Jump to content

August

Members
  • Content Count

    63
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About August

  • Rank
    Bronze

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://augustonsports.blogspot.com/

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Finland
  1. This is just my opinion and I'm probably a purist of the highest order. In my opinion, a two-run sprint downhill should be used only under exceptional circumstances. The past weekend was exceptional; the races were already moved from from St. Anton to Zauchensee, and neither Zauchensee was able to prepare a full downhill course. When the options were a sprint downhill or no downhill at all, the right decision was made. That actually wasn't the premiere for the two-run sprint downhill. That format was used in Kitzbühel in the 90s in the Friday race, to distinguish it from Saturday's traditional Hahnenkamm downhill. Again fine. A more recent example of considering the two-run downhill was in Val Gardena few years ago. After a snowfall at night, it was clear the top section cannot be prepared for the race, so they were going to run it as a sprint downhill. Eventually, they start got delayed so much that they had to run the downhill as a one-run race on a shortened course. Not ideal, and even worse was the Hahnenkamm downhill last year, when it had to be shortened to under a minute. Those are the exceptional circumstances I'm talking about. But lack of slopes with sufficient height difference isn't. I might change my opinion on that if there were countries really deserving major alpine skiing events despite the lack of a full DH slope. But there aren't, China isn't one.
  2. I'm fine with a two-run sprint downhill when a full-length one-run downhill is impossible for unforeseen reasons, like next weekend at women's races in Zauchensee where they run on a shorted course due to lack of snow. But I like your idea of two full runs. A reason why I don't rate the Olympics so high in alpine skiing (below the World Cup titles and alongside classic races like Hahnenkamm) is that they're really not that different from World Cup races; just a bigger TV audience but actually also a weaker field as even big ski nations can send only four athletes. If I were in charge, I'd ape Ski-Flying Worlds and make both the Olympic downhill and the super-G two-day events with two-run aggregate times deciding the results. That would make Olympics more special. No need for that in technical disciplines; they already have two runs, plus with DNFs being so common there, doubling runs would make them a survival battle.
  3. The alpine skiing downhill event alongside super-G, long-distance cross-country skiing, and Nordic combined are events whose inclusion for the 2022 Winter Olympics is threatened. (Elsewhere I've also seen normal hill ski jumping mentioned.) http://www.skiracing.com/premium/will-the-olympic-downhill-be-eliminated A reason for eliminating those would be reduce costs and have shorter ski slopes and cross-country trails, less snowmaking, and just one ski jumping hill. While I think the cost of Olympics must be reduced, it should not affect the essentials of the Games. Alpine skiing has four plus one disciplines; the speed disciplines downhill and super-G, and the technical disciplines giant slalom and slalom, plus alpine combined of downhill and slalom. And I think a major championship must feature them all. Well, there's a solution to retain downhill, to have it with two shorter runs. But two one-minute runs isn't the same as one two-minute run. Maybe the Olympics would be just fine with these changes; however I feel it'd lose some prestige within alpine skiing, especially as alpine skiing has highly appreciated season-long World Cup titles. As for long-distance cross-country skiing, I couldn't anymore care less, the damage has already happened. I can't blame the IOC as the FIS changed men's 50km / women's 30km to a mass start instead of a time trial at the 2005 Worlds, how it's also been at the Olympics since 2006. So often a 50km mass start ends with a big lead group still together after 49km and the winner is the one with best sprint abilities, not necessarily the best fitness like in the traditional 50km time trials. As long as 50km is not a time trial, I'd be fine with no 50km at all. Getting rid of Nordic combined makes no sense; it doesn't require any additional venues, there's already the jumping hill and the ski trails. Getting rid of normal hill wouldn't be such a big deal. It's very rarely used for men on top level, usually only at major championships. Without the normal hill competition, the large hill could have a two-day, four-round competition like ski-flying world championship; doubling rounds would make it fairer. However, having both hills is such an established tradition in ski jumping major championships. And the difference is comparable to 100m and 200m in running or swimming; that's why having two ski jumping events feels fair. Also, women's competitions usually take place on normal hill, like the sole Olympic competition. That's another reason to retain the normal hill. And thinking about the Games' legacy; while not anymore so common in competitions, normal hills are used for training. It compliments the venue, making it not only for competitions but also for training.
