Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

rubiksnoob wrote:This glosses over the main issue, which is shooting shouldn't be an Olympic sport. You don't have to be particularly athletic to be really good at blowing away clay pigeons with a shotgun. I cite Kim Rhode as an example. Archery same thing. One of the Italians who won gold had a fething beer gut!

Up through the 40s, the Olympics also included artistic events, like Literature, Singing, and Painting.

All kinds of people have different opinions about what sports deserve to be in the Olympics. I think there's at least as much basis for excluding team sports as there would be for taking out the shooting events.

Mannahnin wrote:

rubiksnoob wrote:This glosses over the main issue, which is shooting shouldn't be an Olympic sport. You don't have to be particularly athletic to be really good at blowing away clay pigeons with a shotgun. I cite Kim Rhode as an example. Archery same thing. One of the Italians who won gold had a fething beer gut!

Up through the 40s, the Olympics also included artistic events, like Literature, Singing, and Painting.

All kinds of people have different opinions about what sports deserve to be in the Olympics. I think there's at least as much basis for excluding team sports as there would be for taking out the shooting events.

I'm all for that.

Well, the competitors disagree with us both.

Mannahnin wrote:Well, the competitors disagree with us both.

Well, of course! Everyone wants their own little niche to be part of the Olympics. No one wants to be left out. Some things, however, just don't belong in the Games. As you said, there used to artistic events, but the modern Games have evolved towards a largely athletic competition. Thus, things that are more skills than sports, i.e. archery, shooting, should be cut. Just my two cents, though.

I want midevil jousting in the Olympics

rubiksnoob wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:Well, the competitors disagree with us both.

Well, of course! Everyone wants their own little niche to be part of the Olympics. No one wants to be left out. Some things, however, just don't belong in the Games. As you said, there used to artistic events, but the modern Games have evolved towards a largely athletic competition. Thus, things that are more skills than sports, i.e. archery, shooting, should be cut. Just my two cents, though.

Both archery and shooting require physical skills, though. Even without getting into stuff like Biathlon. Coordination, concentration, breathing control, even physical stamina to maintain the needed positions and focus and stillness over the duration of a match. Personally I'd be sad to see archery go; and fat guys can do that impressively well. Did you see those Italians shoot? It was amazing.

Mannahnin wrote:

rubiksnoob wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:Well, the competitors disagree with us both.

Well, of course! Everyone wants their own little niche to be part of the Olympics. No one wants to be left out. Some things, however, just don't belong in the Games. As you said, there used to artistic events, but the modern Games have evolved towards a largely athletic competition. Thus, things that are more skills than sports, i.e. archery, shooting, should be cut. Just my two cents, though.

Both archery and shooting require physical skills, though. Even without getting into stuff like Biathlon. Coordination, concentration, breathing control, even physical stamina to maintain the needed positions and focus and stillness over the duration of a match. Personally I'd be sad to see archery go; and fat guys can do that impressively well. Did you see those Italians shoot? It was amazing.

I did, and it was very impressive. But, they are hardly world-class athletes. And despite the fact that they are fantastically skilled and talented at what they do, the Olympics have evolved into an athletic event, and archery and shooting are not athletic pursuits. It's like having Olympic billiards. Or shuffleboard. But wait! They already have that in the winter games!

Jihadin wrote:I want midevil jousting in the Olympics

I think The olympics should also include Chess, oh and other fun stuff that make it more interesting, Like during the running evens you have to dodge flaming arrows.
In all honesty, this reporter was just trying to make people notice her article, and she did.

Olympic billiards would be pretty awesome though, and it would give the brits at least one thing they dominate in outside of rowing

and archery and shooting are not athletic pursuits..

Try biathlon sometime, then re-read that statement.

SOFDC wrote:
Try biathlon sometime, then re-read that statement.

So shooting becomes athletic when added to a discipline that is athletic?

rubiksnoob wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:

rubiksnoob wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:Well, the competitors disagree with us both.

Well, of course! Everyone wants their own little niche to be part of the Olympics. No one wants to be left out. Some things, however, just don't belong in the Games. As you said, there used to artistic events, but the modern Games have evolved towards a largely athletic competition. Thus, things that are more skills than sports, i.e. archery, shooting, should be cut. Just my two cents, though.

