2024 Paris Olympics megathread

[Gups]

I don't know what this means.

Most sports are dominated by people with a certain body type.  Nobody cries foul over most basketball players being 2 metres tall.
Yet with boxing they have categories so it isn't just those actually most likely to win in a fight competing.

OK, so that at least makes grammatical sense but I'm not sure what point you are making. That boxing, judo, weightlifting etc should ditch the weight categories and just let the biggest win? Why?

In any event I don't think there is an advantageous body type in most sports save that it's helpful to be fit and strong is a lot of sports. You don't have to be tall to be a great footballer, cricketer, runner or cyclist. I don't know too much about basketball but I think there are a few sub six-footers playing professionally.   

[The Brain]

I don't know what this means.

Most sports are dominated by people with a certain body type.  Nobody cries foul over most basketball players being 2 metres tall.
Yet with boxing they have categories so it isn't just those actually most likely to win in a fight competing.

OK, so that at least makes grammatical sense but I'm not sure what point you are making. That boxing, judo, weightlifting etc should ditch the weight categories and just let the biggest win? Why?

Being the biggest does not guarantee victory in any of those sports. But to the core point: why not?

[Tamas]

You have weight categories in box because of physics. If you are a hit by a boxer significantly heavier than you, you go down and may suffer serious injuries, regardless of your boxing skills.

Yes that means that lighter-weight people could just not win anything in boxing the same way short people don't -as a rule- excel in basketball. But one aspect is that those at-risk lighter weight people would still try to win and potentially die trying, the other is that with weight classes you can have more matches, titles, and thus profit.

[The Brain]

You have weight categories in box because of physics. If you are a hit by a boxer significantly heavier than you, you go down and may suffer serious injuries, regardless of your boxing skills.

Yes that means that lighter-weight people could just not win anything in boxing the same way short people don't -as a rule- excel in basketball. But one aspect is that those at-risk lighter weight people would still try to win and potentially die trying, the other is that with weight classes you can have more matches, titles, and thus profit.

You always have to consider safety issues, regardless of weight classes. If a competitor is at risk, for whatever reason, you don't allow or you discontinue the match.

[The Brain]

I'm sure there are people in the 80-85 IQ bracket who are great at math compared to others in that bracket. Doesn't make them great mathematicians.

[Gups]

I don't know what this means.

Most sports are dominated by people with a certain body type.  Nobody cries foul over most basketball players being 2 metres tall.
Yet with boxing they have categories so it isn't just those actually most likely to win in a fight competing.

OK, so that at least makes grammatical sense but I'm not sure what point you are making. That boxing, judo, weightlifting etc should ditch the weight categories and just let the biggest win? Why?

Being the biggest does not guarantee victory in any of those sports. But to the core point: why not?

It absolutely does. A half-decent journeyman heavyweight would pulverise the GOAT featherweight.

Why not? Well, it would deprive the world of the opportunity to see some of the greatest ever boxers- Hagler, Hearns, Duran, Mayweather, the two Sugar Rays etc. 

[The Brain]

I don't know what this means.

Most sports are dominated by people with a certain body type.  Nobody cries foul over most basketball players being 2 metres tall.
Yet with boxing they have categories so it isn't just those actually most likely to win in a fight competing.

OK, so that at least makes grammatical sense but I'm not sure what point you are making. That boxing, judo, weightlifting etc should ditch the weight categories and just let the biggest win? Why?

Being the biggest does not guarantee victory in any of those sports. But to the core point: why not?

It absolutely does. A half-decent journeyman heavyweight would pulverise the GOAT featherweight.

I simply can't see everyone in the heavyweight range beating everyone in lower weight classes. Many giant couch slobs would be destroyed by fit guys half their weight.

Why not? Well, it would deprive the world of the opportunity to see some of the greatest ever boxers- Hagler, Hearns, Duran, Mayweather, the two Sugar Rays etc.

Without weight classes they wouldn't be the greatest ever boxers, and they wouldn't be missed. We don't miss all those 5 ft basketball legends that never were.

[Gups]

I don't know what this means.

Most sports are dominated by people with a certain body type.  Nobody cries foul over most basketball players being 2 metres tall.
Yet with boxing they have categories so it isn't just those actually most likely to win in a fight competing.

OK, so that at least makes grammatical sense but I'm not sure what point you are making. That boxing, judo, weightlifting etc should ditch the weight categories and just let the biggest win? Why?

Being the biggest does not guarantee victory in any of those sports. But to the core point: why not?

It absolutely does. A half-decent journeyman heavyweight would pulverise the GOAT featherweight.

I simply can't see everyone in the heavyweight range beating everyone in lower weight classes. Many giant couch slobs would be destroyed by fit guys half their weight.

Why not? Well, it would deprive the world of the opportunity to see some of the greatest ever boxers- Hagler, Hearns, Duran, Mayweather, the two Sugar Rays etc.

Without weight classes they wouldn't be the greatest ever boxers, and they wouldn't be missed. We don't miss all those 5 ft basketball legends that never were.

