Sports you'd remove from the Olympics

*Hasn't read everything*

Sometimes I do wonder about this. There are too many similar events where more than one medal can be won. I'm not saying all need to be culled, but sometimes e.g. the differences between them aren't worth it. Running - agreed, canoeing? No.

Get rid of some of the judging events. Get rid of synchronised swimming, sorry - it just annoys the hell out of me :/

I'd agree with getting rid of the top three mentioned in the OP as well.
 
sanofi said:
Tennis. Did anyone actually watch the matches? The desire and emotion shown by both the men and women rivals anything seen in the grand slams. Djokovic was distraut after losing to Nadal and the elation displayed by Dementieva. Roger Federer who has won 12 grand slams, has now competed at 3 olympics going after a medal.
Click to expand...

Yet the last mens final was won by some one no-one has ever heard off, and was so bad that he had to be given special dispensation to compete in this years competition.
 
Alibaba99 said:
Yet the last mens final was won by some one no-one has ever heard off, and was so bad that he had to be given special dispensation to compete in this years competition.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you have not heard off but that doesn't go for everyone.

Considering the seeds that actually took part in 2004:

1. Roger Federer (Second round)
2. Andy Roddick (Third round)
3. Carlos Moyá (Quarterfinalist)
4. Tim Henman (First round)
5. Juan Carlos Ferrero (Second round)
6. —
7. Rainer Schüttler (First round)
8. Sébastien Grosjean (Quarterfinalist)
9. Marat Safin (Second round)
10. Nicolás Massú (Champion)
11. Juan Ignacio Chela (First round)
12. Paradorn Srichaphan (First round)
13. Andrei Pavel (First round)
14. Nicolas Kiefer (Third round)
15. Tommy Robredo (Third round)
16. Fernando González (Bronze Medalist)

Those are some big names given the year 2004. Grand slam winners, world number ones, grand slam finalists. Not to mention the unseeded players such as Ancic, Bahgdatis, Bjorkman, Haas, Karlovic, the list goes on.

Does your statement mean that if the winner of the gold medal is not the world number 1 or the current superstar that the achievement is any lesser? Now that Nadal, the world no1 and reigning wimbledon and french open champion has won the gold, does tennis qualify?

The Olympic stage is somewhere the best come to shine but also just being their means you have the chance to take home gold.
 
Last edited:
Vertigo1 said:
Don't get me started on Phelps. As Steve Ovett said in the BBC studio, swimming is the only sport which lends itself to participating in lots of events. Let's face it, the strokes aren't that different and if you're good at one of them then you're likely to be good at the others.

Yes Phelps is a phenomenal swimmer but calling him the "greatest Olympian" as a result of him obtaining more gold medals than anyone else is offensive to the likes of Steve Redgrave, whose Olympic achievements far exceed that of Phelps IMO.
Click to expand...

Michael Johnson hit the nail on the head when he said that if he could've done the 200m and 400m forward, backwards, sidewards, and a medley of all those, and relays he would've won tens of medals as well.

Phelps is the best swimmer ever but comparing him to athletes in other sports is not fair and meaningless. Redgrave's 5 golds and a bronze over 6 olympics is an equal, if not better, achievement.
 
sanofi said:
Does your statement mean that if the winner of the gold medal is not the world number 1 or the current superstar that the achievement is any lesser? Now that Nadal, the world no1 and reigning wimbledon and french open champion has won the gold, does tennis qualify?

The Olympic stage is somewhere the best come to shine but also just being their means you have the chance to take home gold.
Click to expand...

Nadal is the type of sportsman who will give 110% in every single match he plays. Ideally all sportsmen would be like this.

But at the end of a tennis player's career, grand slam wins are the measure of greatness, other tournament victories are impressive, and the olympics is just a footnote.
 
As for the 'judged' sports like gymnastics, they are actually very objective. They change the code by which the gymnastics is judged every 4 years just after the olympics to react to changes in the sport.

Also, the most visually impressive routine often isn't the best by the objective criteria. e.g. Horton's bar routine was so impressive to watch, but as Matt Baker said, it was more of a crowd-pleasing circus act compared to the Chinese guy's routine which included all the high value elements that got the judges ticking their boxes.
 
qwerty said:
Michael Johnson hit the nail on the head when he said that if he could've done the 200m and 400m forward, backwards, sidewards, and a medley of all those, and relays he would've won tens of medals as well.

Phelps is the best swimmer ever but comparing him to athletes in other sports is not fair and meaningless. Redgrave's 5 golds and a bronze over 6 olympics is an equal, if not better, achievement.
Click to expand...

And Elisabeta Lipă's 5 golds, 2 silvers and 1 bronze over 6 olympics is thus an even better acheivement, just saying ;).
 
drunkenmaster said:
AS for running, saying the 400/800 are "nothing" like the 100 and 200 is ridiculous, what you mean to say is, they do the exact same thing, but use different tactics and speed, hardly takes a genius to run a little slower for longer or years of training to learn to do. If you've got a good runners physique, muscle, power, you're 95% of the way there.

I'm not entirely sure why more runners don't compete in more races, no real need to? More heats in general and more events to qualify for to even get to the Olympics, bad schedual for the races at athletics meets making it very difficult, not really sure. Theres also the fact that Phelps rarely had to swim more than 200m, lots of short events.
Click to expand...

I saw a program with one of the olympic sprinters and he was saying he was pretty unfit for longer distances, and that you don't breathe in much during a 100, so it's completely different. Just look at the different physiques.
 
running isnt comparable to swimming tbh. as said above the sprinters couldnt do that over longer distances. 200m swimming takes a little longer than a 100m sprint, meaning breathing plays a larger part.
 
peetee said:
running isnt comparable to swimming tbh. as said above the sprinters couldnt do that over longer distances. 200m swimming takes a little longer than a 100m sprint, meaning breathing plays a larger part.
Click to expand...

I don't know what 200m you watched as the WR is 1min42sec (freestyle), thats more than a little longer than the 10 odd seconds of the 100m...
 
drunkenmaster said:
AS for running, saying the 400/800 are "nothing" like the 100 and 200 is ridiculous, what you mean to say is, they do the exact same thing, but use different tactics and speed, hardly takes a genius to run a little slower for longer or years of training to learn to do. If you've got a good runners physique, muscle, power, you're 95% of the way there.
Click to expand...

Have you ever run competitivly?
 
Track Races.

Its full of :o, it wouldn't bother me so much if they didnt show every round of every race. I'd rather just watch the semis/finals of them all and have more coverage of the others sports. Seeing as that wouldn't happen get rid of it!

Also, Equestrianism
 
Last edited:
If it was me:

- Football
- Ping pong
- Horse riding of any description

...and in return put more swimming in :cool:
 
We need more open-water swimming! Both the men's and women's races were great.

Beach volleyball needs to go because, frankly, it's dull. Even the lure of scantily-clad women doesn't make up for the fact that there's no way this sport displays the skill, finesse or prestige necessary for an Olympic sport.

(edit) Just watching decathlon. This would be next on my list for the chop. I realise it's a respected event, but from the point of view of the spectator, there's nothing exciting about watching athletes do ten disciplines, none of which they're particularly good at. Nobody's getting excited about a jack-of-all-trades when they could be watching a Bolt or Phelps who's taking his discipline to new heights.

The heptahlon would be just as bad; it's saved by the fact that I get to watch Kelly Sotherton.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom