Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 543
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Why don't we ditch handball and field hockey, they are dominated by Europe and Korea and Europe and Argentina respectively.

It'll really take an iron-willed IOC president + a board that will back him up to remove all those borderline sports. The problem is, their federations have someone like a President or Vice-President, sitting on the IOC Executive Board, so those detestable borderline diversions will NEVER leave.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I like that the games have been shaved down a little, and I'd like to see Tennis go the way of Baseball and Softball and get given the axe too.

Tennis' involvement in the games offers just one more international tennis event, the likes of which are witnessed four times every year in far more coveted circumstances, with the usual suspects taking part. Are Rafael Nadal or Elena Dementieva really "olympians"?

Link to post
Share on other sites
I like that the games have been shaved down a little, and I'd like to see Tennis go the way of Baseball and Softball and get given the axe too.

Tennis' involvement in the games offers just one more international tennis event, the likes of which are witnessed four times every year in far more coveted circumstances, with the usual suspects taking part. Are Rafael Nadal or Elena Dementieva really "olympians"?

Is Vince Carter? Are any football players?

I see your point, but tennis is not the only sport you should be targeting based on that arguement. Tennis brings Nadal and Federer to the Games > $ > NBC happy > BOCOG, LOCOG etc happy > IOC happy.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I've always said futsal should be Olympic sport instead of football.

Where is women's Futsal? To my knowledge its quite under-developed and the IOC dosen't like to add men's only events anymore.

Oh, and how weird would it be for the most popular team sport of the world not to be at the Olympics, anyway?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Tennis' involvement in the games offers just one more international tennis event, the likes of which are witnessed four times every year in far more coveted circumstances, with the usual suspects taking part.

Tennis at the Games is regarded differently than the 4 Grand-Slams, but it's not necessarily less coveted. At the least, it’s certainly not regarded as "just another tennis tournament.“ And mind you, for some players like the Williams sisters and Federer, a Gold medal means as much, if not more, than a Grand-Slam title and prize-money.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 5 months later...

AIBA votes for women's boxing at 2012 Olympics

From CBC and The Associate Press

http://www.cbc.ca/sports/amateur/story/200...g-bid-2012.html

The International Amateur Boxing Association voted Wednesday to move ahead with a bid to include women's boxing in the Olympics, starting with the 2012 Games in London.

Boxing is the only one of 26 Olympic summer sports federations without female competitors.

AIBA president Ching-Kuo Wu said the executive committee voted unanimously to introduce women's boxing into the Olympics and that an official application would be submitted to the International Olympic Committee at the end of the month.

The IOC would vote on the proposal at its session in Copenhagen in October.

"The IOC understands the importance of women's boxing and knows the current developments and its popularity," Wu told The Associated Press. "We are the only sport without women in the Olympics. We are the only sport where women's rights are not fully respected. We have to work with the IOC to gain their understanding and support."

After intensive lobbying, Wu believes the AIBA has garnered enough support to ensure a positive vote.

"We started this promotion of women's boxing some time ago," he said. "We also have a lot of support from the head of the IOC's women's commission, Anita De Frantz. She is also on our advisory council."

Wu said safety was a prime concern, but noted that the 2008 Women's World Championships in Ningbo City, China, had a safety record the sport could be proud of.

"It was a high standard of competition and what is more important is that at the end of the competition there was no single injury," he said.

Britain's Olympic Sports Minister Tessa Jowell recently called for complete gender equality at the London Games.

"In the Olympic movement there should not be any discrimination—racial, sexual, political—so women [boxers] should have the right to compete in the Games," Wu said.

With the arrival of women's wrestling at the 2004 Athens Games, boxing is the only summer Olympic sport without a female group competing. Ski jumping doesn't have women's competition at the Winter Olympics.

AIBA has approved and governed women's boxing since 1994, establishing its women's committee a decade ago and holding world championship tournaments and regional events. Those tournaments would serve as Olympic qualifiers if the sport is put on the London program.

Wu was in Milan to oversee the city's preparations for the men's World Championships in September. AIBA also awarded the hosting rights to future tournaments: The 2010 Women's World Championships went to Barbados and the 2011 World Championships to Pusan, Korea.

Women's Boxing was also proposed for 2008 but the IOC rejected it. Wonder how many weigh classes they are proposing...

Link to post
Share on other sites

If the facilities are there Tennis is fine; the Olympic tournament at Wimbledon in 2012 will be a really special event, no doubt about that. But to build a brand new tennis centre for a sport whose pinnacle isn't the Olympics does seem overly extravagant in many ways, I agree.

