Athletics 2024 Discussion Thread

[NearPup 3,116]

52 minutes ago, phelps said:

I do really love that woman! 

 

these are the only lines on this question that make sense

 

I just can't stand anymore those *choose your favourite definition* that try and ruin all the sports without knowing anything about them

 

stop IOC, stop Bach, stop "agenda 2020", stop "gender equality", stop the TV networks...stop all those idiots and all this bullshit!!! 

Not sure how pursuing gender equality is "bullshit".

 

There has been a lot of negativity around agenda 2020. Certainly a lot of sport programs got cut to the bone, or even further, sports like wrestling and ski jumping are really suffering from too few quotas for instance. The obsession with mixed events is a little odd. And the general worship of the 10,500/2,900 athlete limit is a problem. But there has been a lot of positives too. Having a more gender balance program is extremely positive. And the modernization of the program has mostly been a good thing, while I am against the elimination of some traditional events and some of the aditions that have come in, it's pretty clear that the Olympics needed to start adding sports like skateboarding and cricket to stay relevant. And of course reducing cost is necessary for the survival of the Olympics.

 

But yes, we need people who are much more in touch with reality than the Olympic gold medalist from 1976.

[Biathlonfan 633]

8 minutes ago, NearPup said:

Not sure how pursuing gender equality is "bullshit".

 

There has been a lot of negativity around agenda 2020. Certainly a lot of sport programs got cut to the bone, or even further, sports like wrestling and ski jumping are really suffering from too few quotas for instance. The obsession with mixed events is a little odd. And the general worship of the 10,500/2,900 athlete limit is a problem. But there has been a lot of positives too. Having a more gender balance program is extremely positive. And the modernization of the program has mostly been a good thing, while I am against the elimination of some traditional events and some of the aditions that have come in, it's pretty clear that the Olympics needed to start adding sports like skateboarding and cricket to stay relevant. And of course reducing cost is necessary for the survival of the Olympics.

 

But yes, we need people who are much more in touch with reality than the Olympic gold medalist from 1976.

The genders are not equal in sports.Men perform better in them because biology,there faster in running,swimming,jump longer,Throw farther,you get the idea. Therefore when speaking generally more people on average are more excited to watch their events,which results in better pay,and more attention for future competitions.By all means you are free to advocate that the women start throwing a 2kg discus after the Olympics but that will also mean much worse results,and people would be even less interested]. i fail to see the problem,nor do i[and i assure you many other people,including WOMEN] care about there being an equal number of men and women at the Olympics,i fail to see how other than getting brownie points from certain people,that really adds to anything,If more women don't want to do professional sport because ''not enough pay/not enough attention'' too damn bad,they can do something else,odds are they wouldn't have achieved anything remarkable in sport with those beliefs anyway.That's why gender Equality in sports is bullshit,because it doesn't exist,and artificially making it exist will not force people to watch more women's sport,more likely they will turn it off. And no in no way,shape or form should SKATEBOARDING be an Olympic sport,that just makes the Olympics look dumb/childish,but it is what it is,the Olympics will certainly not become more relevant because Skateboarding is on the program,what kind of thought process is that ?

[Grassmarket 3,537]

2 hours ago, Olympian1010 said:

 

To play “Devil’s advocate” on this issue, would the changes to the event actually make it about the “longest jump,” rather than the most accurate takeoff?

The problem is that globally you are creating two different sports. The high-tech 20% will compete to one set of rules, the low-tech poor 80% will compete to another.  What good does that do?

[Olympian1010 8,053]

36 minutes ago, Grassmarket said:

The problem is that globally you are creating two different sports. The high-tech 20% will compete to one set of rules, the low-tech poor 80% will compete to another.  What good does that do?

I do agree that is a major concern, if not huge problem, with the proposed format. The beauty of athletics is how accessible it is globally. World Athletics needs to make sure it stays that way (and the super shoes and world rankings format are already cause for concern in that regard). 

[Olympian1010 8,053]

59 minutes ago, Biathlonfan said:

The genders are not equal in sports. Men perform better in them because biology,there faster in running,swimming,jump longer,Throw farther,you get the idea. Therefore when speaking generally more people on average are more excited to watch their events,which results in better pay,and more attention for future competitions.

I mean...there are a lot people on this forum who follow both genders and find equal interest (or at least enough interest) in both sports. Plus, women sports have been putting up great broadcast numbers in the United States, especially when given more optimal broadcast slots.

 

1 hour ago, Biathlonfan said:

By all means you are free to advocate that the women start throwing a 2kg discus after the Olympics but that will also mean much worse results, and people would be even less interested]. i fail to see the problem,nor do i[and i assure you many other people,including WOMEN] care about there being an equal number of men and women at the Olympics, i fail to see how other than getting brownie points from certain people,that really adds to anything

I don't think equally, or better phrased "equity," means we need to ignore biological difference necessarily. You can have discus for both genders and have a slight weight difference. However, if a majority of female athletes wanted the weights equalized, then I don't see a problem really.

