Do the Olympic Games really mean anything? (MMA, boxing, athletic)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Given the number of obscure sporting events, historical cases of doping/drugs, subjective nature of many events, and the financial investment required by countries to produce medal-winning athletes -- what do the Olympic games really mean?
It seems rich/totalitarian countries have the advantage to win medals for the purpose of national pride. They use money and create systems just to compete and win certain events. Not to take everything away from the games because these are born and bred athletic talent competing but it doesn't seem like the Olympics is the best measure of which countries are necessarily the mostly athletically gifted/focused. In other words, the more investment a country makes into its people, then the more they will win. So what do the Olympics really mean? Who has the most efficient systems for producing athletes? How has the best trainers and ability to spot talent? Who invests the most money in promising athletes to win certain events?
The games are what they are. They have no greater “meaning.” Yes, they’re about entertainment, money and politics—but then most things are about entertainment, money and politics.
The games are what they are. They have no greater “meaning.” Yes, they’re about entertainment, money and politics—but then most things are about entertainment, money and politics.
Maybe for the people watching. I'm sure for the athletes who's trained all their lives to reach this stage, it's about the sport.
They are what they are ;games people enjoy and promote physical activity in youth. No different than say movies ;music or any other entertainment otherwise. No higher meaning really.
To me no, I had this discussion with a friend last night.
I am not a bandwagon fan, I don't watch the Olympics just because of the events. If the individual sports where any good I would watch them all year round but not that many people do. Last time I watched the Olympics was Atlanta and I just lost interest. I watch highlights of the boxing and see so many obviously fixed fights, clear winners losing etc.
If they went back to basics Long distance running, Boxing and brought in MMA and all the judging was fair I would watch it. To me everything is just showcase and boring. Thats just me though =)
Given the number of obscure sporting events, historical cases of doping/drugs, subjective nature of many events, and the financial investment required by countries to produce medal-winning athletes -- what do the Olympic games really mean?
It seems rich/totalitarian countries have the advantage to win medals for the purpose of national pride. They use money and create systems just to compete and win certain events. Not to take everything away from the games because these are born and bred athletic talent competing but it doesn't seem like the Olympics is the best measure of which countries are necessarily the mostly athletically gifted/focused. In other words, the more investment a country makes into its people, then the more they will win. So what do the Olympics really mean? Who has the most efficient systems for producing athletes? How has the best trainers and ability to spot talent? Who invests the most money in promising athletes to win certain events?
You are right but ultimately how is this different than domestic sports in the USA like NFL?
I personally like how specific race of people perform well in certain sports. But globalisation is destroying this
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.