I always wonder whether there shouldn't be more flexibility in the programme depending on who is hosting. It's a happy coincidence (from a venue building perspective) that baseball won't be in the 2012 programme, but surely it should be reinstated if Chicago wins 2016, for example, regardless of politics and whether it was originally meant to be in the 2016 programme.

Similarly, since the venues are there, I don't neceassarily see why sports like Rugby or cricket shouldn't have a run-out in 2012.

Should the host have more say in what 'fringe' sports are included, especially if they have the venues already? It could certainly help the movement and get people more excited about the games if it also includes sports they can relate to as "theirs", so to speak. It would also help give the games a more local flavour....I haven't thought this through so I don't know whether I agree with this idea myself; I'm just throwing it out there. Should the choice of sports be a two way process between the host city and the IOC rather than a dictatorial one?

Link to post
Share on other sites
If the facilities are there Tennis is fine; the Olympic tournament at Wimbledon in 2012 will be a really special event, no doubt about that. But to build a brand new tennis centre for a sport whose pinnacle isn't the Olympics does seem overly extravagant in many ways, I agree.

I always wonder whether there shouldn't be more flexibility in the programme depending on who is hosting. It's a happy coincidence (from a venue building perspective) that baseball won't be in the 2012 programme, but surely it should be reinstated if Chicago wins 2016, for example, regardless of politics and whether it was originally meant to be in the 2016 programme.

Similarly, since the venues are there, I don't neceassarily see why sports like Rugby or cricket shouldn't have a run-out in 2012.

Should the host have more say in what 'fringe' sports are included, especially if they have the venues already? It could certainly help the movement and get people more excited about the games if it also includes sports they can relate to as "theirs", so to speak. It would also help give the games a more local flavour....I haven't thought this through so I don't know whether I agree with this idea myself; I'm just throwing it out there. Should the choice of sports be a two way process between the host city and the IOC rather than a dictatorial one?

I think you forget that the international federation would play a great part in this. I think that even within the higher echelons of int'l sports administration bodies, there is some sort of (unspoken) pecking order amongst the various IFs insofar as... this one is headed or run by real dumbasses or... (that one) by bottomfeeders...or that one by nice, competent people who command a good deal of respect amongst their colleagues, etc.. I think this would play a greater part in being accepted by the IOC membership and/or its Executive Board, and getting accepted into the Official slate.

Plus, where do you really cut other sports to allow for the new ones, yet respecting the summer 10,500 ceiling of athletes.

Edited by baron-pierreIV
Link to post
Share on other sites

Using an athlete ceiling as a way of controlling the size of the Games and the amount of money needed to prepare for the Games is a bit silly.

No athlete ceiling will help if you keep voting for a Sochi with no facilities in place and then go all PR on the "no white elephant" "legacy" "reducing the games" stance.

The CWG solution of providing some options would be better.

Perhaps "float" 4 - 6 sports. Cricket and rugby vs. baseball and softball etc etc

Changes to the way IOC members vote would be interesting.

A vote for e.g. London with cricket and rugby on its programme or e.g. Chicago with softball and baseball instead.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am for stability in the Olympic program. The Olympics isn't just another event, and in my opinion having a rotation of any kind in which sports are in would undermind that. When you train specificaly for one event, four years is enough to wait, never mind eight, twelve or sixteen. The way to go is for the IOC to stop talking and start acting when it comes to the size of the games. The games are manageable, even in its current size (I argue it could probably be bigger yet still be manageable), but the host has to be smart about it. The IOC needs to stop looking at which bid is the shiniest and start looking at which bid is the most sensible.

Link to post
Share on other sites
If the facilities are there Tennis is fine; the Olympic tournament at Wimbledon in 2012 will be a really special event, no doubt about that. But to build a brand new tennis centre for a sport whose pinnacle isn't the Olympics does seem overly extravagant in many ways, I agree.

It isn’t the pinnacle in in the way the four Grand Slams are, but the Olympic tennis tournament is regarded very highly by top players. Federer and the Williams sisters, for example, hope to stick around for another few years in the hopes they’ll win more Gold in 2012 (for Federer, I’m sure, a big part of that is the fact that London’s tennis venue will be Wimbledon, but still).

Sydney gained a pre-Melbourne tournament from their 2000 tennis venue. Beijing is now hosting the China Open annually at their new tennis facility. If a city doesn’t already have a tennis event on tour, but can gain one from building a tennis facility for the Olympics and can see that as a realistic, sustainable "post-Games" use, then they should go for it. If not, then go temporary - I can’t imagine the IOC capacity requirement being that high; it shouldn't be any higher than 8,000 for the center court anyway. The non-show courts and the practice courts could be left there if the site is a city park or something.

