So over lunch, my bosses and I were discussing the Olympics. How the US got their asses handed to them in Basketball. Should basketball even be an olympic sport anyway. Should professional athletes even be allowed in the olympics. Yadda yadda.
Then weight-lifting was brought up. One of my bosses is adamantly against the size-divisions. Why should you get a special category just because you're genetically not as big as the other people? Do they have a slow-person category in the 100 meter dash? If you're strong, you're strong and that's it. That was his argument.
We were kind of arguing against him, but he does have a point. So I put it out to Killoggs. What do you think?
meredith [email] said at 2:45 PM 08-16-2004: We brought that up to him (boxing) and he said that he thought it would be interesting to put a welterweight against a heavyweight because the smaller guy was obviously going to be faster. My other boss pointed out that this would be a no-contest and had been proved time and time again.
josh [email] said at 2:48 PM 08-16-2004: They do have interclass bouts. But in general, a heavyweight is not gonna be affected much by featherweights... Also, many boxers go up in weight class as time progresses and lumping them all together from the outset woul dbe bad since they would just get creamed.
BESIDES - it's a SPORT, it's based on how good at the techniques you are. Obviously someone who is in the lowest weight class can be a better boxer than someone who is a heavyweight... That doesn't mean the heavyweight might not win in a fight, though.
rick [email] said at 2:49 PM 08-16-2004: This is true. Likewise, Olympic weightlifters may not necessarily be the strongest as technique plays a significant role.
julie [email] said at 2:48 PM 08-16-2004: This brings up the interesting question of post-op transsexuals. Seriously-- is it fair for an ex-male to compete as a female? This is becoming an issue in Asian and Southeast Asian countries, you can google-news it if you don't believe me.
rick [email] said at 2:55 PM 08-16-2004: What about the man who wanted to compete in the women's synchronized swimming since there was no men's synchronized swimming?
meredith [email] said at 2:57 PM 08-16-2004: Well, I think he totally should have been able to. I think it was an issue with girls in high school playing football too. If they were good enough for the team and there wasn't a compatible women's team, it was seen as a form of discrimination to keep them off. I think the same would apply with this synchronized swimming guy.
myriam [email] said at 3:08 PM 08-16-2004: in that particular sport you would think he should be allowed, since the emphasis is much more clearly on technique (execution of tricky manuevers and timing) than on particular physical prowess (such as in the 100m dash, say).
meredith [email] said at 3:22 PM 08-16-2004: Yes. Even though it surely does require some stamina, the emphasis on the synchronisity is really the issue.
meredith [email] said at 2:55 PM 08-16-2004: Whoa. That is really interesting. I suppose the hormones that they would take wouldn't alter their physicality enough to make them more compatible to a female body? I don't really know how to phrase that adroitly.
myriam [email] said at 4:15 PM 08-16-2004: This totally reminds me--there's an article on the bbc today about how brazilian dog owners are getting plastic surgery for their dogs to win shows; people are vigorously protesting it on the grounds that it ruins the point of natural beauty, etc. Which made me wonder, why does no one contest plastic surgery recipients in beauty contests? or do they? one could even go so far as to argue taht in dog shows, beauty isn't everything, since often a dog wins on behavior and not "beauty"; this is really not true of human beauty contests.
Woody said at 4:55 PM 08-16-2004: What do you mean? There are no "beauty contests" that are just about looks that I'm aware of. They all have talent portions, interview portions, they have to walk nicely, etc. If anything, you have it kinda backwards. In dog shows, the judges are (primarily) trying to pick the best breeding that yields perfect physical characteristics. If you over-ride the breeding with surgery, that clearly defeats the purpose.
But in human pageants, they aren't competing to raise their stud fees or something. Frankly, I don't know what the point of pageants is, so why not enhance yourself to win? A boob job seems no more inappropriate than padding or stuffing, for example.
meredith [email] said at 4:57 PM 08-16-2004: There are actually rules in most pagents that you can't pad. You can't tape your boobs (you can use spirit gum to keep your swimsuit in place) and you can't smear vasaline on your teeth to make them shiney.
josh [email] said at 5:03 PM 08-16-2004: For some reason, I thought you had to sign something saying you'd never had plastic surgery to do Miss America? I could be wrong.
art said at 3:03 PM 08-16-2004: well, i'll skip his insane logic re:boxing divisions and focus on a nother questions you pose: Professionalism in Olympics - I think that even though Professionals are allowed, the US should only send amateurs, even if that means losing some medals.
meredith [email] said at 3:06 PM 08-16-2004: I really liked it when it was just amatures. I mean, I feel like it meant that much more to the athletes. I was watching the basketball between the US and Puerto Rico and they just looked like they were only half trying. Like they didn't even really give a shit. I remember when I was younger I LOVED the Olympics and got excited about it and stuff. I don't know if it was just because I was younger or because I felt that everyone else was more excited as well.
myriam [email] said at 3:11 PM 08-16-2004: b/c US professional atheletes have clear advantages over other professional athletes? what is your reasoning here? is it a money issue?
money is a double edged sword, as it could be construed as an unfair advantage, yet it is also the world's great equalizer.
meredith [email] said at 3:21 PM 08-16-2004: I think the professional athletes are just kind of burned out on it. Like, they do it all the time, they always get the recognition, they always get to compete for an excited crowd, so they're not as excited about it. They just don't care as much.
art said at 3:42 PM 08-16-2004: Not for that reason.
