B
Big_Rudy
Legend
Silver Level
Blagh,blagh,blagh. The only reason to watch the Summer Olympics is the USA beach volleyball team. Need I say more!
Really? Ouch! Different standards, I guess .
Blagh,blagh,blagh. The only reason to watch the Summer Olympics is the USA beach volleyball team. Need I say more!
Curling is the 2nd most popular sport in canada behind hockey. and FYI, it's just my opinion, besides beach volleyball, which is popular for obvious reasons, water polo and field hockey are hardly 'popular' sports.Seriously? You son plays curling of all sports and you have the guts to come and piss on such physically intense, tactically complex and technically challenging sports like beach volley, water polo or field hockey? ???
So true.If we started kicking sports out of the Olympics for not being popular, we wouldn't be left with much
So true.
For me one of the main thing about the Olympics, is to watch sports that I have not watched much in four years. Of course i look at my favorite sports as well. But it is the diversity that makes the Olympics special for me.
If we started kicking sports out of the Olympics for not being popular, we wouldn't be left with much
....... Field Hockey .........
You misunderstand my meaning of popularity, countries who participated In mens water polo and field hockey 12 teams for both events. For women, 8 in polo and 12 in field hockey. The excuse given by the IOC for not allowing women to compete in ski jumping at the winter olympics, is that not enough countries compete.
You are such an ignorant fool. Team sports have a reduced number of countries taking part in the olympics because there is not enough time within two weeks to make a tournament with a large pool. The soccer world cup, for instance, requires a full month to host a 32 teams tournament. So instead, for the olympics there are pre-olympic tournaments all over the world that award the qualifying spots. Loads of countries do take part in these pre-olympic tournaments.
FWIW, in the history of the olympic field hockey competition, even though it used to be dominated by India, there have been olympic medalists from all continents: North and South America (USA and Argentina), Africa (Zimbabwe), Oceania (Australia and New Zealand), Asia (India, Pakistan, China, South Korea and Japan) and Europe (Netherlands, Germany, UK, Spain, Czeckoslovakia, Denmark, Belgium, Russia). That sounds pretty global to me.
The only sport that arguably does not deserve its spot in the olympics is men's soccer, as it is the only olympic sport where the very best players in the world do not take part in the competition. Every other sport where the very best in the world compete is worthy, imo.
All this talk of only the best sportsmen in the Olympics. Time do change a lot, is not that long ago since all professional sportsmen was banned from the Olympics (1984/1988?) Back then only amateur (not making any money at all from sports, sometime not even a completely different sport) was allowed to take part. Thankfully that have changed
Depends on why you watch the Olympics, I guess. I much prefer the amateur days when you got to watch athletes that dedicated themselves to their sport simply for the love of sport and competition. Back then, if I wanted to watch the pros in any sport, there was always that sport's championships so I could still see the pros as much as I wanted. Nowdays, it just gets tougher and tougher to find true amateur athletics getting any kind of coverage. Unfortunately, times have changed .
Synchronized swimming may not be a sport but it's absolutely hilarious.
True the amateur version had it's charm. But at least in the end (1984[I am to young to have any opinion about earlier]) it was not working fairly, with "state sponsored" "amateurs". Also i think it was a bit hypocritical to have sponsors for the 1984 games, but not allow sponsorship of the participant.
Regardless I think that the commercial way was the right way to go. I do not think we would have had so nice arenas (even the temporary one) and coverage lately with out it.
I agree completely. To hard to put it in practices. Even if one managed come up with a good definition.Well, that has been a debate going back quite some time. What, exactly, constitutes an amatuer? I think that's why, ultimately, they just opened the games up to the pros. Too hard to police who is and isn't an amatuer otherwise.
This whole amateur >>> professional thing is ridiculous, imo. Requiring athletes to be amateurs is essentially a nostalgia of a past where only an aristocratic elite few had the means to dedicate their time and energy to sports, while working class scum was not meddling with the aristocrats' hobbies. To a large extent, that's 19th century class warfare and it pretty much disgusts me, tbh.
This whole amateur >>> professional thing is ridiculous, imo. Requiring athletes to be amateurs is essentially a nostalgia of a past where only an aristocratic elite few had the means to dedicate their time and energy to sports, while working class scum was not meddling with the aristocrats' hobbies. To a large extent, that's 19th century class warfare and it pretty much disgusts me, tbh.
Money still matters regardless of amateur or professional. As Big_Rudy indicated, perhaps even more so now days.
The compare the Gross National Product list and the list of Olympics medals per nation reference is still relevant.