[QUOTE=FEIwannabe;3470884]
I know everyone dis-es rhythmic gymnastics. It is corney, but there’s something about them that seems like they’re a really old sport. I mean I can imagine stuff like that going on in ancient Greece or by the Minoans. And I like that tie to the past - even if it’s only in my brain.[/QUOTE]
Personally, I think rythmic gymnastics is beautiful. 
[QUOTE=Mozart;3471522]
I wonder if the dressage results are being talked about anywhere but horse bb’s. Subjectively judged sports are never easy for the outsider but this year’s dressage has been particularly challenging. I had a lot riding (but not dressage riding) friends say “but how can you win the silver when the horse was resisting in two tests” You can tell them “but it was just one movement” but when it is mystifying even to other horse people…not really a good sign. And I say this as someone who loves watching dressage.[/QUOTE]
You should have used the example of the Decathlon, then everybody understands. 
Wow 2 years a member of an Equestrian forum, over 1400 posts, and telling the world that it all is very boring.
Well- it is boring for me. It is lovely to watch a few freestyles or a test or two, but after a while, it gets boring, especially when reduced to a screen, and especially when the difference between a gold medal test and a 10th place test is only apparent to very few. It’s damn hard to tell if that piaffe is spectacular or not. I watched a few- the people from the US, Anky, Isabel. I would not watch again. And I regularly scribe for dressage judges. Sorry- it just doesn’t translate for me. I imagine that your audience is simply very small if even people marginally involved in the sport can’t make it through more than 5 or 6 tests without yawning.
What the heck do you do to attract non- fans “Honey- look, Salierno is so through and free in his extensions” or “Oh My, Steffen’s horse is not sitting his piaffe - hope he gets it right the next time or no bronze!”
I think in general, exciting sports to WATCH involve things that are objective not subjective or situations where quality is easily apparent to the viewer with no experience.
So is ballroom dancing–but a sport? C’mon. :rolleyes:
I think it would be really unfortunate if decisions on what to include/not include in the olympics were made based primarily on how exciting they were to watch on television. I understand that the main goal of broadcasters is to attract viewers, and in order to do that they need to air exciting, easily-comprehended sports, but that is NOT the main goal of the Olympics. IMHO, there are several Olympic sports that are tricky to understand for the average person (both equestrian and other), and while they may be “boring” or strange from the perspective of someone sitting in front of a TV, that doesn’t mean that their athletes shouldn’t have the opportunity to compete at the highest level. The Olympics are about excelling in a sport, striving for the highest level of skill, and competing against equally talented athletes who are all reaching for the same goal-- not about drawing the largest crowd of couch potatoes. Just one girl’s opinion!
[QUOTE=Eclectic Horseman;3471972]
So is ballroom dancing–but a sport? C’mon. :rolleyes:[/QUOTE]
you obviously have no clue about the enormous strength, control, and flexibility required of a rhythmic gymnast. try to see if you have the strength to lift your leg above knee level, let alone above your head. Not to mention the cardiac fitness needed to get through just one of their routines. It takes years and years of intense daily training - so yes, it’s a sport; and a very intense one.
Your comment is the equivalent of one a non-rider would make about dressage : “It’s not a sport, because obviously the horse is doing all the work.”
Golf is probably one of the most techniclly challenging sports there is and has a much bigger draw internationally then 90% of the Olympic sports. If they do bring golf on, they would most likely use existing courses so the draw for the IOC is they could add a sport w/o a lot of added expenses. Most Olympic cities have plenty of courses to host a big event. (London for example would have multiple courses good enough to host the games).
It is not the players pushing for golf to be in the Games, it’s the commisioner of the PGA Tour. It probably get high ratings behind basketball and soccer. And it’s all about ratings.
But nothing has been confirmed yet. But I can see the IOCs point - draw large crowds without much added expense. (using existing courses and the PGA Tours equipment) Can anyone on here name another sport that has these advantages???
