Page 11 of 19 FirstFirst ... 910111213 ... LastLast
Results 201 to 220 of 371
  1. #201
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    530
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Ziggy View Post
    It has everything to do with it. You just can't deny the opposite sex participation in an Olympic sport. That is fundamentally wrong.
    Frankly, I don't see anything "fundamentally wrong" with it. It is a simple fact that sports differ in participation rates for men and women -whatever the reasons. If hardly any men care to take up rhythmic then it is not IOC's job to give out medals just for the sake of it. I have also stated that I would take out men's football out of Olympics. It is a sport where OG are a third rate competition for the best athletes and most fans would be hard pressed to tell you the champions from four or eight years ago while they could probably tell every WC/Euros winner of the last 50 years or so.

  2. #202
    Watch me move
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Gwyneth Paltrow Fan Club headquarters
    Posts
    16,756
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by mazzy View Post
    Frankly, I don't see anything "fundamentally wrong" with it. It is a simple fact that sports differ in participation rates for men and women -whatever the reasons.
    "Whatever the reasons" writes off a whole bunch of very important reasons that are fundamental to addressing gender equality in sport. There are women in Islamic countries who don't participate in any sports because they're not allowed to. That's considerably different than women in other countries who have a choice of sports to participate in and choose certain ones for certain reasons (e.g. skating for the pretty dresses). You can't characterize both of those as the same type of non-participation.

    And if you read up on the case involving the IOC and the female ski jumpers who wanted to participate in the 2010 winter Olympics, you will see that the IOC cares a lot more about other things (like $$$$) than promoting gender equality in sport participation. I found their blathering during the opening ceremony about the Olympics finally having women on all the country's teams to be rather hypocritical, given some of the other ways they've banned women's participation.
    Who wants to watch rich people eat pizza? They must have loved that in Bangladesh. - Randy Newman on the 2014 Oscars broadcast

  3. #203
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    4,878
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Ok, I'm too stupid to see the other side of this. Help. So... Inclusion of Women's Hockey brings attention to the sport and the likelihood of more participants, backers, etc... And exclusion of it brings.... what? Do we each get a $230 rebate in the mail if them kick them out? Does Cruella d'Ville release the 101 puppies if it's dumped? Or is it just that "more important sports" like men's basketball get more $$ if they don't have to share with girls pretending they can play hockey?

  4. #204
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    530
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    overedge, I have not claimed that the reasons for participation differences are always fair but questioned the statement that it is "fundamentally wrong" to not have both sexes compete at every sport. The OG are first and foremost an elite sports competition. If some sports/events cannot provide a minimal level of competitiveness, there is no basis to include them in Olympics. For instance, how many women in Islamic countries would overcome their culturally based discrimination and start ski jumping if it were included?

  5. #205
    Watch me move
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Gwyneth Paltrow Fan Club headquarters
    Posts
    16,756
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by mazzy View Post
    overedge, I have not claimed that the reasons for participation differences are always fair but questioned the statement that it is "fundamentally wrong" to not have both sexes compete at every sport. The OG are first and foremost an elite sports competition. If some sports/events cannot provide a minimal level of competitiveness, there is no basis to include them in Olympics. For instance, how many women in Islamic countries would overcome their culturally based discrimination and start ski jumping if it were included?
    You're talking about an issue of qualification, not of gender. By those standards, the male rower who finished last in the qualifying for solo sculls by about a minute and a half should have been excluded too because he didn't meet a "minimum level of competitiveness".

