Ruining the validity of the Olympics

Post Reply New Topic

It used to be that the Communist countries dominated the Olympics, because their athletes never became "professional."

Mexican Diver starts only fans to pay for Olympics:

https://apnews.com/article/mexican-dive ... e482bb7aa9

The Olympics should be about the best in the world competing against each other. If you're among the best at something then you should be getting paid for it! Penalizing athletes for being full-time athletes instead only being athletes as a hobby defeats the goal of having the best compete against each other. They should have never tried to restrict it to amateurs.

I was never very interested in finding out who was "the best" at a particular, practically useless, task. And I doubt that the Olympics really tells us the answer. There's a lot of random chance involved. If they did the Olympics twice with the same contestants, the results would be different.

International sport has always been a big thing with politicians. They like to make it look as if the people from the country they're running are somehow a superior race.

I agree that money tends to spoil things. If you've got access to expensive equipment and training, of course you're likely to perform better.

I like watching Olympics for the human interest stories, and to see the grand displays of emotion. I've never been able to display my emotions properly because I'm pretty much stone-faced and alexithymic. I love watching people cheer, or cry, or console others. I love the way people support one another even if they're from different teams and different countries. I love seeing parents' love for their kids -- especially those vignettes where it shows the family back at home with a tiny TV and the whole village gathered together.

There used to be a TV commercial for Tim Horton's coffee which made me bawl my eyes out every time, for this reason. ^ I'll see if I can find it.




https://youtu.be/NdrSkoc08gw

"That's my grandson! My grandson!"

Oh my God, I cry my eyes out. That's how my dad acted at my son's games.

I consider the Olympics as on the same level of NASCAR, Grammy/Oscar/Tony award shows, and beauty pageants.

Bleh.

I 'd rather watch NASCAR.

It's a sporting competition, not a scientific study.

While some stuff, like gymnastics, is kind of "useless" (and in general I dislike any competition scored by judges instead of some kind of points or time based system) there are practical competitions like running, swimming, throwing, and archery. And organized sports like soccer, baseball, basketball, and hockey are widely played from children to adult professionals.

Yes, and that's probably one reason why I don't like it much. Not that I'd approve of a scientific attempt to find out who's the best in the world at this or that.

You may be right but I heard somewhere that the guy who started the modern Olympics in the 19th century wanted it to be an amature competition.If you feel strongly about there's an anual games that's held at a beach an hour's drive south of my hometown that might interest you.

Yes, I'm just explaining what an amateur athlete in that era was.

Pro athletes weren't paid well, they were regular people who were skilled enough to feed themselves by playing a sport. Amateurs who could play at that level tended to be independently wealthy since they otherwise wouldn't have the time to maintain proficiency and earn a living.

What would the 19th century be without classism?