PS. Golfers like Greg Norman, Gary Player and Nick Faldo were working out long before Tiger was. Just because they don’t work out traditionally doesn’t mean they aren’t fit. PGA Tour golfers walk well over 1000 miles per year. I would say that today 90% of pros have a work out routine in addition to the 8 hours a day they spend on the course.
the sports for 2012 were already voted on 3 years ago; softball and baseball were voted out, and no new ones were voted in. disciplines/events within the 26 remaining sports get voted on next year. so according to all that I’ve seen published (and IOC procedure) there will be only 26 sports in London, that’s all. but there still could be new disciplines and events and surely will be.
golf is one of 7 sports lobbying for inclusion in 2016 (that includes baseball and softball trying to get back in). http://www.golf.com/golf/tours_news/article/0,28136,1735135,00.html
so I don’t know what the hell Rogge is talking about as Eventing (a discipline) could still get voted out for London, and Equestrian (the whole sport) could still get voted out for 2016. Not likely but still possible. Perhaps he was a bit tired/drunk at the point of this supposed interview? of course he does worship the princess no matter what she pulls, so Equestrian should be safe for awhile.
[QUOTE=spotted mustang;3472248]
you obviously have no clue about the enormous strength, control, and flexibility required of a rhythmic gymnast. try to see if you have the strength to lift your leg above knee level, let alone above your head. Not to mention the cardiac fitness needed to get through just one of their routines. It takes years and years of intense daily training - so yes, it’s a sport; and a very intense one.
Your comment is the equivalent of one a non-rider would make about dressage : “It’s not a sport, because obviously the horse is doing all the work.”[/QUOTE]
Thank you.
Another team sport that has limited appeal is Field Hockey, which is played at the top level in only a few countries. It never seems to be on the Olympic bubble. Who plays field hockey besides Indians and Pakistanis?
Just checked. It seems to be a European and former British colony sport, with the addition of China.
I’d love to see lacrosse make the Olympics, but it’s probably too North American.
Ballroom dancing cannot be compared with rythmic gymnastics. Try
ice dancing more like it. Trouble is, people are so polarized, they cannot see the other side. If a sport is done world wide, instead of just a few select nations, they will get to stay in - that’s why it seems odd about baseball being cut. (Also, big confession here, I was not raised in this country and do not know the diff between baseball and softball - anyone?) I think some of us horsepeople would be quite happy to have our own “Olympics” separate from the other Big O. Seemed to work quite well in HK. Often times the horse people do not stay in the village and miss out on the camaraderie aspect and world coming together part. I love the tv coverage of sports I would not normally watch and have loved allowing myself the luxury of too much television during the last l6 days.
I had a mental image of Ian Millar walking through the Olympic village, and all the young athletes asking each other, “Is that your grandpa? How did he get past security?” :lol:
Softball uses a slightly bigger, softer ball, and the pitcher does not throw overhand, so the ball comes to the batter more slowly than in baseball. I think. I’m sure it’s more complicated than that, but…
I wouldn’t be sad to see most of the team sports (basketball, softball, soccer, etc.) not in the Olympics. I feel like there are so many highly visible forums and world-class tournaments catering to those teams/sports and making sure their competition is watched. Also, those sports have a lot of extremely high-paid professionals. I think the Olympics is a great medium for people to get involved and passionate about supporting very talented individuals, who otherwise would often not be known to the general public. I guess when I think of the Olympics, I think of a phenomenal individual, not a soccer team. For some reason table tennis bothers me less than soccer!!!
Anyone who thinks ballroom dancing isn’t athletic has never done it (and no, learning to do the hang n’ shuffle for senior prom doesn’t count.) I’ve lost more weight dancing than I ever did horseback riding. There’s a reason most of us who do it competitively have intense supporting fitness routines. You even get a slight split between styles in things that favor stamina (Standard, Smooth and New Vogue) and those that favor sprinters (Latin and Rhythm).
Rhythmic Gymnastics–I hate it for its contortionist freak-show aspect, but I wouldn’t call it a nonsport.
And I can say yes, other people are talking about the dressage results, at least they are on one figure-skating board I frequent. Mostly in a WTF?!? context. They not only don’t get what’s being judged, they don’t get why a horse who was acting bad still won (until you explain the whole points on other elements thing and then “Oh, it really IS just like skating.”)
A note also from the skating world–a big reason that figures began to be downgraded in importance was not just that they’re boring on TV–but that htey were the easiest place for judges to collude and cheat.
