Is the Olympics fair?

[Wildeybeast]

So I've been getting into the Olympics and starting to enjoy, but that has got me wondering about some of the more abstract elements of it and this is one of them.

Put simply is the Olympics fair? Not in terms of doping rigging or anything of that ilk, but in the basic set up of the competition. It is supposed to be a competition of nations but China and the US are already top of the medal table and that is where they will stay. And that is because they have massive populations to draw from and large amounts of money pumped into the infrastructure that supports and develops their athletes. The Italians, who are third in the medal table, are offering £115,000 rewards to their gold medallists (which may go some way to explaining why their economy is buggered). Put simply, how can the smaller/poorer nations hope to compete against this? I saw a bloke from Niger in the rowing yesterday who only took up rowing three months ago and finished a whole minute behind the likes of the mighty Lithuania. Sure you get the odd result like Hungary winning gold in fencing, but the big nations that spend the most always dominate.

Whilst we can't give these countries money for developing their athletes, we could level the playing field a bit. What I'm suggesting is either restricting the number of events countries can enter or perhaps limiting them to one athlete per event. When the US have Phelps and Lochte in the same race, the field is already skewed towards the US winning medal. If we just had one of them, it might level the field a bit more. And having them race against each other to see who qualifies for that Olympic event would draw quite an audience I imagine. Furthermore, there is precedent for this idea. We already limit team sports to one team per nation and when team GB cleaned up at the cycling in Beijing they limited the number of events cyclists could enter to try and level the field.

So what does the internet think? Should we try to limit the dominance of the bigger nations and promote the Olympic ideal of sport for the world? Or should we just accept it as another result of the rampant capitalism that has taken over the sporting world?

[lattd]

I dunno Britain have managed to make huge mistakes in events we expected to do well in, so mistakes can happen, and the olympics where meant to be for non professionals which is why only amateurs can compete in the boxing, but as the games have got bigger etc, you have to be a full time athlete to compete.

[SotonShades]

I think in many respects it is fair. A country may not have infrastructure, but it doesn't stop people trainging for the 100m sprint in a field or a swimmer training by swimming across a lake and back everyday. What the smaller countries lack is often the coverage of sport that we are 'blessed' with, depending upon your view, so have fewer of their inhabitants are inspired to play sport and to achieve the levels of athleticsm we larger nations produce. A great example was the nation that only got TV in 1994 (forgotton which it was.) No one in their country had entered previous olympics simply because the majority of the population didn't know about it. They didn't enter the '96 Olympics because no one was ready in time but since have had a growing contingent of atheletes and apparently have a couple of mdeal chance this year.

As for the population size thing; not much you can do about that. Yes, the bigger the populace, the greater chance you will have atheletes that can compete at that level, but restricting the number of atheletes they are allowed to bring isn't going to help the smaller nations bring more people. It would simply mean that instead of seeing the world's best really pushing each other to reach the limits of what can be done with the human body, we'd see a lesser spectacle. Still far more than we (the average human) could do, but not the current spectacle. I wouldn't be surprised if you saw a lot of the best atheletes not competing to save themselves for the big money events if they knew they wouldn't be competing against the very best all the nations have to offer.

I reckon it would be better for the IOC to help the poorer nations with the costs of travel and accomodation for the nations below a certain GDP threshold, allowing anyone who is good enough to qualify to participate.

[wittdooley]

So I've been getting into the Olympics and starting to enjoy, but that has got me wondering about some of the more abstract elements of it and this is one of them.

Put simply is the Olympics fair? Not in terms of doping rigging or anything of that ilk, but in the basic set up of the competition. It is supposed to be a competition of nations but China and the US are already top of the medal table and that is where they will stay. And that is because they have massive populations to draw from and large amounts of money pumped into the infrastructure that supports and develops their athletes. The Italians, who are third in the medal table, are offering £115,000 rewards to their gold medallists (which may go some way to explaining why their economy is buggered). Put simply, how can the smaller/poorer nations hope to compete against this? I saw a bloke from Niger in the rowing yesterday who only took up rowing three months ago and finished a whole minute behind the likes of the mighty Lithuania. Sure you get the odd result like Hungary winning gold in fencing, but the big nations that spend the most always dominate.

Whilst we can't give these countries money for developing their athletes, we could level the playing field a bit. What I'm suggesting is either restricting the number of events countries can enter or perhaps limiting them to one athlete per event. When the US have Phelps and Lochte in the same race, the field is already skewed towards the US winning medal. If we just had one of them, it might level the field a bit more. And having them race against each other to see who qualifies for that Olympic event would draw quite an audience I imagine. Furthermore, there is precedent for this idea. We already limit team sports to one team per nation and when team GB cleaned up at the cycling in Beijing they limited the number of events cyclists could enter to try and level the field.

