Post by thedude on Aug 9, 2012 9:41:02 GMT -5
I don't understand the frustration some people have with amateur vs. professional athletes. The Olympics is about the best athletes from each country duking it out with each other, so I see no reason to limit the participation by how much money any given athlete makes (or doesn't make). Same thing with age limits.
As far as the question about what a "real" sport is or whether or not any particular event is really engaged by athletes is hard to pin down. Lots of blowhards still don't acknowledge cycling as a "real sport" because the athletes use a bicycle. Huh?
It seems that all sports require one or more of the following attributes: strength (which may or may not include cardiovascular fitness), speed, and/or agility. It would be nice to say that a "real" sport requires all three, but that would probably eliminate most or all sports. Baseball, for instance, doesn't require a speedy runner for some of the positions. Same thing with football - an offensive lineman must be agile and strong, but being able to run fast isn't important.
Some Olympic sports/events:
Swimming requires speed and strength, but not agility.
The 100m dash is primarily a speed event.
Weightlifting is primarily a strength event.
The marathon doesn't require much agility and I would classify it as a strength/fitness event.
Gymnastics requires strength and agility.
With that in mind, I think the biggest question is about the events where agility is the primary necessity. It would be easy to discount table tennis, badminton, and archery as questionable sports because the athletes don't need to be very physically fit, but then the same can be said for baseball.
So, where do you draw the line?
As far as the question about what a "real" sport is or whether or not any particular event is really engaged by athletes is hard to pin down. Lots of blowhards still don't acknowledge cycling as a "real sport" because the athletes use a bicycle. Huh?
It seems that all sports require one or more of the following attributes: strength (which may or may not include cardiovascular fitness), speed, and/or agility. It would be nice to say that a "real" sport requires all three, but that would probably eliminate most or all sports. Baseball, for instance, doesn't require a speedy runner for some of the positions. Same thing with football - an offensive lineman must be agile and strong, but being able to run fast isn't important.
Some Olympic sports/events:
Swimming requires speed and strength, but not agility.
The 100m dash is primarily a speed event.
Weightlifting is primarily a strength event.
The marathon doesn't require much agility and I would classify it as a strength/fitness event.
Gymnastics requires strength and agility.
With that in mind, I think the biggest question is about the events where agility is the primary necessity. It would be easy to discount table tennis, badminton, and archery as questionable sports because the athletes don't need to be very physically fit, but then the same can be said for baseball.
So, where do you draw the line?
