Related Posts
Pro
More Posts
Early 30s, Female, Texas. Indian Ethnicity. HMU!
Additional Posts in Consulting
How can I get into board advisory positions?
What are the best Sales books y’all read?
Rising Star
Rising Star
New to Fishbowl?
Download the Fishbowl app to
unlock all discussions on Fishbowl.
unlock all discussions on Fishbowl.
Chief
Because every stroke is incredibly different, requires different technique, different muscles, etc. Running is the same way - there are a million events for runners all requiring different skill sets. Soccer is a team sport that requires different techniques/skills at the same time from different players to be successful. They aren’t comparable.
@KPMG1 I think the main argument both for and against is status quo bias.
I don't like doing things just because we've always done them this way. We can see from the data that these different distances and strokes aren't that different of skills or require markedly different physical attributes. So why have 3 of the same event, just because they look slightly different? If we want to know who the best sprint swimmer is, just do the 100m freestyle. If we want to find the best long distance swimmer, add longer swims. It would be more interesting and allow for more different athletes to compete if swimming differentiated the distance more (like running) and the stroke less.
People have an argument to keep the events we have because we've had them for a long time and they like them.
The Olympic committee regularly kicks sports out because they aren't competitive enough, e.g., softball isn't a sport most Olympics. I would argue that having a bunch events that one person wins should fall under the same, lack of competition standard.
No, swimming is not the same as running. In running, the distances vary by greater magnitudes to the point where the difference between aerobic/anaerobic thresholds (endurance/strength) means the same runner doesn’t win all of the medals . The closest is the 100 and 200 meter where you may see the same runner but those are closer to swimming differentials.
Agree with OP though about so many medals and we could do away with relays perhaps.
The sport exists and then they still choose which events to bring to the olympics. For example the women’s 1500 is an event that is typically raced in the sport, but new to the olympics this year. Idk why this gets you so upset. We get two athletes and one relay across the events. The performance of our swimmers is incredible to be winning two medal in many events. Didn’t realize their success in medal count would be this upsetting.
Gotta dominate Olympics with those golds in swimming, gymnastics and track
M2. From Quora on British performance in Olympics:
It’s not an accident but is a result of huge investment over twenty years after our dismal performance in Atlanta in 1996 (one gold)
Now 20% of Britain’s National Lottery proceeds is pumped into supporting sports in the UK (Over £330 million a year). This provides three quarters of the funding to UK sports. The vast majority of this goes into our top performance programme.
On top of that, the authorities in Britain have decided to concentrate our efforts in those sports where Britain has a real chance of winning medals. There is no funding available for sports (like volleyball, basketball or table tennis) where we don’t. The more medals, the more funding, the more medals. In 2012 our gymnasts beat their medal target (all sports have targets) and as a result got 30% more funding for this Olympics. Guess what, we started winning golds.
In sports like cycling, we concentrate on the four year Olympic cycle and don’t, for example, bother with peaking for things like world championships (which the Australians and French haven’t understood, wondering why we did so well in the Olympics but not so well in the last few world championships). This is an Olympics focussed programme.
The facilities of 2012 are less of a factor (many were temporary) but the support and infrastructure behind it in sports science, technology and professional coaching and management is key.
We have dropped, at last, our random amateur approach to sport and are doing what the Australians have been doing for decades.
Britain is a G8 developed nation and we are at last performing where we should be: in the top five (no Russia, of course, this year). We are winning 50% more medals than equivalent countries like Germany and France who, I am sure, could do the same if they wished to spend the money. Germany and France always used to be well ahead of the UK in the Olympics medal table, for example, until recently.
You didn’t play sports did you?
I did a lot of sports. But even if you play a team sport I think you’d understand how there are different events in other sports, hence why I said OP didn’t play at all.
Same could be said for running, weights, and a lot of other sports 🤷♀️
Each event is just different and requires completely different training. Which event would you choose? Why would it be more important to qualify swimming capabilities than others?
Weights is not the same. They have different weight categories and the same athlete can’t qualify for multiple. Same for track. Swimming is the only one where a Michael Phelps can bag so many medals in one year
Lol I am still trying to figure out why it annoys me this much.
I did play /watch soccer growing up. Obviously wasn’t good enough or I wouldn’t be here.
I think a part of it is that (I think) it’s quite politicized.
The original Olympics (i just did a google search so may not be a 100%) had track, weights, wrestling. How on earth did swimming make it, and not just make it, but make it all the way to the top?
If we’re including sports on the basis of how many people on this earth play / watch it, why isn’t cricket on there? They have new formats that are shorter than tennis matches. Or golf? Bowling? How tf is skateboarding on there.
I just think it’s arbitrary and also unfair to other athletes. Like, make the process transparent and publish qualification criteria for sports.
We probably don't have cricket because it would be unlikely to be the premier national team competition. The Olympics doesn't like to have a sport if the Olympics are the highest prize for national teams.
It is a problem for Men's soccer. They try to fix it by making it the premier under 23 tournament but it doesn't really work.
They might also deem it to be not competitive enough. If only 1 or 2 teams have a shot at winning, they don't like to add it to the Olympics. There are exceptions for growing sports that they think might become competitive, e.g., snowboarding, or that are entrenched Olympic sports that become less competitive, basketball after the pros started playing.
Same with track then?