Athens 2004

Status
Not open for further replies.
I had always thought sports should be about humans in every aspect, give and take a few stopwatches being used (using fingers can't be good). I don't think I'd enjoy watching soccer if we got rid of referees and linesmen. Of course, the soccer players may beg to differ. But you get what I mean. Pretty soon, folks don't need to even watch events if it's the results that matters above all else. I dunno... maybe it's just me but controversies really can be fun from my POV. Again, not necessarily from the POV from the competitors.

Machines are driving humans to unbelieveable feats and records. And riches.
 
Why do the referees really matter? They are there to enforce the rules. I don't know about you, but when I played sports with my friends, we don't even have referees! Most amateur sports don't. If you play tennis, you don't get linesmen until way up in the ranks. They are not neccessary to define sport.

In many sports, the refs are practically invisible. Thus, I find it curious that someone would hold the view that the thing that makes something enjoyable and a sport is to have a referee or judge.

The spirit of athletics and sportsmanship, and the enjoyability of it, does not require a referee to be present. Think about that the next time you see some local kids playing in a field.
 
DemoCoder said:
No, it does not rule out most sports. At the very least, all sports should be judged by *instant replay* in slow motion.
Perhaps in the US you are used to sports that stop-start all the time, but in most countries people like the games to flow. There are certainly cases were the referee should be able to have recourse to video replays, but this should be at there discretion, not the players or managers (otherwise every single decision would be contested and it would become interminably dull to watch). Therefore there will always be a degree of subjectivity to these sports, meaning they can never be distilled into the binary form you wish for. Humans are fallible, which is what makes things interesting.
Tell me, do you advocate olympic swimming and running invents be judged by old fashion judges and stop watches?
What has this to do with anything?

However, I would certainly get rid of ice skating, dancing, gymnastics (unless they remove "artistic" judgements), and other sports which have subjective evaluation methods.
Why? People enjoy taking part in these events at a competitive level and people enjoy watching them. There may sometimes be controversy in decisions, but such is human nature. Sport isn't just about winning, it's also a celebration of human achievement, and along with that you have to except human foibles. This is what makes it entertaining.
Synchronized swimming is just water dancing.
And the 100m is just someone running in a stright line over a very short distance. Your point?
Why isn't Ballroom Dancing an olympic sport too? Both are judged events. Both require some athleticism. Both require skill and experise. And both are competitive.
Ballroom dancing is mainly about aesthetics - it is not highly demanding physically and doesn't require great stamina. I suggest going to your local pool and trying to remain upside down underwater for up to a minute at a time whilst manoeuvring your body in a way the swimmers do. You might just have a little more respect for how demanding it is. I used to think synchronised swimming was a joke until I saw how tough it is.

The Olympic Motto is: Swifter, Higher, Stronger. It should represent sports which push these limits.
So skill is of no importance to you? I'd personally rather watch someone demonstrating amazing skill rather than see some sweaty, grunting fat bloke lifting a heavy bar above their head. However, there's room for everyone, which is the true Olympic spirit (the motto you mention is a relatively modern contrivance borrowed from elsewhere). Excluding talented people simply because they don't fit into a narrow view of what sport is doesn't really smack of the olympic spirit to me.
 
DemoCoder said:
There you go again. Lame ass unsubstantiated crypto-antiamericanism/eur snobbery.
I see. Disliking ghetto culture (which I don't consider representative for the USA - obviously you do, dawg) is anti-americanism :LOL:

Euro snobbery? Watcha saaay, motherfuuuuucker!?!?
us.gif


Atleast you could have found something more substantial to criticize this time.
I critize whatever I find objectionable.

Pretty much every other nation's team was clean-cut? Give me a break. Japanese posters in international forums are still reeling from Japan's pajama-like technicolor-dreamcoat outfits. Burundi's carried spears. Tajik's wore hot pink. Bermuda, well, wore really gay looking Bermuda shorts and shirts and looked like stupid tourists. Others wore grass skirts. The Swiss men wore *capri pants*.
You forgot the hideous mint coloured jackets of the Aussies that prolly made every Brit in the audience wanna get down there and eat them. Or the German team's Indiana Jones outfit.

Doesn't matter because nobody else delved into the abyss of Hoes, Biatchez and OGs. Everybody else maintained a certain standard.

*Some* countries (like France) wore suit and ties
*Most* countries (like France) wore suits and ties

...and those that didn't mostly wore traditional ethnic garbs (or something inspired by it).

But who went and made this rule that atheletes must wear non-casual clothing in hot Greek weather at a sporting event? Who says what is tasteful to wear at the olympics. This is an international event, and different cultures have different ideas of what is appropriate to display during the parade of nations.
You're one little self-insulting American if you claim that ghetto gear is the American idea of appropriate attire for an international event.

This isn't about rules, it's about clothing and acting in an appropriate manner considering the dignity of the event.

L233 Euro-snobbery in action again. Atleast the Americans can blame Canadians for their outfit. (it's a Canadian sports supplier)
I doubt Canucks forced the Americans to parade like Gangstas and Wangstas.
 
