Olympic sports program review

[heywoodu 14,775]

1 hour ago, Nickyc707 said:

How much does it cost to row in the Netherlands? You can become a recreational rower at my local club in the UK for £16 per month (£192 pa) which would not seem to exclude all but a "super low number" of people from being able to afford the cost of participation. Indeed there are always people to be seen out on the River Soar rowing for much of the year.

 

P.S. If you haven't rowed before you can do an eight week training course for £40.

A quick search suggests that the price may indeed not be that high (unless at some point you need your own boat of course), but it does also seem like it's mostly student teams or things in some way related to an educational institution, which is a bit of an odd barrier to have to go through.

 

There might be things I'm missing though which would make it easier for someone who isn't a student to just join and start.

[Nickyc707 373]

4 minutes ago, heywoodu said:

A quick search suggests that the price may indeed not be that high (unless at some point you need your own boat of course), but it does also seem like it's mostly student teams or things in some way related to an educational institution, which is a bit of an odd barrier to have to go through.

 

There might be things I'm missing though which would make it easier for someone who isn't a student to just join and start.

A lot of young people start rowing while at university so they do provide many of the rowers we see on the international stage. However, there are lots of rowing clubs that are happy to take in members of all ages and backgrounds and most if not all make their equipment available to them. They don't expect you provide your own boat although I'm sure you can if you want. My local club are content whether you want to be a recreational or competitive rower, whether you're a junior or a veteran. 

 

Most of the costs are associated with international rowing teams but that applies across many of the Olympic sports. You mention the issue of venues but presumably this also applies to sprint Canoeing which invariably use the same courses.

[Federer91 2,711]

On 8/18/2024 at 4:52 PM, JoshMartini007 said:

Yeah, the sport/event program needs to be able to change as trends and interest change.

 

With that said, once an event is added it should stay for a while (only exception is demonstration events). The addition/removal of an event should be a well thoughtful and researched process and not be done on a whim.

Agree on the basis of this. 

 

But let's take a look at the recently added sports.

 

For how many of them you could absolutely say they have gained interest and are trending positively. I can for only rugby and climbing. Of course rugby has been popular for decades, they only needed to figure out the perfect format for the OG. Sport climbing on the other hand is the only new sport, which has seen a rapid expansion in the past 10 years. No one was taking it seriously as a real sport a decade ago, but now it has grown in different parts of the World, the fan and media interesting is rising. And it gets more popular and popular. 

 

I wouldn't say the same for skateboarding and surfing. I think their popularity isn't at all that high compared to the 90s and early 2000s. In that period they were much more popular in the American / Canadian zeitgeist from what i recall. 

 

Many of the other sports are just host fodder and/or are basically a 3-5 country sports. Flag football, cricket, lacrosse, baseball, breaking have limited appeal. What is the justifiable reason for adding them, beside the host jerking for throwing a ton of money for organizing the Games. 

 

And here lies the IOC's flow. Instead of firstly help growing and popularizing these sports before adding them, they first bring them on the OG in the hope that will automatically make these sports more trendy. It doesn't...

 

If you want to include lacrosse, then the IOC should work with the Governing body and all the National Associations in making a campaign to familiarize it around the World. Say you are including lacrosse, but in 3 Games time, so there is time to make an International footprint. After 8 years if you can make a Lacrosse World Championship with 24-32 teams, then including it at the OG makes it a much, much bigger factor. 

 

Now they beat their drum "We are including new sports, look how modern and urban we are", when the truth is they are a joke event with 6 teams, which gives absolutely nothing for growing said sport and is just another statistic. 

[Cobi 974]

3 minutes ago, Federer91 said:

Agree on the basis of this. 

 

But let's take a look at the recently added sports.

 

For how many of them you could absolutely say they have gained interest and are trending positively. I can for only rugby and climbing. Of course rugby has been popular for decades, they only needed to figure out the perfect format for the OG. Sport climbing on the other hand is the only new sport, which has seen a rapid expansion in the past 10 years. No one was taking it seriously as a real sport a decade ago, but now it has grown in different parts of the World, the fan and media interesting is rising. And it gets more popular and popular. 

 

I wouldn't say the same for skateboarding and surfing. I think their popularity isn't at all that high compared to the 90s and early 2000s. In that period they were much more popular in the American / Canadian zeitgeist from what i recall. 

 

Many of the other sports are just host fodder and/or are basically a 3-5 country sports. Flag football, cricket, lacrosse, baseball, breaking have limited appeal. What is the justifiable reason for adding them, beside the host jerking for throwing a ton of money for organizing the Games. 

 

And here lies the IOC's flow. Instead of firstly help growing and popularizing these sports before adding them, they first bring them on the OG in the hope that will automatically make these sports more trendy. It doesn't...

