Is that how the body works? Neatly? Like the last article about the need to not recognize sports anyone cares about... Who cares? I'm sounding dismissive and I guess I am? The Olympics is a big...
As with any lavish meal, the body neatly separates it into the nourishment it needs and the excess matter it does not. The Olympics, to put it a little indelicately, needs to undergo a similar process.
Is that how the body works? Neatly?
Like the last article about the need to not recognize sports anyone cares about... Who cares? I'm sounding dismissive and I guess I am? The Olympics is a big dinner party and the point is making it more lavish than the last. The cost is the point.
Pundits claiming we need to cut sports to bring this whole thing in under budget act like that will somehow fix all the potholes and house the homeless.
Before we begin, a few ground rules. Sports that appeal to the widest possible global base should be prioritised. Plus points for sports that can be staged in cities. And plus points for what I am – with a high degree of subjectivity – describing as the “wow factor”, sports that work on social media as well as they do in the stadium, sports that push the boundaries of the body over sports that consist largely of a bunch of guys slowly becoming sweatier.
But in the next paragraph he says weightlifting can stay. What Olympic sports are just "Guys slowly becoming sweatier?"
I'm disappointed Breaking won't be at the 2028 Olympics. Of all the things to have at a venue in LA. Smh. I really enjoyed seeing the Breaking events. I don't know that it needs to be gender...
I'm disappointed Breaking won't be at the 2028 Olympics. Of all the things to have at a venue in LA. Smh.
I really enjoyed seeing the Breaking events. I don't know that it needs to be gender segregated the way gymnastics are, though it is extremely physical, but as its popularity increases I could see them adding a duo/duet thing and a "mixed" event where people of any gender are able to compete against the other. They just added a mixed duet for the first time for artistic swimming (synchronized swimming), so I feel like it's possible.
And on the note of synchro, let's get a synchro/choreographed breaking thing going on that compliments the World of Dance/World Hip Hop Dance competitions. Here's an example that will blow your mind (volume warning?).
I could agree with many of these. It's weird to have events happening elsewhere(sailing, surfing, golf), and equestrian events have some obvious hangups. Swimming though? Archery? I can't see a...
I could agree with many of these. It's weird to have events happening elsewhere(sailing, surfing, golf), and equestrian events have some obvious hangups. Swimming though? Archery? I can't see a good justification.
Yeah swimming but not say, synchronized swimming, and archery but not shooting? The logic for banning swimming would be like banning track and field events because hurdles is just hopping while...
Yeah swimming but not say, synchronized swimming, and archery but not shooting? The logic for banning swimming would be like banning track and field events because hurdles is just hopping while you do the same race.
It's a silly article. I'd keep rowing though as well.
I thought the swimming part was actually more convincing than most of the other suggested eliminations. They just want to get rid of all the events for the strokes other than freestyle, maybe...
I thought the swimming part was actually more convincing than most of the other suggested eliminations. They just want to get rid of all the events for the strokes other than freestyle, maybe keeping a medley event. Sounds reasonable to me. All the other ones are just less efficient ways of getting across the pool.
Eh, sounds like we should just whittle both track and swimming down to a race each if that's the case. Swimming is just a less efficient way to cross the same distance as running. It doesn't make...
Eh, sounds like we should just whittle both track and swimming down to a race each if that's the case.
Swimming is just a less efficient way to cross the same distance as running.
It doesn't make sense to me because both track and swimming require a finite amount of space for pretty much all their events.
The argument for having various distances for sports doesn't really hinge on the same argument as various swimming strokes. Just because I'd say we could reduce the number of swimming events...
The argument for having various distances for sports doesn't really hinge on the same argument as various swimming strokes. Just because I'd say we could reduce the number of swimming events doesn't mean the same argument could apply to reducing all event types.
Swimming is definitely not a substitute for running for covering the same distance. You can't run across water.
Not sure what you are trying to say regarding finite amount of space.
All those events use the same pool/track, that's what I mean about a finite amount of space/facilities/etc. Cutting events there doesn't really provide the same benefits to the host as say...