So what does the internet think? Should we try to limit the dominance of the bigger nations and promote the Olympic ideal of sport for the world? Or should we just accept it as another result of the rampant capitalism that has taken over the sporting world?

But we're already seeing this "everyone should get a chance" attitude in gymnastics, where the US had 3 of the top 5 Invidivual Scores for the All-Around qualifiers, but are only allowed to take two athletes to the finals.

What that means, is that poor Jordan Wieber scored better than 20 other women that are allowed to compete for the All-Around gold, but she is not because of some touchy-feely fairness rule. IMO, it completely dilutes the All-Around final now.

I think leveling the field is a terrible idea. The best athletes should be competing, and if that means there are going to be 3 Nigerians on top of the Marathon medals stand, so be it. Now, I'm fine with only 1 TEAM coming from each country, despite the fact that, as an American, we'd have a few of our "B" sides competing for medals as well.

[Wildeybeast]

I get the argument about wanting the best in the world competing, regardless of where they come from, but is that what the Olympics is actually about? Surely the Olympics is actually about which nation has the best athletes, otherwise why does it matter which country they are from? Why the medal table, the procession of athletes according to nations, the matching (and sometimes horrendous (https://twitter.com/Saul_Craviotto/status/225213735529222145)) uniforms?

Take Tennis. For 2 weeks every four years, Roger Federer is Roger Federer OF SWITZERLAND. For the rest of the time everyone is perfectly happy for him to be Roger Federer the Machine, Roger Federer Greatest Player Ever (possibly), Roger Federer Shatterer of a Scotsman's Dream. No one cares which country he is from most of the time but he takes part in the Olympics as representative of Switzerland, rather than playing for himself the rest of the time. If the Olympics was simply a competition of the best athlete in any given field, just have the best athletes compete and forgot about the country bit. It would actually be a true sporting contest then, rather than having some of the best athletes missing out because their countries allocation is full, as Witt describes.

No, rightly or wrongly, the Olympics is set up as a contest of a nations sporting prowess, not the individuals. And as such it is patently unfair to the weaker nations.

And Soton, with respect, doing a bit of swimming or running by yourself is in no way comparable to the top level training. I could run every single day and whilst I'd keep myself fit, I wouldn't even come close to Olympic qualification. You are talking about people who do this as their job, who have scientists working out finely honed training and exercise routines and diets, intricate tactics, psychologists working on mental conditioning etc. Unless everyone gets that level of training, there is no comparison between the rich nations and the poorer ones.

I should perhaps add that I'm speculating and playing devil's advocate here, I don't think for one second that the sponsors who truly control the Olympics would ever let this happen, nor that it necessarily should. I just think it is an interesting point to debate.

[DarkLink]

African nations dominate plenty of running events, so it's not completely down to how wealthy your nation is.

My biggest problem with some events at the olympics is how niche and overlapping some events are.

Swimming has like fifty different equivalents to the 100m sprint, while running has... the hundred meter spring. Swimming has backstroke and freestyle and butterfly stroke and medley and on and on and on, allowing someone really good at swimming 100m to win a half dozen gold metals. A sprinter, on the other hand, gets the 100m, and maybe the 200 if he's flexible. It's silly, and artificial. Swimming should simply be 'go this many laps, as fast as you can, with whatever stroke allows you to do so the quickest'.

The shooting competitions are with pellet guns. Don't get me wrong, putting several BBs through the same hole freestanding, even at short ranges, requires a lot of skill. But if you really want the test someone's marksmanship abilities, put them through a sniper course. Give them targets more than a mile out, and a big enough gun to hit them. Give them moving targets. Require them to estimate range and windage and environmental conditions while calculating bullet drop and other ballistic effects.

After watching the Crossfit Games for the last couple years, some Olympic events just don't compare. You want to test someone's fitness, right? That's the point? Then make them do a dozen high intensity events, from mini-triathalons to olympic lifting, in a mere three days with barely enough time to recover. It's an incredible display of physical prowess, and compared to that some Olympic events just make me wonder.

[Wildeybeast]

The shooting competitions are with pellet guns. Don't get me wrong, putting several BBs through the same hole freestanding, even at short ranges, requires a lot of skill. But if you really want the test someone's marksmanship abilities, put them through a sniper course. Give them targets more than a mile out, and a big enough gun to hit them. Give them moving targets. Require them to estimate range and windage and environmental conditions while calculating bullet drop and other ballistic effects.


Don't they kind of already do that with clay pigeon shooting? One of your girls became the best ever or something yesterday.

[Kyban]

Don't they kind of already do that with clay pigeon shooting? One of your girls became the best ever or something yesterday.

Yeah, 99/100, pretty crazy. I feel like they try to stay away from making it too military though.