    Olympic sports don't just get to be in the Olympics because someone asks them to be in there. There has to be an administrative body and a certain number of participants. The problem is that the IOC is excluding all-female sports that meet or exceed those qualifications, like women's ski jumping.
    Who wants to watch rich people eat pizza? They must have loved that in Bangladesh. - Randy Newman on the 2014 Oscars broadcast

  6. #206
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    10,420
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by overedge View Post
    You're talking about an issue of qualification, not of gender. By those standards, the male rower who finished last in the qualifying for solo sculls by about a minute and a half should have been excluded too because he didn't meet a "minimum level of competitiveness".
    If he came from a different country, he would have been excluded for not meeting the minimum level of competitiveness. He was a wild-card spot. Those spots exist solely to encourage countries to develop federations. He did not qualify for the Olympics at all, he was asked to come (he also did not take anyone's spot, as he was added to the roster after it was set, so no better rower lost out to him.) If that was the best rower the USA could have sent, the USA would not have been allowed to compete (just as they weren't allowed to send their women's handball team.)

    It's like the many athletes who don't have the A score needed for track and field, even if they are the best from their country. (Or what will soon happen with figure skating at World's with the super high minimum score.)

  7. #207
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    530
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    overedge,
    You're reading more into my arguments that they contain, I'm afraid. I'm disputing the Ziggy's statement that it would be "fundamentally wrong" to have sports at the Olympics that only one sex participates in. Nothing else. In the summer Olympics there are two such sports: rhythmic gymnastics and synchronised swimming. Personally I could live without either but there seem to be enough women in enough countries training these sports to warrant their presence. Correct me if I'm wrong but this does not seem to be the case with the male sides. I do not believe it would be fair to exclude these sports from the Olys just because male participation is too low or that it would be fair to other sports that are not included in Olympics due to lack of participation/international interest to include the male counterparts of rg and synchro and give out olympic medals. If women's ski jumping meets IOC's criteria on international participation and established competitions, it should be included. Not because it would be fundamentally wrong to have a male sport without its female counterpart, but because women's ski jumping has proven to be an accepted and viable event.

  8. #208
    Watch me move
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Gwyneth Paltrow Fan Club headquarters
    Posts
    16,756
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by mazzy View Post
    overedge,
    You're reading more into my arguments that they contain, I'm afraid. I'm disputing the Ziggy's statement that it would be "fundamentally wrong" to have sports at the Olympics that only one sex participates in. Nothing else. In the summer Olympics there are two such sports: rhythmic gymnastics and synchronised swimming. Personally I could live without either but there seem to be enough women in enough countries training these sports to warrant their presence. Correct me if I'm wrong but this does not seem to be the case with the male sides.
    And that is because IIRC, in synchro at least, in several countries and at certain levels of world competition, male participation is banned. Just like in some countries women are barred from participating in sport at all.

    I do not believe it would be fair to exclude these sports from the Olys just because male participation is too low or that it would be fair to other sports that are not included in Olympics due to lack of participation/international interest to include the male counterparts of rg and synchro and give out olympic medals.
    But again, you're missing the difference between lack of participation because of lack of interest, support, whatever, and lack of participation because it's forbidden. That is something that the IOC hasn't gotten its head around yet.

    If women's ski jumping meets IOC's criteria on international participation and established competitions, it should be included. Not because it would be fundamentally wrong to have a male sport without its female counterpart, but because women's ski jumping has proven to be an accepted and viable event.
    It is fundamentally wrong to have an event excluded when male and female participation in the same event is governed by the same federation and has the same qualifying structure, but the IOC decides that there is not enough time to schedule the women's event and/or that the women don't have enough "elite competitors". Which is exactly what happened with women's ski jumping.
    Who wants to watch rich people eat pizza? They must have loved that in Bangladesh. - Randy Newman on the 2014 Oscars broadcast

  9. #209
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    530
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by overedge View Post
    And that is because IIRC, in synchro at least, in several countries and at certain levels of world competition, male participation is banned. Just like in some countries women are barred from participating in sport at all. But again, you're missing the difference between lack of participation because of lack of interest, support, whatever, and lack of participation because it's forbidden. That is something that the IOC hasn't gotten its head around yet.
    If there are laws preventing male synchro swimmer from practicing their sport, accuse the countries in question. If its the national federations that refuse to stage male synchro competitions, sue them or start your own (its really not that hard, there are feds around for the most obscure of sports). Ones the sport has proven viable, we can talk about inclusion into the OG. What do you want the IOC to do in this case? Introduce an olympic competition for a sport practiced by 100 people in the world? The IOC organises a sports event, it cannot force countries to change their laws, nor are they legitimized to, really.