… Of course, I’m bias, I love tennis, and I don’t want to see it go. :) I’ll be the first to admit that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
It isn’t the pinnacle in in the way the four Grand Slams are, but the Olympic tennis tournament is regarded very highly by top players. Federer and the Williams sisters, for example, hope to stick around for another few years in the hopes they’ll win more Gold in 2012 (for Federer, I’m sure, a big part of that is the fact that London’s tennis venue will be Wimbledon, but still).

Sydney gained a pre-Melbourne tournament from their 2000 tennis venue. Beijing is now hosting the China Open annually at their new tennis facility. If a city doesn’t already have a tennis event on tour, but can gain one from building a tennis facility for the Olympics and can see that as a realistic, sustainable "post-Games" use, then they should go for it. If not, then go temporary - I can’t imagine the IOC capacity requirement being that high; it shouldn't be any higher than 8,000 for the center court anyway. The non-show courts and the practice courts could be left there if the site is a city park or something.

… Of course, I’m bias, I love tennis, and I don’t want to see it go. :) I’ll be the first to admit that.

I am also quite found of Tennis and would hate to see it drooped from the games. I personally see it that way: most majors city either have a Tennis centre or could use one. Well, at least most cities that are big enough to host the Olympics. And I agree that a temporary Tennis facility is a very feasible option.

(Oh, and you could argue that the Olympics is the pinnacle in Doubles Tennis. I mean, when was the last time Federer or Nadal played Doubles before the Olympics? A bucketload of players only play Doubles at the Olympics).

Link to post
Share on other sites
I am for stability in the Olympic program. The Olympics isn't just another event, and in my opinion having a rotation of any kind in which sports are in would undermind that. When you train specificaly for one event, four years is enough to wait, never mind eight, twelve or sixteen.

Perhaps leaving out sports is unfair but you could say, for example, London has several cricket grounds, why not just add cricket to the roster for this Games. It wouldn't add a huge amount of athletes to the plan and would add a little something extra to the programme that would be unique to our games and reflect our sporting culture.

It'd be like demonstration sports but not treated so much as a side-order, but, for that one Games, have a place on the roster amongst the other core sports.

And yes....that does ignore the politics of federations Baron. But I'm talking from a purely hypothetical point of view. I think it'd be nice to see a little bit of the host's sporting culture in the programme: say, one sport which is big in that country but not on the Olympic programme being included.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh, and how weird would it be for the most popular team sport of the world not to be at the Olympics, anyway?

The most popular team sport, which sadly is only men's football, is an U-23 Olympic sport... I think it's a bit stupid, isn't it? The greatest football players can't take part at the Olympic Games.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I always wonder whether there shouldn't be more flexibility in the programme depending on who is hosting. It's a happy coincidence (from a venue building perspective) that baseball won't be in the 2012 programme, but surely it should be reinstated if Chicago wins 2016, for example, regardless of politics and whether it was originally meant to be in the 2016 programme.

Similarly, since the venues are there, I don't neceassarily see why sports like Rugby or cricket shouldn't have a run-out in 2012.

Should the host have more say in what 'fringe' sports are included, especially if they have the venues already? It could certainly help the movement and get people more excited about the games if it also includes sports they can relate to as "theirs", so to speak. It would also help give the games a more local flavour....I haven't thought this through so I don't know whether I agree with this idea myself; I'm just throwing it out there. Should the choice of sports be a two way process between the host city and the IOC rather than a dictatorial one?

That's always been exactly the type of formula I've wanted - not as loose as the Commonwealths, but with some flexibility for local flavour.

Isn't that pretty close to what the IOC's doing anyway? The way I understand it is, the 26 sports for 2012 are set. Those 26 are also approved for 2016, but the Copenhagen session will also vote on including two more sports, out of seven bidders (rugby, baseball, softball, golf, karate, roller sports and squash), to bring it up to 28. They'll also approve 25 core sports for 2020, with the next big summer decision session after that voting on which optional extras to include for that Olympiad. And so on.

What I'm not sure about is, how much say or influence do the bidders have in what sports are voted in, and do they have to present any contingency plans in the bid books for the possible new sports? I'll confess, I've only had the most cursory of glances so far at any of the bid book postings, so I haven't looked to see what any of them say about the proposed sports, but have any of them addressed those?

I gather none of them, however, are actually proposing which two sports they'd like to see included - that would only open up a barrel of worms with the campaign, alienating IFs (and their votes) who particular bidders aren't proposing. Why would a baseball or softball IF member support a, say, Madrid bid if the Spaniards were proposing, say, squash and roller sports. It would make for interesting and more Machiavellian IOC politics and campaigning to watch, but it could get messy.