[Gotthammer]

Swimming should simply be 'go this many laps, as fast as you can, with whatever stroke allows you to do so the quickest'.

That's literally what freestyle is :p The stroke universally used is technically called the crawl, and sometimes nicknamed the Australian Crawl (also an Aussie rock band).
Running also has the 4x100 relay, hurdles, and is part of the triathlon, pentathlon and heptathlon.


You want to test someone's fitness, right? That's the point? Then make them do a dozen high intensity events, from mini-triathalons to olympic lifting, in a mere three days with barely enough time to recover. It's an incredible display of physical prowess, and compared to that some Olympic events just make me wonder.

It's not just fitness, but also skill - thus events like the target shooting, archery, dance elements of womens gymnastics, synchronised swimming etc.

[wittdooley]

I was actually just going to comment on the Hurdles, but Gott beat me to it. Lest we also not forget the Steeplechase (running a lap with a bunch of **** in your way) and that weird Power Walking event they do.

I dont think the 3-legged race, however, really has any place at the Olympics.

[Kyban]

I dont think the 3-legged race, however, really has any place at the Olympics.
Haha, could be fun. It's like the running version of synchronized diving.

[Gotthammer]

100m sack race for 2016!


I mean they but BMX in... (though I admit that actually is rather fun to watch).

[wittdooley]

I'm just excited Rugby 7s will make its debut in 2016. About freakin time.

[Mr Mystery]

Clearly the even that is missing is the Freestyle Ten Pint Pagga.

A truly British event, your team can consist of as many atheletes/hooligans as you wish, but the pagga doesn't start until everyone has had 10 pints. Last man standing wins the gold.

I'm telling you, Britain would win that one hands down. Best of all, it's a single event. All countries altoogether at the same time in one enormous ruck!

[DarkLink]

I didn't say all Olympic stuff was silly, nor are all the shooting events, but some of them are, and there are some big gaps separating the Olympic sports from any practical application in reality.


That's literally what freestyle is :p The stroke universally used is technically called the crawl, and sometimes nicknamed the Australian Crawl (also an Aussie rock band).
Running also has the 4x100 relay, hurdles, and is part of the triathlon, pentathlon and heptathlon.

The relay, hurtles, and the -athlons are all very different from the 100m. What makes the breaststroke so different from the freestyle of an equivalent distance, other than the arbitrary distinction limiting you to one swimming technique. In fact, if the breast stroke is not the most efficient means of swimming that distance, when why ever bother to test one's skill at that technique if it's mostly meaningless in the real world?

That said, why run hurtles when you can do this instead: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NupHE3j1PBU



It's not just fitness, but also skill - thus events like the target shooting, archery, dance elements of womens gymnastics, synchronised swimming etc.

Yes (though the Crossfit Games have some very significant skill portions, and many athletes have lost a strong position because they came across a challenge they lacked skill in), but virtually everything requires skill. Where do you draw the line between 100m sprint and, say, belching the alphabet?

[Wildeybeast]

I was actually just going to comment on the Hurdles, but Gott beat me to it. Lest we also not forget the Steeplechase (running a lap with a bunch of **** in your way) and that weird Power Walking event they do.

I dont think the 3-legged race, however, really has any place at the Olympics.

Roll on the egg and spoon I say, test of speed and balance, what could be more challenging?




That said, why run hurtles when you can do this instead: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NupHE3j1PBU

That's nothing. This is hurdling (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iNB1Cg1BIZg).

[wittdooley]

Yes (though the Crossfit Games have some very significant skill portions, and many athletes have lost a strong position because they came across a challenge they lacked skill in), but virtually everything requires skill. Where do you draw the line between 100m sprint and, say, belching the alphabet?

While I think CrossFit is pretty sweet (despite all my FB uber-crossfit friends that drive me insane) it's not the best example, as it doesn't teach proper form for liftin, etc, and has come under some fire recently:

http://www.fox23news.com/news/local/story/FOX-Focus-Crossfit-Controversy/LIsBa-GsfE65264peeZhOw.cspx?p=Comments

While just one example, it's a fairly prevalent one.

[Wildeybeast]

While I think CrossFit is pretty sweet (despite all my FB uber-crossfit friends that drive me insane) it's not the best example, as it doesn't teach proper form for liftin, etc, and has come under some fire recently:

http://www.fox23news.com/news/local/story/FOX-Focus-Crossfit-Controversy/LIsBa-GsfE65264peeZhOw.cspx?p=Comments

While just one example, it's a fairly prevalent one.

Surely you lot don't take anything produced by Fox News seriously? :D

[DarkLink]

I don't take that sort of criticism very seriously, fox news or not. The problem with it is, crossfit is nothing more than a general approach to fitness. It's very academic. It's just like saying 'I'm going to train for a marathon'. 'I'm going to do some crossfit'.

