Most ridiculous Olympic sport
- Thread starter Sunny
- Start date
Ah yes Rhythmic gymastics. Another highlight of the games!
synchronised swimming was another. Walking is also a bit iffy.
Re the Olympics I'm a bit like yer one in the Financial Regulator ad - "I've a marginal interest in that". I'd happily take Terms & Conditions for a walk during 95% of it. Irish competitors in nearly anything and boxing only are about the limit of what I watch (plus the 100 mtr pharamceutical dash).
Re the Olympics I'm a bit like yer one in the Financial Regulator ad - "I've a marginal interest in that". I'd happily take Terms & Conditions for a walk during 95% of it. Irish competitors in nearly anything and boxing only are about the limit of what I watch (plus the 100 mtr pharamceutical dash).
Most pointless sport in Olympic Games has to be Curling (OK OK, it's a winter event but still).
The sports for this Olympics are: Number of events in parentheses.
The sports for this Olympics are: Number of events in parentheses.
- Aquatics
- Diving (8)
- Swimming (34)
- Synchronized swimming (2)
- Water polo (2)
- Archery (4)
- Athletics (47)
- Badminton (5)
- Baseball (1)
- Basketball (2)
- Boxing (11)
- Canoeing (16)
- Cycling (18)
- Equestrian (6)
- Fencing (10)
- Field hockey (2)
- Football (2)
- Gymnastics (18)
- Handball (2)
- Judo (14)
- Modern pentathlon (2)
- Rowing (14)
- Sailing (11)
- Shooting (15)
- Softball (1)
- Table tennis (4)
- Taekwondo (8)
- Tennis (4)
- Triathlon (2)
- Volleyball (4)
- Weightlifting (15)
- Wrestling (18).
I don't know. I would watch and play alot of them!
One other thing that annoys me apart from the ridiculous sports is the presence of big time professional sports like tennis where the players involved would gladly swap a win in this olympics for one in a grand slam event. Players in these sports don't get judged on the amount of olympic medals they win so why are they there. Roger Federer had to leave the olympic village because the other athletes were treating him like such a celebrity.
Ceist Beag
Registered User
- Messages
- 1,442
Absolutely - same with basball, basketball and football, what's the point of these being in there? The Olympics should be the ultimate competition for any sport in it - for these it's far from that!
Watch and playing them is one thing, but to me, an Olympic sport is something more than just a widely played sport. It should be about the extremes of fitness, strength, skill and stamina imo.
I think there are sports like table tennis, synchronised swimming etc. that are getting the prestige of being on the same level as the 100m sprint, discus, rowing, weightlifting etc by having an Olympic medal up for grabs.
I think there are sports like table tennis, synchronised swimming etc. that are getting the prestige of being on the same level as the 100m sprint, discus, rowing, weightlifting etc by having an Olympic medal up for grabs.
What about boxing? I cant understand why they are allowed to divide it into weights. Surely there should be just 1 boxing medal and anyone of any weight can enter?
As for the "there needs to be weights because the smaller boxers would get killed by the heavy weights...." argument made by the boxing fraternity. If we extended this strange logic to all sports, then we'd have high jump & basketball medals for various categories of small people who cant jump as high as tall people etc. Or what about 100m sprint for slow people
As far as I can see, this is just a racket to get more medals.
As for the "there needs to be weights because the smaller boxers would get killed by the heavy weights...." argument made by the boxing fraternity. If we extended this strange logic to all sports, then we'd have high jump & basketball medals for various categories of small people who cant jump as high as tall people etc. Or what about 100m sprint for slow people
As far as I can see, this is just a racket to get more medals.
Anything where judges award points for style is not a sport.
It may be difficult, it may be a physical activity, but its not a sport unless the winner can be determined by something measurable like length, height, time, goals, score, duration etc. Things like ice dancing, diving etc. are art forms, not sports.
One which is particularly ludicrious is ski jumping. You would think that this would be like the long jump - whoever jumps the longest distance wins. But no, they have judges who give style marks and so the longest jumper doesnt win. Whats the point?
It may be difficult, it may be a physical activity, but its not a sport unless the winner can be determined by something measurable like length, height, time, goals, score, duration etc. Things like ice dancing, diving etc. are art forms, not sports.
One which is particularly ludicrious is ski jumping. You would think that this would be like the long jump - whoever jumps the longest distance wins. But no, they have judges who give style marks and so the longest jumper doesnt win. Whats the point?
Yeah I agree. Style is for dancing contests.
What about boxing? I cant understand why they are allowed to divide it into weights. Surely there should be just 1 boxing medal and anyone of any weight can enter?
As for the "there needs to be weights because the smaller boxers would get killed by the heavy weights...." argument made by the boxing fraternity. If we extended this strange logic to all sports, then we'd have high jump & basketball medals for various categories of small people who cant jump as high as tall people etc. Or what about 100m sprint for slow people
As far as I can see, this is just a racket to get more medals.
I suppose its because the talent of the smaller guys would never been seen. Technically and entertainment-wise these guys are/can be better than heavyweights but you'd never get to see them because they'd get decapitated by a heavyweight - even a bad heavyweight.
I think your argument holds up a bit better for horseracing (why should a quick horse be penalised - no obvious physical difference (height, size, weight etc) that should put them into a separate class?).
You could also apply it to golf (albeit amateur only) - why should better golfers have it made harder for them when they have no obvious advantage over other golfers (other than talent - which is what is supposed to be prized in sport) - the reason here is that it makes it more competitive, most amateur competitions wouldnt be much fun if no handicaps were applied.
Q - is surfing a sport? Not IMHO, its a pasttime, no combative element to it (you dont physically oppose anyone) and no obvious scoring system.