Winter Olympics as a game of chance

If you wobble on the blocks, you get DQ'd, so there is a little chance there. We sure have seen that in our trials, and Thorpe was almost a casualty of that. I think every sport has an element of luck involved, and sometimes it is just not an athletes time, or it is some other unknown athlete's week to shine. I am sure the American figure skater who found himself with the flu on IVs the day before the long skate was feeling like life had dealt him a cruel blow....and then he brought it on the next day.

Short track? I think I know what you're thinking - the disastrous Salt Lake City Men's Short Track (forgot the distance) where everyone fell during the bell lap and the lagging skater won, with Apolo crawling towards the finish bleeding. Yeah, that was a LOT of luck, but it does not happen frequently. In fact, short track depends on A LOT of skills, experience, power, and for 1000s and 1500s, strategy. Skills and power you can see from the Korean skaters, who can overtake on the outside as easily as anything. They would trail you for all laps except 2 or 3, then power ahead on the outside so quickly and swiftly the next second they create a huge gap between you and them. I'm sure it was not luck that got the Koreans 2 golds and 2 silvers yesterday in 2 short track events. It certainly wasn't luck when one second, Ahn was behind Smith, then the next second he powered ahead of Apolo. It wasn't luck either when Choi won the women's 1500 by a huge margin. The Koreans' superior skills and power showed there. Strategy can be the next most important thing in 1000s and 1500s after skill. With 3 Koreans, Meng Wang of China, though a very fast skater (gold medalist of 500 short track), could not deal with them by herself, with the great Yang Yang kept out of the finals (probably age has gotten to her, but then again, she tried to overtake but was blocked by the Canadian Amanda). The 3 Koreans were taking turns wearing her out, and during the bell lap, you could see the 3rd Korean deliberately bump into Wang, who was lucky to stay upright but was forced to slow down - she was just speeding up to try for an outside pass. Short track depends mostly on skills and strategy, and luck wouldn't hurt, but only once in a blue moon can it really change the outcome drastically. Let me race against Ahn, for example. He can fall down every 3 seconds and still beat me by about 30 minutes over 1500 short track. Now, if we're talking about luck, ski jump is one. Yesterday someone was forced to jump with a huge tailwind. Skeleton and bobsleigh are two others. There's luck in swimming too. Goggles flying off, for one. But most sports require much more skill and/or power than simply luck. And short track is so exciting! It is by far my favourite sport of the Winter Olympics. You get about 5 or 6 skaters weaving in and out trying desperately to overtake others and during the bell lap you get some very brutal skating, with lots of powering ahead and blocking. And of course, short track turns are simply brilliant -so exciting! By contrast, long track seems a bit dull to me - racing against the clock instead of each other loses its apeal to me. Also, can't wait for the Men's 5000 short track relay. You got 16 skaters crowded on ice with skaters whizzing around the rink at about 45 to 50 km/h.

I agree, there is an element of chance in every sport, it's just larger and more obvious in some sports than others. But even in sports with a larger element of luck, you have to be very skilled to do well. A slow but lucky speed skater is never going to win a gold medal, but a fast and unlucky speed skater might. By these same standards, we could say basketball is a sport based on chance because even the best players do not always make their shots. Or football, or soccer, etc. Ultimately, chance is an element in any sport, but the best still usually win.

Originally posted by Sam Perry Any event when someone wins by judges is not a sport, it is an activity. Does that mean swimming is an activity since judging is involved throughout the entire event? What about wrestling, that is a judged event. I wouldn't walk up to my wrestling friends and tell them they aren't participating in a sport. I might call them and tell them that and then avoid them for a few weeks thereafter.

My husband has the same opinion about the Olympics. He says it is not a "sport" unless the winner beats the clock or scores more points, etc. He says the events that are judged and given scores aren't "sports." I disagree with him, but his opinion is interesting. I like to watch all competition, no matter how the winner is determined.

Any event when someone wins by judges is not a sport, it is an activity.

Besides Luck being involved, and whether or not judging is involved, there must be other important criteria associated to being a real sport as well......For example, Chess is a game that is based on pure strategy and skill for the most part....so there is no judging involved (like in figure skating).....To win you must checkmate your opponent or have your opponent resign.....There is also very little luck involved in chess.....Unless your unlucky enough to accidently place a piece on the wrong square and let your hand off before you realize your mistake, your choices in chess are quite deliberate.....Many consider chess to be a real sport for these and other similar reasons.....but I would argue that it is not a real sport because of the lack of physical activity involved......but what about other sports that are lighter in the physical activity department.....like professional bass fishing for example.....curling and golf both require physical coordination and skill....hence they have higher degrees of physical activity IMHO than bass fishing (and billiards also requires physical coordination and physical skill as well...not to mention bowling)....and certainly all of these examples I've mentioned of accepted sports require more of the physical element than chess does.....what about automobile racing?.....where do we define what constitutes enough of the physical element in order to be considered a real sport?....whether that be physical skills based more on coordination and balance....or more based on strength and stamina?...What other criteria (besides the ones already mentioned) should we also require for a real sport as well? Newmastersswimmer

Originally posted by aquageek Does that mean swimming is an activity since judging is involved throughout the entire event? What about wrestling, that is a judged event. I wouldn't walk up to my wrestling friends and tell them they aren't participating in a sport. I might call them and tell them that and then avoid them for a few weeks thereafter. Give me a break Mr. Literal. I think you get my point (no pun intended). It is an activity when no matter how good the competitor is (or isn't as was evidenced in 2002 Salt Lake Ice Skating), everyone waits with bated breath to see what some washed up former participant thinks before a winner is delcared.

Originally posted by newmastersswimmer Besides Luck being involved, and whether or not judging is involved, there must be other important criteria associated to being a real sport as well......For example, Chess is a game that is based on pure strategy and skill for the most part....so there is no judging involved (like in figure skating).....To win you must checkmate your opponent or have your opponent resign.....There is also very little luck involved in chess.....Unless your unlucky enough to accidently place a piece on the wrong square and let your hand off before you realize your mistake, your choices in chess are quite deliberate.....Many consider chess to be a real sport for these and other similar reasons.....but I would argue that it is not a real sport because of the lack of physical activity involved......but what about other sports that are lighter in the physical activity department.....like professional bass fishing for example.....curling and golf both require physical coordination and skill....hence they have higher degrees of physical activity IMHO than bass fishing (and billiards also requires physical coordination and physical skill as well...not to mention bowling)....and certainly all of these examples I've mentioned of accepted sports require more of the physical element than chess does.....what about automobile racing?.....where do we define what constitutes enough of the physical element in order to be considered a real sport?....whether that be physical skills based more on coordination and balance....or more based on strength and stamina?...What other criteria (besides the ones already mentioned) should we also require for a real sport as well? Newmastersswimmer All very valid questions and points. I for one think a sport should be called one when you have to exert some physical stamina (golf and auto racing can require a lot of physical strength), as well as there being a distinct winner and loser as evidenced by winning or losing on the field (or whatever location) of play. Not some judge who based on the participants past performances, the judges past experiences, or some sort of bribery (insert boxing decisions here) determines the result. Boxing is the one sport where it can be a toss up. Very clearly someone can win or lose, but there have been countless times where the fix is in based on some back room payoffs, etc.

Originally posted by ande Things can go wrong in swimming you can blow a turn poorly split a race breathe water / choke get a cramp hit the bottom blow a start blow a finish what else What else? The thing that comes to mind to me is "not train enough!" :)