Olympics

Post by **captain static** » Fri Aug 15, 2008 12:17 pm

Found this petition for getting climbing into the Olympics: http://www.petitiononline.com/mod_perl/ ... .cgi?MRCOS

Climbing was a demonstration sport during the Olympics in Greece. USA Climbing is recognized by the USOC. I would think it is only a matter of time before climbing will be in the Olympics. What is really needed to make climbing appealing to the general public is good commentators.

Post by **kek-san** » Fri Aug 15, 2008 12:18 pm

Meadows wrote: Although Kate Walsh is nearly as tall as Andrew, she still has some spring loaded legs and some punch in her arms. That takes some physicality (whatever that means), or rather intense training to reach Olympic-caliber status.

I would not claim that they are not well trained and strong. She is pretty ripped. But are they physically superior to other non-world class athletes? I would be willing to bet that some of the local talent is probably as well conditioned if not better than she is, if focused in other areas.

I guess what I was trying to get at is this: Is she Olympic class due to her physical conditioning being superior? Or is she Olympic class because she is a extremely skilled and her physical condition allows her to do it?

With something like gymnastics there is little question that they are crazy strong, extremely skilled, flexible, etc. Swimming, track and field, etc. are similar in that they really require peak physical condition and skill.

I'm not arguing against volleyball, I like watching the women's volleyball quite a bit. I'm just suggesting that elite climbers might be in better physical condition and require just as much skill as an existing Olympic sport.

No one even argued about Softball. Weird.

Oh and just to be an ass http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/physicality

Post by **Blue Shoes** » Fri Aug 15, 2008 12:47 pm

I don't think that it should be about the audience. How many olympic events do they not show because they get boring? Shooting and archery are not the most exciting things to watch for more than a condensed minute-long montage. It should be in there b/c of the athletes. Climbers who want to compete on the international stage should be able to, especially b/c climbing is a sport as old as time. People have always needed to run, swim, or climb in given situations, and the ones who did it the best got rewarded for it whether it was a prize or not getting mauled by an animal. It seems natural that it should be in the olympics.

Post by **charlie** » Fri Aug 15, 2008 1:02 pm

I think it's more of a matter of systems of regulation and associated International Sports Federations than anything else. The IOC has to have mechanisms to evaluate and qualify competitors for worldwide Olympic caliber capability. Systems to standardize regulation and ranking are more a factor than anything related to talent or "physicality." Climbing as an activity may be relatively mature, but as an organized sport with mechanisms for managing competition and ranking its got a way to go......

http://www.olympic.org/uk/sports/index_uk.asp

Plus, how many of the elite climbers would pass doping tests?

That said, I'd have no problem blowing off climbing for a v-ball or badminton tourney. I have just as much fun with that as I do climbing and I am mediocre at best in each activity.

Sorry if competitive team sports is still a sore spot for some of you.........

Post by **Lateralus** » Fri Aug 15, 2008 1:03 pm

watching climbing is boring as hell i really could care less if plastic climbing is an olympic sport ever, to me that is training for climbing. You just can not make it interesting to the general audience. It's kind of like the guys above saying they think swimming is dumb or boring, the ones who don't know anything about it. To them it's people going across a pool nothing more. Multiply that by about 1000 and that is how boring little skinny guys climbing up a plywood wall is to the undeducated

Post by **Meadows** » Fri Aug 15, 2008 1:18 pm

kek-san, Whether Olympian athletes are genetically endowed or just ingrained with a mindset for training, we cannot determine without testing. Had you met Michael Jordan in high school and college, you'd never believe he would end up as one of history's greatest basketball players. But his mama told him to work harder and so he did.

I would imagine the hangup in adding climbing doesn't have anything to do with athletic prowess, but rather scoring. It's just not that black and white.

Post by **tomdarch** » Fri Aug 15, 2008 1:40 pm

captain static wrote:Climbing was a demonstration sport during the Olympics in Greece. USA Climbing is recognized by the USOC. I would think it is only a matter of time before climbing will be in the Olympics. What is really needed to make climbing appealing to the general public is good commentators.

