Overall, I'd rather live in a world without the Olympics. Their negative consequences for the host nations coupled with the extreme commercialization and minimal career prospects for the athletes long-term, coupled with extreme expectations laid on the people involved, are probably a net harm over the long view.
Also, to compete, you (mostly) have to dope.
I'd rather have no Olympics than the current Olympics. I'd rather have good Olympics than no Olympics.
Overall, I'd rather live in a world without the Olympics. Their negative consequences for the host nations coupled with the extreme commercialization and minimal career prospects for the athletes long-term, coupled with extreme expectations laid on the people involved, are probably a net harm over the long view.
Also, to compete, you (mostly) have to dope.
I'd rather have no Olympics than the current Olympics. I'd rather have good Olympics than no Olympics.
While I mostly agree, I just can't imagine not having anything at all.
While I don't care about countries, I do care about individual achievement. It's hard to imagine a world where we don't know who the fastest person is. Even worse, that incredible amazing fast person is unknown and living a normal life. Meanwhile, we don't get to witness the glory of their existence. Such majesty, a thing of the past?
TL;DR: This is why we can't have nice things. Damnit, let's just have the nice things and get rid of the corruption for once.
All these sports have their own individual world championships and rankings. We know who the best are already. The only thing that makes it different in the olympics is that it only happens every four years, and all at once. Due to supply and demand, these medals are more valuable than any others.
Personally I dislike most things about the olympics, the IOC, the commercialism, etc. But yeah, for most sports, these are the biggest contests and the biggest medals (though obviously not golf or tennis).
Rubin, you know there are other competitions for all of these sports, right?
Those aren't enough.
For individual sports, a lot of them aren't big enough to stand alone. They need to team up with each other to become a thing that gets some eyeballs. Nobody watches gymnastics world championships, but suddenly when it's the Olympics gymnastics, everyone for some reason decides they really like it.
It's an even bigger deal for say, ice hockey. Yeah, there's an IIHF that has a world championship every year. The best players aren't in it because the NHL is way more important. But the Olympics is important and big enough that it gets all the best players in the world to come play. Then you get to see a real world championship that simply would not exist without the evil Olympics.
(Side note: Churbs, didn't the swimming governing body ban those because of prohibitive cost?)
I'm not sure they did - I don't follow the news on it that closely - but if they did, it was after that discussion(and subsequent games) took place, because she wore one that year.
1) What is inherently better about people watching a given sporting event? Why are more eyeballs better?
If you are an athlete, you can't live without spectators. You'll have to do something else. Spectators make being a professional athlete possible.
2) You are basically saying that effective advertisement (like with the Olympics) = a better sporting event. You realize that, right?
Professional sports, and the Olympics, existed for a long time without advertisements. They made money from actual ticket sales. You need spectators, not corporate sponsors.
3) You could have international games for each sport without said games being associated with other, unrelated sports?
Without a critical mass of spectators and money, you won't have a critical mass of participation either. You can't be the best in the world if half the world doesn't show up. If you can't make being an athlete your sole profession, you can't reach maximum performance, and now there's no reason to watch. You want to see the peak of human achievement, not a downgrade. Now that we've had the dream team, we can't go back to amateur college basketball players.
Only huge sports can have international competition that stands alone, such as Soccer (World Cup) which is probably even bigger than the Olympics. Even basketball and baseball aren't big enough for major international competitions on their own. Tennis and Golf, kind of, sort of, but really only in the US/UK/Australia/France.
- There are other venues. - No, professional sports did have advertisements for the sporting events themselves - criers, word of mouth, leaflets, etc. Not sponsorship, but name recognition for the event itself. No one would have known about them otherwise. The Olympics get such viewership because they are widely advertised in ever form of media. Bring up the profile of national and other international games, and they would get more "eyeballs" as well. -There are Olympians who also have other jobs or have to sell themselves to sponsors. If you truly want professional players, then revamping, restructuring, and/or creating new international games would provide this far, far better.
Ultimately, you like the Olympics and find meaning in them. Bully for you, but is that worth displacing the poor, tacitly encouraging doping, promoting nationalism rather than simply having a qualifying event and truly the best of the best participate regardless of their nationality, etc. Even by a purely pitting of the best against the best, the Olympic model is flawed.
He was talking about making money from advertising, not advertising the sport events themselves.
The problem is partly that it is almost impossible to get the general global public to care about any sporting event that isn't the actual (or at least perceived) top. Sure, there was "international football" and a championship, but the NFL players didn't even bother participating, so it was never respected as a serious championship.
The problem is partly that it is almost impossible to get the general global public to care about any sporting event that isn't the actual (or at least perceived) top.
Why should the global community care about a sports event? Does their caring/is the event worth routine displacement of the poor, incredible waste, significant corruption, and decaying, empty facilities that largely go unused?
Local community groups have been swelling with Olympic news, because one of the two new USA gymnastic girls is from our little town in NJ.