The Olympics were officially 'amateur only' until about fifteen years so ago. Back then, it was widely accepted that many of the athletes that other countries sent were not amateurs. The Soviet Union is a good example of a country that supported, fed, housed and trained athletes from a young age, severly bending the definition of 'amateur'. The US and several other countries pushed to eliminate the 'amateur only' rule because they felt it was constantly violated by other countries.
It is still up to each country to decide which events to send professionals to, and which ones to keep strictly amateur.
I believe that the US should take the high road and just send amateurs.
Also - Interesting numbers from a Harris Poll on the topic
Pinky said at 3:36 PM 08-16-2004: This was a question in the Marilyn vos Savant column in Parade, I thought it was interesting:
I’m annoyed when I hear people argue that if women are allowed to play in men’s sports events, men should be allowed to compete in women’s events. Am I just trying to have it both ways? Or is there any logic in wanting women to have separate events?
her answer is here:
http://archive.parade.com/2004/0606/0606_askmarilyn.html
meredith [email] said at 3:40 PM 08-16-2004: While I agree with her answer, I have to say, that I think that if women want to play with the boys, they should be willing to share too.
Woody said at 3:50 PM 08-16-2004: These categories make way more sense to me than some other Olympic stuff. I never understood the existence of things like the butterfly stroke. Here we have a riduclously slow and also inefficient way of getting somewhere and we're seeing who is the best at it. It is roughly the equivalent of the "100 yard 3-legged race" or the "tennis played with your wrong hand" events.
Fuck that. Choose a distance, choose a medium, and let 'em go. First one there wins. Want to invent your own stroke? Fine. Now, foot races have the dorkiest looking race ever, the walk-race, so I could support the existence of some long-distance breast-stroke races. It is probably the most efficient stroke. But not short distances. For the same reason there is no 100 yard walk.
But honestly, if the argument is that they want to judge technique and eliminate the competitor's size as an influencing factor, you can easily make the same argument for weight classes in shotput, discus, etc. And hell, let's have basketball for people under 6'5". And water polo for people who aren't very good swimmers. And diving for people with vertigo. Ah, fuck it. Canada still wouldn't win anything.
Woody said at 5:42 PM 08-16-2004: Another event I'm not too fond of. I would prefer "Here's a heavy ball. There is a line. Throw the ball as far as you can, don't step over the line." But no. You have to throw it like THIS.
Woody said at 5:50 PM 08-16-2004: And it's probably the best way to throw a disc-shaped object really far! Sports like that I consider to be "pure" athletics. Nothing to really judge, the rules are simple, etc. High jump is great too. No rules, just get over that bar. But I'm thinking the best way to hurl a ball is either baseball style or spin with the ball at arm's length, then let go. Though maybe when the ball is that heavy, I would be incorrect. Anyone?
art said at 10:53 AM 08-17-2004: I think when the ball is that heavy you would be really likely to trash your rotator cuff if you threw it baseball style.
meredith [email] said at 10:54 AM 08-17-2004: It's not that heavy. Unless I"m remembering completely wrong. But it probably wouldn't do to do a big wind-up.
rick [email] said at 10:56 AM 08-17-2004: I do not think it is that heavy either but it is likely that throwing baseball-style time and again over many years would result in injury.
myriam [email] said at 10:58 AM 08-17-2004: I think, honestly, that you are just viewing the world like an engineer. Not every goal is efficiency. In some events there is artistry involved as well. A worship of human physical ability is enriched by a worship of the artistry and finesse of its ability, too. There are finer points to life, Woody.
rick [email] said at 11:02 AM 08-17-2004: Yes, but some events are maddening to behold because they are so subjective and have very little that is quantifiable about them.
myriam [email] said at 11:12 AM 08-17-2004: highly difficult, involves definite physical abilities and tricky manuevers (have you ever tried spinning around while entirely vertical and upside down under water--in correct timing?) plus artistry of execution.