Comparison of baseball and softball (Olympic softball is fast pitch):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_baseball_and_softball
It pretty much boils down to what MHM said: softball uses a bigger, softer ball that’s pitched underhanded. So you see much slower mph for the ball in softball. There are also only 7 innings (as opposed to 9 in baseball) and the infield (including distance to the pitching mound) is smaller. Plays in softball seem to take a bit longer, but the game doesn’t usually last much longer because there are fewer innings. Oh yeah. While getting hit with a softball still hurts like the dickens and causes a huge bruise, it’s not even close to getting hit with by a baseball! :lol:
it was pretty much mandatory in my midwestern high school, and pretty serious business. I objected to having to play a sport in a dress. But a friend of mine got a full scholarship to UNC-Chapel Hill for it.
The US womens team qualified for the Olympics in Beijing, the first time since '96 (and that was a host country slot, before that it was '88 I think)
[QUOTE=vineyridge;3472472]
Another team sport that has limited appeal is Field Hockey, which is played at the top level in only a few countries. It never seems to be on the Olympic bubble. Who plays field hockey besides Indians and Pakistanis?
Just checked. It seems to be a European and former British colony sport, with the addition of China. [/QUOTE]
This would mean that ONLY the America’s don’t play hockey - pretty much an International sport then.
Baseball is only played N and S America and Japan really. They call it the World Series but the rest of the world wonders… well, what “world” are they thinking of? :lol:
Actually, I think cricket probably has a bigger following worldwide in terms of countries who play it. Cricket is huge in India, Pakistan, Australia, the West Indies, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, New Zealand, the UK, Europe, S Africa and Zimbabwe, with the Netherlands, Argentina, Nepal and Kenya having well established amateur divisions.
So, while you might think cricket a daft idea for an Olympic sport, it’s probably more likely than baseball and certainly softball. Just change the name to “British Baseball” and everyone will love it! :rolleyes::lol:
for my money, it’s the little odd sports that make the olympics so interesting. If they only had sports of “broad appeal”, the olympics would be booooring! I can watch soccer, tennis, or basketball all day long.
But when do I get to see diving, or rhythmic gymnastics, or weightlifting, or kayaking, or luge and all those oddities except at the olympics? Sure, some of them are weird, and some I don’t understand, but as long as someone enjoys them, I say, bring 'em on! Synchronized swimming, for pete’s sake - how much weirder does it get? But those ladies do look fit, I’ll say that much.
Hurrah for weirdness, oddity and diversity. To hell with broad appeal. Bring on break dancing, ultimate frisbee and skijoring! Let’s have juggling! Vaulting! Rock climbing!
Of course they tried cricket in the Olympics before - France and England were the only ones with a team then and the single game lasted two days…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cricket_in_the_Olympics
The French team consisted of British living in France, so really it was British against British…
The Olympic sports are decided on historical significance, financial obligation to put on the event, time it takes for the event, popularity, and spectator draw. The last two are basically the same. This is why Three Day Eventing changed to the short format - they were almost kicked out because the sport is not all that popular, takes a while and the financial cost and space required were very prohibitive.
Golf - almost every country has a golf course and if the course is changed or a new course is made specifically for the Olympics, it can be used again.
With the Equestrian sports, for the events that happened in the arena, the race track had to be converted and will need to be changed back to a race track. The cross country course needs to be turned back into a golf course - there really isn’t any reusable options. Olympic stadiums? Some are monuments, some host other games and events. I have swam in an Olympic (not Olympic sized, an actual Olympic) pool before. I have yet to see an Eventing cross country course continue to be a course after the Olympics - enlighten me if I am wrong.
Soccer (football), as far as I know, is much more popular worldwide than baseball. While it does not take up nearly as much room to play, both baseball and softball are slow moving games that take a long time to play. Football is one hour - not 9 innings that may take 2 hours or 10 hours.
As far as synchronized swimming goes - you try holding your breath while staying in unison with a bunch of other people for a minimum of what 30 seconds they are underwater at a time?
By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy. You may also receive promotional emails from The Chronicle of the Horse. You can opt out at any time.
For Customers
Company
Terms of Use
