Don't claim to be an expert, but I do think equestrian cross country is an interesting sport and probably deserves a spot. Dressage???? If the queens niece and granddaughter make the olympic team, as well as 70 year olds in top hats, it's time to boot it. I watched dogs to an incredible obstacle course on ESPN the other day, doesn't mean it belongs in the games.
You seem to be a smart guy but you are now using all that reasoning power in a biased fashion to prove your previous premise which is faulty.My premise is that it is much more difficult to excell in a sport which is widely practiced than one with limited participants. Of course that is not always the case and there are some exceptions. This is pretty straight forward.
Camazotz wrote:
Conundrum wrote:All the difference in the world. Runners of all people should know that the level of competition in a sport with 100's of millions of participants will be tougher than a sport with relatively very few participants.
I'm afraid I still don't see your point. Such comparisons, for whatever they're worth (and little to nothing, as far as I can tell), could be made across all of the Olympic events, but to what ultimate purpose, I don't know. Sure, more people run than ride horses. But I dare say that more people around the world ride horses, at various levels of competition, than throw the hammer (or the javelin), or pole vault. Team handball? Water polo? Canoe slalom? Weight-lifting? I don't know how the various sports may stack up, in such comparisons.
There will also be imbalances on a regional basis. Is table tennis more or less "competitive" given that it is played (and enjoyed) by many millions in China and other countries in Asia, but is by and large (it seems to me, anyhow) a "rec room" sport in the West?
I'm not sure, the more I think about it, that I even accept the premise that a particular sport is "more competitive," at a high level, due to the comparative number of people world wide who participate in it. Is marathon running "more competitive" than some other sport on account of the many millions around the world who today run five and six hour marathons? Or is it the relatively few number of East Africans who perform at such a high level that make it such a challenge?
And, ultimately, I'm left where I started, I suppose. What difference does it make? Sport, when all is said and done, is a frolic and detour, a form of recreation for the vast majority who participate in it, and a form of entertainment for those who watch it. That is has much, if any, value beyond that is hardly clear to me.
OK, you got a bit beat up on the board, but pomposity and arrogance, always deserves a good schooling. As far as showing "significant contrition" I'm not so sure. Initially I would have said yes but then on this latest post you add your caveats (its letsrun, I was not serious, I didn't think Americans were thin skinned). Now as far as these equestrian events I am sure some of them are physically hard, and require skills, and are potentially dangerous. But that doesn't make it a worthy Olympic event. This summer I took down a tree in my lot, cut it up and split it. It was hard physical work, required skill, and was potentially dangerous but its not worthy of a Olympic event.As one poster mentioned, I would rather see rodeo events than equestrian events. They would be more worthy of the Olympics.
Lydiard is God wrote:
I believe that I have already showed sufficient contrition for denigrating the USA in what I thought was the average robust, LetsRun manner-not to be taken seriously. A thin skin is not what I think of as an 'easily available national stereotype' for America.
Father Irony wrote:.... or easily available national stereotypes?
I was attempting to watch the 10m air rifle yesterday. Nice suits they wear, and the jerry-rigged hats to better their vision was interesting.
Conundrum wrote:
You seem to be a smart guy but you are now using all that reasoning power in a biased fashion to prove your previous premise which is faulty.
My premise is that it is much more difficult to excell in a sport which is widely practiced than one with limited participants. Of course that is not always the case and there are some exceptions.
This is pretty straight forward.
And I return to my original point, which is, what difference does it make that it is "much more difficult" to excel in sports which are widely practiced than otherwise? I'll concede the foregoing for the sake of argument (and to be getting on with it), but then I don't see where that leaves us. I don't see, for instance, where that results in any conclusion that the sport with "limited participants" is somehow "less worthy" of consideration, or inclusion in the Olympics, or whatever.
As for the equestrian events per se , I'm confident that there are other sports included in the Olympics whose world-wide level of "participation" is less, and whose participation takes place on a much more geographically limited basis. And I dare say there are sports whose participation rates are greater than any number of the "minor" sports that currently included in the Summer Olympic program.
You initiated this thread with this: ". . . just ridiculous, nonathletic well dressed rich guy on very expensive horse trotting around the field with different stupid cantors." While I've refrained from quibbling with the general ignorance (and, I suspect, a class/social bias) this observation reflects, I will note that there are any number of events in the Summer Olympics whose practioners are, by any measure, "nonathletic." But if the Olympics were nothing but a contest to determine which country can put up the athletes with the highest VO2 max, etc., that could done with far less pomp and circumstance.
Ultimately, what I find curious is that, on this running board -- where, for most of the year we are treated to self-absorbed runners, seemingly infatuated with their own abilities and latent potential, bitching and moaning about how distance running, or track, isn't taken sufficiently seriously, or given adequate attention, in comparison to other, more popular sports in a country like the United States -- have no qualms, whenever the Olympics roll around, to denounce this or that sport as being "unworthy."
Somehow, I think it always comes down to the same thing, with a frustrated runner feeling put out that the wider world just doesn't appreciate what a "great athlete" said frustrated runner is, how so much more difficult his much more worthy sport is, how so much harder he has to work. "Pay attention to me."
Point taken. Not all Olympic events reflect sports requiring top physical development and ability. But there is an evolution regarding which sports are included and which ones are no longer included. So a discussion of the the criterion of an Olympic worthy event is appropriate.Granted my first equestrian event viewed this year was dressage, which to be quite frank, amused me that it was even included as an Olympic event. Dressage should go.As far as criterion, I think a sport that is of interest to a large segment of the world population and that requires great physical skill and development would be worthy of an Olympic status.