    It is fundamentally wrong to have an event excluded when male and female participation in the same event is governed by the same federation and has the same qualifying structure, but the IOC decides that there is not enough time to schedule the women's event and/or that the women don't have enough "elite competitors". Which is exactly what happened with women's ski jumping.
    I have not disputed that. If the criteria are met, there should be no excuses.

  10. #210
    Tranquillo
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    behind the gruppetto
    Posts
    24,624
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    16667
    "The Devil is joining in, and that's never a good sign." Phil Liggett

  11. #211
    Port de bras!!!
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Ravenclaw
    Posts
    29,527
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    20235
    Happy for Gabby Douglas winning AA. She is so cute, she is going to be fighting off sponsors with a stick
    "Nature is a damp, inconvenient sort of place where birds and animals wander about uncooked."

    from Speedy Death

  12. #212
    snarking for AZE
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    vera ellen's turtleneck museum
    Posts
    29,830
    vCash
    2068
    Rep Power
    22532
    Quote Originally Posted by allezfred View Post
    Really? Badminton is quite widely played here too. Just because something isn't popular in the US doesn't mean it isn't popular elsewhere and vice versa.


    it isnt that i didnt think it was popular, i didnt realize it existed at this level
    I feel like I'm in a dream. But it can't be a dream because there are no boy dancers!

  13. #213
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Close to Normal, IL
    Posts
    1,657
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    LOL! I actually just about to go download the song myself. Not necessarily for the song's sake on it's own, but I associate a lot of really good memories with it now, so...yeah.

    I really do appreciate NBC going with something upbeat and positive for their broadcast openers...it seems like most of the time it's dramatic music that just builds tension and pits gymnasts against each other. I was fully expecting them to come to London and for the TF opener to basically be, "USA MUST BEAT THE COMMIES".

    So for them to go with something upbeat and positive really puts a whole different spin on the feeling of the night, and for that I am really thankful.

  14. #214

    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Refusing to perform on demand
    Posts
    14,447
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    1779
    What did someone on this board label that song? The aging hipster ballad?

    Regarding the much aligned US podium outfits, did anyone else notice that Gabby's jacket was glowing when she first entered the stadium for the WAG AA medal ceremony? They showed a shot of the medalists from above and her jacket seemed to glow in the dark. It was pretty cool. A few days ago someone linked to an article about the jackets in which the manufacturer indicated that the jackets had a special fabric that would shimmer (or some such thing) under bright lights. Unfortunately, I don't think it has been very noticeable, but today I did get a glimpse of that shimmer and it was pretty cool.
    Creating drama!

  15. #215

    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Crashing Nancy Kerrigan's float in the Disney Parade
    Age
    31
    Posts
    2,857
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    2879
    Quote Originally Posted by berthesghost View Post
    Ok, I'm too stupid to see the other side of this. Help. So... Inclusion of Women's Hockey brings attention to the sport and the likelihood of more participants, backers, etc... And exclusion of it brings.... what? Do we each get a $230 rebate in the mail if them kick them out? Does Cruella d'Ville release the 101 puppies if it's dumped? Or is it just that "more important sports" like men's basketball get more $$ if they don't have to share with girls pretending they can play hockey?
    In my case, it's not that I'm so dead set on seeing Women's hockey leave the Olympics. It's more that, sports like baseball and softball were eliminated despite them actually having a comparatively larger geographic spread of competitive participants, swimming in the Olympics actually has fewer events than it does at the Swimming World Championships and a decent spread of winners among the non-Olympic events, and the IOC didn't agree to women's ski jumping for years until Sochi due to a lack of elite competitors.
    Lack of interest/ not enough geographic diversity/ and downsizing has been used as a justification for these situations by the IOC
    Meanwhile , women's hockey which has only ever been competitive between two countries, isn't followed very much outside of those two countries, and creates an entire new team event requiring the need for more ice time, facilities and medals, has gotten nary a glance by the IOC despite many grumblings in the press . It just seems to be such a double standard.
    Ideally, it would be nice to see it become more competitive.
    Last edited by escaflowne9282; 08-03-2012 at 01:53 AM.