Personally the only one I think is a stretch is rythmic gym. And it's new.
rick [email] said at 11:13 AM 08-17-2004: Well, I guess but I should say that if dificulty and aesthetics were the only criteria, yoga should be an Olympic Sport.
myriam [email] said at 11:43 AM 08-17-2004: Yoga IS an Olympic sport. It is gymnastics, only the level of difficulty has outstripped that of regular people yoga.
myriam [email] said at 11:27 AM 08-17-2004: there are points for certain maneuvers executed (different value for different level of difficulty) and for length of time positions are held and for staying together. These are objective and quantifiable.
art said at 11:34 AM 08-17-2004: That's only half of it, the other half is the Artistic component that reflects choreography, musical interpretation, and the manner of presentation
myriam [email] said at 11:39 AM 08-17-2004: exactly. See my point to woody above re: the olympics isn't just about the prowess of humans, it is also about the artistry and finesse of humans.
art said at 11:52 AM 08-17-2004: no no no :) Most, if not all the Track and Field events are strictly Objective - The Longest distance, the Fastest whatever. There is no Artistic scoring component whatsoever.
myriam [email] said at 2:59 PM 08-17-2004: I guess I'm just never going to convince engineers to appreciate beauty. This explains why it was so hard for me to get dates in tech school.
Woody said at 11:45 AM 08-17-2004: I agree with art. It's bullshit. See: Olympics, Winter; Figure skating rigged against Canadian pair.
I always thought there should be an additional skating event. Just the technical elements, no music, no dance. Here are the different jumps, spins, etc. you have to do to move to the next round, kinda like high jump. Then you could use instant replay to see if they did it or not. Now guys will watch.
meredith [email] said at 11:05 AM 08-17-2004: This is another argument I had with my bosses during the same conversation. They were saying that gymnastics and figure skating shouldn't be sports because they're obviously rigged and that there was no clear way to win. I was dissagreeing with all my might, but I don't think I won them over.
rick [email] said at 11:06 AM 08-17-2004: I would have to disagree with that somewhat because I would imagine there are some techniques that are so hard to do, that any judge, no matter how biased, would be forced to give credit for their execution.
myriam [email] said at 11:16 AM 08-17-2004: The level of difficulty is EXTREME. Plus you have to hold positions, not fall, land perfectly, etc. etc. These are all technical aspects and very objective. Also, personally I feel no sport reflects the pure motive of the Olympics better than gymnastics--pure human strength combined with ability (balance, holding perfectly still on the rings, speed, jumping high, it has it all) AND artistry of execution. Gymnastics is a test of many different aspects of human physical ability and human sense of beauty and creativity as well. I feel ice skating is the same way, although perhaps to a lesser degree of purity.
josh [email] said at 5:59 PM 08-16-2004: Actually, no, there are a few shotput styles that work best, but I don't believe that you are required to use one or the other. At least according to what I remember from gym class, and what I have just read online about the Olympics.
josh [email] said at 6:00 PM 08-16-2004: There are currently two putting styles in use by shot put competitors. The first involves sidestepping to the front of the circle and releasing the shotput (the glide); a newer technique involves rotating like a discus thrower (the spin). In both cases, the key is to gain maximum forward velocity to help speed the shot on its way. Currently, most top shot putters use the spin, but the glide remains popular especially at the amateur level since the technique is easier to master.
Woody said at 4:02 PM 08-16-2004: Well, if all the players had to be under 6'5, they would do well. See, there would be 2 events: tall b-ball and short b-ball.
And what do you mean about shotput and discus? The items thrown are different weights? Or the competitors have to "make weight" in various classes?
josh [email] said at 4:14 PM 08-16-2004: there is a men's shotput and a women's shotput. the same for discus. they are different sizes. if I recall high school gym class, there are also "youth" and "adult" versions of each, as well... though maybe the youth version was just a women's.
josh [email] said at 4:17 PM 08-16-2004: Also, the tall and short basketball comparison is pretty retarded, since basketball is a complex sport, not a basic one like weightlifting or shotput... Complex sports measure how good you are at a multitude of activities, whereas weightlifting and other athletics events simple measure how good you are at one particular thing.
The idea that there should be just one class for weightlifting/wrestling/boxing is for small-minded folks who think the goal of weight-lifting competitions is simply "being the strongest," which it generally isn't.
Woody said at 5:53 PM 08-16-2004: But you're kind of saying the same thing as me regarding weight-lifting and shotput. There are no weight classes in shotput (all adult males are treated the same). There are weight classes in weight lifting. I would suggest that the weight of the competitor is similarly influential in their results in each sport. So I think you could easily justify weight classes in shotput.
josh [email] said at 5:58 PM 08-16-2004: I don't think weight is as much as an indicator of how far you can hit or throw something as it is of how much weight you can lift.
However; I really don't give a fuck if there are weight classes in shotput. I tend to doubt it will happen, since I think shotput is a "sport" on the wane and i doubt the pool of competitors is all that large.
kiche [email] said at 4:43 PM 08-16-2004: your boss is fucking stupid.
he actually said something about how they don't have divisions for foot races?
you should point out to him that there are different lenghts in foot races and different people place differently due to the different challenges of running different lengths.
meredith [email] said at 4:46 PM 08-16-2004: That's totally true. And I used to run track and I even forgot about that.
The more I think about it, the more I am completely dissagreeing with him. I'm starting to wonder if perhaps he may have been joking. But it didn't seem like it.
