Football, tennis, basketball etc at the 'lympics

SimonAH

Now don't get me wrong, Murray is a hero for his performance in the tennis (and is now back to being British again having been relegated to merely Scottish following Wimbledon), but is it just me or do you agree that glossy, highly paid professional sports just aren't, well, olympicish.

OK, so Usain the rocketship is not, presumably, going to want for much for the rest of his days - but this is as a result of his olympic success. I imagine that pre-Beijing he was just a normal (if pretty damn sprightly) club runner? The same for Phelps before he started churning out golds?

I just seems weird switching on the television and seeing massively highly paid professional sportsmen and sportswomen wander out into the Olympics just like you saw them wander out onto the court at Wimbledon or White Hart Lane a couple of weeks ago. Sort of oddly wrong.

The difficulty is that by this logic most of the road race guys shouldn't be there either....but actually I agree with that too (as much as I enjoyed watching the road events). Track stuff, yes, road stuff? Not sure it should be in the Olympics as it's a bit too Pro.

<stands back, adjusts straps on his body armour and necks a couple of ibuprofen in preparation for the kicking to come>

rubertoe

FWIW i totally agree with everything you said.

pangolin

So is it an issue with being a professional or an amateur? They're only allowed in the Olympics if they have a day job too? Not disagreeing necessarily, just curious. It would make it interesting, you could go to Maccy D's and have Cav serving you as he works there part time to qualify

vermin

I'd be surprised if anyone disagrees. The Olympics should be an amateur event. I thought Bolt, Phelps et al get rich through sponsorship, marketing deals, prize money, etc, rather than being paid employees as are pro cyclists, basketballers, footballers? Shouldn't that be the differentiator? If so then, oddly, tennis should be fine; but it still feels wrong. Perhaps that's simply because Murray is a brat who no-one likes. Did you see how disrespectful he was towards Laura Robson last night?

daviesee

That's how it used to be.
Back in the day, the fastest man in the World was from my home town but he was not allowed to compete at the Commonwealth or Olympic Games as he had signed a schoolboys form to play football. Note that he hadn't even recieved a penny but was still deemed to be professional. He had to keep a day job and made money on the side as a professional runner.

Then it got to the stage where the grey area was so huge that they have just given up.
Solution - All amateur but knowing that they are not the best or all open to full on pros. I guess that is where we are now.

BillyMansell

The problem with precluding professionals is that in many sports the Olympic champions may be far from being the best in their sport - you could have complete fields of second rate competitors, and who would pay to see the second best athletes in the world compete?

dhope

vermin wrote:

I'd be surprised if anyone disagrees. The Olympics should be an amateur event. I thought Bolt, Phelps et al get rich through sponsorship, marketing deals, prize money, etc, rather than being paid employees as are pro cyclists, basketballers, footballers? Shouldn't that be the differentiator? If so then, oddly, tennis should be fine; but it still feels wrong. Perhaps that's simply because Murray is a brat who no-one likes. Did you see how disrespectful he was towards Laura Robson last night?

Boxing should probably be fine too I'd have thought, though once you turn pro then that's it.

wormo

The Olympics should be the pinnacle of your sport, the biggest event in your sport's calender. In the case of football, and more especially Team GB the Premier League/ Champions League more important than playing for your country. I'm not too worried about whether amateur of professional, big outdated notion these days.

daviesee

vermin wrote:

I Did you see how disrespectful he was towards Laura Robson last night?

Laura Robson was "happy just to be there".
Andy Murray was gutted at losing.
That sums up British tennis.

mudcow007

what i dont get is, if your a pro boxer you can not compete in the Olympics

but being a pro tennis player you can?

why one rule for one sport an different for others?

rubertoe

What I don't get is how Swimming can have 48 odd medal events and Track cycling can only have 10 odd.

Surely if they can pretty much have every single event in swimming then the cyclists should be allowed as well.

Another one for the rules committee.

rubertoe

Double post

bigmat

SimonAH wrote:

Now don't get me wrong, Murray is a hero for his performance in the tennis (and is now back to being British again having been relegated to merely Scottish following Wimbledon)

Puh-lease! This is just bollox isn't it? Does anybody but the Scottish actually believe that?

As for the amateur v professional thing, the Olympics is corporate whoredom on the grandest scale, I find any mention of the "Olympic ethos" to be utterly laughable. Why should the officials, sponsors, politicians, construction companies etc etc rake in the money and the athletes remain unpaid? I can see the argument for Olympics having to be the pinnacle of the sport, but then you get grey areas e.g. with road cycling - Olympic gold in the time trial beats Olympic world champs possibly? Road race = world champs? Maybe slightly below, and way below Flanders / Roubaix? Thing about these races is that their credibility is tied to who wins. Vino probably doesn't help. Anyway, I digress. Tennis has become the 5th grand slam almost, but the fact that most of it is over 3 sets undermines it a bit. Football is a nonsense (why under-23? Why 3 over-age players?) and don't get me started on golf. Swimming needs a massive cull, far too many events and medals available. What is the point of an event that challenges you to complete a distance in a relatively slow and inefficient manner - its like having the 1km wheelie pursuit, or the walking race in the athletics (oh yeah...)

sketchley

I have no real problem with professional / amateur thing, particuarly as there is no prize money, as far as I know, for any olympic event. At least paid out by the Olympics that is, as they may get a prize / winning bonus from thier federation though, USA for example. Where I think the line should be drawn is sports where it is clear Olympic gold would not be number one on the list or titles an athelete would want to win otherwise the Olympics is just a side show to the main event.