All those events use the same pool/track, that's what I mean about a finite amount of space/facilities/etc. Cutting events there doesn't really provide the same benefits to the host as say sailing, surfing or equestrian.
And yeah there are differences between running and swimming, but there are also differences between hurdles and regular running. I swam in high school so I absolutely am biased by knowing the sport. The other strokes and the medley are about being good in the all around or in a particular event. No different than gymnastics having different events with similar but different skillsets.
I think it's weird to say "cut swimming" because it doesn't save on physical facility space and it's less egregious than synchronized swimming or water polo in being niche.
Regardless this is taking the article more seriously than is warranted imo
Now I’d love a cross analysis of the suggestions made here and the results in medal tallies that USA has achieved over the last few decades. I could be wrong, but I suspect that these changes...
Now I’d love a cross analysis of the suggestions made here and the results in medal tallies that USA has achieved over the last few decades. I could be wrong, but I suspect that these changes would skew in favour of the events USA has historically excelled at.
Removing the vast majority of these sports would actually hurt the US' medal totals but that's only because the US does well in general. This is a British publication but many of these are also...
Removing the vast majority of these sports would actually hurt the US' medal totals but that's only because the US does well in general. This is a British publication but many of these are also ones that Great Britain also sees a lot of success with.
3x3 basketball has only been in two Olympic games. The US men's team has never medalled, but the women's team is the most decorated with 1 Gold and 1 Bronze.
Indoor volleyball is not a lock for any country but between the men's and women's divisions, Brazil would be the most impacted country. The US women's does better more consistently but not always a podium finish.
Fantastic, thank you for putting in the time to put all this together! I’ll check out the links you’ve provided, and I don’t have anything else to add to the conversation but wanted to voice my...
Fantastic, thank you for putting in the time to put all this together! I’ll check out the links you’ve provided, and I don’t have anything else to add to the conversation but wanted to voice my appreciation at your time and effort here.
The IOC has a core group of sports that must be hosted, then the host city gets to choose optional sports to feature. So in this case LA chose "baseball/softball, cricket, flag football, lacrosse,...
The IOC has a core group of sports that must be hosted, then the host city gets to choose optional sports to feature. So in this case LA chose "baseball/softball, cricket, flag football, lacrosse, and squash." Then the IOC presumably looks at the venue availability, safety, and accessibility to audience size, and decides to approve or deny the requests. Not sure if the host city can choose new sports if one is rejected.
I think this is partly done so that there's variety for the viewership, but also partly done so that the host country doesn't have to build out new facilities for what would otherwise be an ever-expanding list of sports. It does suck that athletes who compete in one optional sport are less likely to be able to appear in a consecutive Games, though. I would think that reduces the chance of repeat medalists as well.
Is that how the body works? Neatly?
Like the last article about the need to not recognize sports anyone cares about... Who cares? I'm sounding dismissive and I guess I am? The Olympics is a big dinner party and the point is making it more lavish than the last. The cost is the point.
Pundits claiming we need to cut sports to bring this whole thing in under budget act like that will somehow fix all the potholes and house the homeless.
But in the next paragraph he says weightlifting can stay. What Olympic sports are just "Guys slowly becoming sweatier?"
I'm disappointed Breaking won't be at the 2028 Olympics. Of all the things to have at a venue in LA. Smh.
I really enjoyed seeing the Breaking events. I don't know that it needs to be gender segregated the way gymnastics are, though it is extremely physical, but as its popularity increases I could see them adding a duo/duet thing and a "mixed" event where people of any gender are able to compete against the other. They just added a mixed duet for the first time for artistic swimming (synchronized swimming), so I feel like it's possible.
And on the note of synchro, let's get a synchro/choreographed breaking thing going on that compliments the World of Dance/World Hip Hop Dance competitions. Here's an example that will blow your mind (volume warning?).
I could agree with many of these. It's weird to have events happening elsewhere(sailing, surfing, golf), and equestrian events have some obvious hangups. Swimming though? Archery? I can't see a good justification.
Yeah swimming but not say, synchronized swimming, and archery but not shooting? The logic for banning swimming would be like banning track and field events because hurdles is just hopping while you do the same race.
