Jump to content
Sal's RuneScape Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Sobend

Useless Olympic sports

Recommended Posts

While watching television today I was flipping through the channels and saw rythmic gymnastics. It really got me thinking about some of the useless olympic sports.

 

Here's a short list I came up with

 

Equestrian-This would be an olympic sport but the riders are considered the athletes, not the horses. If we got the horses to march in the parade of nations maybe this would get more consideration for a legitimate sport.

Rythmic Gymnastics-This was really stupid. Looked like synchronized swimming on land

Shooting-Although it takes some serious skill to shoot, pulling a trigger isn't really that physical. Besides, all of the best shooters are working as snipers for their nation's government, not competing in the olympic games.

 

Sports I'm borderline with. I don't necessarily think these should be out of the Olympics, but feel free to show your comments about it.

 

Handball-I thought this was a sport we only played in gym class. Never really considered it something competitive

Synchronized Swimming-Kind of stupid in my opinion, but you can't touch the bottom of the pool and that's pretty difficult

Sailing-Not as physical as many sports although much more physical than shooting. Also tough and very competitive.

Table Tennis-Ping pong is a nice leisure activity, but olympic sport? And we all know non-asian countries don't stand a chance.

 

Note that many of my reasons are not to be taken too seriously (such as only certain countries are competitive in them) and should not be taken so. I still stand by my choices however.

 

So what do you think are stupid olympic sports. While your at it, what sports would you like to see in the olympics? Personally I'd like to see baseball reintroduced into the Olympics. The only problem with it is that most of the professional players cannot play in the olympics because their professional season overlaps with the olympics. If the MLB could do something similar to what the NHL does that would be great. Golf is also going to be in the next summer olympics, which is going to be cool (we get to see some golf greats go for medals).

 

So.... On your mark, get ready.... set....... post!

Edited by Sobend

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find any sport that needs to be judged and not one where you can just win isn't much of a sport but more of a competition. I don't think the stuff that needs judges should be in the Olympics.

 

I disagree with baseball being there. How many countries actually play it besides America?

Edited by Kemosabe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Table Tennis-Ping pong is a nice leisure activity, but olympic sport? And we all know non-asian countries don't stand a chance.

 

Personally I'd like to see baseball reintroduced into the Olympics.

 

Right. Get rid of a sport that is dominated mainly by one country and replace it with another sport dominated by one country?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Table Tennis-Ping pong is a nice leisure activity, but olympic sport? And we all know non-asian countries don't stand a chance.

 

Personally I'd like to see baseball reintroduced into the Olympics.

 

Right. Get rid of a sport that is dominated mainly by one country and replace it with another sport dominated by one country?

Baseball is more universal and would prove to be way more competitive than just about every other sport in the olympics.

28b8t40.png

I agree about baseball entirely.

As for the rest, most of these are not what we would traditionally refer to as sports. It only makes sense that the event is officially called the Olympic Games.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only problem with it is that most of the professional players cannot play in the olympics because their professional season overlaps with the olympics.

And/or don't want to. See football.

 

Rugby would be awesome to have, but three weeks are too few for a decent tournament.

 

After all, it all boils down to what one considers "sport".

Edited by Arianna

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Baseball was discontinued anyway. It was really only dominated by Japan, or the USA. And yes, I agree that shooting is borderline sport - if it is kept, I want chess to be a sport too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure your disagreeing of sports based on physical requirement. I think shooting and sailing have their places at the games, as it really does require skill.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't believe that walking race hasn't been included yet.

By god, those butt's waddle so much Sir Mixalot would switch over.

 

It's also worth noting I disagree with every single part of the OP. Nothing mentioned in the OP doesn't require a huge amount of physical input, as well as complete dedication of their life to the sport, and a world class talent level.

 

Just because they "look stupid" or are dominated by a particular country, that's no reason to remove them. Should all the races that Phelps was in this year have been scrapped because nobody stood a cat in hell's chance? Should Bolt's races have been banned until he retired?

 

Sailing-Not really physical

Understatement of the year.

 

If we got the horses to march in the parade of nations maybe this would get more consideration for a legitimate sport.

....What?

