On review, lbb, I think you just answered most of my questions before I even asked them.
The elite can go to the Olympics, sure, but if they also contend for titles whose outcome is determined not in a single event, but over the course of a season or a series, how can you really call the Olympics the "pinnacle of competition"? It can be a very great big deal that everybody wants to win, maybe more than they want to win the [insert season-long sports title here], but it's not a harder competition. It's one event, and in some sports, it's not even the most difficult single event (going back to alpine skiing, again, the Olympic courses are always somewhat easier than the World Cup courses, because the standard to get in the race isn't as high). I don't disagree with any of the above. However, the public perception of most of the olympic sports (team sports excluded, more or less) is that the Olympics are the pinnacle of competition. Speaking of Alpine Skiing, Bodie Miller comes to mind as an example of an athlete who dominated the World Cup only to ingloriously flame out at the Olympics and become a public disgrace (OK, maybe a slight exaggeration, but the guy really made an ass of himself) Also, there is something about the 'do or die" quality of the olympic event. One bad fall during the season doesn't disqualify you. One bad fall at the Olympics and you are done. There is something about competing on the razor's edge that I have always found so appealing about the Olympics.
Well, I hope they keep short track speed skating in the Winter Olympics. Of all the "new" sports that came into the Olympics in the past 20 years, this one is definitely the most entertaining. Individual or team events, it's just go-go-go, and with the occasional crash, it's got that "razor's edge" that cjets mentions. My sister and my mom are heading out to the Vancouver 2010 Olympics (staying with friends, so not too expensive) and they are gunning for tickets to ANY/ALL of the short track speed skating events.
It's got razor's edge, and it's contested on razor edges. For me, what cjets said is exactly it - the Olympics is all about rising to the occasion - it's Whitney Houston's one moment in time (I think I just hit a new low). The Olympic champion skiier verses the winner of the World Cup is like the winner of golf's Open Championship verses the winner of the money list, or the winner of Wimbledon verses the world number one (not that there has been much distinction between those two things in recent times in the men's tournament). The Olympic Games are what I believe you trans-Atlantic types refer to as "balls out" stuff. The potential for such heights of triumph is delivered by the concomitant potential for such depths of despair.
Oh, it's great television, no denying it -- and it's foremost, therefore, in the minds of the television audience who watch most of these sports once every four years. And there's plenty of money in it, too. I'm just saying that if you asked one of the athletes which they thought was the greatest achievement in their sport, there are many sports for which the Olympic gold would not be it -- and at the same time it's not like baseball or tennis, where many/most of the world's best would simply not bother with the Olympics.
Oh, it's great television, no denying it Actually, I'll deny it in a heartbeat. The Olympics are consistently overblown, over-hyped, overly theatrical, and poorly produced. At least here in America they are. I don't know what my fellow SpoFites' experience is overseas, as I don't know who carries the games in different countries, but here, it's absolute crap. Yes, the competition is thrilling, but much like watching a baseball game on Fox, the presentation and commentary is so bad, it hurts one's enjoyment of the games themselves.
On the TV front, the BBC get it just about right I think - it's in-depth enough to give you a real feel for sports you might not know a great deal about without being a geek fest. They also get Michael Johnson (what are the American networks doing letting a British TV station hire him?) who for my money is just the best there is - calm, reasoned observations, backed by the weight of his achievements and that really cut through the hype. Here's a list of all the Olympic sports. For which ones do we reckon the gold medal isn't the one most athletes in the sport would want most in their collection? I've gone with Gold if they would, and no if they wouldn't (in my anything-but-humble opinion): Aquatics - Gold Archery - Gold Athletics - Gold Badminton - Gold Baseball - No (and no longer in) Basketball - No (I know this is a big one for non-American players, but I still think the pinnacle is the NBA and the WNBA, no matter where you're from) Boxing - No (although maybe it is for the amateur) Canoe / kayak - I suspect Gold, but ask the author of the FPP! Cycling - Gold for all but the road events (which I suspect would be second tier to a TDF win) Equestrian - Gold Fencing - Gold (from the horse's mouth) Football - No (the World Cup is definitely bigger for men - is the Olympic tournament more important for the female athletes than their World Cup Goddam?) Gymnastics - Gold Handball - Gold Hockey (field) - Gold ("Where were the Germans?And frankly, who cares?") Judo - Gold (or black) Modern Pentathlon - Gold Rowing - Gold Sailing - Gold Shooting - Gold Softball - I don't have a clue - I know an Aussie who nearly made their Olympic team and said the Olympics was the biggest thing for them, but is there a World Series equivalent in the US that surpasses the Olympic tournament? Table Tennis - Gold Taekwondo - Gold Tennis - No (second tier to all the majors for men and women) Triathlon - Gold Volleyball - Gold Weightlifting - Gold Wrestling - Gold Biathlon - Gold Bobsleigh - Gold Curling - Gold Ice Hockey - Gold (tough call) Luge - Gold Skating - Gold Skiing - Gold (waiting for a counter argument there)
Actually, I'll deny it in a heartbeat. The Olympics are consistently overblown, over-hyped, overly theatrical, and poorly produced. At least here in America they are. Can we settle for, "It's television that millions of people eat up with a spoon"?