Both archery and shooting require physical skills, though. Even without getting into stuff like Biathlon. Coordination, concentration, breathing control, even physical stamina to maintain the needed positions and focus and stillness over the duration of a match. Personally I'd be sad to see archery go; and fat guys can do that impressively well. Did you see those Italians shoot? It was amazing.

I did, and it was very impressive. But, they are hardly world-class athletes. And despite the fact that they are fantastically skilled and talented at what they do, the Olympics have evolved into an athletic event, and archery and shooting are not athletic pursuits. It's like having Olympic billiards. Or shuffleboard. But wait! They already have that in the winter games!

They are in fact world class atheletes.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

hotsauceman1 wrote:

Jihadin wrote:I want midevil jousting in the Olympics

I think The olympics should also include Chess, oh and other fun stuff that make it more interesting, Like during the running evens you have to dodge flaming arrows.
In all honesty, this reporter was just trying to make people notice her article, and she did.

The IOC recognizes chess as a sport, they do not appear in the games because they are limited to 28 sports.

AustonT wrote:

rubiksnoob wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:

rubiksnoob wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:Well, the competitors disagree with us both.

Well, of course! Everyone wants their own little niche to be part of the Olympics. No one wants to be left out. Some things, however, just don't belong in the Games. As you said, there used to artistic events, but the modern Games have evolved towards a largely athletic competition. Thus, things that are more skills than sports, i.e. archery, shooting, should be cut. Just my two cents, though.

Both archery and shooting require physical skills, though. Even without getting into stuff like Biathlon. Coordination, concentration, breathing control, even physical stamina to maintain the needed positions and focus and stillness over the duration of a match. Personally I'd be sad to see archery go; and fat guys can do that impressively well. Did you see those Italians shoot? It was amazing.

I did, and it was very impressive. But, they are hardly world-class athletes. And despite the fact that they are fantastically skilled and talented at what they do, the Olympics have evolved into an athletic event, and archery and shooting are not athletic pursuits. It's like having Olympic billiards. Or shuffleboard. But wait! They already have that in the winter games!

They are in fact world class atheletes.

Really? Because I don't see shooting bits of clay with a shotgun to be particularly athletic. And I've done it before. I love skeet shooting. It's not athletic though. Running a marathon is athletic. Racing your bike 150 miles is athletic. Throwing shotput is athletic. Shooting not so much.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

SOFDC wrote:

and archery and shooting are not athletic pursuits..

Try biathlon sometime, then re-read that statement.

Nice try buddy-o.

Then you don't know what an athlete is and you should. It has nothing to do with running, jumping, or climbing. A synonym for athlete is competitor, because the Greek word Athlon mean prize. In short an athlete is someone who participates in a sport for a prize...say a medal. A world class athlete participates in a sport for a prize on the world stage. If you don't think shooting sports are physical you are delusional. It's not a marathon; neither is sailing, equestrian (all three events), ping pong, badmitton, fencing, or golf. All Olympic sports staffed by world class athletes.

youbedead wrote:Olympic billiards would be pretty awesome though, and it would give the brits at least one thing they dominate in outside of rowing

But wouldn't Billiards require the consumption of copious amounts of alcohol as well to make it truly competitive?

youbedead wrote:Olympic billiards would be pretty awesome though, and it would give the brits at least one thing they dominate in outside of rowing

And cycling.

Albatross wrote:

youbedead wrote:Olympic billiards would be pretty awesome though, and it would give the brits at least one thing they dominate in outside of rowing

And cycling.

Except losing to Kazakhstan in the men's road race!

Grey Templar wrote:

youbedead wrote:Olympic billiards would be pretty awesome though, and it would give the brits at least one thing they dominate in outside of rowing

But wouldn't Billiards require the consumption of copious amounts of alcohol as well to make it truly competitive?

Well, yes.

But isn't that the point?

rubiksnoob wrote:

Albatross wrote:

youbedead wrote:Olympic billiards would be pretty awesome though, and it would give the brits at least one thing they dominate in outside of rowing

And cycling.

Except losing to Kazakhstan in the men's road race!

Have you been watching the velodrome? Or the Tour de France? Not that I'm a cycling fan or anything, but it's pretty churlish to say that Britain's cyclists aren't smashing it at the moment.