L233 said:
You forgot the hideous mint coloured jackets of the Aussies
And I think the designers copped some criticism in Aus' for for their efforts too.
 
You display your ignorance L233 because you have no idea what real ghetto gear looks like. Do you really think ghetto boys were outfits that look like the clothes the Americans were wearing? The americans were not wearing hip-hop fashion unless you think wearing a baseball cap backwards constitutes hip-hop. Except for the hats, other countries were fielding teams wearing similar sporting outfits.

But let's say that they were wearing authentic mutha-fucken hip-hop. You have no objection to an Island culture wearing grass skirts and spears, but you object to the US wearing clothes invented by its inner city culture. Why is grass-skirt culture superior to baseball cap culture?

Why are you racist against inner city nigga's culture but island nigga's are ok with you?

I'm sure when you watched Gaitlin win the 100m, it confirmed every one of your idiotic little biases "all americans are crude".

Looks like German attitudes on cultural superiority have not changed.
 
I think insinuating L233 is some kind of nazi is a little over-the-top, don't you? I think there's a big difference between wearing a traditional national costume and adopting 80's hip-hop fashions.
 
The US outfit is not hip-hop fashion first of all, not even the reverse baseball cap. You can buy that outfit at the pinacle of white cleanliness- Abercrombie and Fitch. Someone in the ghetto wearing that outfit would be ridiculed. And why no criticism of the swiss outfit for example, which was a sport t-shirt over loose fitting capri pants. L233 has an axe to grind against the US that's all. He said nothing about some non-traditional and non-suit-and-tie clothes that other countries wore.

Secondly, is not hip-hop part of our ethnic culture? Can't we show and display what little home-grown unique culture we've been able to create in 200 years? Would L233 prefered that the US team dress up like cowboys or a Zoot Suit? I mean, where do you draw the line between what's an allowable ethnic/cultural costume, and what's not? Are you saying that hip-hop isn't culture? They have their own music, dialect, and fashion.

Why is it ok to dress up in ridiculous traditional costumes, or why would wearing cowboy hats or bermuda shorts be preferable to baseball caps vs berets? The Japanese outfit wasn't even traditional Japanese, just bizarre. Not a peep.

There's an implicit hidden racism here, that values black culture lower than white European culture. Rap isn't real music. Hip-hop dance isn't real art. Hip-hop fashion is "vulgar"


I didn't call L233 a nazi. I criticized German attitudes on cultural superiority, which go back before Nazism. Yes, we have those attitudes here as well. They surface everytime a new form of fashion or music arises: jazz, rock & roll, hip-hop. It's always perceived as vulgar by the close minded prudes of society.

Gracious winning, poor-losing, and hooliganism are not uniquely any one culture's trait.
 
I dunno, DC, I think you are taking it all a bit seriously and to heart. After all the US has won more medals than anyone, so that's what really counts, even if people do snigger a little at the costumes :)
 
I don't think medal counts are important. In fact, I was rooting for China, Iraq, GBP, Romania, and India this time around.


Sporting is facing diminishing returns. Except for a few extreme sports, I don't believe any country has an implicit racial advantage. I believe that top athletes have roughly the same bell curve distribution in each society, the difference is, some societies are more adept at finding these individuals based on either money or on cultural tradition (e.g. lots of participation in those sports) India and China both have huge populations, but India doesn't get many medals. Why? Is it because Indians are inferior? No, it's because of Indian government support for athletics, and different cultural emphasis on different sports. If 30 variations of Cricket were an olympic sport instead of Swimming, India would do much better medal wise.

The gist of this is, let's say people with top athletic potential are born as 0.1% of the population. Austraila will produce roughly 25,000 of these people, the US 250,000, and China 1 million. However, those Chinese will be distributed in both poor areas and in rich areas, so many of them will never get a chance to be trained. However, China has so many, they will still be able to find atleast 500 to field qualifying athletes in every sport. Ditto for US. Australia has fewer people, but Australia has a much more sports and leisure oriented culture, so it is far more likely that an Australian with potential will be "found" and trained, whereas probably 200,000 of those top US athletes will wind up as couch potatoes.

In the end, China, US, and Australia will be able to field top athletes in most events, and hence, have a shot at high medal count totals. Any country with enough population and surplus money and leisure, should be able to sample the top of their bell curve and field world class athletes. You only need to find out 500 people.


Given this, I don't see any reason why the "superpowers" of olympic medal counts (Western countries, Russia, and China+Korea+Japan) won't eventually equalize. Money spent on sports training and finding top candidates will eventually yield diminishing returns, and in sports like the 100m dash, you'll see mostly random luck determining the winner eventually (who'se having a bad day, who had a misstep, etc)

Eventually, believe it or not, India will have a larger medal count, and the US, China, and Australia will see their dominance reduced. Globalization will spread some region specific sports to everyone (e.g. US is losing dominance in basketball, England lost dominance in cricket)

In the end, I believe the olympics, like football, or gridiron, or baseball, will come down to whose's having a good year and got good recruits that particular yield and you'll see medal counts oscillate between countries.