Football - No (the World Cup is definitely bigger for men - is the Olympic tournament more important for the female athletes than their World Cup Goddam?) i'm going to say they are close to being equal in importance, with an edge to the World Cup, only because the tournament is a bit older and more teams play. but to go back to a point that dame also made, it about exposure as well. these are really the only 2 tournaments that get any kind of airtime for women's soccer. so, yeah, i would think they place just as much importance on the olympics as they do the world cup because they can't afford not to. Softball - I don't have a clue ...but is there a World Series equivalent in the US that surpasses the Olympic tournament? there's an annual world cup type event. i'd say olympic gold would be the "pinnacle" because, again, it's the only time their sport gets that much exposure.
Good list, JJ. My only quibble: Basketball - No (I know this is a big one for non-American players, but I still think the pinnacle is the NBA and the WNBA, no matter where you're from) This is a tough call. No doubt almost all players in the U.S. value high acheivement in the NBA over an Olympic gold medal. But this really reflects valuing financial remuneration higher than actual achievement, as well as continued American ignorance of the high level of basketball talent in the rest of the world. And I think it is outweighed by the thousands of players in other countries - including countries with professional leagues of their own - for whom Olympic gold is indeed the pinnacle. Also, since U.S. teams are no longer totally dominant in Olympic and World Championship competitions, its much harder to defend the idea that the NBA champion is the de facto best team in the world.
Skiing - Gold (waiting for a counter argument there) I'd say it depends on where you're from, and what you care about the most. In Europe, ski racing is much bigger than it is here, and a top ski racer can get very lucrative endorsements for products of all kinds. Someone who wins the World Cup, or does well on the World Cup circuit, is going to be a hotter prospect than someone who wins Olympic gold, although the gold's not trivial. OTOH, if you're from the US or Canada, Olympic gold is your best shot at big money and some name recognition. So if the money and the fame is what matters, and you're from the US, Olympic gold would be the pinnacle -- otherwise, probably not. This is not to say, btw, that Olympic gold doesn't matter to Europeans -- it does, a lot. When Michaela Dorfmeister finally won gold in Torino, at the end of a hugely successful career in which she'd won just about everything else, she was ecstatic...but if she'd had to pick between that and the World Cup, I think it would have been no contest.
Ice Hockey - Gold (tough call) It wasn't "Gold" when the USSR was sending "pros" but the rest of the world was sending "amateurs". The moment the NHL took a break from their schedule and the truly "best of the best" showed up, it became "Gold". If the NHL reverses course and doesn't take a break, it'll still probably be "Gold", only because the truly best players (from all nations) will be in the NHL at the time, so every nation will be back on equal footing.
Softball - I don't have a clue - I know an Aussie who nearly made their Olympic team and said the Olympics was the biggest thing for them, but is there a World Series equivalent in the US that surpasses the Olympic tournament? This one is tricky. There isn't really a World Series type of championship in the United States that would take precedent over the Olympics. However, the level of talent between the United States and the rest of the world in softball is quite large. If I'm correct there was a collumn/FPP/discussion about this before.
Why is Equestrian stuff an olympic sport? I believe the riders are interchangeable and it depends solely on how the horse was trained. And what is that dressage all about. A horse doesn't walk, run or trot like that.
Why is Equestrian stuff an olympic sport? Tradition. If you take a look at the info on olympic.org, equestrian sports were first included in 1900 -- in other words, since the second modern Olympics. It derived from the military cavalry tradition, which used to be a very big deal, and obviously is much diminished now. I believe the riders are interchangeable and it depends solely on how the horse was trained. Never been on a horse, have you?
Never been on a horse, have you Or thrown off one, either. Dressage is boring, and so is showjumping. But I was at the cross country part of the 3DE in Sydney 2000, and it was fantastic, especially up close.
Folks, football is never going to be dropped from the Olympics if the IOC has any say in the matter. It's got nothing to do with any of the reasons you guys are arguing over; there is only one motivating factor: money. Football is always the biggest drawing event at the Olympics and always will be, unless they play the games in tiny stadia. IOC ain't going to kill that golden egg laying goose. FIFA has talked about withdrawing from the Olympic games, though, although that's mostly a bargaining ploy. They probably want a bigger slice of the Olympic money pie. Also, Olympic football is an under-23 event, so it is not comparable to the World Cup. The IOC would like FIFA to make the Olympic gold medal equal to the World Cup, but FIFA will not do this. Once amateurism went away from the Olympics, FIFA made the football gold medal its unofficial U-23 World Cup. FIFA isn't going to allow its World Cup to be devalued nor will it allow the Olympic gold medal to become the equal of the World Cup.