Grey Templar wrote:

youbedead wrote:Olympic billiards would be pretty awesome though, and it would give the brits at least one thing they dominate in outside of rowing

But wouldn't Billiards require the consumption of copious amounts of alcohol as well to make it truly competitive?

It would be mandatory, extra points awarded based on drunkenness and presence of beer gut

Albatross wrote:

rubiksnoob wrote:

Albatross wrote:

youbedead wrote:Olympic billiards would be pretty awesome though, and it would give the brits at least one thing they dominate in outside of rowing

And cycling.

Except losing to Kazakhstan in the men's road race!

Have you been watching the velodrome? Or the Tour de France? Not that I'm a cycling fan or anything, but it's pretty churlish to say that Britain's cyclists aren't smashing it at the moment.

I'm just yanking your chain. I am aware that Her Royal Majesty's Anointed Pedal Pushers are doing very well. And I am a cycling fan.

Your guy's highest finisher came in 29th, I do believe. One of us Yanks just missed out on the bronze.

rubiksnoob wrote:

Albatross wrote:

rubiksnoob wrote:

Albatross wrote:

youbedead wrote:Olympic billiards would be pretty awesome though, and it would give the brits at least one thing they dominate in outside of rowing

And cycling.

Except losing to Kazakhstan in the men's road race!

Have you been watching the velodrome? Or the Tour de France? Not that I'm a cycling fan or anything, but it's pretty churlish to say that Britain's cyclists aren't smashing it at the moment.

I'm just yanking your chain. I am aware that Her Royal Majesty's Anointed Pedal Pushers are doing very well. And I am a cycling fan.

Your guy's highest finisher came in 29th, I do believe. One of us Yanks just missed out on the bronze.

You mean Mark Cavendish? Yeah, he's a sprinter, no way he was going to win that race with only Team GB (and one German who rode with Team Sky in the Tour de France) working to catch the breakaway in the peloton.

Mannahnin wrote:

rubiksnoob wrote:This glosses over the main issue, which is shooting shouldn't be an Olympic sport. You don't have to be particularly athletic to be really good at blowing away clay pigeons with a shotgun. I cite Kim Rhode as an example. Archery same thing. One of the Italians who won gold had a fething beer gut!

Up through the 40s, the Olympics also included artistic events, like Literature, Singing, and Painting.

All kinds of people have different opinions about what sports deserve to be in the Olympics. I think there's at least as much basis for excluding team sports as there would be for taking out the shooting events.

I'd argue most of the "sports" are just pastimes if you want to go that route. Badminton? Really???


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Jihadin wrote:I want midevil jousting in the Olympics

I'd be onside with that.

Frazzled wrote:
I'd argue most of the "sports" are just pastimes if you want to go that route. Badminton? Really???

I had many an epic badminton battle in high school. It was the best damn thing we did in gym.

No dodgeball?

Jihadin wrote:No dodgeball?

I went to a small high school (~600 kids), so dodgeball was boring due to the athletes dominating everyone else. In essence there were never enough athletes to have two teams composed only of good players go against each other. You would always get teams where there were 1-2 good players, and 8-9 bad ones.

Badminton, by comparison, was always the good players against the good players so it was fun. Floor hockey was fun too, but that's only because I was one of 5 people in my school that had ever actually played hockey, so I got to embarrass some of the guys I played football with.

Edit: We also had voluntary badminton tournaments, which was awesome because it let the kids that didn't care do whatever they wanted, and the kids that did be competitive.

dogma wrote:

Phanatik wrote:
Or, I wonder how the reporter feels about writing a stupid article with the same language Shakespeare used to entertain folks for 4 centuries?

It isn't the same language. EModE is not the same language as contemporary English.

I would challenge that. Early Modern English is still a form of Modern English. There are some differences, but linguistically speaking there's not really enough of a difference to classify Early Modern English and Modern English as separate languages like you would Old English, Middle English, and Modern English.



As for the OP, the thread title definitely caught my attention, but when I read the article it wasn't as bad as I expected. Not to say it was that great of an article either either. The whole premise is just kind of dumb, it'd be kind of like interviewing NASCAR drivers on how they feel about competing with machines that kill more people in the US than guns every year.