  16. #216
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Kanada
    Age
    33
    Posts
    2,055
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by escaflowne9282 View Post
    In my case, it's not that I'm so dead set on seeing Women's hockey leave the Olympics. It's more that, sports like baseball and softball were eliminated despite them actually having a comparatively larger geographic spread of competitive participants, swimming in the Olympics actually has fewer events than it does at the Swimming World Championships and a decent spread of winners among the non-Olympic events, and the IOC didn't agree to women's ski jumping for years until Sochi due to a lack of elite competitors.
    Lack of interest/ not enough geographic diversity/ and downsizing has been used as a justification for these situations by the IOC
    Meanwhile , women's hockey which has only ever been competitive between two countries, isn't followed very much outside of those two countries, and creates an entire new team event requiring the need for more ice time, facilities and medals, has gotten nary a glance by the IOC despite many grumblings in the press . It just seems to be such a double standard.
    Ideally, it would be nice to see it become more competitive.
    Excluding hockey would make physical space for other athletes, for one thing. Synchro skating has been trying to get into the Olympics forever, and one of the reasons it hasn't been added yet is due to the sheer amount of bodies that would be added to the games. Each team has 20 skaters, plus coaches, trainers, medical, etc. Taking out one sport (like hockey) can make room for others.

    The other reasons synchro hasn't been added yet include some of the issues discussed in this thread: only a few countries dominate is one problem, and the fact men and women compete against each other is another. However, over the last 10 years, the gap among the top teams has closed, so it's much more competitive, increasing the likelihood it could get into the Olympics if that trend continues. It's difficult for those of us involved in the sport to accept that as an excuse, when we see the dominance of only two countries in women's hockey. In synchro, it used to be that Finland, Canada, and one team from Sweden dominated, but in recent years, the USA and Russia have become medal threats (USA has taken bronze several times), and the level of skating in the entire top 10 has increased. I also don't think it's unreasonable to think that if synchro became an Olympic sport, more high level skaters who may not make it to the O's in singles/pairs/dance might give the team sport a try and further increase the quality of the competition.

  17. #217
    Tranquillo
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    behind the gruppetto
    Posts
    24,624
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    16667
    "The Devil is joining in, and that's never a good sign." Phil Liggett

  18. #218
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    308
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Not gonna read all 11 pages, lol...but, any skaters tweeting/following the London games excessively? Any skaters in London besides the Russians for the Sochi exhibit, the entire Hughes clan for IceNetwork, etc.... and Chris Dean/Jane Torvill?

  19. #219
    Tranquillo
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    behind the gruppetto
    Posts
    24,624
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    16667
    Quote Originally Posted by B.Cooper View Post
    Not gonna read all 11 pages, lol...but, any skaters tweeting/following the London games excessively? Any skaters in London besides the Russians for the Sochi exhibit, the entire Hughes clan for IceNetwork, etc.... and Chris Dean/Jane Torvill?

    The Kerrs have been attending a lot of events and tweeting. Nastia Liukin posted a pic of herself with Michelle Kwan. Tiffany Scott and her baby were in one of the photos Sarah posted.

    Edited: because I can't keep my Tiffanies straight.
    Last edited by Garden Kitty; 08-03-2012 at 04:13 PM.
    "The Devil is joining in, and that's never a good sign." Phil Liggett

  20. #220
    snarking for AZE
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    vera ellen's turtleneck museum
    Posts
    29,830
    vCash
    2068
    Rep Power
    22532
    tiffany vise has a baby?
    I feel like I'm in a dream. But it can't be a dream because there are no boy dancers!

Page 11 of 19 FirstFirst ... 910111213 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •