Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

200, 10k, Shot, and more? [cutting events]

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Given how the marathon brings the Olympics to "millions" of locals for free, that's close to the last event that would ever go.

    Comment


    • #32
      I wouldn't miss the 200 or eliminating at least one relay. It is never been fair that sprinters could double/triple and also team up on relays. If they're going to drop the 10,000, then add a distance medley relay!

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by gh View Post
        Given how the marathon brings the Olympics to "millions" of locals for free, that's close to the last event that would ever go.
        All the more reason to kick it out of T&F. Other events would be cut if it stays.

        Comment


        • #34
          [QUOTE=spammer;2498059]: ( ok Which events do you think they should cut?

          First, what is the problem to be solved? Are we cutting to reduce the number of athletes? Are we reducing to cut the amount of TV coverage? Is the stadium booked for other activities? This is going to inform what makes sense to cut for me.

          If it is to reduce the number of participants, that is fairly easy. You raise the "B" standard. That reduces the number of people and the number of heats/qualifiers/officials.

          If you are reducing the amount of TV coverage, there are painfully well known methods to do that.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by gh View Post
            You realize,of course, that the proponents of all the other sports feel just as passionaltely about their events as we do ours?
            Isn't there a good argument in favor of retaining the present track&field events? No events have been added for hundred years (apart from walks?), except for giving women equal opportunities. (In fact some events like cross-counry running have been removed.)

            This contrasts with many other sports such as swimming to which many new events (like 50m swims) have been added in recent decades. This excess of events is evident in the ridiculous amounts of golds individual swimmers can get.
            Last edited by Olli; 12-11-2014, 07:14 PM.

            Comment


            • #36
              Let me try to clarify what's going on here, stealing from a brilliant g uy like Doug Gillon of the Glasgow Herald.

              Here's the numbers game:

              << From Tokyo in 2020, it was agreed that the Games will be restricted to 10,500 athletes and 310 events. London 2012 had 11,000 in 302 disciplines across 26 sports. The current cap of 28 sports has been lifted, but future additional ones must be confined within the 310-event cap.>>

              We know new events are on their way into the Games (like baseball and softball). For every one of those that is added, one has to be cut from somewhere else. If a whole sport doesn't disappear, then one of its events is under the gun.

              And why is track at risk? Partially because it's the biggest sport and can absorb hits more easily. But then Gillon points this out:

              <<Sebastian Coe's manifesto as he toes the start-line in the race for presidency of the International Association of Athletics Federations made radical proposals. This is a sport where the average age of followers (49) is unsustainably high, according to Coe. As we suggested before he said so in his manifesto, athletics must be overhauled, streamlined, rebranded and repackaged, or its appeal will be compromised along with its pre-eminent role of the Olympic programme.>>

              We may think of track as the premiere Olympic sport, but "we" are dieing out. And for every one of us who wants to keep a "traditional" track & field event, there are more people clamoring for something else.

              It's no a matter of IF it's going to happen to us, it's WHEN and HOW MUCH?

              That help clarify things?

              Comment


              • #37
                If they must cut any event then let it be race walking and further banish any and all records of it ever being part of the sport of track and field.

                Not-a-race-walking-fan.

                Comment


                • #38
                  From a limited participation standpoint it probably makes sense to cut all of the relays in swimming and track.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Track can cut its participation numbers "easily" without sacrificing any events. Unfortunately, that's looking like it's no longer an option; events will need to be cut just for teh sake of cutting events from the overall Games picture to accomondate new, more popular ones.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      "New, more popular" meaning "sports" willing to pour millions of dollars in bribes into IOC pockets.

                      If they let crap like baseball and softball back in, I'm done with the Olympics. Which I'm sure hurts their feelings.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        As gh pointed out, it's most likely a case of when, not if. I wish it weren't so, but that is the reality. If, in fact, it's a question of which events to drop, the 10k, either the 20 or 50k walk, the 200 (post-Bolt), and either the TJ, HT or JT (please not the Shot!) seem most likely. I, for one, would love to see more relays, not less, especially if it means the sprint and distance medleys. But that particular itch may well be scratched on a regular basis by the World Relay Championships.

                        Then there's the issue of presentation. I have always thought that the Olympic finals should be two consecutive Fri/Sat/Sundays, with the running events staggered . . .

                        First weekend - 100/400/1500/10k
                        2nd weekend - 200/800/steeple/5k

                        That gives the best opportunity for doubling, whether a 100/200, a 200/400, or so on. The field events, and Dec & Hept would likewise be split.

                        I am in total agreement that sports where the gold medal means less than their regular season ending championship need to go. And wouldn't it be nice someday to have an annual WC, as every other sport does . . . although that would affect everything from NCAAs to DL schedules.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by gm View Post
                          "New, more popular" meaning "sports" willing to pour millions of dollars in bribes into IOC pockets.

                          If they let crap like baseball and softball back in, I'm done with the Olympics. Which I'm sure hurts their feelings.
                          But it' s not good business ( and in the end, that's what this is now largely all about) to deny the Japanese their favorite team game.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            I'm already preparing my IAAF voodoo doll for the first bozo that tries to touch any of our events.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by bobguild76 View Post

                              I am in total agreement that sports where the gold medal means less than their regular season ending championship need to go.
                              So, do you really think that in the Winter Olympics they want to do away with ice hockey, and in the summer to do away with the high rated and star-studded basketball (as well as tennis and possibly the coming of golf). I suppose that soccer is also a big sport for the IOC. They are not going to start killing golden gooses that they they can add a few semi-precious new events.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by 26mi235 View Post
                                So, do you really think that in the Winter Olympics they want to do away with ice hockey, and in the summer to do away with the high rated and star-studded basketball (as well as tennis and possibly the coming of golf). I suppose that soccer is also a big sport for the IOC. They are not going to start killing golden gooses that they they can add a few semi-precious new events.
                                Actually, the Winter Olympics have been, for a long time, the ONLY competition with the best possible national ice-hockey teams; hence it certainly means a lot, much more than any regular series, for typical sportswatchers at least where I am living. In basketball, too, the best national teams have been in the Olympics for some decades. These sports cannot be compared to soccer, or to tennis or golf.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X