ShadowSong Wrote: I know there's a thread, but this is something I've been thinking alot about lately, and I want opinions on, because it kind of pissed me off. The Olympics have always been about bringing the best and brightest athletes from around the world to compete in different sporting events for their respected country. Right? Right. But the snag lies in what exactly defines a sport, or what defines someone as an athelete. Because as far as I'm concerned, trap shooting is not a fucking sport, and some old, balding, ugly fat guy winning a gold medal doesn't make him an athlete. Maybe it's just me, but shooting a gun at a target, no matter how far away, or how much it's moving, or whatever, does not define that person as an athlete in my eyes. Opinions?

You have a "purest" attitude that many share. I was scratching my head at the winter Olympics when I saw Curling for the first time. I mean WTF?!! Curling?

I kinda feel as you do. Where's the athletic ability in some of these events? I can give some events a pass, but Curling is just nonsense!


GD

Just because you don't like the sport, don't attack it. Those people in those events work their arses off to get where they are!
The olympic games is not all about swimming and track & field! There are world championships for all those events such as skeet shooting, archery, rowing & equestion. The olympics is a place where the best athletes in all the international sports are together in one competition! It is the ONLY sporting event in which ALL countries are invited to compete.

ath·lete n.
A person possessing the natural or acquired traits, such as strength, agility, and endurance, that are necessary for physical exercise or sports, especially those performed in competitive contexts.

Therefore an athelete is anyone that is in a physcial competition. Rowing, shooting and every other olympic sport involves physical attributes. They all have their own physical skill levels.

To be a valid entry for the olympic games, the sport involved needs to have an international federation committee! If it does then it qualifies to be an olympic sport.

i agree with ShadowSong, he is 125% right.

AussieNinja Wrote: Just because you don't like the sport, don't attack it.

Okay, first off, I'm not attacking the sport in any means. I'm trying to start a debate whether those involved are actual athletes or not.

AussieNinja Wrote: There are world championships for all those events such as skeet shooting, archery, rowing & equestion. The olympics is a place where the best athletes in all the international sports are together in one competition! It is the ONLY sporting event in which ALL countries are invited to compete.

I agree with you here... I don't really see what point you're debating...

AussieNinja Wrote: ath·lete n. A person possessing the natural or acquired traits, such as strength, agility, and endurance, that are necessary for physical exercise or sports, especially those performed in competitive contexts.

I see strength, agility, and endurance listed here, which support my earlier statement. I didn't say anything about the competitiveness of the sport.

AussieNinja Wrote: Therefore an athelete is anyone that is in a physcial competition. Rowing, shooting and every other olympic sport involves physical attributes. They all have their own physical skill levels.

Rowing is on a completely different level of physical skill then shooting though. By your reasoning, bowling, darts, etc, could all be considered physical sports. It takes some physical effort, sure. But what doesn't? Hell, even chess requires you to lift your arm and move the piece.

The olypmics is all about talent. And i think its right for people to show off their talents every four years; wether its in Basketball, swimming or Target shooting. I for one think its apporiate to consider a target shooter an "atlethe". That guy must have trained and trained to get to where he is....and you shouldnt talk bad about it. But, then again, different people have different opinions...so i dont blame you for the way you think. Just letting you know my opinion.

Yeah i agree.
Although "sports" such as shooting require an amazing amount of skill, they just shouldn't be Olympic sports. It requires great skill to throw a yo-yo around and be good at it too, but that doesn't mean it should be an Olympic sport, because it's more of a mind game than physically competitive sport.

I also feel the same way about sports such as rhythmic gymnastics, synchronized swimming and figure skating because although each of these can be very difficult (especially synchronized swimming) they're as much art as they are sport. How do you properly regulate and score such events, because art is subjective? One judge could say it was the most beautiful thing he'd ever seen, while another could say it was a disgrace, and still it isn't really clear, because the world could have thought that somebody who lost should have won, but 3 or so people thought otherwise. In most other sports though, judges are likely to score around the same, so it's obvious to the world who won (except boxing of course...i could swear thats crooked).

Artistic sports, and sports like shooting just seem to make a mockery of the whole thing to me.

i never once watched the olympics i dont know any of the sports in it the only things i know are swimming running and gymnastics. ??? lol am i a loser now for never seeing the olympics

wikedklown00 Wrote: i never once watched the olympics i dont know any of the sports in it the only things i know are swimming running and gymnastics. ??? lol am i a loser now for never seeing the olympics

Yes.

And now that Billy agrees with me, I know I'm right. I'd really like more opinions though.

ShadowSong Wrote: Yes. And now that Billy agrees with me, I know I'm right. I'd really like more opinions though. wikedklown00 Wrote: i never once watched the olympics i dont know any of the sports in it the only things i know are swimming running and gymnastics. ??? lol am i a loser now for never seeing the olympics

Good lord that felt...exotic?

One can't say that the Olympics are to display every form of athleticism, because there are plenty of "sports" missing (American football, golf and the x-sports to name a few). But with that said I still think sharpshooting does belong at the Olympics because it diplays the same amount of skill required for archery, which has been a part of the Olympics from the start. Granted, I don't see how much of a sport it really is(and I don't think it is intended as a sport either), it's more of a display of accuracy.
It's kind of like weightlifting; in that it's not a competion though sport, but through ones unique talents.


On a side note, I'm not even sure if the examples I gave are valid (the whole football and golf thing) but I'm pretty sure they aren't Olympic events. If I turn out to be wrong, ohh well. Personally I don't watch the Olympics, and niether do a lot of people in Athens it seems; seeing as how the arenas are empty for the most part.