Posted by Rush
Posted by mikevolz
Posted by Rush
These people are moving faster than 99% of the people on this board can run and they are doing it for 20+ km. It's difficult. There are a number of other things I would take out of the Olympics before this one.
the conclusion you make from this is that, speed walking is more deserving of being in the olympics than other sports with the "There are a number of other things I would take out of the Olympics before this one." line.
The evidence you provide is that its because it is difficult. by describing what happens.
the assumption, that your post makes, through your own argument mind you, is that because something is difficult, it is worthy of being in the olympic games.
so through this logic, we can also justify anything being in the olympics because it is hard, in particular, hard physically. So why isn't walking on your hands in the olympics? its hard, physically challenging, takes much more, strength, endurance, coordination, balance, than speed walking?
Well, I really don't want to get into a literal/semantics argument again, but I do want to make the point that your interpretation of my quote assumes that the events that I would remove before racewalking are what you would define as "sports". None of that information is available from either of your previous posts, so it's an assumption based on your part.
As for your analogy of walking on your hands, yes, you are correct, just because it is difficult doesn't warrant it a spot in the Olympic games. However, a) I never said that that was the only reason I would keep it in the games. I merely stated that there were other events that I would get rid of first. and b) there are other reasons why events are in the Olympics that have to do with historical reasons.
For example, all the dressage and equestrian events mostly rely on the skill of the rider, but the fitness of the horse. However, historically, one could argue that horse riding was a very important skill to have hundreds of years ago when the Olympics were first established and that one's skill riding a horse deserves recognition. Another example is the historical significance of the actual marathon distance. Javelin throw is obviously tied to spear throwing.
The historical significance of the racewalk is below
Harkening back to the stylized gait of footmen who walked alongside their masters' coaches on journeys in days of yore, English sports enthusiasts made walking a competitive sport in the late 1800s.
As for not going 100%, you can walk as fast as you want in the racewalk. That's the whole point of the event. The only restriction is that you cannot run. To me that is no different than not allowing someone to wear flippers in the swimming events or restricting them to a particular swimming stroke or not allowing the swimmers to run on the edge of the pool or allow the cyclists to take short cuts on the triathalon course, not allowing someone to cork their bat in baseball, why there are off sides in football, hockey, etc. I could go on.
As for sports vs games. Point taken, however you still never answered my original question of what you define as a sport. I think the answer is relevant considering you are the one that is speaking as if the term is clearly defined (when IMO it is not as clear as some would like it to be)
As I have said, I chose not to make the distinction (I refer to Olympic events as "events", but I'm not the one complaining that such and such event doesn't deserve to be in the Olympics because "it is not a sport".
I would also be happy to provide a list of events I would take out of the summer games before I would remove racewalking and my reasoning for each.... none of which have to do with the definition of a "sport"
ok, sport. as a definition. in my own terms. I believe the letter of the law of sport (what 'technically' defines a sport) is some sort of competition in which there are an even set of rules. I personally believe in the spirit of sport, that there is should rely on some sort of athleticism. Golf is considered a sport by some, but not by others. I think it is a sport because at the high levels it takes a high level of athleticism to play, but you don't have to be in shape to play it. (think baseball pitchers level of athleticism). but at the end of the day, it is a sport that mostly relies on skill (just using golf as an example of how i think).
the 'sports' of today are basically a give and take of athleticism vs skill. I.E. olympic racing (such as running, and swimming) are an almost pure version of athleticism, as when compared to sports that apply running where lots of skill in areas are required (running a hook route, double jukes, dribbling...)
so this brings me to where im singling out the racing sports, vs other sports.
olympics has swimming (different strokes), rowing, running, and whatever. In all of these races you go as hard as physically possible. In swimming you have the different strokes, you go as hard as you can. now the comparison from breast stroke to free style as walking to running is here, ill explain my problem with it.
With different strokes your doing it in a different form that is so different rarely are those lines blurred. butterfly and breast stroke are so different that its easy to tell.
in racewalking, your right in the gray area, i know theres a form to racewalking, and it looks amazingly hard to perfect, but the racers are borderline jogging, in some cases getting disqualified for changing form to run.
i think that when the rules of competition are set up like that and require such intense monitoring it detracts from the underlying aspect of competitive sports, or events. in addition to the fact that they are preventing themselves from going fast.
if you want me to write more, i will, sorry for the disjointedness, but my attention span did not permit me to read your post and write this in one sitting, if i missed anything let me know.