IOC in Talks, Pondering to Remove 10k/200m from Olympics

wejo wrote:

Scrap all the walks before you scrap the 10k. Don't try and be "fair" and take out a few field events, a few sprints and a few distance events. Take out stuff no one cares about.

I think you're confusing "stuff no one cares about" with "stuff Americans don't care about." Huge difference. (Or maybe "stuff American distance geeks on a message board don't care about.") I'm not a racewalking fan, but you'd be surprised how many there are outside of America.

If you're going to cut events it makes more sense to cut a running event. If you cut the 10k or 200 those athletes still have other events to train for, if you cut the triple jump those guys are SOL.

XC will NEVER be an Olympic sport again. IOC is not going to add to an already bloated athletics schedule.

Alan

runningart2004 wrote:

XC will NEVER be an Olympic sport again. IOC is not going to add to an already bloated athletics schedule.

Alan

Amen, wish people would drop this nonsense already.

Cronje wrote:

I think you're confusing "stuff no one cares about" with "stuff Americans don't care about." Huge difference. (Or maybe "stuff American distance geeks on a message board don't care about.") I'm not a racewalking fan, but you'd be surprised how many there are outside of America.

If there are really all these race walking fans then show me some TV viewing numbers showing the walks are popular. I don't buy it.

Reduce the number of teams in soccer - or cut the event altogether. I haven't met a single person who watches Olympic Soccer. Especially when it pales in comparison with the FIFA World Cup. 16 teams x 20 people per team = 320 athletes already. You can't tell me that cutting the 10,000 would eliminate that many athletes.

What the heck? Is this old news or something?

How can the only thread about this have only 45 posts, none of which (mine included) have much to say but "Well, it would be bad to cut events?"

Where's the free market dopes? IOC conspiracy theorists? I'm not trying to sound the horn for the idiots, but it seems like this is a big deal and I'm surprised it isn't being treated that way. I would think everybody has an opinion.

Here, I'll go:Respectfully, I think It is about fairness to the athletes, Wejo. If it weren't, we'd have the 100, 200, 300, 400, 4x100, 4x150, 4x200, and so on, because the sprints are hugely popular. But that wouldn't be good. Because if we added them at the expense of the less popular existing events then there'd be so much less diversity for the athletes participating in a system of track and field in grade schools, clubs, and colleges throughout the world. The gold medalists (and others) in even the obscure events are role models and ambassadors for track and field at a local level long after they win - They inspire new generations to pursue greatness in a chosen discipline, as cheesy as that sounds. Sure, people can continue to compete in events that aren't contested at the Olympics, but the removal of their events is a slap in the face and a huge setback for the event because the talent will simply go elsewhere. That would be a shame. I'm not a race walking fan, but I'd cut both the 200 and 10k before I'd eliminate it entirely - if only because there are kids out there who may connect with it and choose to pursue it with the dream of going to the Olympics.

* Something has to be said about Mo Farah in the 10k at the last Olympics - Yes, he and Alberto got the timing right in their dieting and it was a big deal (for British people) for him to win at home. This is not a popular event otherwise. Wejo, you've been to the Heps - Are the 10ks not the most pathetic event on the track? Five miles of jogging and then sprinting like you're in a velodrome. The most remarkable performances in Olympic history (other than Geb) were done by people as part of doubles and triples! Shoot, Galen Rupp got silver and not one person in a hundred knows who he is in America. (And I have to agree with the other poster - Mo shouldn't be mentioned in the same breath as the "legends" of the sport, but that's another thread.) Would you really want a 10k over the shot put? No way.

how about removing track and field from the olympics?

how about adding in rhythmic beach volley ball or tandem BMX biking instead of the stupid worthless 200m.

or how about removing the IOC from the olympics. now we're talking.

I don't want to see any sport or event dropped, and I'm not sure why the IOC suddenly wants to put an arbitrary cap on the number of competitors, but okay. There are definitely some sports / events that could dropped with fewer people getting angry - synchronized diving, for example. Or if we want to maintain some quota on athlete numbers, why don't we do it by having each event cut its field down by a small amount? Individual events could tighten their standards so that their fields shrink by 1 or 2 athletes, team sports could take 1 less team (or 2 to keep numbers even), weight class events could redraw their weight class boundaries so that there was one less competition... sailing has like ten different boat classes, there are two-person kayak events, there are rowing races for 1 person, 2 people, 4 people (all with AND without "sculls"), 4 lightweight people, 8 people... there are many better ways to reach the quota than by just hacking five track events out altogether when archery and table tennis have team events!

This post is a slam-dunk. I too would rather see no events cut, but if we must, let's take a look elsewhere: We have artistic and rhythmic gymnastics, which are both popular and very different. However, do we really need TRAMPOLINE gymnastics? And to the point of offending all the poor kids who would no longer be able to aspire to the Olympics if Trampoline were cut, I'd like to point out that 2 other types of gymnastics are already not in the games: aerobic and acrobatic.

Another idea entirely: Why don't we limit the number of competitors per country from 3 to 2 in ALL events: That way, no country would ever sweep the medals, making things more interesting in my book.

Yet another idea: GET RID OF THE RELAYS. Yes, they are iconic too, but as an example, at least the 100m will still be run even if the 4x100 isn't... or, looking at it differently, the 400m will still be run even if the 4x100 isn't.

