|
Post by moobs on Aug 14, 2012 9:24:45 GMT
Seeing as the World Cup lasts for about 5 weeks and the Rugby and Cricket World Cups also go on for about 5/6 weeks why do they cram the Olympics into just 2 weeks?
There was so much sport at one time it was hard to keep up and I wouldn't moan if it went on for 3 or 4 weeks.
|
|
|
Post by sheikdjibouti on Aug 14, 2012 10:24:46 GMT
Did you know that in 1908 the Olympic opening ceremony took place on 27th April and the closing ceremony was October 31st?- I think we'd all get a bit bored if they went on for 6 months!
As an aside, the 1940 games were scheduled to be held in Tokyo with the 1944 games due to be held in London? Handing over the Olympic flag would've been a bit tasty . . .
|
|
|
Post by scotchegg on Aug 14, 2012 12:03:13 GMT
I think this makes the Olympics even more special. Where else could you channel hop between the strangely captivating dancing horses of Dressage to the carnage of BMX'ing, with a bit of Taekwondo inbetween?
It was an incredible 2 weeks due to the sheer diversity of events, and this would be watered down if extended for longer.
Having said that, I am missing them already!!
|
|
|
Post by winchesterox on Aug 14, 2012 12:45:56 GMT
It would cost more.
|
|
|
Post by bicesterox on Aug 14, 2012 12:51:01 GMT
2 Weeks is plenty, thats what makes it so good, wall to wall sport from 8.30am [or earlier] till 11pm [or later], but glad its over before the football starts.
|
|
|
Post by Boogaloo on Aug 14, 2012 12:54:21 GMT
The reason for the Football and cricket world cup lasting so long is so that die-hard sports fans can watch literally every game. Personally though, I'm not interested in twiddling my thumbs watching some match between New Zealand and Iran. I'd rather we just keep the momentum moving and get on to the next big game.
Rugby they have a weeks rest so they can let their battered and bruised bodies recover.
|
|
|
Post by leysboy on Aug 14, 2012 16:13:04 GMT
There are alot of sports in the Olympic games, that clearly shouldn't be there, such as Football,Tennis,Basketball.
Take the Boxing for instance, we dont see the Vitaly and Vladimir Klitchko's fighting in the Olympics, so why should we see World Class professionals in the others 3 events above.
If they are to stay in the Olympics then keep it at an Amateur level, like the boxers.
USA dream team ffs, was obvious they were going to win gold, yet it doesn't give anyone else a chance.
The next thing we know they will introduce Ten Pin Bowling ffs
|
|
|
Post by Lone Gunman on Aug 14, 2012 18:19:49 GMT
Spain ran the US pretty close in the B'ball final tbf. The rest of the world is catching up a bit there. Agree it shouldn't be in the Olympics though along with Football and Tennis. Not entirely sure why Golf is appearing next time out either. Its the same situation there as it is with tennis pretty much.
|
|
|
Post by tonto on Aug 14, 2012 23:30:53 GMT
What has squash got to do to get in ? Have they upset the IOC in some way?
|
|
|
Post by jimmycarterxi on Aug 14, 2012 23:44:09 GMT
I've always thought countries can put forward new sports but this has to be agreed by the IOC and the host nation, they then will also have to decide which sport that should replace. I know golf will be played in Rio but I don't know what sport will make way
|
|
|
Post by Boogaloo on Aug 15, 2012 8:43:35 GMT
I've always thought countries can put forward new sports but this has to be agreed by the IOC and the host nation, they then will also have to decide which sport that should replace. I know golf will be played in Rio but I don't know what sport will make way I was rather hoping that we could have pushed for Twenty20 cricket to be included in London 2012. It would have been a good opportunity to sell it to the world. People may say only ten or so nations play cricket - so what. Softball is hardly a global sport either. I also question the 'globalness' of archery and table-tennis which are dominated by a small handful of far-east nations.
|
|
|
Post by tonyw on Aug 15, 2012 9:35:54 GMT
I was rather hoping that we could have pushed for Twenty20 cricket to be included in London 2012. It would have been a good opportunity to sell it to the world. People may say only ten or so nations play cricket - so what. Softball is hardly a global sport either. I also question the 'globalness' of archery and table-tennis which are dominated by a small handful of far-east nations. Well, that's kind of why Softball got dropped from the programme isn't it? Table Tennis is dominated by China, but played at international level by just about everyone. And while Korea are clearly the most awesome at Archery - they only won four out of twelve medals, and Italy, Mexico and the US did all win medals at it as well this summer. The start list for the individual archery competition spanned the entire globe. I think the gap between the proper cricketing nations and everyone else is much wider. France vs. Australia in a first round 20:20 match would not be entertaining.....well, not for sporting reasons anyhow.
|
|
|
Post by SteMerritt on Aug 15, 2012 9:46:17 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Long John Silver on Aug 15, 2012 10:22:54 GMT
Sports where the pinnacle of achievement in it is winning an Olympic title should be in, most others out.
IN: athletics, rowing, gymnastics, track cycling, archery etc.
OUT: football, tennis, golf...
|
|
|
Post by hairy on Aug 15, 2012 14:58:22 GMT
For womans football the Olympics is the pinnacle, its much higher profile than their world cup.
Maybe mens olympic football should be restricted to non - league level players, England C standard say. Would mean a lot more to them.
|
|
|
Post by moobs on Aug 15, 2012 16:27:04 GMT
For womans football the Olympics is the pinnacle, its much higher profile than their world cup. Maybe mens olympic football should be restricted to non - league level players, England C standard say. Would mean a lot more to them. Why don't they do away with the U18 or U21 InterNational competitions and use the Olympics instead?
|
|
|
Post by hairy on Aug 15, 2012 16:29:51 GMT
For womans football the Olympics is the pinnacle, its much higher profile than their world cup. Maybe mens olympic football should be restricted to non - league level players, England C standard say. Would mean a lot more to them. Why don't they do away with the U18 or U21 InterNational competitions and use the Olympics instead? Their is no world under 21 competition to do away with so that could be an idea, just scrap the overage players. Wont matter for GB as qualification comes from under 21 continental competitions so we could never qualify.
|
|
|
Post by Long John Silver on Aug 15, 2012 19:17:42 GMT
For womans football the Olympics is the pinnacle, its much higher profile than their world cup. Maybe mens olympic football should be restricted to non - league level players, England C standard say. Would mean a lot more to them. Why don't they do away with the U18 or U21 InterNational competitions and use the Olympics instead? Any age restricted sport in the Olympics is just a bad idea... football or anything else. Stick to whatever age related championships there are already and just stay out of the Olympics.
|
|