  4. That's what they were planning and some people found that problematic. And Stockholm-Åre distance is about the same as Stockholm-Lillehammer. Åre might be more ready and better for Alpine skiing. Lillehammer had Alpine skiing in two venues Kvitfjell (downhill & super-G) and Hafjell (giant slalom & slalom), Åre can host all Alpine skiing events at the same mountain with a common finish area. Besides, I think Lillehammer doesn't have separate downhill slopes for men and women which is a requirement for the Alpine Worlds and what they have in Åre. On the other hand, Lillehammer would have the luge/bob/skeleton track what Sweden obviously doesn't have. Obviously hosting Alpine events and luge/bob/skeleton in Lillehammer might be a bit less costly but I can't see it as so much better an option, especially as the distance is the same, that Sweden would have some events in Norway.
  5. Obviously sharing the costs between two countries would help them but otherwise hard to say why this would be a stronger bid than a one-country bid. Oslo is the only Nordic city able to host the Olympics with Alpine skiing venues within a reasonable distance, in Norway (Lillehammer region).
  6. Davis Cup has had also some other interesting venues. This year's final in Lille: The soccer stadium has some seats installed below the other half of the soccer field. That half of the field is moved aside to get those seats exposed. Also, the stadium has a retractable roof and the Davis Cup final was played indoors. The final some years ago in Seville: The court was built at one end of an athletics stadium and a roof was installed above the tennis court. The benefit from doing that is to use the existing media center of the stadium. That would make sense also at the Olympics. No need to build a new venue if there's one for another sport that can be temporarily converted.
  7. Still, existing venues can be temporarily converted for other sports. As an example, a baseball stadium converted for Davis Cup tennis in San Diego:
  8. Triple jump has specialists, only few are good both in it and long jump. 200m is a way less special event. While it's the best event for some sprinters, they usually do also 100m/200m, while not necessarily at the Olympics.
  9. I really don't think the number of athletics events is the biggest problem of the Olympics. You need the athletics stadium anyway. I think more important would be reducing the number of venues than the number of events and thus athletes. But if some athletics events should be dropped, it would be only running events. Each throw and jump sport are so different that they deserve their place in the Olympics. I have the distances I might drop in parenthesis: 100m (200m) 400m (800m) 1500m (5000m) 10000m Also, I feel reducing the number of athletics events might devalue the Olympics. There would be athletes whose biggest championship is the Worlds, thus making it rather the meeting of all the best.
  10. I was just wondering if southern hemisphere countries had any chances to get the Winter Olympics. Let's imagine some of those countries would have a strong bid, like a perfect WOG host city. But, the scheduling. Would there be any chance for August WOG? That'd be the offseason for most winter sports. Though ski jumpers have their summer competitions, Alpine skiers train in southern hemisphere and there are some lower-level races there. And the irregual World Cup of Hockey has been in August/September. If there were a strong candidate for the WOG in southern hemisphere, I mean with winter sports success, then I think they shouldn't be discriminated but have the WOG in August. Of course, there's only a very little chance for those worries to ever happen.
  11. I can't get so excited about the YOG. A quadrennial championship just doesn't suit to junior sports. A 15-year-old isn't on the level of a 18-year-old.2
  12. Crashed ice is a sport the Winter Olympics would badly need. That should be a sport attracting youth.
  13. I don't think having events outside the host country is a problem if they are within a reasonable distance. Which is the best option: a) new venue with little use, existing venue outside the host country less than 100km from the host city, or c) existing venue in the host country over 500km from the host city? I think it's the option b. Have to ask about what they mean with allowing events in the host country ouside the host city? Already some events like sailing or ski sports take place outside the host city.
  14. Given Ukraine's current situation, there's no way I can see them making the shortlist.
  15. Still, I wouln't say one hockey arena in Lillehammer would be so bad. It's not like it's apart from everything, there are some sports in the Lillehammer region anyway.
×
×
  • Create New...