The first big development was that she wasn't chosen by the coach for all-around competition (only 3 of the 5 per country are allowed to attempt to qualify, and only 2 can qualify). Outrage ensued because the local girl had 2nd highest score in practice (as if that is the only factor at play). The town parents literally started an online petition, to the fucking Olympic coach, hoping to reverse an already-made decision. Sure, crush some other girl's dream because the girl from your town got enough signatures.
Last night they won the gold as a team. Outrage ensued on Facebook because the old people parents had it spoiled for them prior to primetime...
I've only watched a little bit, but I've found Fencing to be really enjoyable, the football player on the smaller fields is more interesting, and rugby was neat.
I just read an interesting theory that because drug testing is stronger at the Olympics than some normal sporting events, you get different kinds of matchups and finals. So if someone beats a favourite, it might not be because they are now taking drugs, but because the top ranked person isn't taking drugs.
Not saying that's why Djokovic and Serena went out in the early rounds, but hey, it's a fun theory.
I just read an interesting theory that because drug testing is stronger at the Olympics than some normal sporting events, you get different kinds of matchups and finals. So if someone beats a favourite, it might not be because they are now taking drugs, but because the top ranked person isn't taking drugs.
Not saying that's why Djokovic and Serena went out in the early rounds, but hey, it's a fun theory.
At this point any high performing athlete is suspect. Anyone who is accused by even a slightly reliable source is guilty until proven innocent. At this point, exceptional performance is in and of itself evidence of cheating.
Sure. The women's 10,000m race the other day was absolutely nuts. The first place runner smashed a 30 year old record held by someone who admitted to being part of an organized doping program.
While outliers are suspicious, you can't assume guilt on accusations, even if they're credible. Show me a positive test.
The problem is that testing is not even close to perfect. Hell, it's barely adequate. Even the most stringent testing is mediocre at best. If the testing were so great, doping would be a thing of the past.
Comments
Also, to compete, you (mostly) have to dope.
I'd rather have no Olympics than the current Olympics. I'd rather have good Olympics than no Olympics.
While I don't care about countries, I do care about individual achievement. It's hard to imagine a world where we don't know who the fastest person is. Even worse, that incredible amazing fast person is unknown and living a normal life. Meanwhile, we don't get to witness the glory of their existence. Such majesty, a thing of the past?
TL;DR: This is why we can't have nice things. Damnit, let's just have the nice things and get rid of the corruption for once.
Personally I dislike most things about the olympics, the IOC, the commercialism, etc. But yeah, for most sports, these are the biggest contests and the biggest medals (though obviously not golf or tennis).
For individual sports, a lot of them aren't big enough to stand alone. They need to team up with each other to become a thing that gets some eyeballs. Nobody watches gymnastics world championships, but suddenly when it's the Olympics gymnastics, everyone for some reason decides they really like it.
It's an even bigger deal for say, ice hockey. Yeah, there's an IIHF that has a world championship every year. The best players aren't in it because the NHL is way more important. But the Olympics is important and big enough that it gets all the best players in the world to come play. Then you get to see a real world championship that simply would not exist without the evil Olympics.
2) You are basically saying that effective advertisement (like with the Olympics) = a better sporting event. You realize that, right?
3) You could have international games for each sport without said games being associated with other, unrelated sports?
Only huge sports can have international competition that stands alone, such as Soccer (World Cup) which is probably even bigger than the Olympics. Even basketball and baseball aren't big enough for major international competitions on their own. Tennis and Golf, kind of, sort of, but really only in the US/UK/Australia/France.
- No, professional sports did have advertisements for the sporting events themselves - criers, word of mouth, leaflets, etc. Not sponsorship, but name recognition for the event itself. No one would have known about them otherwise. The Olympics get such viewership because they are widely advertised in ever form of media. Bring up the profile of national and other international games, and they would get more "eyeballs" as well.
-There are Olympians who also have other jobs or have to sell themselves to sponsors. If you truly want professional players, then revamping, restructuring, and/or creating new international games would provide this far, far better.
Ultimately, you like the Olympics and find meaning in them. Bully for you, but is that worth displacing the poor, tacitly encouraging doping, promoting nationalism rather than simply having a qualifying event and truly the best of the best participate regardless of their nationality, etc. Even by a purely pitting of the best against the best, the Olympic model is flawed.
The problem is partly that it is almost impossible to get the general global public to care about any sporting event that isn't the actual (or at least perceived) top. Sure, there was "international football" and a championship, but the NFL players didn't even bother participating, so it was never respected as a serious championship.
Local community groups have been swelling with Olympic news, because one of the two new USA gymnastic girls is from our little town in NJ.
The first big development was that she wasn't chosen by the coach for all-around competition (only 3 of the 5 per country are allowed to attempt to qualify, and only 2 can qualify). Outrage ensued because the local girl had 2nd highest score in practice (as if that is the only factor at play). The town parents literally started an online petition, to the fucking Olympic coach, hoping to reverse an already-made decision. Sure, crush some other girl's dream because the girl from your town got enough signatures.
Last night they won the gold as a team. Outrage ensued on Facebook because the old people parents had it spoiled for them prior to primetime...
Not saying that's why Djokovic and Serena went out in the early rounds, but hey, it's a fun theory.
Dodgy, much? Yup!