 

If you want to include lacrosse, then the IOC should work with the Governing body and all the National Associations in making a campaign to familiarize it around the World. Say you are including lacrosse, but in 3 Games time, so there is time to make an International footprint. After 8 years if you can make a Lacrosse World Championship with 24-32 teams, then including it at the OG makes it a much, much bigger factor. 

 

Now they beat their drum "We are including new sports, look how modern and urban we are", when the truth is they are a joke event with 6 teams, which gives absolutely nothing for growing said sport and is just another statistic. 

Lacrosse already had more than 40 nations competing at the last World Championship if you include the qualification round. Although taking a look at the results the difference between US/Canada and the other teams was huge.

[heywoodu 14,775]

47 minutes ago, Federer91 said:

Many of the other sports are just host fodder and/or are basically a 3-5 country sports. Flag football, cricket, lacrosse, baseball, breaking have limited appeal. What is the justifiable reason for adding them, beside the host jerking for throwing a ton of money for organizing the Games. 

To be fair, that goes for lots of sports. Looking at the Paris Olympics, are there really more than a small handful of countries where the general public - outside of the Olympics - tunes in to rhythmic gymnastics, artistic swimming, dressage, shooting, modern pentathlon, rowing, canoeing, weightlifting, judo, wrestling, taekwondo, track cycling, diving and so on?

 

Not saying those other sports have a large and broad international appeal, because I doubt they do, but that goes for lots of currently Olympic sports in terms of how much the general public has any interest in it whatsoever  

[Federer91 2,711]

4 minutes ago, heywoodu said:

To be fair, that goes for lots of sports. Looking at the Paris Olympics, are there really more than a small handful of countries where the general public - outside of the Olympics - tunes in to rhythmic gymnastics, artistic swimming, dressage, shooting, modern pentathlon, rowing, canoeing, weightlifting, judo, wrestling, taekwondo, track cycling, diving and so on?

 

Not saying those other sports have a large and broad international appeal, because I doubt they do, but that goes for lots of currently Olympic sports in terms of how much the general public has any interest in it whatsoever  

General public interest is one thing and country depth of participants is another. All of the traditional sports you mentioned, with the exception of synchro swimming and maybe diving have a much wider pool of competing nations. Sport interest isn't only about how many primetime viewers it gets.

[De_Gambassi 1,194]

1 hour ago, Cobi said:

Lacrosse already had more than 40 nations competing at the last World Championship if you include the qualification round. Although taking a look at the results the difference between US/Canada and the other teams was huge.

France was represented at the last WC (and even win some matches). AFAIK, we have one active club in the whole country. 

 

It's crazy how every minimum global standard for olympic inclusion have been throw out of the window under Bach regime and its additional sports program...

[Nickyc707 373]

1 hour ago, Federer91 said:

Agree on the basis of this. 

 

But let's take a look at the recently added sports.

 

For how many of them you could absolutely say they have gained interest and are trending positively. I can for only rugby and climbing. Of course rugby has been popular for decades, they only needed to figure out the perfect format for the OG. Sport climbing on the other hand is the only new sport, which has seen a rapid expansion in the past 10 years. No one was taking it seriously as a real sport a decade ago, but now it has grown in different parts of the World, the fan and media interesting is rising. And it gets more popular and popular. 

 

I wouldn't say the same for skateboarding and surfing. I think their popularity isn't at all that high compared to the 90s and early 2000s. In that period they were much more popular in the American / Canadian zeitgeist from what i recall. 

 

Many of the other sports are just host fodder and/or are basically a 3-5 country sports. Flag football, cricket, lacrosse, baseball, breaking have limited appeal. What is the justifiable reason for adding them, beside the host jerking for throwing a ton of money for organizing the Games. 

 

And here lies the IOC's flow. Instead of firstly help growing and popularizing these sports before adding them, they first bring them on the OG in the hope that will automatically make these sports more trendy. It doesn't...

 

If you want to include lacrosse, then the IOC should work with the Governing body and all the National Associations in making a campaign to familiarize it around the World. Say you are including lacrosse, but in 3 Games time, so there is time to make an International footprint. After 8 years if you can make a Lacrosse World Championship with 24-32 teams, then including it at the OG makes it a much, much bigger factor. 

 

Now they beat their drum "We are including new sports, look how modern and urban we are", when the truth is they are a joke event with 6 teams, which gives absolutely nothing for growing said sport and is just another statistic. 

Which 3-5 of these countries that participate in the highest form of cricket, I.e. tests are you referring to? 

 

Afghanistan 

Antigua & Barbuda

Australia

Bangladesh

Barbados

British Virgin Islands

Dominica

Great Britain (England & Wales)

Grenada

Guyana

India

Ireland

Jamaica

Pakistan

St Kitts & Nevis

St Lucia

St Vincent & The Grenadines

South Africa

Sri Lanka

Trinidad & Tobago

Zimbabwe

 

Or are you referring to the considerably larger group that play the T20 format to be used at the OG?