 

Women also constitute a non-insignificant proportion of the global population. As someone with a degree in public relations, I'd argue the available research doesn't really support excluding large segments of your potential audience. Generally, not a great idea commercially or socially (at least in most circumstances).

 

1 hour ago, Biathlonfan said:

If more women don't want to do professional sport because ''not enough pay/not enough attention'' too damn bad,they can do something else,odds are they wouldn't have achieved anything remarkable in sport with those beliefs anyway.

I also don't think it's crazy to request equally pay (or earning potential, or business rights, etc.) when doing (essentially) the same the job. Yes, I understand the men's leagues rake in a lot more money, but that's also related to have less historical barriers to practice sport, getting more broadcast time (and better time slots), and more media exposure. 

 

There are a lot of male athletes who complain about their pay, but still do some pretty remarkable things in sport. I think the last part of that thought is pretty moot.

 

1 hour ago, Biathlonfan said:

That's why gender Equality in sports is bullshit, because it doesn't exist, and artificially making it exist will not force people to watch more women's sport,more likely they will turn it off.

I mean...again...I think there may be some policy related reasons for that.

 

1 hour ago, Biathlonfan said:

And no in no way,shape or form should SKATEBOARDING be an Olympic sport,that just makes the Olympics look dumb/childish

I think there are also sports many American (or Japanese, or Ghanan, or Indian, etc.) viewers feel the same way about, but the beauty of the Olympics is the diversity of what's offered (at least in my opinion).

 

Skateboarding might not make the Olympics "more relevant," but I think same could probably be applied conversely on that point (and if people have a problem with athletes being too young, that can be tweaked of course).

[Grassmarket 3,537]

6 hours ago, Olympian1010 said:

I do agree that is a major concern, if not huge problem, with the proposed format. The beauty of athletics is how accessible it is globally. World Athletics needs to make sure it stays that way (and the super shoes and world rankings format are already cause for concern in that regard). 

Even the poorest countries get access to super shoes if they produce, as they do, promising young athletes.  Nobody can argue that hi tech shoes are discriminatory.

Edited February 21, 2024 by Grassmarket

[heywoodu 15,253]

10 hours ago, Olympian1010 said:

I also don't think it's crazy to request equally pay (or earning potential, or business rights, etc.) when doing (essentially) the same the job. Yes, I understand the men's leagues rake in a lot more money, but that's also related to have less historical barriers to practice sport, getting more broadcast time (and better time slots), and more media exposure. 

This does sort of depend on the sports, competitions and so on. When competing for national teams, I'd say men and women should have the same prize money and such, but in commercial competitions (think club football, road cycling and the likes) it simply makes sense to distribute pay according to what it brings in. One can easily pay a star football player millions of euros, since shirt sales alone will easily make up for that, but good luck making up a 3 million salary for a top female player by merchandise and such..

[Grassmarket 3,537]

13 hours ago, Olympian1010 said:

).

 

I also don't think it's crazy to request equally pay (or earning potential, or business rights, etc.) when doing (essentially) the same the job. Yes, I understand the men's leagues rake in a lot more money, but that's also related to have less historical barriers to practice sport, getting more broadcast time (and better time slots), and more media exposure. ).

When Taylor Swift sings for two hours she gets paid millions. When I sing for only two minutes people throw bottles at me. Why is that?  

[phelps 7,746]

15 hours ago, NearPup said:

Not sure how pursuing gender equality is "bullshit".

because their gender equality doesn't reflect the true disparity existing between men and women, who are NOT equal for a (good) reason

 

in particular, the "gender equality" might be a good thing if we think of equal rights, equal access to the sport, even if they want the Olympic sports to have both men and women's competitions

 

but all the mixed gender events and, above all, the fact that men and women must have the same quota places and the same number of events in any single sport is absolutely fool

 

if there are 10 million male pro athletes and 100 competitive Nations in a sport and 10k pro athletes and 7/8 competitive Nations among the women in the same sport, why should they have the same treatment?

 

things must be balanced and compared to the actual presence of competitive athletes (and I'm talking of long term history and perspective, not of a temporary conjuncture)

[Olympian1010 8,053]

9 hours ago, heywoodu said:

This does sort of depend on the sports, competitions and so on. When competing for national teams, I'd say men and women should have the same prize money and such, but in commercial competitions (think club football, road cycling and the likes) it simply makes sense to distribute pay according to what it brings in. One can easily pay a star football player millions of euros, since shirt sales alone will easily make up for that, but good luck making up a 3 million salary for a top female player by merchandise and such..

I would agree with some of this, but I'd add that women's sports should at least be given the same opportunities to make those kind of earnings. If you relegate their events to backwater channels, then you can't really be surprised they don't rake in as much.