I have to assume you are trolling at this stage (or have been hacked by Josq) but just in case...


You clearly know nothing about boxing. I referred to a half decent journeyman amateur, not a couch slob. But even a couch slob wouldn't be destroyed. The featherweight simply wouldn't be able to hit the heavyweight hard enough to knock him down.

With weight classes, Duran etc were the greatest boxers in their weight ranges (and light and middle weigh boxing requires different skill sets to heavyweight boxing) and gave a huge amount of pleasure to people who watched them. That's a perfectly good reason for maintaining weight classes. You've yet to give a good reason for abolishing them.

[Josquius]

It could be argued too that in basketball the skills and nature of the game would change dramatically if everyone was under 170 or that rugby would be very different if nobody weighed over a certain amount.

And this short people basketball couldn't be a fun spectator sport?

This obviously isn't a serious proposal. It's not happening. But I do think it's a curious thing to think about. That we have these different standards between sports and in some we control for genetic advantages whilst in others it's just law of nature.

[The Brain]

I don't know what this means.

Most sports are dominated by people with a certain body type.  Nobody cries foul over most basketball players being 2 metres tall.
Yet with boxing they have categories so it isn't just those actually most likely to win in a fight competing.

OK, so that at least makes grammatical sense but I'm not sure what point you are making. That boxing, judo, weightlifting etc should ditch the weight categories and just let the biggest win? Why?

Being the biggest does not guarantee victory in any of those sports. But to the core point: why not?

It absolutely does. A half-decent journeyman heavyweight would pulverise the GOAT featherweight.

I simply can't see everyone in the heavyweight range beating everyone in lower weight classes. Many giant couch slobs would be destroyed by fit guys half their weight.

Why not? Well, it would deprive the world of the opportunity to see some of the greatest ever boxers- Hagler, Hearns, Duran, Mayweather, the two Sugar Rays etc.

Without weight classes they wouldn't be the greatest ever boxers, and they wouldn't be missed. We don't miss all those 5 ft basketball legends that never were.

I have to assume you are trolling at this stage (or have been hacked by Josq) but just in case...


You clearly know nothing about boxing. I referred to a half decent journeyman amateur, not a couch slob. But even a couch slob wouldn't be destroyed. The featherweight simply wouldn't be able to hit the heavyweight hard enough to knock him down.

With weight classes, Duran etc were the greatest boxers in their weight ranges (and light and middle weigh boxing requires different skill sets to heavyweight boxing) and gave a huge amount of pleasure to people who watched them. That's a perfectly good reason for maintaining weight classes. You've yet to give a good reason for abolishing them.

We obviously have different definitions of what "guarantee" means. Which is fine, but also means that we can't get any further on that point.

I'm not advocating for their abolishment. Sports rules are for the relevant parties to decide, and sports is inherently arbitrary. I just think weight classes are silly and unnecessary.

[garbon]

Back in sports Sweden dominates the pole vault. Well, one specific Swede. Well, half-Swede.

That was very impressive.

For the Brits, I thought the commentators at the BBC were about to start orgasming live on TV over Keely Hodgkinson. They had that mini-documentary they showed ahead of her race, then during the race said things like the others racers were letting her sneak ahead because she is Keely. Then they referred to her as a queen and as the olympian (possibly the olympic victor) with that extend sequence of her getting a crown and taking selfies. I saw they then also went back to the mini-documentary where they mixed footage of her win with footage from the prior British women who won. Talk about OTT.

[Gups]

Back in sports Sweden dominates the pole vault. Well, one specific Swede. Well, half-Swede.

That was very impressive.

For the Brits, I thought the commentators at the BBC were about to start orgasming live on TV over Keely Hodgkinson. They had that mini-documentary they showed ahead of her race, then during the race said things like the others racers were letting her sneak ahead because she is Keely. Then they referred to her as a queen and as the olympian (possibly the olympic victor) with that extend sequence of her getting a crown and taking selfies. I saw they then also went back to the mini-documentary where they mixed footage of her win with footage from the prior British women who won. Talk about OTT.

It's pathetic really. The BBC main commentators - Clare Balding etc - are getting more and more cliche ridden.

[The Brain]

There's been some very poor Swedish commentating. From being clueless about torchbearers in the opening ceremony to commenting on looks of women athletes to a detour into the Atlantic slave trade and purported related genetic properties of various populations and how they relate to athletic aptitude.

[The Brain]

I've watched some of the beach volleyball. One thing that seems odd to me is that the women compete in bikinis but the men in "normal" sports outfits with shorts and t-shirts. Shouldn't the men be in speedos? I'm confident the crowd would like it, and it would give a more equality-focused impression.

It also seemed weird to have the big audovisual show before the men's 100 m final but not before the women's 100 m final. Or did I miss it?

[Grey Fox]

They can compete in shorts & leggings too. Earlier in the tournament there was a Canada-USA match where both team wore leggings. Paris has just gotten too warm over the course of the week.