This issue really evokes my emotions, because of how much I love sports. I think sports are a vitally important part of the human experience. I guess dance is, too, but we're not talking about dance, in and of itself.
Dance isn't a sport. Period. Ever. Nobody can change my mind about this. Dance is potentially expressive, beautiful, socially useful, entertaining, etc. But it IS NOT A FUCKING SPORT.
Only sports should be in the goddamned Olympics, and shoving non-sports into the mix is shameful and disgusting. It's a wad of spit in the face of every great athlete who has ever taken the field. It's a disgrace to the Ancient Greek tradition that the Olympics are attempting to continue.
I don't give a fuck that there are already competitions for breakdancing. Or ballroom dancing. People can hold competitions for whatever they want. I actually think competitions shouldn't be held for entirely subjective and artistic activities, but people can do whatever the fuck they want.
But not in the fucking Olympics. This shit makes me sick.
And before you start pointing out the other subjective, judged events that are already in the Olympics: THEY SHOULD ALL BE REMOVED, TOO. EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM. NONE OF THEM BELONG.
No more gymnastics (rhythmic or otherwise). No more figure skating and ice dancing. No more skateboarding. No more surfing. No more synchronized swimming. No more freestyle skiing. No more diving. No more BMX. No more ANYTHING that requires judging.
You might browbeat me into admitting that some of those subjectively judged activities are sports, but you will never convince me that they belong in the Olympics.
Olympic sports should be restricted to those which are determined by means of a clock, a measuring tape, the accumulation of OBJECTIVELY scored points, or a physical beating.
Even some of those should be on the chopping block. Some of the points-scoring events are too subjective. If a sport relies too much on fallible human judging, it should be excluded.
The vast majority of the events should be arbitrated only by the cold, merciless, absolute judgment of the clock or the measuring tape. Therein lies the truest purity of sport.
Honestly, the best thing to do would be to reset everything to the REAL tradition of the Olympics. Almost nothing, other than running, jumping, and fighting. With an absolute minimum of rules to get in the way, and all the athletes competing in the nude. Just sandals on their feet. No space-age materials to help anyone. Nothing for anyone to hide. Just human muscle and determination, on display at the greatest possible level.
But it's all a forlorn dream. Instead, we have to have our stomachs turned, as a bunch of revolting little shitheads wobble and headspin.
The ancient Olympians are going to be spinning in their fucking graves.
EDIT: YES, I AM AWARE THAT THE FIRST COUPLE MODERN OLYMPICS FEATURED NON-SPORT ACTIVITIES, LIKE SCULPTURE AND PAINTING. THAT DOESN'T CHANGE MY VIEW. INCLUDING ART IN THE MODERN OLYMPICS WAS A RIDICULOUS MISTAKE. JUST BECAUSE IT WAS DONE BEFORE DOESN'T MEAN IT SHOULD BE DONE NOW.
Which events aren't subjective by your rules?
What if I'm faster than every Olympic runner today, but only after 123m? Isn't that objective? The whole 100m distance was just a random round number decided by someone a long time ago.
What if I'm faster over 3m, because I have a much better reaction time to the start gun. Should we remove the start gun?
What if I'm faster because I can beat them up and then run while the rest of the field is unconscious? Objectively, I can reach the finish line faster because I can stop the rest of them.
High jumpers are only able to get that high because there's a super soft crash mat that lets them throw their bodies in dangerous ways in any other situation. Does that make any sense? It's not objective either.
Every single event, even "pure" events have psudo-random rules to make them sports.
I think that's the entire point. You have a 100m race. You're faster at 123m, train for the 200m or the 100m. Those are the distances that are recognized, period. This is a great unpopular opinion, but one I agree with complete. I've had this exact same argument in my house every Olympics. If it requires a special judge to tell me who's better, it doesn't belong.
Events that are judged by THE CLOCK or THE MEASURING TAPE or THE LAST OPPONENT STANDING.
How many goddamn times do I have to say it? I feel like you're just deliberately refusing to read it, at this point.
None of your listed exceptions and excuses change the fact that those events you're talking about are judged by the clock and the measuring tape.
Obviously, there should be rules against engaging in combat or trickery, in running or jumping activities. The fact that objectively determined events can and should have rules doesn't make me a hypocrite.
Rules against punching, tripping, or kicking opponents in a race are not subjective. You either punched or you didn't. And you can write the rules to absolutely rule out people trying to make it appear accidental. I'm not sure what the exact rules are about incidental contact in footraces, but the rule can and should basically say that anyone who engages in contact with another runner is disqualified, regardless of whether they claim it to be accidental.
That way, everyone will do their absolute best to avoid contact. And if someone is such an asshole that they are willing to disqualify themselves in order to take someone else out of the competition, so be it. We should be wiling to accept some innocent people getting disqualified, in order to avoid the degeneration of subjective nonsense.
As for the crash mats, I do think the ideal version of the high jump wouldn't have them. I think true, non-degenerated sports should be done with the absolute bare minimum of equipment. At the same time, though, there is nothing subjective about the crash mat existing. Everyone jumps on the same mat, and it doesn't alter the actual outcome of the measured height that wins the competition.
So by your exact definition here, a break-dancing competition that says you get 5 points for being able to do a step out during a routine is an objective measure.
So break-dancing is a legitimate sport that could be used in the Olympics.
Obvious troll response. Judges are required to determine if a participant has done whatever a "step out" is, correctly. As I said in my post, I reject ALL subjectively judged events.
None of them are true sports. Not true enough to be enshrined at the most important global sporting event. As I said, only events arbitrated by the CLOCK or the MEASURING TAPE or the LAST OPPONENT STANDING should be included.
So you both need judges to determine that a competitor has followed the rules, and you also don't need any judges to determine if a competitor has followed the rules.
Also rules have to be 100% objective, but also have a bunch of details to ensure that we've subjectively decided on the objectives of the event.
Objective judges ARE different from subjective judges. However, as I've said in other responses, I do believe the rules should be as simple as possible.
The more complex the rules, the more they are open to subjective interpretation.
And certainly, judgment of "artistic interpretation" or any other such nonsense has no place in sports.
EDIT: I'll give you an example of what I mean. "Did the boxer in the blue trunks kick his opponent, contrary to the rules against attacking with the legs?" That is an OBJECTIVE ruling. Did the kick happen or not?
But then we have "did the gymnast perform the dismount cleanly?" That is subjective. No matter how many sub-rules you establish, to try and objectify the subjective, the situation is so complex that subjectivity WILL always come into the judgment. I believe that sort of judging degenerates the purity of an event and disqualifies it as a true sport, worthy of being showcased on the highest global level.
If you're using boxing as an example of an objectively judged sport, then you clearly have a lot to learn about sports.
I'm NOT talking about boxing in its current, degenerate form. I'm talking about boxing as it should be.
If you think “did the kick happen or not” is objective, you should try actually watching sports and then looking online to see the outrage over every single call.