That said, it could come to influence which sports are chosen, if the votes for those sports are taken after the host city is chosen (does anyone know the order of which the host city and sports inclusion votes will be taken?). I suppose that if, say, Chicago wins, it'd be logical to think that would possibly boost softball's or baseballs chances if the sports vote is taken the next day. Ditto, say, karate if Tokyo wins.

Link to post
Share on other sites
That said, it could come to influence which sports are chosen, if the votes for those sports are taken after the host city is chosen (does anyone know the order of which the host city and sports inclusion votes will be taken?). I suppose that if, say, Chicago wins, it'd be logical to think that would possibly boost softball's or baseballs chances if the sports vote is taken the next day. Ditto, say, karate if Tokyo wins.

In Singapore, the vote to exclude softball and baseball from 2012 was taken after London won.

Looking at the program for Copenhagen 2009, the possible election of new sports into the Olympic program would also take place after the host city vote.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In October, can the IOC vote sports off the olympic programme, or have the 26 existing sports already been approved for 2016? Also, i remember reading that in post-2009 olympic elections, 25 core sports will be voted for approval back on to the programme as a block; so does this restrict the number of sports the IOC can vote off for future olympic games? Thanx

Link to post
Share on other sites
In October, can the IOC vote sports off the olympic programme, or have the 26 existing sports already been approved for 2016? Also, i remember reading that in post-2009 olympic elections, 25 core sports will be voted for approval back on to the programme as a block; so does this restrict the number of sports the IOC can vote off for future olympic games? Thanx

Good question.

The 26 for 2012 are locked in. The program for that is set. But it changes after then, and I'm not exactly sure what the process or procedure will be.

I would assume it will probably be an executive committee decision on which 25 are approved for 2016, which will then go to the full IOC membership for approval, or they will present a short list of sports to be connsidered to be dropped, and then the membership will vote on which to keep and which will go. And then after that they will vote on which ones of the seven sports hoping to make it onto the program are approved.

Link to post
Share on other sites
That's always been exactly the type of formula I've wanted - not as loose as the Commonwealths, but with some flexibility for local flavour.

Isn't that pretty close to what the IOC's doing anyway? The way I understand it is, the 26 sports for 2012 are set. Those 26 are also approved for 2016, but the Copenhagen session will also vote on including two more sports, out of seven bidders (rugby, baseball, softball, golf, karate, roller sports and squash), to bring it up to 28. They'll also approve 25 core sports for 2020, with the next big summer decision session after that voting on which optional extras to include for that Olympiad. And so on.

What I'm not sure about is, how much say or influence do the bidders have in what sports are voted in, and do they have to present any contingency plans in the bid books for the possible new sports? I'll confess, I've only had the most cursory of glances so far at any of the bid book postings, so I haven't looked to see what any of them say about the proposed sports, but have any of them addressed those?

I gather none of them, however, are actually proposing which two sports they'd like to see included - that would only open up a barrel of worms with the campaign, alienating IFs (and their votes) who particular bidders aren't proposing. Why would a baseball or softball IF member support a, say, Madrid bid if the Spaniards were proposing, say, squash and roller sports. It would make for interesting and more Machiavellian IOC politics and campaigning to watch, but it could get messy.

That said, it could come to influence which sports are chosen, if the votes for those sports are taken after the host city is chosen (does anyone know the order of which the host city and sports inclusion votes will be taken?). I suppose that if, say, Chicago wins, it'd be logical to think that would possibly boost softball's or baseballs chances if the sports vote is taken the next day. Ditto, say, karate if Tokyo wins.

I think what I'm suggesting is cities bid on the basis of the 25-26 core sports outlined by the IOC. But if there's room and a winning host city, which don't forget is likely to be spending a large amount of its own money on the event, wants to include another sport (or even two) in its programme it should be able to then go to the IOC and say "we'd like this in as well please, we have the venues and we can guarantee crowds and revenue".

So if after they'd won London proposed a Twenty20 cricket tournament on the basis that the venues are there and it would add some local flavour to the games as well as draw in revenue, the city's credentials would be checked then it would be okayed. The IOC members wouldn't vote on it - although they could vote on the mechanism to allow this to happen in the future. Perhaps the evaluation commission which visits the host city regularly to check on its progress would be the body who decides whether the city's extra sports are viable.

The point being, if the venues are already there, it shouldn't take much persuasion for a host city to get that sport's governing body on board (if any) and it won't take much organising to put on an Olympic tournament in that sport. It won't need the seven years preparation of building, say, an Olympic Stadium and Aquatics Centre. London/the UK could host a showpiece Olympic cricket tournament, for example, with very little time. And the same would go for baseball in America and local sports in other parts of the world.

Edited by Rob
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...