The criticisms leveled at crossfit should really be applied to the coaching staff.

For example:


“The knee is completely uncontrolled and it slides inward with every lift that places a significant strain on the ACL,” explained chiropractor Dr. Jason Brown owner of Brown Integrated Chiropractic.

Every single crossfit trainer I've worked with would have identified and fixed the problem. The squad is just about the most important fundamental human movement, and every crossfit trainer I've met knows how to squat properly, how to identify poor form, and how to correct that form. I've gone to a couple of crossfit gyms, and in the on-ramp portion this exact thing is one of the first things the trainers looked for. Can you squat properly. If you couldn't, they worked on your squat until you could do it correctly.

There are a lot of individuals out there doing crossfit on their own, with no coaches to catch this, however. And there are plenty of bad coaches out there, just like with any sport or fitness program.


Bad form doesn't hurt you when you do it on rare occasions. It hurts you when you do it ten thousand times.


Anecdotal, I used to run cross country. I also used to have perpetually sore knees, from all that running. After I started doing crossfit, and all those squats and such, my knees got a lot stronger, and stopped hurting. Then I found the whole barefoot running thing, and I literally can't wear a normal tennis shoe again. Everyone, go and buy a New Balance Minimus, or Merrel barefoot shoe, right now, and you'll never look back. That's one of the few exercise products that actually has research to back it up. High heeled, heavily padded running shoes are terrible for you.


Gabelman says improper form indicates that the weight is too much.

Again, the crossfit trainers I've worked with say this exact same thing.


Still, critics are afraid this go-hard or go home atmosphere, could push people past their physical limits.

I'm going to be frank.

You want to maintain good form, though letting it slip a little is not actually that big of a deal so long as it's rare and you maintain good control.

But the idea that some people shouldn't push themselves, ever, is moronic. If you want to be physically fit, you have to push yourself to, and beyond, your limit. Anyone who criticizes that is an idiot.

I've known several people with asthma. Of them, the ones who never pushed themselves suffered from it. The ones that pushed themselves hard overcame it, and don't suffer from it even a little. I've known people who literally nearly died from asthma attacks as kids who took up running and swimming and are now extremely athletic and could care less about the asthma problems they once had.

I broke my leg rock climbing a few years ago. In 6 weeks, I was off crutches, and in another 6 weeks I was lifting heavy weights again. Now, my ankle never bothers me, ever, because I made a significant effort to overcome the pain, instability, and limited range of motion. Heck, my personal record on the deadlift (465lbs) happened about 9 months after my broken leg. And that particular lift was at my limit, and I had terrible form, but I got it up there and I normally maintain much better form than that.

This aspect of criticism is the single most pathetically idiotic thing I've ever heard a 'fitness expert' say.



Crossfit also doesn't cover everything. That's the other big criticism I've heard leveled against it. It's just a general fitness program, to develop a baseline of strength and conditioning. It's intended to give you a solid foundation to work from, then improve in whatever area you desire with more sport-specific work. You won't get 'super strong' doing just Crossfit (but you'll get pretty strong), but that's because Crossfit doesn't focus on strength at the exclusion of all else. If you want to get strong, mix in traditional power lifting and olympic lifting with crossfit, and you'll get very strong while still being able to go out and run five miles if you wanted. Same thing for long distance running. Crossfit doesn't focus on endurance at the expense of other things, so mix in traditional marathon training with crossfit and you'll be able to run a marathon, but still bench press your bodyweight.

[Wildeybeast]

At the risk of getting back to my OP, here is an interesting article on the topic. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-18976333

It's interesting to see that the US and China do better than the 'statistics' suggest they should, largely because of the infrastructure they have in place to support their athletes.

[DarkLink]

And there's this: http://imgur.com/r/funny/W4bTe

[Drunkencorgimaster]

NBC has yet again wrecked another Olympics here in the USA (short clips of only the sports the USA dominants in) so I can't really offer an educated opinion.

[Wildeybeast]

NBC has yet again wrecked another Olympics here in the USA (short clips of only the sports the USA dominants in) so I can't really offer an educated opinion.

Yeah, I've heard a few Americans complaining about their coverage. I know they edited bits out of the opening ceremony that they didn't like, which didn't go down particularly well over here. We would never dream of editing another country's opening ceremony. That combined with Romney's faux pas(s) hasn't exactly done much for transatlantic relations. The BBC coverage may not be perfect, but when they are providing live TV and radio coverage of every single event it's hard to moan too much.

[ragnarcissist]

the only sport that is "unfair" in the Olympics is basketball.

[Kyban]

the only sport that is "unfair" in the Olympics is basketball.

Whenever judges are giving scores it can also be rather subjective.

In the US you also need to have a cable subscription to get a lot of the coverage, online or not.