Olympics 2021

Page 13 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Weird that most of the talks here is about getting rid of events based on personal likings. Come on guys, Olympics should be for eveyone, or so I heard.

Although I'm still in for getting rid of skateboarding, bmx, and maybe rock climbing too;), they make Olympics look like MTv in the 90s.

You want to get rid of one of the oldest events?
But, as inappropriate as it was, they really decided to remove wrestling from the Olympic before getting it reinstated, didn't they
 
Last edited:
Gardiner has a god-tier stride, but might lack the flat 100m speed to break the WR. Very similar to Wariner in that respect. They also had to expend a bit more energy than the hurdlers in the semis and that looked to have cost James in the final as he ran slower than his semi. But it was a great race with 5 runners with a shot at gold in the home stretch. I expect a similar free for all in the women's race tomorrow.

USA and Jamaica were way out in front in the womens 4x400m. The US might change all 4 runners for the final too. The bronze battle will be wide open with Bol giving Netherlands a shot at another medal.
 
Reactions: jmdirt
What do you dislike about the judged sports? I am trying to understand yours and Libertine's view... you seem to place all weight on the "faster, higher, stronger". For me, especially in the knowledge how common doping is, I'm just hardly impressed by the numbers. I love to watch some athletics for the excitement, and cycling mostly for the tactical connections, but often I prefer to watch sports which have at least an extremely important technical side... which are often the judged ones. Could also be because I used to be pretty fast and strong, but have always been lacking in coordination... so my admiration for people with such skills is even bigger. ;)
When I answered yesterday, "judges", that was because I had about two minutes to answer and couldn't really articulate how I feel. This morning I still can't. I guess I just like the idea of a finish line, a knockout, the clearance of a bar, a mark in sand/grass, the button at the top of a wall, etc. I'm not young so I've seen quite a few Olympic events, and boxing/MMA matches get incorrectly decided by judges, and not by the actual performance. Granted the 'criteria' has tightened up considerably, and the full on rip off doesn't happen often, but you know where they happen...on the biggest stages. Boxing/MMA is interesting in that the competitors can end it and leave not doubt, but if they don't, the judges determine the winner.

Like I said, I really enjoy watching gymnastics at the Olympics. Even though things are way better now, there were times this year when I was ??! (I'm no expert, but the commentators frequently support my 'what the?') Even 1/10 here or there makes a difference. I have thoughts, but I don't care what I think, what do the athletes think?

As far as the extreme sports go, they are cool and amazing, and might attract a younger audience, but I struggle with some of them being Olympic sports (partly because they are judged)(keep in mind that this is coming from someone who has gone to Nitro Circus a few times). The climbing events at least feel more traditional to me. What could be more authentic than scaling the wall of a castle in a raid?

Ramble, ramble...
 
Reactions: BlueRoads
Weird that most of the talks here is about getting rid of events based on personal likings. Come on guys, Olympics should be for eveyone, or so I heard.

Although I'm still in for getting rid of skateboarding, bmx, and maybe rock climbing too;), they make Olympics look like MTv in the 90s.



But, as inappropriate as it was, they really decided to remove wrestling from the Olympic before getting it reinstated, didn't they
Uhmmm, that's how forums like this work. We talk about what we like, dislike, and why, then discuss.

Removing wrestling was a political mess that we won't get into here.
 
Reactions: gunara
Update about my climbing viewing experience:

It's a great sport, I really like to watch it, but the modus has some serious issues and some minor ones that were exposed in today's men's final. But since it will all be different in Paris anyway it probably doesn't make much sense to discuss it. Basically the multiplication of the points of the three events while for the first (speed) the time was irrelevant and only whether you were better than your direct rival counted brought some weird results, intensified by the fact that one athlete was injured and couldn't play his role as a duelist. Think the modus was like this to make it more exciting, but it lacked fairness.
I guess there's a reason why in the decathlon it makes a set difference whether you run 0,0001 seconds or 10 seconds faster than your rival... and also why the points are added instead of multiplicated...
Basically, the final result felt a bit random, but all the finalists were great in something and seemed sympathetic and I would have been okay with pretty much each of them on the podium.

