Schvanz42
Newbie
The people who are into equestrian competitions could tell the difference between one horse's gait and another's, but yeah, for people who aren't into it, dressage isn't a good spectator sport. The jumping is probably more interesting, since you at least have the suspense of watching the horses try to make a clean run through the series of fences.
And in my opinion, if the Olympics has competitions for equine athletes, why not some events for dogs? Because face it, the equestrian rider is basically just there to give instructions, like a coach, and the only difference between the rider on a horse and a dog handler is that you can't (and don't have to) ride on a dog's back.
But I disagree about men's gymnastics. To me gymnastics is one of the best spectator sports in the Olympics. If you're not impressed by what the men can do on the rings, especially that amazing Chinese gymnast who holds every position an extra second just because he can, I don't know what to say.
I am beginning to worry that the Olympics errs on the side of including more sports than it should. The purist in me would like to see all of the "ball sports" eliminated from the Olympics, and reduce the events to the more elementary tests of strength, speed, balance, and endurance that you see in athletics, swimming, gymnastics, weightlifting, and the like. Seriously, why do we need soccer in the Olympics when we already have the extremely popular World Cup? And why do we need basketball in the Olympics when we already have the NBA Playoffs? And tennis has four majors every year, so why add another one every fifth year? Baseball has both the World Series and the World Baseball Classic. Maybe the Olympics enhance the profile of ball sports that aren't as hugely popular on a global scale, such as badminton, table tennis, and volleyball, but I'd bet the people (and countries) who are really into those sports follow the world championship equivalent events in their sports more closely than the Olympics.
I'm sure they do follow them quite closely, and kudos to them. The fact is some..."activities"...are completely rooted in arbitrary judging and point systems with no definite outcome as to who was the true winner. Horse trotting or what ever the heck it's called would be one of these "activities". I, personally, fail to see how this activity is relevant in so much as asking, "Who is the athlete? The horse or the rider?" I guess I fail to see a feat of human athletic prowess associated with this event.
I will grant you the fact that gymnasts, male or female, show incredible bouts of human strength. However, the fact remains that there can be no solid winner because the scoring system is based on opinion, not fact. I do understand its inclusion as an olympic sport as it is practiced by many people around the world. It stands to reason then on this criteria that golf, baseball, bowling etc. would also garner enough world wide participation to be accepted as an olympic sport. We also know that one would be wrong upon making this assumption as mass participation in ones selected field is not necessarily indicative of its inclusion in the games. Therefore making the selection process more convoluted than previously thought.
So, I will ask in more direct way - If a sport such as equine walking is included in the olympic games, why not disc golf?
The mere fact that the motion would be laughed off the floor makes most of the events in the olympics a joke. If there was a solid reason to include or disclude certain sports based on a hard set of rules set forth and agreed upon by the participating countries I guess I could live with it. But that doesn't seem to be the case. My guess is that not too many people world wide would complain if equine walking was suddenly ousted from the olympics.