Sports that should be in Olympics

[greg]

I think you could put 20-20 cricket in as it would fit in as a fortnight's competition and be more exciting than some sports in there (synchronised swimming and rythmic gymnastics spring to mind)

[Lemming]

Snooker and Darts! Nuff said!

[Rachael]

Olympic sports should ideally be individual events... and if they don't measure up with track athletics or the marathon in terms of the demand for sheer athleticism they shouldn't be there: simple.

No one can surely doubt the worth of the rowers... it is in essense an individual event... but even the eights are more akin to an individual event (straight race) than something like soccer... and the idea that Redgrave and Pinsent don't match up with the likes of Coe, Ovett and Cram is laughable.

Can you say the same of Inzi, Hayden and the King of Spain?

Steffi Graff was a sub 11 second 100m runner... and I'm quite sure the likes of Federer, Roddick and Hewitt measure up to Olympic standards... but should ladies tennis be in? Davenport is to sport... well... about like Rob Key is to sport. I'd let in men's tennis and tell the WTA to get the standard up to where the less athletic players like Davenport just can't hack it.

One that should DEFINITELY never figure is Golf: I love it... but Coe... Ovett.. Cram... Racliffe.. Redgrave... Pinsent.. Montgomery - that's diluting the Olympic ideal.

[Milo]

Radcliffe. The ideal of quitting...not just once but twice. The ideal of performing at the highest level only if the financial incentive it there.

I'm sure Montgomerie would be pleased to be kept out of this company.

[Mongoose]

Originally Posted by Rachael

Olympic sports should ideally be individual events... and if they don't measure up with track athletics or the marathon in terms of the demand for sheer athleticism they shouldn't be there: simple.

Rachael, what do you have against physical SKILL rather than physical PROWESS/EXERTION? I think skill is just as valuable as exertion. Yes, it's great to see who is fastest/strongest etc, but stuff like archery that demands a high level of skill is good too. I think sport exists as a way of working out the extent of human limitations. Now, 50,000 years ago we might have relied simply on strength and speed, but since we invented weapons and tools, human limitation has partly been defined by skill as well. So I'd go for skill sports as well as exertion ones.

As to your evident dislike for sport's 'fatties' ... I think this doesn't sit very well with your dislike for sporting 'robots' as opposed to 'characters'. Many of the fatties are the more interesting characters. You can't beat a porker with a big smile on their face as they enjoy showing their sporting skill. Many 'athletic' types take out any enjoyment in their constant, often frustrated pursuit of perfection. As the song I'm listening to right now says, 'I'd rather be fat than be confused'.

ps. I got weighed and measured today. I'm just under 5'7'' (damn!) and am 10 stone (heavier than I thought) which means I'm the ideal weight for my height! Just thought I'd share that with you all.

[Lemming]

Originally Posted by Rachael

...tell the WTA to get the standard up to where the less athletic players like Davenport just can't hack it.

Tennis is tennis. How can the WTA change the game so the world number one can't hack it? The women's game is as powerful and quick as it ever was. Davenport may not be the quickest but she is as powerful as any player out there. She's actually very athletic for a women who is 6'2".

[Rachael]

There are few things better than a truly technical sport... like triple-jumping... downhill ski-ing... sports-climbing.... slalom canoeing / kayaking... men's tennis... even rugby (think Johnny Wilkinson's spot kicking) - but all the leading practitioners of those sports are supreme athletes as well as supreme technicians.

I've no objection to games... but let's keeps them seperate from sports: let's keep snooker and darts alongside tiddlywinks and dominoes... and lump golf in there for good measure.

My objection to Davenport is that she is a throwback to the days of tennis being a game not a sport: hit the ball too her and she'll belt the ball harder (and more accurately) than anyone.... but it pains me to see her in a final that was once graced by Martina Navratilova (who moves better now than Davenport EVER has).

Thank god for Venus Williams :-)

[Lemming]

Originally Posted by Lemming

...Snooker and Darts...

Oh, and Ten-Pin Bowling! I think there's a case for card games too. What about Monopoly?

[Lemming]

Originally Posted by Rachael

There are few things better than a truly technical sport...let's keep snooker and darts alongside tiddlywinks and dominoes...

I play snooker and darts. Both require a solid technique. I've been working on a darts technique so that my throwing arm is kept perfectly straight.

Snooker is very technical, getting the cue to come through straight is a difficult thing, even when you do, timing the stroke through the cue ball is even more difficult. Hitting a cue ball is similar to golf and indeed Johnny Wilkinson's penalties. Same principle, different circumstances.

[Lemming]

Originally Posted by Rachael

My objection to Davenport is that she is a throwback to the days of tennis being a game not a sport: hit the ball too her and she'll belt the ball harder (and more accurately) than anyone.... but it pains me to see her in a final that was once graced by Martina Navratilova (who moves better now than Davenport EVER has).

Thank god for Venus Williams :-)

Isn't that just the way women's tennis is going these days? It's more and more about power and hence accuracy than ever. The Williams sisters, Davenport, Sharapova etc. are all similar in style. They all hit the ball hard and in the corners, it's the way it is nowadays. You don't need to move as well as Navratilova if you can bully your opponent out of the game! It's just the way it is!!!