The camera work in the final was improved.

The routes and especially the boulders were a bit too difficult, I don't know what it's like at other climbing events, but it seemed to me that the route designers had something slightly different in mind, or maybe the didn't sufficiently factor in the humidity which makes it more difficult to grab a hold. Or maybe, since it was the first time at the Olympics, they thought that for the Olympics they needed to make it really, really hard and went a bit over the top.

Enough from climbing. On to the judged events again.

When I answered yesterday, "judges", that was because I had about two minutes to answer and couldn't really articulate how I feel. This morning I still can't. I guess I just like the idea of a finish line, a knockout, the clearance of a bar, a mark in sand/grass, the button at the top of a wall, etc. I'm not young so I've seen quite a few Olympic events, and boxing/MMA matches get incorrectly decided by judges, and not by the actual performance. Granted the 'criteria' has tightened up considerably, and the full on rip off doesn't happen often, but you know where they happen...on the biggest stages. Boxing/MMA is interesting in that the competitors can end it and leave not doubt, but if they don't, the judges determine the winner.

Like I said, I really enjoy watching gymnastics at the Olympics. Even though things are way better now, there were times this year when I was ??! (I'm no expert, but the commentators frequently support my 'what the?') Even 1/10 here or there makes a difference. I have thoughts, but I don't care what I think, what do the athletes think?

As far as the extreme sports go, they are cool and amazing, and might attract a younger audience, but I struggle with some of them being Olympic sports (partly because they are judged)(keep in mind that this is coming from someone who has gone to Nitro Circus a few times). The climbing events at least feel more traditional to me. What could be more authentic than scaling the wall of a castle in a raid?

Ramble, ramble...
Yes, I guess boxing has its big issues in that regard, although I wouldn't know because I have practically watched no boxing since my childhood's over. MMA I never watch.
In gymnastics I don't feel it's a big issue. (I only watch it here and there at the biggest events, though.) I usually feel the rating is very adequate. There may be certain situations where it's not okay, but then you have that in other, seemingly clear cut sports as well, for instance in football, where the referee, even with VAR, plays a big role, or in cycling, where whether someone should be relegated or not can become a huge discussion.
Especially in dressage I'm really content with the rating, and in figure skating, since the last big scandal, the criteria have changed so much in the direction of "easily countable" that the grace was completely gone for a while, but this year I felt it was back, the skaters, especially the male ones, have finally figured out how to produce crazy, perfect jumps while delivering a graceful, harmonic program - basically the pinnacle of a viewer's experience in my opinion.

The worst in terms of judging, among the sports I watch, seems to be diving, that's a sport where I often don't fully get the judgements, but that could very well be because I know nothing about diving...
 
Yet another bad exchange for the US men's 4X100 relay team.
I'm so far behind on my Olympic viewing, haven't had a chance to see this yet. I'll put it on my viewing list...

Having said that I just watched the men's 1500m semis, the finals should be fun. There are some new and very young faces on the track (or at least ones I haven't seen before), like Jakob Ingebrigtsen and Cole Hocker. Don't know what their chances are against the Kenyans, but it should be an exciting race.
 
Reactions: jmdirt and Koronin
As far as the extreme sports go, they are cool and amazing, and might attract a younger audience, but I struggle with some of them being Olympic sports (partly because they are judged)(keep in mind that this is coming from someone who has gone to Nitro Circus a few times). The climbing events at least feel more traditional to me. What could be more authentic than scaling the wall of a castle in a raid?