 

Besides, all of the best shooters are working as snipers for their nation's government, not competing in the olympic games.

Just because someone is a crack with a gun, doesn't mean they have a killer instinct. I'd definitely disagree with this, especially as the shooting is a far cry from sniping.

 

Baseball is more universal and would prove to be way more competitive than just about every other sport in the olympics.

 

28b8t40.png

It doesn't strike you as odd that the medal positions were dominated by four countries, two of which are heavily americanised and one which itself is america?

Remind me again how that's more competetive than just about every other sport?

Edited by Jethraw

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sailing is much harder than you think. You have to be able to read the wind, waters, etc and it quite physically demanding.

 

The size of the shooting targets in the events that shoot at targets (10m air pistol) are quite small. The target has a diameter of 17cm and the 10 ring has a diameter of 11.5mm. And the top shooters are hitting 9/10 most of the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Table Tennis-Ping pong is a nice leisure activity, but olympic sport? And we all know non-asian countries don't stand a chance.

 

Personally I'd like to see baseball reintroduced into the Olympics.

 

Right. Get rid of a sport that is dominated mainly by one country and replace it with another sport dominated by one country?

Not true. There have been five baseball olympic tournaments and three different winners. The United States has only won once. Baseball is pretty big in the United States and Canada, Latin America, and many asian countries. Also, many European countries competively compete in the World Baseball Classic such as the Netherlands, so it's not like it would be America-Asia all the way.

 

Even though only three countries have won gold medals, baseball has only been in play for five Olympics. That's a really small pool. We should at least give other nations a shot at the gold.

 

RP:

It's also worth noting I disagree with every single part of the OP

:crying:

I can't believe that walking race hasn't been included yet.

By god, those butt's waddle so much Sir Mixalot would switch over.

Ah walking, forgot walking. I've never actually seen it on TV but supposedly it's ridiculous.

 

Just because they "look stupid" or are dominated by a particular country, that's no reason to remove them. Should all the races that Phelps was in this year have been scrapped because nobody stood a cat in hell's chance? Should Bolt's races have been banned until he retired?

Many things get lost in words on the internet. Tone is often one of them. The whole "this sport is dominated by a country so let's dish it" was more of a joke and never intended to be the crux of an argument. If I had actually meant that, I'd be forced to get rid of basketball, my favorite olympic sport. :crying:

 

Sailing-Not really physical

Understatement of the year.

I know sailing is physical but I feel as if the boat and the wind does much of the work. Just because something takes skill doesn't make it a sport. This is also not one of the sports I that I think should be done away with, just borderline.

 

It's also useful to know that I've never solo sailed myself, so if I have absolutely no idea what I am talking about forgive me RP.

 

If we got the horses to march in the parade of nations maybe this would get more consideration for a legitimate sport.

....What?

In this situation, the horses are doing the work but the riders are being called the athletes. So if we could call the horses the athletes instead of the riders, then this would be very much so a sport. But riding a horse, although it does take work and skill, in my opinion is not that much of a sport. Anyway, the original comment wasn't supposed to be taken too seriously.

 

sides, all of the best shooters are working as snipers for their nation's government, not competing in the olympic games.

Just because someone is a crack with a gun, doesn't mean they have a killer instinct. I'd definitely disagree with this, especially as the shooting is a far cry from sniping.

Yep. It wasn't really intended for the crux of the argument and more of a non serious comment that lost its non serious label over the internet.

 

 

Nothing mentioned in the OP doesn't require a huge amount of physical input, as well as complete dedication of their life to the sport, and a world class talent level.

To be honest the disagreement between me and the RP lies in the fundamental definition of sport. I personally see sport as something that shows great physical prowess. Based on the above quote (which may/may not show your entire opinion), you see if more as something that shows dedication and talent along with physical work.

 

As for the rest, most of these are not what we would traditionally refer to as sports. It only makes sense that the event is officially called the Olympic Games.

Even though they are officially called the Olympic Games and not the Olympic Sports, the Olympics serve to find the best athletes, not the best game players. If we were going to make it even and allow all games, checkers, monopoly, and Halo 3 would all deserve to be in the Olympics.

Edited by Sobend

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You appear to be under the misconception that a sport must be highly physical. Sailing has been a sport for a long time and, while less physical than rowing or running may be, it is physically demanding while also requiring skill. I think skill-based sports are a great thing to include in the Olympics. I disagree completely on your shooting/sailing points.

 

As for halo 3 and monopoly being in the Olympics, I think you're fully aware that's a dumb comparison to draw.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You appear to be under the misconception that a sport must be highly physical. Sailing has been a sport for a long time and, while less physical than rowing or running may be, it is physically demanding while also requiring skill. I think skill-based sports are a great thing to include in the Olympics. I disagree completely on your shooting/sailing points.

 

As for halo 3 and monopoly being in the Olympics, I think you're fully aware that's a dumb comparison to draw.

 

Esports might have a chance in the future(Sc2 specifically), but not for many years. It's slowly catching on with the rest of the world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
To be honest the disagreement between me and the RP lies in the fundamental definition of sport. I personally see sport as something that shows great physical prowess. Based on the above quote (which may/may not show your entire opinion), you see if more as something that shows dedication and talent along with physical work.

To me, that's an incredibly one dimensional view. As far as I'm concerned sports and athletes are made up of a number of varying factors, each of significant importance. Because how many of the athletes that qualify for events you consider "sports" are 100% physical prowess and 0% skill? The two can't exist as separate entities because without one, an athlete won't succeed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You appear to be under the misconception that a sport must be highly physical. Sailing has been a sport for a long time and, while less physical than rowing or running may be, it is physically demanding while also requiring skill. I think skill-based sports are a great thing to include in the Olympics. I disagree completely on your shooting/sailing points.

It's not as much of a misconception as an opinion. I realize that many may disagree with me, but there is no real true, universal definition of sport.

 

As for halo 3 and monopoly being in the Olympics, I think you're fully aware that's a dumb comparison to draw.

Those might have seemed ridiculous but in reality they take time and skill to be good at, similar to sports now in the olympics. Also, some take good reflexes (such as action computer games). The seemingly ridiculous comparison I admit was mostly to get my point across; something similar like chess would be much more likely to get added into Olympics.

 

To be honest the disagreement between me and the RP lies in the fundamental definition of sport. I personally see sport as something that shows great physical prowess. Based on the above quote (which may/may not show your entire opinion), you see if more as something that shows dedication and talent along with physical work.

To me, that's an incredibly one dimensional view. As far as I'm concerned sports and athletes are made up of a number of varying factors, each of significant importance. Because how many of the athletes that qualify for events you consider "sports" are 100% physical prowess and 0% skill? The two can't exist as separate entities because without one, an athlete won't succeed.

Right. All sports require skill, one would be dumb to believe otherwise. But I believe that physical prowess should be required for all Olympic Sports. To me, the Olympic Games are for (besides entertainment) allowing the best athletes compete against one another. I just don't consider someone who rides a horse for example an athlete.

 

And your reply:

Why? To argue that they don't need any physical prowess to ride a horse is incorrect too. Like I said, nobody will succeed without being able to combine physical ability and skill. If you don't possess both, you'll be spectacularly outperformed. There's not an athlete competing in the olympics that doesn't have physical ability, whether they be the gargantuan judo competitors or the toothpick-esque table tennis players. If they weren't athletic, they wouldn't be there at all, because they wouldn't be as successful as they are.

 

And the argument that riding a horse isn't athletic is one of the worst you could pick. Go and train a horse for 6 hours in a day, and tell me you did nothing and felt no physical exertion.

I realize that you need to be in shape to ride a horse, but it is the horse that is performing the olympic caliber athletic ability, not the rider. So, even though you might need to be in shape to compete, you do not need to possess the physical ability to perform in a great physical way. For example, if you take the best rider off a great horse and put him on a bad horse, the rider can help the horse but the rider will not recieve a gold medal.

 

I fully acknowledge that every endeavor in an Olympic sport requires both skill and physical strength. But does every Olympic sport require outstanding physical ability? No. Does every olympic sport require outstanding physical strength and/or skill? Of course. But I think athletes (as they are officially called) should only be performing outstanding athletic endeavors along with skill.

 

Rethinking it, it's not really a definition of sport (as I previously said) because you could say every Olympic sport is a sport. But not every Olympic sport requires outstanding physical skill, some just require you to be in shape. The ones that require you only to be in fairly good physical shape I think theoretically could be gotten rid of.

Edited by Sobend

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There has never been a "winner" in any sport. The whole horrible tedious process just repeats itself every day, week or year.

 

Pfft bring back motorised boating, now that's an Olympic sport.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Right. All sports require skill, one would be dumb to believe otherwise. But I believe that physical prowess should be required for all Olympic Sports. To me, the Olympic Games are for (besides entertainment) allowing the best athletes compete against one another. I just don't consider someone who rides a horse for example an athlete.

Why? To argue that they don't need any physical prowess to ride a horse is incorrect too. Like I said, nobody will succeed without being able to combine physical ability and skill. If you don't possess both, you'll be spectacularly outperformed. There's not an athlete competing in the olympics that doesn't have physical ability, whether they be the gargantuan judo competitors or the toothpick-esque table tennis players. If they weren't athletic, they wouldn't be there at all, because they wouldn't be as successful as they are.

 

And the argument that riding a horse isn't athletic is one of the worst you could pick. Go and train a horse for 6 hours in a day, and tell me you did nothing and felt no physical exertion.

Edited by Jethraw

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i say instead of getting rid of some of the sports

we combine a few of them

i.e fencing and equestrian = JOUSTING SON

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why are you guys complaining about how unbalanced baseball is?

 

(summer olympics)

Basketball:

153tgu1.png

Ice Hockey:

105wjtc.png

Table Tennis:

1584ex0.png

 

Edited by Guitarguy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Baseball is more universal and would prove to be way more competitive than just about every other sport in the olympics.

 

28b8t40.png

It doesn't strike you as odd that the medal positions were dominated by four countries, two of which are heavily americanised and one which itself is america?

Remind me again how that's more competetive than just about every other sport?

Ignore the medal counts, Baseball, if given the opportunity, would flourish in just about every south and central american nation. Many of the top MLB players come from Venezuela, Dominican Republic and Puerto Rico (yes I know..). Other nations such as Saudi Arabia and Netherlands show perennially competitive young talent in the Little League World Series. Of course, this proves nothing but it shows that the potential for development and interest in the sport is present. Do not discount east Asian nations such as Taiwan, Japan and Korea. Even if this only totals 10 competitive nations, compare it to other current sports:

7 of the last 9 10000m race winners have been Ethiopian or Morrocan, 20 of the last 27 medalists have been Ethiopian, Morrocan or Kenyan.

Each of the last 8 gold medalists in the 3000m steeplechase has been Kenyan. Kenyans have won 17 of the last 24 overall medals in this event.

Americans have won 7 of the last 8 gold medals in the 400m.

Germany has a gold medal in 10 of the last 13 team dressage competitions, it has medalled in all but one.

China has 6 of the last 8 gold medals in women's 10m springboard diving.

America has won 14 of the last 18 gold medals in Men's basketball. Each of the last 5 golds in women's basketball.

Russia has won gold in each of the last 4 events for olympic synchronized swmming, both duet and team.

Korean women have won gold in 7 of the last 8 olympic archery events (individual) and all 6 of such events (team).

The list goes on and on...

Almost every event is dominated by one, or a small group, of nations. Baseball is a sport, similar to football, in which the best talents are taken away from their home nations to play abroad. If there was some way to overcome this issue and possibly halt the MLB season by a week every 4 years, it is possible that the baseball tournament will be extremely competitive. Remember, this sport has nly been in the Olympics 5 times. If we look at the first 5 olympic medalists in a given sport, It is most likely that the majority came from a single nation also.

Edited by Byz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As Guitarguy and Byz have already demonstrated, Olympic baseball is no more dominated by a single nation/region than many other sports. It really should be reinstated.

 

Baseball was dropped because although the sport is mostly popular in the Americas and Asia, the IOC voting committee is mostly European. MLB refusing to halt their season didn't help either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Baseball is more universal and would prove to be way more competitive than just about every other sport in the olympics.

 

28b8t40.png

It doesn't strike you as odd that the medal positions were dominated by four countries, two of which are heavily americanised and one which itself is america?