Unless of course, we legalize genetic engineering and drugs, in which case, performance could probably be extended much further and the effect of diminishing returns could be lessened. Then you'd have scenarios were a country could win by being more risky and gutsy with the lives of it's athletes.

The simple fact of the matter is, I have no interest in whether the US wins "medal count" because I believe people in most countries are equally endowed and eventually it will reach parity (nor do I want the US to maintain dominance, it's in my interest to see them do better) Personally, I root for the underdog.

I also do not care nor criticize European culture, fashion, or food. It's off my radar, I welcome diversity, I hate prudishness. The only thing I criticize Europe for is their style of governing and economics, which is fine by me, as long as people stop trying to force that model on the US. L233 on the hand, likes pissing contests and has been active in dozens of threads with a subtext of European cultural superiority.

My only point is, many countries choose to display stereotypical costumes representing aspects of their culture in the olympics. If the US is the land of Disney, McDonalds, Jazz, Hip-Hop, and Cowboys. Why can't we wear those costumes in our parades as well? Are we not permitted to celebrate our cultural aspects just it offends German sensibility which seems to think everyone should parade in preppie clothes?
 
OFF
DC always pissed off when he has to face with the fact that US has no cultural identity in terms of the 'old-skool' meaning (= everywhere else ouside of US... :D)

He even questioned its existence tacitly, stating there's no national cultural identity anymore but everything's gonna be some big multicultural blurry mess... :LOL:

But honestly: what else we should expect from somebody who actually said national identity = nationalism? :rolleyes: :LOL:

As one of my friend (he and his family is American-born, several generations back) said once, regarding our old debate on this subject: "Think! Do you really expect he'll understand what you're talking about? He obviously doesn't understand this 'identity thingy' whatsoever - don't waste your time."

He was damn right - it's a perfect advice, L233. ;)
 
T2k, stay out of the argument. You are unable to form any argument that isn't based on "LOL, BS :rolleyes: " .

You even misrepresent what I said. I expressed a hope for a day when what songs we sing and what clothes our tribe wears no longer separate us. Group identity is at the root of nationalism and many other ugly behaviors.

I never questioned the existence of national identity per se, I questioned the beneficial properties to which you were asserting.

Over time, if people move about the world freely, working where they want and marrying whomever they want, then yes, over time, you are going to see the breakdown of cultural differences that used to be confirmed to national states and political borders, as the world becomes a melting pot. There will still be differences and subgroups, but they will not be as large as they are not, and will no longer be strictly tied to land.

It's nice that you need to self affirmation from a cheerleader. But perhaps you should learn to form your own arguments, instead of "my friend thinks you are wrong"
 
DemoCoder said:
T2k, stay out of the argument. You are unable to form any argument that isn't based on "LOL, BS :rolleyes: " .

It's by my nature when I'm disgusted by freaks like Vince or sometimes you.

BTW you are nobody to say "stay out" - if you don't like it, keep your freak BS about the subject for yourself.

You even misrepresent what I said. I expressed a hope for a day when what songs we sing and what clothes our tribe wears no longer separate us. Group identity is at the root of nationalism and many other ugly behaviors.

Which is obviously bullshit - there you go.

You can't judge ANY cultural/national identity because you are incapale to do so - perhaps because never had one?

I never questioned the existence of national identity per se, I questioned the beneficial properties to which you were asserting.

I hope you feel how ridiculous is this kinda pathetic explanation>? You just did so, few lines above. And you did tacitly, as I said. Not 'per se'.

Over time, if people move about the world freely, working where they want and marrying whomever they want, then yes, over time, you are going to see the breakdown of cultural differences that used to be confirmed to national states and political borders, as the world becomes a melting pot.

And they lived together until the death blablabla...

It's not only pretty childish but also pretty pathetic: you're trying to sell your 'no-nationality' lifestyle under the name of peace , love, unity?
Get out of here... it's so cheap...

There will still be differences and subgroups, but they will not be as large as they are not, and will no longer be strictly tied to land.

Yakyakyak - this is the typical blurb from somebody who did not understand a single word ever from other countries with 'classic' background.

As I told you regarding Iraq: this is the stupid mentality which seemingly took over this otherwise nice country but thanks God, as more and more people start realizing this is the main problem behind all the recent US fiascos, more and more will vote against this stupid and silly behavior.

This would be the biggest advantage here, in the US: the diversity.
And even though you're so short on real ideas (unlike on self confidence), I bet you'll understand it... once...

It's nice that you need to self affirmation from a cheerleader.

? Fella, you probably missed something, I guess...
Should I link here your old crappy, preposterous crap from our old debate?
It's about your usual crap you just told to L233.

Seems you only gettin' older but not smarter... :rolleyes:

But perhaps you should learn to form your own arguments, instead of "my friend thinks you are wrong"

:LOL:

How can I argue with somebody who is incapable to understand when it comes to anything cultural-related? :LOL:

Look pal, perhaps you should take a look on your pedigree - who know, you can even find some real cultural roots.

I mean not 'multiculty' but REAL roots. :p
 
Discussions about sports should be about enjoyment and competitiveness.

When this degenerates into "I know better than you", name-calling and ridiculing, the discussion should stop.

Locked.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top