[Antropos]

Murray_Smith wrote:

And if it's such a big deal, why didn't anyone bring this up when it was initially decided that Beijing would host the 2008 Olympics?

Because the International Olympic Committee is a corrupt political establishment that has little to do with sports.

Look, I get your point. It's not the athletes fault that the most important event in their lives, the one that determines whether their decades of incredibly hard work will pay off in terms of money and glory, takes place in a horrible country that supports all of the most hideous regimes. However, you must agree that there is a problem with this Olympics. It's bad enough that most western companies have relocated some of their work to China, we don't need the western ministers supporting China's status as a new world superpower (because this is what it's all about). For instance, would you have supported the Olympics if they were held in North Korea? Sudan? Kongo?

In my opinion, the real problem lays with our view of sports: We turn them both into profession and into some glorified culture, when they really are just games. (you know, like the "Olympic Games": Games. For fun) I enjoy some sports, but I view sports the same way I view the Starcraft championship in Korea - it's nice, but it's just a game and not a cultural event.

Sports are good for health, but there are few things as bad for you as professional sports. They are nice, but not important. Athletes are hard working people, but there is nothing glorious in pointless labor. Do we really want government funds supporting a new generation of 100 meter runners? A new cohort of swimmers? Why? Popular sports don't need government handouts, they don't need the Olympics - they have their own income and their own events. Only the most pointless and outdated fields need the Olympics, but do we need them?

[Zipperfish]

The IOC is most certainly a corrupt, archaic, and arrogant organization. Not to mention the swarms of scientists and medical practitioners who dedicate their lives to pumping up athletes full of untraceable performing enhancing drugs. Or the corrupt officals of the individual sports (boxing, figure skating) who fix the outcomes of the contests. Or the armies of bureacrats and minor public offcials attending on thet taxpayers' coin who probably make up a good percentage of the average Olympic crowd. Or the corporations spreading money around for "official Olympic" merchandise. Or the politicians trying to make a name for themselves by riding on the backs of the Olympics adn their athletes.

There's certainly no shortage of sleaze.

But, on the other hand, I choose to ignore all that crap and focus on sports.

[CKASlacker]

Antropos wrote:

In my opinion, the real problem lays with our view of sports: We turn them both into profession and into some glorified culture, when they really are just games. (you know, like the "Olympic Games": Games. For fun) I enjoy some sports, but I view sports the same way I view the Starcraft championship in Korea - it's nice, but it's just a game and not a cultural event.

I disagree - sports *are* a cultural event.

Take football (soccer to North Americans) -- more countries belong to FIFA than the U.N. It's difficult to resolve cultural / religious ideologies with someone from another country (never mind the language issues) -- but once a football comes out, everyone can understand. There's not too many things that are universal -- food, drink certainly. Music... and sports (with football being the main one). It's pretty cool to not understand someone with words, but to have an understanding on the pitch when a ball is being kicked.

Certainly some cultures take soccer too far, in regards to kidnappings, death threats, etc, but positive or negative it is part of the cultrual fabric for 90+% of the globe.

[Antropos]

But football (and basketball, tennis etc.) don't need the Olympics at all. Football has its own championships that outshine anything that happens at the Olympics (which is more memorable: a victory at the Olympics, or the World Cup?).
Like I said before - real sports exist and will continue to exist outside the Olympics. Real sports don't need the Olympics at all (just like real music doesn't need Eurovision) - they get their money and fame from their fans. Close the Olympics and Football will remain just as popular as ever, but the various swimmers, jumpers and runners will fade into obscurity (where they belong).

Quote:

I disagree - sports *are* a cultural event.

Sports play a very important part in our life; they encourage social gatherings, they divide and unite people and they influence our life. In this sports (at least some of them) can be considered "a cultural event". However, I think that culture must be a vector of ideas - thus a song, a play, a book or a film are all cultural events because they convey ideas. Clearly sports don't fit well with this definition.

One final thought: Are you sure that the "football culture" revolves around the actual game and not the various football clubs? I understand that there wouldn't have been any clubs where it not for football, but it's the clubs (and not the actual game) that encourage all sorts of proto-nationalistic views.
I think that the game merely enables the clubs, regions and countries to develop their own "football culture", just like writing enables writers to influence society.

[Murray_Smith]

Antropos wrote:

For instance, would you have supported the Olympics if they were held in North Korea? Sudan? Kongo?

Yes, for the following reasons:

1. I have exactly zero control over where the Olympics are held.
B. The games will go on regardless of whether I support them.
6. No athletes have been injured in the production of this idiocy.
*. The Olympics are supposed to be the sunshine and lollipops in this crazy world of ours.

[CKASlacker]

Antropos wrote:

But football (and basketball, tennis etc.) don't need the Olympics at all. Football has its own championships that outshine anything that happens at the Olympics (which is more memorable: a victory at the Olympics, or the World Cup?).

But then you're basically equating professionalism with 'real' sports. Certainly, professional sports don't need the Olympics -- in fact, for men Olympic football is basically an under-23 tournament, with little or no relevance in Europe. But the vast majority of athletes on the planet are amateur -- and the Olympics are as big as it gets. Look, in spite of what it may appear like, I'm not a huge Olympic junkie. Sure, I'll watch the 'bigger' events, but I couldn't care less really about equestrian, archery, modern pentathalon etc... but these are clearly relevant to someone (or at least the competitors).

Clearly the commercial aspect is distasteful, as is the blatant pandering of the IOC and the world community to China, like this big coming out party is supposed to erase their very shady track regard in human rights. But (hopefully) at its core the games preserve that essential spirit of athletes coming together and competing (fairly!). Isn't that worth preserving at some level?

Antropos wrote:

However, I think that culture must be a vector of ideas - thus a song, a play, a book or a film are all cultural events because they convey ideas. Clearly sports don't fit well with this definition.

How about the simple idea that people of various ethnic background, languages, countries of origin, religions, social backgrounds, etc. can come together, compete and play a game without pretense or conflict? That we are all travelers on this small, blue marble, and we should do our best to work/play together and understand each other? I'm not convinced of any book or play's ability to say that as simply or as directly as sport.

Antropos wrote:

One final thought: Are you sure that the "football culture" revolves around the actual game and not the various football clubs? I understand that there wouldn't have been any clubs where it not for football, but it's the clubs (and not the actual game) that encourage all sorts of proto-nationalistic views. I think that the game merely enables the clubs, regions and countries to develop their own "football culture", just like writing enables writers to influence society.

Maybe other games could fill that role - maybe it's just the wonderful simplicity of football that allows it to be universal enough that other games can't fill that role as well (ie. 20 people, one ball -- play). Whatever - it brings people together in more numbers than any book, movie, poem, etc. you could care to mention (I believe > 1 billion registered players worldwide). About the only activities more culturally universal would be eating and music (I'm not including language because of the obvious difficulties in communicating worldwide).

[bootlegga]

I like the Olympics personally.

Politics aside, it usually offers some great individual stories of perservence, dedication, and triumph/disaster. For example, Jesse Owens sticking it to Hitler is one that really stands out. I wasn't there to see it, but Lord knows I would have loved to have been. Ben Johnson's meteoric rise and fall was an incredible story. Same goes for Donovan Bailey in 1996. Or Daniel Igali's stunning win in wrestling.

The only thing I hate about the Summer Olympics is the constant whining "Where are the medals?" that always happens when we wind up with 10 or 15 medals. Suddenly the media starts making everyone think it is a waste of time and money. Of course I'd like to see dozens of medals, but Canada is a winter nation, like it or not (although maybe global warming will change that ).

Will I watch? I might see some of it, but it all depends on how busy I am in the next two weeks.

[Prestwick]

Antropos wrote:

Sports play a very important part in our life; they encourage social gatherings, they divide and unite people and they influence our life. In this sports (at least some of them) can be considered "a cultural event". However, I think that culture must be a vector of ideas - thus a song, a play, a book or a film are all cultural events because they convey ideas. Clearly sports don't fit well with this definition.

I cannot disagree more with this, not only is culture much more than the mere matter of the exchange of ideas, sport itself can quite easily convey ideas. Sport can form the basis of an entire national identity, their beliefs and what they stand for. The whole relevance of national independence and defiance and yet of reconciliation and unity can be seen in its national Rugby team. The legendary game between the province of Munster and the New Zealand All Blacks in the 1970s and the watershed game between Ireland and England at Croke Park in 2007 typify this ideal.

The game can convey a nation's identity, aspirations much better sometimes than whatever a poet, a songwriter or a film-maker could achieve. Someone needs to go on a rugby tour me'thinks!

[-Mario-]

I don't really care about the olympics this year. Mostly to protest that China owns the world and they are building on their weapons capability.

[stratos]

My Birthday this year was a true NON-EVENT

[martin14]

havent watched any of it, not going to.

between the fake trickery, the lies and deceits from the opening,
straight till god knows what theyre gonna do for the end, not one minute.

Its a shame the Olympics are so political, but they are.

Its truly a shame a country like China gets the games,
with its barbaric regime and human right abuses but if thats what the world likes, so be it.. just count me out.

i'll be riding

[CanadianJeff]

oddly enough I ended up watching the olympics tonight at a friends place since they were already on the air. Not two minutes passed before the reporters covering the sprints and hurdles were talking about how many people they had seen arrested in the sidelines and around the village.

China is in some seriously deep crap so far. Mostly due to their own stupidity. So go ahead and watch the games. It's really sad but it's good to see the human rights aspect getting so much coverage.