should be restricted to amatuers.

I don't think there should be a place for elitist sports such as equestrianism.

Re: Olympics - which sports should be there.
 

Or topless darts on ice i remember when the cable only TV station "Live TV" whcih used to broadcast from canary wharf, had that on every night.! Now that was a sport worth watching.!!!!;)

But on another note i cannot understand what football or tennis have to do with the olympics you might just as well include 20/20 cricket ,rugby,and speedway racing and go the whole hog.

I like the womens beach volleyball though.:D

Re: Olympics - which sports should be there?
 

Why not have sports like Tennis, they are there to show there are the best in the world aren't they.

Stating someone shouldn't be allowed to enter as they have previously won Wimbledon or the French open isn't right. Technically that would mean someone that won a Gold medal at the last Olympics can't enter again?

The Olympics are about proving that you are a top athlete and top of your game.

Also there are a set of core events that have to be included and its then up to the host nation to choose the other events themselves. So why wouldn't you include a sport that your nation is good at?

This is the first time that GB have entered a handball team.

Re: Olympics - which sports should be there?
 

In the first modern Olympics there were Olympic medals awarded to literature,sculpture,art,music,etching..Because it was also part of the original Greek Olympics.

Across the years that part has been dropped..but I note that there are still cultural events going on around the country to celebrate these games.It might be nice to bring that aspect back.

Personally I think any sport that requires physical effort or immense skill should be included.So no tiddlywinks or conkers.;)

But certainly the more events the better IMHO.:)

Re: Olympics - which sports should be there?
 

Surfing?

Also being as the Scots are grizzly about being linked with GB we could cheer them up by introducing Caber Tossing and Gurning. ;)

Re: Olympics - which sports should be there?
 

Pie eating :D

Re: Olympics - which sports should be there?
 

I dislike the idea that if we have Tennis then the professional players shouldn't play, seems to undermine the event as everyone knows this isn't the height of achievement.

Re: Olympics - which sports should be there?
 

Which reminds me: AFAIK, boxing is the only sport where professionals can't compete in the olympics. Anyone know why this is?

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.

Re: Olympics - which sports should be there?
 

Like that idea. :tu: