[Jaime_Souviens]

Tman1 wrote:

Me too.

One word. Basketball.

It doesn't make sense without the best players and the best teams.

And watching half-assed, made up teams impresses no one.

[Canadian_Mind]

a team is any group of people that gets together to get something done, regardless of how long the have been together for. a team can last for 5 minutes, or 5 years, regardless of whether it be at work or in sport. your a team the moment you start playing together.

you might be thinking of a group of people. groups generally last awhi;le longer than 5 minutes.

[Jaime_Souviens]

You have to understand, I'd throw out half the events they have.

Synchronizined swimming? Equestrian events?

And then, everything has to be done at 50m, 100m, 250m, 500m, 507m, 509m, 512m.... and then freestyle. And then pairs for everything. And then pairs freestyle.


Then there's skiing, and cross-country, and jumps, and slalom, and moguls, and giant slalom, and giant moguls, and giant moguls with little slaloms on top, and then every crappy California x-version of the same damn stuff, and then snow boards, and then boogie boards, and then just walking down the hill, and walking down the hill with slaloms and moguls, and then pairs walking down the hill with slaloms and moguls with a boogie board shoved up your ass...


I mean, who the hell cares?

Do you really need all this to find the handful of best skiers?


And you have to run the flags up and play the stupid theme song again and again.

It's enough to gag a Socialist.

[Blue_Nose]

TO me a sport:

Must be physical in nature
Must have a quantifiable measurement of performance.

It's usually the second one that is violated in most "sports" - anything that isn't a measure of how fast/far/high someone can do something, or doesn't involve one person/team 'beating' another, isn't a sport. If it requires a judge, it's just an excuse to make something uncompetitive competitive.

[Tman1]

Blue_Nose wrote:

TO me a sport:

Must be physical in nature
Must have a quantifiable measurement of performance.

It's usually the second one that is violated in most "sports" - anything that isn't a measure of how fast/far/high someone can do something, or doesn't involve one person/team 'beating' another, isn't a sport. If it requires a judge, it's just an excuse to make something uncompetitive competitive.

Blue_Nose, were talking about sports, not sex.

[Jaime_Souviens]

Blue_Nose wrote:

TO me a sport:

Must be physical in nature
Must have a quantifiable measurement of performance.

It's usually the second one that is violated in most "sports" - anything that isn't a measure of how fast/far/high someone can do something, or doesn't involve one person/team 'beating' another, isn't a sport. If it requires a judge, it's just an excuse to make something uncompetitive competitive.

Nice distinction, I like it.



So can all judging events as well. Besides, this isn't the county fair where we're looking for the best tomato.

[Jaime_Souviens]

lily wrote:

I was sort of with you till the end.

Lots of judged sports are competitive... in fact, I'd say they all are, or there wouldn't be athletes vying for the titles.

Take gymnastics, for example. You could have a competition where they all do a flexed arm hang, and the guy that lasts the longest gets the trophy. Wow... wouldn't that be exciting to watch!

Instead, why not have them perform various skills to showcase their athleticism and strength... like they do now?

Contrary to popular belief, the judges have a fairly rigid set of guidelines to follow... if the athlete performs that skill, he gets X number of points (or deductions for errors)

Get rid of the judged sports and you lose your top moneymakers... and that's what it's all about these days.

Fudge.

How can it be really good if the audience can't tell?

You watch someone flopping around like a trout for ten minutes and then you have to wait around for some gob from North Fartia to tell you whether or not it was any good?

[SwampoO]

Quote:

You have to understand, I'd throw out half the events they have.

Synchronizined swimming? Equestrian events?

are you kidding? Synchro is fackin hot, those chicks are in some real sexy outfits, like really, and they're all beautiful... I love synchro, and I love womens water polo, there's more ass cheeks then in a maxim mag.

grow a dick and figure out how to use it.




oh that was rude, Im not usually like that, sorry.... Im tired from work

[Blue_Nose]

lily wrote:

I was sort of with you till the end.

Lots of judged sports are competitive... in fact, I'd say they all are, or there wouldn't be athletes vying for the titles.

Take gymnastics, for example. You could have a competition where they all do a flexed arm hang, and the guy that lasts the longest gets the trophy. Wow... wouldn't that be exciting to watch!

Instead, why not have them perform various skills to showcase their athleticism and strength... like they do now?

Contrary to popular belief, the judges have a fairly rigid set of guidelines to follow... if the athlete performs that skill, he gets X number of points (or deductions for errors)

Get rid of the judged sports and you lose your top moneymakers... and that's what it's all about these days.

See, to me, I like the sound of your example... If you've ever watched strongman or lumberjack competitions, you know that isn't as boring as you'd think. I love watching The Lumberjack Challenge more than the Olympics, guaranteed.

I don't want to wonder if the judge was having a bad day, or got dumped by someone from my country. If the difference between A's and B's summersault is worth an Olympic gold medal, the value of winning just seems degraded in my mind.

[Blue_Nose]

There are differences in who can mow the lawn the best, or stack firewood, too. Doesn't mean you pick which differences are the most important and throw them into the Olympics.

[Jaime_Souviens]

A.

lily wrote:

When the top athletes perform in their sport, even the uninitiated can usually see that one is better than another, whether the landing was more controlled or the body held straighter, there are differences.

B.

lily wrote:

If you can't tell if the performance was any good.... you don't understand it, so either educate yourself or watch something else.

Okay lily, pick a side, is a good performance plainly visible or not?

[Jaime_Souviens]

I think the funniest part is when the French judge bribes the Russian judge.

[Jaime_Souviens]

lily wrote:

Jaime_Souviens wrote:

A.

lily wrote:

When the top athletes perform in their sport, even the uninitiated can usually see that one is better than another, whether the landing was more controlled or the body held straighter, there are differences.

B.

lily wrote:

If you can't tell if the performance was any good.... you don't understand it, so either educate yourself or watch something else.

Okay lily, pick a side, is a good performance plainly visible or not?

Shall I choose the apple or the orange, Jaime?

A refers to a comparison, B refers to a single performance.

Post hoc distinction made up to fudge obvious conflict.


Nice try though.

[Jaime_Souviens]

lily wrote:

I don't see any conflict whatsoever...

lily, what did your Mom say about making things up?

[Jaime_Souviens]

lily wrote:

Jaime, what did your Dad say about arguing after you lost the point?

Go back and check, we were discussing individual performances in gymnastics in both cases.


Hmmmmmmmmmmmm......