I agree with you that sports that rely on judges should be cut. It probably sounds extreme, but sports like that (figure skating, diving, synchronized swimming) always have a smell of corruption to them, and are unsatisfying because of the judging element that always takes the focus off of the athlete's performance. After the past Winter Olympic scandals in figure skating, I swear I'll never watch the "sport" again. One question I have related to this is: Why are some judged sports like figure skating full of corruption, while other judged sports like gymnastics or diving not? Any answers out there?
I can see ur point, however, can't fully agree. If u say, all sports that rely on judges should be cut, then, well, a lot of others will be cut, too. Say, swimming (judge can determine if any interference, and early "start" invovled or not), tracking field (ex: timing on rely racing, illegal starting postion, etc), basketball (do I have to metion the whistles?), baseball (striking zone), volleyball (touch the net, illegal serve), Gymnastics (well...), wrestling/fencing/boxing (illegal contact, hits, points) Just way too many... If the standard is set to be this, then, any sports will have some "corruption" possibilities...
The judging in the sports you mentioned and the judging in say figure skating is quite different. In the sports you mentioned, there are clear instance where a violation occur and judges "judge" that. In figure skating, the opinion of landing a triple sow-cow or whatever it is called is exactly that, an opinion of the judges and how well you do depends solely on the judge's score. Anway, hope my point is clear, even though the sports LB mentioned are technically speaking judged, I think the better term would be refereed or regulated rather than judged.
I agree. However, no matter how much %%% we talking about all these sports, the judge/referee all play big roles in game results. Yeah, we know judge can totally mess up outcomes like figure skating and gymnastics. However, do we still remember game 6 of this year's NBA final??? Do we still remember the famous "various strike zone" in baseball? Do we still remember the "time flowing back" incident in Korean basketball? Do we know how many "dis-qualificaiton" in track&field, which should not be called? Or, should be, but did not called? Well, u know my point. Judge/referee can effect a game, not necessary at the beginning, or throughout the entire eventt, but also could be the last second. Therefore, my point is, using possible "judge/referee corruption" as an excuse to kick a game out of oly. game is unacceptable to me.
It is an incredible oversimplification to somehow equate the "judging" of referees, who exist in virtually all sports, and the "judging" of judges in sports like figure skating. I mean, come on! In a sport like figure skating, the judges decide who wins, and that's that. The result is totally based on the points they grant, or fail to grant. That is not a just a little different from the "judging" that takes place in sports like soccer, or ice hockey, or whatever, it is totally different. In sports where referees monitor the play, they are there to ensure fair play and keep players from breaking the rules. In a sense, they do play a part in the result of the sport, but it is nothing like a truly judged sport, where the judges decide the outcome. I hope this doesn't sound like I'm being critical of your comments, but I think you are taking logic to it's most ridiculous and extreme conclusions.
I see ur point. And I agree with your point. However, whatever I metioned in previous post is taking the view from a player but not a committee. To us, sure, figuare skating and gymnastics are almost purely depend on what judge like or dislike. A champion can be placed at last, due to weired "art" issues. However, for the athletes, no matter s/he be ruled to be lose at the beginning (say, invisible art issues) or at the last pennalty kick/shot (soccer, basketball, hockey, etc) for regulation rules, it's still hurt for players, since the result is the same. I am not trying to create an agrument to say, whether judge/referee in all sports are equally to be important or not. I just try to say, since the "rules" and the "rulers" in each game do play certain necessary roles, just use this as an excuse to cut a sport from oly. game is ridiculous, since if this rule applies, then, well, maybe we will take everything out.
I am not trying to create an agrument to say, whether judge/referee in all sports are equally to be important or not. I just try to say, since the "rules" and the "rulers" in each game do play certain necessary roles, just use this as an excuse to cut a sport from oly. game is ridiculous, since if this rule applies, then, well, maybe we will take everything out. _______________________________________________________ I guess what we are proving in this discussion is that it is very difficult to find any objective criteria that can be used to cut sports. Really, all that I have proven with my points about judged sports is that I personally dislike them, because performance and success in those sports are entirely mediated by judges who are not always fair, competent, or objective, and are sometimes obviously corrupt. Your point about referees affecting the outcomes of games is well taken. In the women's ice hockey final in the past Winter Olympics, for example, team USA played team Canada. For some reason, the main referee was American, and she was very biased in her calls - 11 penalties to the Canadians vs. only 2 (I think) for the Americans. In spite of this, team Canada won, but the outcome was definitely almost reversed because of biased refereeing. Similarly in the past World Cup of Soccer, where team Korea advanced partly due to inspired play, and partly because of referee bias or incompitence - or corruption at higher levels of FIFA. I think, however, that at least in sports where referees only oversee a game, the athletes at least have the final ability to somehow overcome and win despite bias or incompetence (as in the team Canada example). In purely judged sports, on the other hand, if you are judged to have lost, it doesn't matter what you do in the game itself, and judge's decisions are almost never reversed, no matter how obviously biased or inept they are. Just imagine if judges were added to badminton. I got 15 points, but lost because the other player had better technique. Basically, I prefer sports where there is a final score which is the result, as much as possible, of the actions of the athletes in the game itself...with as little outside interference or interpretation as possible. There are some who would even argue that sports which rely entirely on judging for their outcome are not really even sports at all. I don't know how I feel about that.
Lol... I really like ur example. Yeah, now, finally I think I can take ur point of view. Yeah, totally agree on this statement.
Judges to badminton?! No thank you. Imagine all the people good at other sports but coming to play and winning cuz of their strokes, style, and stuff. NO WAY!. lol.
I'm obviously biased but I honestly think if anything should be cut it should be baseball . Badminton is just too cool to be cut. I'd lose so much respect for the Olympics if badminton were cut .
I think that if any games should be cut it should be, soccer, baseball, softball and basketball. As these sports all have lots of leagues, like the Premiership, MLB and the NBA. I'm sure people see enough of these sports without it being in the olympics.
well they should cut chess, and golf, these 2 suck plus its nothing to see westerners try to hide their defeat, they look down on asians anyway, now it seems like by cutting badminton they will avoid a losing battle, since most european nations simply cant make it to the top in badminton
there are way too many events in track and field which of course dominated by US. Some of these should be cut. 100,200,400,800,etc sprint, relay, hurdles, etc
Sports which should be cut are those where the top athletes do not give a damn about the Olympics. Tennis is the first thing that comes to mind. Athletics (although dominated by Americans) should be in because the athletes are passionate about Olympic glory just like our shuttlers.
I think badmintons biggest problem with drawing crowds is no one comes until quarterfinal matches at the earliest. The stands are seriously empty until quarters, the finals of tournaments usually attract bigger crowds though. bigger crowds = bigger ticket revenue
The problem for lack of attendance in earlier round is because the lackness of competitiveness. Due to the "limited entries" rules, the powerhouses have to bench WC champs and many promising rising stars. At the same time, some rank 50's players get a spot, simply because of they are the best from the other nations. I know Olympics has the duty to spread the sport's popularity. However, here's the debate I can never solve myself. Whether we should "give everyone a chance", or should we see "the best against the best"?