Football for example, would a footballer prefer to win Olympic Gold over the World Cup, I guess not so on that basis football should be out. If you had asked Andy Murray, Wimbledon or Olympic gold at start of season, I suspect he would have said Wimbledon, so guess that one goes as well, despite his historic Gold for GB and Silver for Scotland in the same day!

bigmat

mudcow007 wrote:

what i dont get is, if your a pro boxer you can not compete in the Olympics

but being a pro tennis player you can?

why one rule for one sport an different for others?

Its effectively a different sport - different governing bodies, rules, scoring etc. They could allow pros to compete but don't think they'd want to. Imagine Floyd v Manny for gold medal. Win a gold, miss out on a $100 million pay day... Not likely.

sketchley

BigMat wrote:

Puh-lease! This is just bollox isn't it? Does anybody but the Scottish actually believe that?

http://andymurrayometer.com/

bigmat

rubertoe wrote:

What I don't get is how Swimming can have 48 odd medal events and Track cycling can only have 10 odd.

Surely if they can pretty much have every single event in swimming then the cyclists should be allowed as well.

Another one for the rules committee.

Absoluteley agree, worth posting twice!

sketchley

mudcow007 wrote:

what i dont get is, if your a pro boxer you can not compete in the Olympics

but being a pro tennis player you can?

why one rule for one sport an different for others?

I'm no expert but Professional and Amateur boxing, different rules, different sports....

vermin

And in football, the teams must comprise solely under 23s plus 3 old Welshmen, but the 'elimination by penalty kicks' rule still stands. I don't get it.

vermin

Ultimately though, it's BRILLIANT, isn't it!

MrChuck

BillyMansell wrote:

The problem with precluding professionals is that in many sports the Olympic champions may be far from being the best in their sport - you could have complete fields of second rate competitors, and who would pay to see the second best athletes in the world compete?

This. I do agree with the OP, but (for me anyway) the Olympics is about the best of the best. Ideals of pro vs amateur shouldn't necessarily be chucked out but shouldn't trump the competition itself, which is pointless if they're not the best.

the_cyclist_of_catan

The professional versus amateur debate was settled years ago - with so many loopholes and subterfuges being used to pay athletes vast sums, most sports haven't been amateur for decades, and to force some sort of artificial pretence on matters now would be to pointlessly wind the clock back. As for the status of boxing, amateur boxing is played by different rules to professional fights, so you're not comparing apples to apples when pointing to the apparent differences to the participation of tennis players.

No, to my mind the real issue is - as wormo said - the fact that for most of these sports the Olympics represent a real pinnacle; there might be annual world championships, but the aim of their whole careers will be to medal - or perhaps just compete - at the Olympics.

Whereas with tennis, football and a few notable other sports they already have high profile (and highly rewarding) tournaments and championships, and to a very great extent the Olympics are just a side show. The sport's pinnacle lies elsewhere.

So in my ideal universe the Olympics would divest itself of all of those sports where "Olympic gold medallist" doesn't appear at the top of a participant's CV.

daviesee

BigMat wrote:

SimonAH wrote:

Now don't get me wrong, Murray is a hero for his performance in the tennis (and is now back to being British again having been relegated to merely Scottish following Wimbledon)

Puh-lease! This is just bollox isn't it? Does anybody but the Scottish actually believe that?

I am Scottish so may be slightly touchy on the subject but yesterday within 2 minutes of Radio 5 celebrating Murray winning gold for Britain, Kenny won a heat for England. Genuinely happened and why we are touchy on the subject.
Team GB or independant, I can respect both but be consistant.

daviesee

The Cyclist of Catan wrote:

So in my ideal universe the Olympics would divest itself of all of those sports where "Olympic gold medallist" doesn't appear at the top of a participant's CV.

+1

rick_chasey

Throw horse riding out.

It may be entertaining, but being a horse whisperer or Dr Dolittle doesn't have much to do with the olympic ideal - save for the ideal that as many sports for chins be included. Fencing, shooting, horse riding, modern pentathlon etc etc.

schlepcycling

Just wait for 2016 you'll have golf too.

hjghg5

I sort of agree for things like tennis, but I'm not sure about all of the sports for one main reason. Women. The male road cyclists may have bigger prizes on offer, but when else do we get to see the best female riders? or the female footballers? (and yes, they do have other competitions but nothing with the level of media exposure that the Olympics gets).

sketchley

vermin wrote:

Ultimately though, it's BRILLIANT, isn't it!

Yes. Apart from the football....

mtb-idle

schlepcycling wrote:

Just wait for 2016 you'll have golf too.

Doh! beat me to the punch (amateur or pro?)

I agree with a lot of this. tennis, footie, etc are just wrong in the olympics

(or am i just bitter cos out of the whole bloomin lot of ticket applications I made all i got was the South Korea vs Gabon match which was a boring 0-0 draw?)

vermin

MTB-Idle wrote:

South Korea vs Gabon match which was a boring 0-0 draw?)

Ha! That was the only ticket I got too! I took the risk of leaving 5 mins before the end. What was the persistent Korean chant though? It sounded like "Hairy people, hairy people, ...", on which point I have no comment.

Oh, almost forgot, I also have a ticket to the dressage. @RC, I'll send you a photo.

aclivity

Rick Chasey wrote:

Throw horse riding out.

or, if you allow for a sport that relies more on the animal doing as asked than the human owner / operator being "faster, higher stronger", allow angling as an Olympic sport?