Ramble, ramble...
The argument is usually made in favour of the extreme sports that they attract a younger audience and raise participation due to the cool factor, but the counterpoint to that would be, if these sports are the key to a younger audience and the games need to reinvent themselves to attract the audience, then why does the X Games, built entirely around these sports, not draw bigger viewing? I'd be more in favour of expanding the program and reach of the X Games to promote these sports and build them and their related disciplines, rather than diluting the Olympics by adding ever more medals in disciplines that don't really have the depth of competition to really feel elite in the same way as Netserk points out sports like football and basketball don't really feel truly like Olympic sports - they have their own higher level competitions as there are various entry requirements and limitations on these sports (the same goes for ice hockey in the Winter Olympics, btw) that mean you aren't actually watching the true best at the sport. Olympic football, for example, is clearly at a lower level than the World Cup or the Continental titles.

Climbing definitely belongs more than most of the tangential sports that we've seen added over recent years, from slopestyle and halfpipe to skateboarding and BMX freestyle. The combined in particular offers a mix of skills, demanding speed, agility and power, but also logic and problem-solving abilities, with clear - and pure - victory criteria - completing a course faster, or going further, than the rest of the competition. You can tell immediately, within a couple of seconds of seeing competition, what is going on, and what they're trying to achieve. Conversely, the British teenager that won the bronze medal yesterday said that the best thing about skateboarding was the lack of rules and the total freedom to express yourself however you want. And you know what? She's right. That is the essence of what appeals about skateboarding. But it's also precisely why it doesn't belong as an Olympic sport.
 
Olympics should be about exploring and pushing the limits of the human body through competition. That's the point of faster, higher, stronger.

I don't think handball, basketball, football etc. fit the bill.
I agree. I believe that the comparison was athletics to gymnastics, what makes Biles so amazing is because she goes higher, faster, stronger. So for me the difference between judged and nonjudged isn't those.

I heard Nasti Liukin say "that routine will score higher in the final". WTH?! Shouldn't it score the same every time that it is executed correctly/the same? That's not the first time I've heard that either (in gymnastics, skating...)

I was watching X-Games Moto X Freestyle, and the same thing: "That run will be a lot higher in the final, but the judges don't like to give high scores early on" Again, WTH?!

RE: Climbing: I'm only able to see the highlights of the American girl so I'll have to wait a few days until its all over YouTube. But, based on what I have read (here and other) the scoring needs to be more straight forward. Why not just straight up total time (obviously completing the correct elements/features/holds...)?
 
Gardiner has a god-tier stride, but might lack the flat 100m speed to break the WR. Very similar to Wariner in that respect. They also had to expend a bit more energy than the hurdlers in the semis and that looked to have cost James in the final as he ran slower than his semi. But it was a great race with 5 runners with a shot at gold in the home stretch. I expect a similar free for all in the women's race tomorrow.

USA and Jamaica were way out in front in the womens 4x400m. The US might change all 4 runners for the final too. The bronze battle will be wide open with Bol giving Netherlands a shot at another medal.
The question is, what is up with his hands? They seemed very strange as if they were attached differently to his arms in some way.


Or maybe that isn't the question...
 
The worst in terms of judging, among the sports I watch, seems to be diving, that's a sport where I often don't fully get the judgements, but that could very well be because I know nothing about diving...
It's a bit like gymnastics in that the more twists and turns the higher the score, it has to look pretty (legs together, toes pointed and all that), and you have to have a perfect "landing". In gymnastics if you have a bad landing you fall on your arse (or worse), in diving you just make a big splash. I heard those big splashes, especially from the 10m board, can be quite painful though, so it's best to avoid them altogether.
 
Reactions: Koronin and jmdirt
Oh, and I think we have even forgotten to mention one of the worst of the new entries in the discussion of which sports should be let go. The 3x3 basketball!!! :mad::oops::weary:

Also, I agree that football is completely disinteresting (probably not the women's for those who watch that, I don't even know if they play with the best or not) as an Olympic event. But I don't really think basketball (not the ridiculous 3x3 concept, mind, but the actual thing) fits the same bill. All countries come with their best players (at least I think so, I haven't watched much this year and haven't even seen Team US, but usually they go all-in) and it is the pinnacle of the sport for national teams. Also, if it was really only citius, altius, fortius, we could have a 100m dash, high jump and weightlifting (only for men and without weight classes) and then be done, as we then would have seen which three people on earth who is fastest, can jump the highest and is the strongest. So I don't by into that logic at all that team sports should not be included because of a motto.
 
Reactions: gunara and jmdirt
I agree. I believe that the comparison was athletics to gymnastics, what makes Biles so amazing is because she goes higher, faster, stronger. So for me the difference between judged and nonjudged isn't those.

I heard Nasti Liukin say "that routine will score higher in the final". WTH?! Shouldn't it score the same every time that it is executed correctly/the same? That's not the first time I've heard that either (in gymnastics, skating...)

I was watching X-Games Moto X Freestyle, and the same thing: "That run will be a lot higher in the final, but the judges don't like to give high scores early on" Again, WTH?!

RE: Climbing: I'm only able to see the highlights of the American girl so I'll have to wait a few days until its all over YouTube. But, based on what I have read (here and other) the scoring needs to be more straight forward. Why not just straight up total time (obviously completing the correct elements/features/holds...)?

The thing is that you will never see two completely alike routines, and in the case of the freestyle events it's often even a positive factor if you show something new, original; usually only the connections are new, not a whole element, but then, as you know, in all these sports it's not just the elements, but also the connections that get rated.

Okay, let's start with the obvious: In most of these sports you will get a certain amount of points for a certain element. Whether explicitly named that or not, there are usually two criteria for an individual element: general difficulty of the element, and execution. The general difficulty of an element is usually extremely important, up to the point, as in figure skating, that if you show a difficult element and it's extremely badly done, but fullfills the outright criteria (skid in this or that position, turn completed 360° and so on), you get so many points that someone who shows an element that's not so much easier but absolutely perfectly done, can't catch you. Hence, you have to bring the 4x Salchow, Flip, Loop, otherwise no chance for a place in the final, no matter your execution of all the other elements and so on...
So, execution... is basically secondary. Also, in dressage for instance, either it is a lead change or it isn't, either it's 15 steps or not... those mistakes are what makes or breaks your performance.
The execution, although set criteria exist, is of course often more debatable - the leg has to be thoroughly stretched - but now is this thoroughly stretched or not? Here is room for different interpretations, but since you do not have one judge and the judges are really knowledgable you will in the very most cases get a reasonably interpretation.

But then it gets more difficult - as I said, you will often not see the exact same routine. And most of these sports develop, when in other sports the times get faster, you will see things that you have not seen before (at least not on that event-level) - and at the beginning of a competition you will factor that possibility in, if you go too high, you give, let's say, 9.75 of 10, but then during the competition you realize that that is now the level, many now show element xy fluently, but there are still differences, but you don't have enough room to let those differences show in your ratings, that's not what you want.

And yes, there are judges that are stricter and judges that are less strict.

Regarding the final: So there are some factors which can be debatable, and judges can have a will to give more points for a glorious performance because then in the history books it will say "reached xy points, winning the YYZ event" and that sounds more impressing. I don't think one should make it sound like that is kind of a rule, like judges always give more points in a final or should do so, and I wonder if part of it is also some "excuse-talk" (="oh, it's an amazing performance (from an athlete I like/ from my country) which deserves more, surely it will get more in the final")?
I don't think that is a problem, however, as long as a judge is strict or not so strict with every athlete in that certain event/ quali/ final. After all, for instance, the track, the wind, can be different in a running event as well (and whether you have the inner or outer lane can even influence the competition within.)

Oof, written in one piece, in English... I hope it makes some kind of sense and I hope I used at least mostly the correct terms.
Basically, my argumentation comes down to two aspects: Execution is often underjudged in comparison to difficulty and clear mistakes of single elements anyway, so judging mistakes here often don't make such a big difference, and the more an aspect is debatable, the less do the judges judge it.
And second, it doesn't matter that much in my eyes that there are differences in the rating, as long as it is coherent in one event.


Climbing... like I said, if the threesome combined stayed, I think a system like in decathlon would have to be established... but since it's not...well.
 
Reactions: jmdirt

ASK THE COMMUNITY