Lastly, in defense of wejo, Michael Johnson's world record in 1996 was completely unforgettable to me, too. I thought endlessly about that race for days after it happened. Even though I ended up in distance running, Johnson's 200 gold was what inspired me to run.

wejo wrote:

Cronje wrote:

I think you're confusing "stuff no one cares about" with "stuff Americans don't care about." Huge difference. (Or maybe "stuff American distance geeks on a message board don't care about.") I'm not a racewalking fan, but you'd be surprised how many there are outside of America.

If there are really all these race walking fans then show me some TV viewing numbers showing the walks are popular. I don't buy it.

Why don't you use Google and write something like "racewalking" and the name of a country that has some top runners?

You don't buy it because you don't want to buy it, Weldon.

Do your own research.

Suggestions: Russia, China, Spain, Poland, Portugal, Italy, Australia, Lithuania...

I used to work with a bunch of Mexican grad students and the topic of running came up. They said where they're from in Mexico many/most popular road races are race walks not runs. They seem to be very popular in Latin America. Even Canada has had some decent race walkers, the sport is basically just nonexistent in the US.

Before cutting any T and F events the IOC should consider that the Olympics is about determing who is the best in an event not who is the best weighing under 130 lbs or whatever sort of BS category. First of all, sports with weight categories should have just one open category to determine who is the best.

So the following all need to be streamlined:

Weightlifting

Rowing - in fact rowing and kayaking should be just a single event in a boat of 8 people with or without a cox and that will help get rid of a ton of pointless events.

Judo, boxing , wrestling, tae kwondo etc - in fact all the fighting sports should be just one event to determine who is the best fighter like the first ultimate fighting championship, everthing else is pretty meaningless.

Other sports that need steamlining are those which involve different equipment or different styles to race over the same distance.

So the following events also need steamlining :

Swimming should be restricted to freestyle events only.

Sailing, laser quest and all the BS sailing boat categories should just be just one saling boat for races over whatever distance FFS.

Rowing, kayaking see above.

Track cycling just have just scratch races over set distances, get rid of all this keirin and pusuit BS.

WHEN the IOC has done this THEN then can start to think about axing cutting certain events from track and field although they should consider beforehand the other BS Olympic sports such as all the fencing events, or the different types of raquet sports or shooting events.

Why?

I like the idea of a short and long sprint, middle distance, and long distance race, that ascends proportionately in distance. Give me 100 and 500, 1000 and 5000, 10k(road) and 50k (road).

Cahuga (and others) - Agreed, and I think that's what I'm getting at as well - if there need to be cuts, it should be in events with more redundancy. I see some existing T&F events as being a little redundant, the 10k/200/one of the race walks being the best examples.

The worst case scenario would be to keep fricking adding sports whose popularity isn't proven over time or universal/accessible across the globe (Olympic rollerblading, anyone? Parkour?). Likewise, it would be foolish to leave swimming/diving and its ten million events unscathed. Unfortunately, if you look at the volume of T&F events, that reasoning still has to apply to an extent.

Would it be the end of the world to say to the swimmers, "Look, you get a couple freestyle events, one backstroke, one butterfly, one breast stroke." It would be the same as saying "Look, you get one short sprint, one long one, a couple middle distance (I'm biased), one long distance, a few jumps, a few throws", etc. Track and field has had it pretty good if you consider just how many competitors we've gotten into the games over its history. Yes, we're more efficient with the use of space and scheduling, but if you're talking about how many representatives we've gotten and filling up space and taking resources, it's still huge.

I think one of the biggest problems with the IOC wanting to cut numbers from Track and Field is that they grouping all track and field athletes together. The truth is Athletics is a collection of many different sports and should be treated as such. The Javelin and the 10k have nothing in common so it is silly to place all of these athletes under the same umbrella of Track and Field. This would be like grouping all basketball, baseball, and soccer players into the sport "ball games" and saying that the numbers in this sport had to be cut because they were too large.

Bad Wigins wrote:

The best thing that could happen to track is if the IOC cancelled all track events. Athletics was throttled by the olympics just like most sports it dominates. Nobody pays any attention to it in off years so it is dead, dead, dead. Have a WC every year and no olympics and it will recover.

I do not see the logic in this. So you think having less exposure (even if it is every 4 years) will help it recover?

Thesmallcheese wrote:

Reduce the number of teams in soccer - or cut the event altogether. I haven't met a single person who watches Olympic Soccer. Especially when it pales in comparison with the FIFA World Cup. 16 teams x 20 people per team = 320 athletes already. You can't tell me that cutting the 10,000 would eliminate that many athletes.

I do not completely disagree with cutting soccer when the rules do not allow for the best players to play. FIFA does not want to take any shine away from its World Cup.

However, the logic of you not knowing anyone who watches Olympic soccer is a stupid reason. Just how many people do you know? About a billion people watch. You know maybe 100? Reminds me of the story about the rich person in Manhattan back in 1972 that could not believe Nixon had won when she knew no one who had voted for him.

Every sport will have followers who will point out iconic moments within that sport. Rowing has them. Swimming seems to be quite popular.

The IOC is concerned (as it should be) about revenue streams. The US pays the largest single amount in TV rights and advertisers look for eye balls. The IOC needs to get eye balls and needs to look at the events that draw eye balls.

I doubt cutting the proposed events will hurt the ratings for track. (I do not want to see them cut although I would not miss racewalking). But adding an event that will draw viewers makes sense.

As for the argument about reducing weight classes, the Olympics have fewer weight classes than the world championships in those same events. I guess you just want the fastest runners so if a woman cannot run sub10 in the 100 she should not be there. Just have 1 competition and if the women cannot cut it, so be it. Right?