Remind me again how that's more competetive than just about every other sport?

 

Ignore the medal counts, Baseball, if given the opportunity, would flourish in just about every south and central american nation. Many of the top MLB players come from Venezuela, Dominican Republic and Puerto Rico (yes I know..). Other nations such as Saudi Arabia and Netherlands show perennially competitive young talent in the Little League World Series. Of course, this proves nothing but it shows that the potential for development and interest in the sport is present. Do not discount east Asian nations such as Taiwan, Japan and Korea. Even if this only totals 10 competitive nations, compare it to other current sports:

7 of the last 9 10000m race winners have been Ethiopian or Morrocan, 20 of the last 27 medalists have been Ethiopian, Morrocan or Kenyan.

Each of the last 8 gold medalists in the 3000m steeplechase has been Kenyan. Kenyans have won 17 of the last 24 overall medals in this event.

Americans have won 7 of the last 8 gold medals in the 400m.

Germany has a gold medal in 10 of the last 13 team dressage competitions, it has medalled in all but one.

China has 6 of the last 8 gold medals in women's 10m springboard diving.

America has won 14 of the last 18 gold medals in Men's basketball. Each of the last 5 golds in women's basketball.

Russia has won gold in each of the last 4 events for olympic synchronized swmming, both duet and team.

Korean women have won gold in 7 of the last 8 olympic archery events (individual) and all 6 of such events (team).

The list goes on and on...

Almost every event is dominated by one, or a small group, of nations. Baseball is a sport, similar to football, in which the best talents are taken away from their home nations to play abroad. If there was some way to overcome this issue and possibly halt the MLB season by a week every 4 years, it is possible that the baseball tournament will be extremely competitive. Remember, this sport has nly been in the Olympics 5 times. If we look at the first 5 olympic medalists in a given sport, It is most likely that the majority came from a single nation also.

 

I wasn't stating whether or not baseball should be in, I was just pointing out the flaw in arguing against it's domination, which you then said to strike from the equation. I've nothing against baseball being an olympic sport, I just find the sport incredibly boring.

Edited by Jethraw

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I realize that you need to be in shape to ride a horse, but it is the horse that is performing the olympic caliber athletic ability, not the rider. So, even though you might need to be in shape to compete, you do not need to possess the physical ability to perform in a great physical way. For example, if you take the best rider off a great horse and put him on a bad horse, the rider can help the horse but the rider will not recieve a gold medal.

 

You can't take a horrible rider and put him on a great horse and expect him to do well either. I really don't see where you're going with that, as the horse and the rider go hand in hand. They train and work hard together. Compare it to something like beach volleyball. In both sports the individuals practice and learn how to work with eachother.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I realize that you need to be in shape to ride a horse, but it is the horse that is performing the olympic caliber athletic ability, not the rider. So, even though you might need to be in shape to compete, you do not need to possess the physical ability to perform in a great physical way. For example, if you take the best rider off a great horse and put him on a bad horse, the rider can help the horse but the rider will not recieve a gold medal.

 

You can't take a horrible rider and put him on a great horse and expect him to do well either. I really don't see where you're going with that, as the horse and the rider go hand in hand. They train and work hard together. Compare it to something like beach volleyball. In both sports the individuals practice and learn how to work with eachother.

Yeah, but a horse is a real limiting factor. In equestrian the rider is important, but (without being a horseriding expert) I'd say that the horse is more important than the rider.

 

It's not all a matter of who is the best rider, but also who has the best horse. Even if they were of equal importance, horses would still need to be considered an athlete.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah, but a horse is a real limiting factor. In equestrian the rider is important, but (without being a horseriding expert) I'd say that the horse is more important than the rider.

 

It's not all a matter of who is the best rider, but also who has the best horse. Even if they were of equal importance, horses would still need to be considered an athlete.

I really don't see the significance in anything you're saying, unless you are actually arguing that horses should partake in the introduction of the athletes during the opening and closing ceremonies.

In which case.... :doubt:

 

I mean, nobody is denying the importance of the horse in a horse riding competition.

Edited by Jethraw

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines and Privacy Policy.