I can't find anything on the web about climbing as a demonstration sport - anyone have any links? The closest thing I've found is that there was a little climbing (not ice climbing) at the Torino '06 Winter Olympics. They invited 20 or so climbers and did some bouldering demonstrations and did a little climbing with the snowboarders as a way of showing climbing off to the IOC. On the down side, this sounds pretty half-assed. On the upside, in 2007, the IOC offered a two-year provisional recognition to the International Federation of Sport Climbing (IFSC). Thus, climbing is an officially recognized sport, along with korfball(?!), DanceSport, "billiard sports", water skiing, chess and bowling. Yeah, sounds like climbing is a sure thing for inclusion!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olympic_sp ... zed_sports
Despite recognition, I doubt it will probably ever be added. Any new Olympic sports have to be very TV friendly.

The big (and ironic) aspect of this is comp climbing vs. the Olympic motto:
Higher = Difficulty
Faster = Speed Climbing
Stronger = Bouldering

It's such an absurdly perfect fit!

Outside of the US, there is a very strong comp climbing system, where the athletes train like any other world class athlete and go long periods of time never touching real rock (it wouldn't add to their training for plastic...) While they don't have the ultra-cutting edge training programs and facilities (and performance enhancing drugs...) of the big money Olympic sports like track and field or swimming, it's on par with the serious training of lots of other events. (To get IOC recognition, I think that the ISFC is already testing for both performance enhancing drugs and the drugs that get tested for because of US politics, so they've got that covered.)

(As a side note, I'm sure that there are a lot more comp climbers in the world than participants in "Modern" Pentathlon - which intentionally simulates what a 19th century cavalry soldier would experience being lost behind enemy lines: sword fighting (saber fencing), pistol shooting, riding an unfamiliar horse, swimming and running. Cool - but wha?!?)

But the only events that are added are ones that generate TV ratings - particularly in the US. That is the only explanation for adding baseball/softball. (and the ratings didn't pay out, so they've been dropped.) Turn on the TV coverage in the US - hours of 'beach volleyball' (made for TV event), 'synchro diving' (?!?! again, made for TV) and this round, BMX as a play to get some youth-oriented, "action sport" demographics/ratings. (If they had selected an "action sport" purely on a 'sporting' basis, it would have to be skateboarding halfpipe. But like comp climbing, most TV viewers have no clue just how hard it is to do even the most basic stuff, thus so-so ratings.) Tennis is another good example - it was an early modern Olympic event, but was dropped decades ago. But once TV ratings for Tennis improved (and pros were allowed in the Olympics - another TV ratings based decision) Tennis was added back.

While good informative introductory videos and better commentators would help people 'get' climbing, I don't think it will ever be enough. ESPN tried climbing in the X-Games, and it shriveled and died because of lack of ratings. I think that pretty well dooms climbing for the TV-driven Olympics.

(On a WTF!?! note - Bridge (yes, the card game) has been trying for years to be added to the Olympics. Seriously!)

Post by **kek-san** » Fri Aug 15, 2008 2:39 pm

Meadows wrote: I would imagine the hangup in adding climbing doesn't have anything to do with athletic prowess, but rather scoring. It's just not that black and white.

You are probably right here. Maybe we should submit the scoring from the online guide (jk).

Might have to do with the eternal "popularity contest."

Post by **tutugirl** » Fri Aug 15, 2008 3:51 pm

Climbing is so boring and so safe they took it out of the extreme games...that should tell you something...

Post by **Wes** » Fri Aug 15, 2008 8:58 pm

Have any of you ever watched badmiten? Looks like a crazy cross between table tennis and regular tennis. http://www.nbcolympics.com/video/share. ... B_HL_L0314

And softball - think you have the reflexes to hit a fast pitch softball?

Climbing just isn't that impressive in the grand scheme of all things athletic (ps, there is more to being athletic then just pure physical conditioning).

Can you even begin to imagine what it would be like to be on the floor for the women's (or men's) all around gymnastics? I bet the energy is just out of this world. And, I know if given a choice of shooting the best climbers in the coolest locations for a month, or shooting there for a day, it would be no contest as to which I would pick.