Discussion in 'Sports Bar' started by Fluffernutter, Sep 13, 2017.
I would say Soccer but it's not a sport
...and yet wrestling was on the bubble to be dropped a few years ago..
Apparently for many people it is a sport ...even in America.
I grew up on soccer watching my uncle play in the European Cup (what is now the Champions League) and World cup. Living in Canada and the US for the last 40yrs I've consistently heard the question, "when will America finally embrace soccer?".
I don't know but IMO it's already happened. 80,000 watching the NY Cosmos, the US making every WC since 1990, the massive success of the '94 WC, live euro league games on network TV, a thriving national league, massive youth and adult participation ... Like I said, it's already happened.
I always thought the walking event was pretty fucking stupid.
Jesus, I thought they got rid of that.
That's #2 behind Equestrianism on my Summer list, now.
He means in the Olympics, and even if you properly interpreted that, he'd still be trolling you.
It would be cool to see "MMA" make an entrance, but it would be impossible due to the inability for entrants to fight multiple contests in a tourney style.
It still blows me away that Pride used to hold those Gran Prix tourneys, 3 fights in a night. Fucking brutal.
I never understand why people want things removed from the Olympics. If you don't like that sport, switch to one of the 17 other channels showing other sports. Removing the biggest opportunity for competition from minor sports just seems like petty dicks being petty.
If you have to pick something, I guess start with the sports that are only big in 1 or 2 countries.
Honestly, if they have to cut down on them, they should (but never will so I didn't start here) go with the sports that treat the Olympics like a joke. Soccer, Golf, Basketball, Hockey, Tennis, Rugby, etc. These sports don't need to be in the Olympics. They have their own worldwide competition all the damn time and the Olympic comp is usually second rate. Only reason they would never be considered is the Olympic committee thinks they need them to make money (which they probably do). But I'd rather get rid of any of them than a sport that would barely exist without the Olympics.
For free. They'd have to be fighting for free in exhibition fights that don't impact their records and making weight multiple times in a short period of time (probably over the course of 2 weeks) in order to make it an Olympic sport. Or multiple grand pries stacked on top of one another...
Agreed with soccer. The World Cup is all the world cares about for soccer. I don't watch soccer, but I tune into the World Cup and enjoy it.
It's fun to hear about small teams that barely qualify and getting their stories. It's the equivalent of an Olympic Athlete from an obscure nation making the games.
Olympics Soccer is a poor imitation of the World Cup.
lol... Troll Effort 11/10
I would assume that the Olympic version would be some pussified, watered down version like Olympic Boxing. So they probably could do multiple matches.
Curling takes up about 100 hours of TV time across all the networks, every single day it seems. Go away please.
Because some of us are offended by the notion that someone out there is wearing a gold medal around his neck for making a horse walk funny.
This argument whimpers; winning arguments roar.
Achieve something similar and see if it still offends you.
I achieved a respectable amateur athletic career. I see you're doubling down on whimpering arguments with pure ad hominem.
Your argument is that you're offended that other people get credit for mastering their craft and I'm the one with a whimpering argument?
BTW, realized I left the word similar out of that response. Lol. Dressage is incredibly difficult and takes years to master at that level. That was the point. I know you played ball at a fairly high level.
Yes. You're the one who is whimpering, "Stop attacking less successful sports!" under the pretense that simply because they are less commercially successful or popular they enjoy some elevated status with regard to the Games.
It doesn't even speak to the (gasping) spirit for why such sports were often included in the games when more popular sports weren't, but at the crux of this is that other less popular sports have come and gone, so to mount all your eggs on that sole defense is a poor choice of a basket.
Did you subject yourself to the same ad hominem forming the foundation of your argument? If you haven't achieved something "similar", then what weight is there to you being offended that some of us would seek to subtract less meaningful and legitimate sports? The logic bears that only gold medalists enjoy validity to their opinion on the matter, but of course, this is prejudiced to include those whose sports are being attacked, and whom would predictably be offended by attempts to remove them.
Swimmers and Track & Field athletes would end up dictating the schedule. One of my high school sweethearts was a high-level English rider, too, and I was just out riding some horses yesterday as a favor for a busy friend. I also personally visited the Spanish Riding School in Vienna to observe the Lippizan horses. It's possible, but I doubt there is much you understand about the "craft" of Dressage that I don't, and regardless, no deficit of comparative knowledge would invalidate my absence of ignorance.
Stop, think, and form a better argument.
Separate names with a comma.