Camazotz wrote:
And I return to my original point, which is, what difference does it make that it is "much more difficult" to excel in sports which are widely practiced than otherwise? I'll concede the foregoing for the sake of argument (and to be getting on with it), but then I don't see where that leaves us. I don't see, for instance, where that results in any conclusion that the sport with "limited participants" is somehow "less worthy" of consideration, or inclusion in the Olympics, or whatever.
As for the equestrian events per se , I'm confident that there are other sports included in the Olympics whose world-wide level of "participation" is less, and whose participation takes place on a much more geographically limited basis. And I dare say there are sports whose participation rates are greater than any number of the "minor" sports that currently included in the Summer Olympic program.
You initiated this thread with this: ". . . just ridiculous, nonathletic well dressed rich guy on very expensive horse trotting around the field with different stupid cantors." While I've refrained from quibbling with the general ignorance (and, I suspect, a class/social bias) this observation reflects, I will note that there are any number of events in the Summer Olympics whose practioners are, by any measure, "nonathletic." But if the Olympics were nothing but a contest to determine which country can put up the athletes with the highest VO2 max, etc., that could done with far less pomp and circumstance.
Ultimately, what I find curious is that, on this running board -- where, for most of the year we are treated to self-absorbed runners, seemingly infatuated with their own abilities and latent potential, bitching and moaning about how distance running, or track, isn't taken sufficiently seriously, or given adequate attention, in comparison to other, more popular sports in a country like the United States -- have no qualms, whenever the Olympics roll around, to denounce this or that sport as being "unworthy."
Somehow, I think it always comes down to the same thing, with a frustrated runner feeling put out that the wider world just doesn't appreciate what a "great athlete" said frustrated runner is, how so much more difficult his much more worthy sport is, how so much harder he has to work. "Pay attention to me."
Add to the ridiculous list - breast stroke swimming events. That is just silly. Its a slow awkward stroke.
Why not have a running event where you have to slap each ankle on every stride? What's the point?
Gem - very much enjoyed table tennis and a bit of archery too.
Calling this FAT CHICK the "Greatest Olympian Ever" is an insult to every track & field Olympic athlete ever. Trap Shooting an Olympic sport? I have more respect for hotdog eating champ Joey "Jaws" Chestnut.
I just saw some whitewater canoeing. It seems pretty cool, though the only way that boat looked like a canoe to me was that the canoeist had a single end paddle.
It could do with some addition of the "best boat" digital video ghost so that you could compare the current boater to some standard.
Treasures--open water 10k swim
Olympic weightlifting
Boxing
Ridiculous
Rhythmic gymnastics
Anything with artistic scores
Ice dancing
Dressage equestrian
Need to add
10-12km xc race
Conundrum wrote:
Add to the ridiculous list - breast stroke swimming events. That is just silly. Its a slow awkward stroke.
Why not have a running event where you have to slap each ankle on every stride? What's the point?
Gem - very much enjoyed table tennis and a bit of archery too.
indeed. why not have a distance event where the runners have to routinely navigate barriers.
Boxing is great. It is really fun to watch a bunch of short fights in a row. I like that it is a lot more technical than professional boxing and there are no egos.
aloha warrior wrote:
http://aol.sportingnews.com/olympics/story/2012-07-29/olympics-2012-kim-rhode-skeet-shooting-greatest-us-olympians-medal-countCalling this FAT CHICK the "Greatest Olympian Ever" is an insult to every track & field Olympic athlete ever. Trap Shooting an Olympic sport? I have more respect for hotdog eating champ Joey "Jaws" Chestnut.
Shhhhhhhhh...she'll shoot your junk right off of you.
Poor analogy. A better analogy would be a swimming event where the swimmers had to swim under obstacles during the event.That would be cool and much better than watching the slower awkward breast stroke.
Clifford Diffley wrote:
Conundrum wrote:Add to the ridiculous list - breast stroke swimming events. That is just silly. Its a slow awkward stroke.
Why not have a running event where you have to slap each ankle on every stride? What's the point?
Gem - very much enjoyed table tennis and a bit of archery too.
indeed. why not have a distance event where the runners have to routinely navigate barriers.
Also running and jumping are natural athletic activties. You are not making runners run in a form that is slower and awkward.
That would be similar to swimming the breast stroke.
Also, there should be a summer biathlon - running and shooting.
Nick Symmonds would win gold every time!!
I kind of dig the archery. Maybe because I've had fun with my nieces playing Wii Sports. Goes quick, and pretty amazing their accuracy from 70 m.
Running on Empathy wrote:
Also, there should be a summer biathlon - running and shooting.
Nick Symmonds would win gold every time!!
Agreed. They could even combine it with cross country, kill two birds with one stone! I wonder if any Kenyans are decent shots.
Olympic boxing can be a good watch, but we get back into the whole "judging" issue. They need to figure out a way to have something like the fencing set up so ALL subjectivity is removed. Every time around there is controversy.
Equestrian (especially Dressage) - 24 year olds, 70 year olds, men, women all competing against one another ... name one other Olympic "sport" where you would think of having that mix. Yes its hard. Yes it takes practice. Is it a pure athletic competition? Not a chance.
All the judged sports - (gymnastics, diving etc.). These are all legitimate athletic competitions. The problem is that it is IMPOSSIBLE for the judges to see every detail of the performance given how fast and complex the events have gotten. Given that, it becomes a subjectivity contest. I wonder when (if ever) using slo-mo replays to judge will be considered.
Your girl is a centaur?
Good one!
Yesterday she was telling me that the origins of the 3-day event are military, originally meant to showcase the talents of war horses.
Cross-country (obvious)
Jumping (fairly obvious)
Putting hooves exactly where required (mines, dead bodies, etc.?)
A horse in a battle has got to do a lot of different things well, or horse and rider eat it.