It's a silly article. I'd keep rowing though as well.
I thought the swimming part was actually more convincing than most of the other suggested eliminations. They just want to get rid of all the events for the strokes other than freestyle, maybe keeping a medley event. Sounds reasonable to me. All the other ones are just less efficient ways of getting across the pool.
Eh, sounds like we should just whittle both track and swimming down to a race each if that's the case.
Swimming is just a less efficient way to cross the same distance as running.
It doesn't make sense to me because both track and swimming require a finite amount of space for pretty much all their events.
The argument for having various distances for sports doesn't really hinge on the same argument as various swimming strokes. Just because I'd say we could reduce the number of swimming events doesn't mean the same argument could apply to reducing all event types.
Swimming is definitely not a substitute for running for covering the same distance. You can't run across water.
Not sure what you are trying to say regarding finite amount of space.
All those events use the same pool/track, that's what I mean about a finite amount of space/facilities/etc. Cutting events there doesn't really provide the same benefits to the host as say sailing, surfing or equestrian.
And yeah there are differences between running and swimming, but there are also differences between hurdles and regular running. I swam in high school so I absolutely am biased by knowing the sport. The other strokes and the medley are about being good in the all around or in a particular event. No different than gymnastics having different events with similar but different skillsets.
I think it's weird to say "cut swimming" because it doesn't save on physical facility space and it's less egregious than synchronized swimming or water polo in being niche.
Regardless this is taking the article more seriously than is warranted imo
Now I’d love a cross analysis of the suggestions made here and the results in medal tallies that USA has achieved over the last few decades. I could be wrong, but I suspect that these changes would skew in favour of the events USA has historically excelled at.
Removing the vast majority of these sports would actually hurt the US' medal totals but that's only because the US does well in general. This is a British publication but many of these are also ones that Great Britain also sees a lot of success with.
The first suggestion is Sailing, which Great Britain usually does well at. The US is in second but with more Silver and Bronze finishes.
Then comes Archery, where the US is a comfortable, yet distant, second to South Korea.
Surfing has only been in a few games so far but the US is the all-time leader with all of two gold medals.
The horse events would be a blow to many European countries but also the US, which has the second most medals of any country.
3x3 basketball has only been in two Olympic games. The US men's team has never medalled, but the women's team is the most decorated with 1 Gold and 1 Bronze.
Rowing would hurt the US quite a bit but it would also hurt Great Britain, both teams with far more medals than any other country, and tied for the most golds. Great Britain has been the one dominating it the most in recent years.
Golf has had US players win the men's category Gold in the past two outings but it's not a lock. The women's is even more varied but Australia would be hurt most.
Indoor volleyball is not a lock for any country but between the men's and women's divisions, Brazil would be the most impacted country. The US women's does better more consistently but not always a podium finish.
Men's football/soccer? This is the one sport in this list the US is nowhere near the top for.
Swimming, though? Swimming would be a huge loss for the US.
Fantastic, thank you for putting in the time to put all this together! I’ll check out the links you’ve provided, and I don’t have anything else to add to the conversation but wanted to voice my appreciation at your time and effort here.
Feel free to now flag my comment as noise
I don't know shit about the Olympics, but wouldn't it be some sort of official Olympic organization or committee deciding this, not the host city?
The IOC has a core group of sports that must be hosted, then the host city gets to choose optional sports to feature. So in this case LA chose "baseball/softball, cricket, flag football, lacrosse, and squash." Then the IOC presumably looks at the venue availability, safety, and accessibility to audience size, and decides to approve or deny the requests. Not sure if the host city can choose new sports if one is rejected.
I think this is partly done so that there's variety for the viewership, but also partly done so that the host country doesn't have to build out new facilities for what would otherwise be an ever-expanding list of sports. It does suck that athletes who compete in one optional sport are less likely to be able to appear in a consecutive Games, though. I would think that reduces the chance of repeat medalists as well.
Without doing the math, I'm not sure it really would. But eliminating swimming for sure wouldn't. It's a weird list. Some I'd agree with, some not.