I watched Soccer, Iraq vs. Costa Rica.
Interest: mild

Watched women's snatch. Damn. If you haven't watch that. Their legs are freaking tree trunks.
Interest: Moderate

I generally watch gymnastics in the summer games and figure skating in the winter.

I wouldn't. :D

It's not that I'm petitioning for Rosie O'Donnell to join the US Women's Gymnastics Team; by nature, it's a sport designed for agile and lithe bodies. But like its cousin (women's figure skating), it's a sport with highly subjective judging, based on aesthetics as much as on technical skill, both weighed towards a ridiculous pixie ideal.

There's now a lower age limit of sixteen on the Olympics and other international competitions, which will help somewhat, though it won't stop little girls from starving themselves, attempting progressively more dangerous routines and spending umpteen hours per day in the gym. If you're competing at the top level at sixteen, you're beginning your training at what, 6? 8? That's a training schedule in place of a childhood -- one that seems designed to catch gymnasts "at their prime" at a point before their immature bodies start growing fully at puberty.

But at least there's a market for aging figure skaters, or at least those who make at least some name for themselves. Stars on Ice, Champions on Ice, Ice Wars, Ice Capades, dressing up in a furry costume and doing Disney on Ice, whatever...

Ever heard the phrase "stage mother?"

There's a difference between competing and competing at an elite level. I played Little League baseball from 8 until 13, then gave it up when it became clear that the talent level had passed me by and it wasn't fun any more. So far, so good. But could my parents have guided me into "training" at a very young age, attempting to prepare me for a sports career, helping to mold my priorities towards what they felt would be best for me (i.e. spending hours in the batting cage or on the mound instead of out doing kid things)? Certainly, and I would've been too young to argue much.

99.9% of parents whose children participate in sports aren't stage mothers/fathers, so to speak... but every youth organization has its horror stories to tell about the parents who are nuts, and who will let nothing stand between them and Junior's budding sports career.

Nobody's saying that there are lots of Olympians who don't really want to be there, or would give it up if they weren't being held at gunpoint; far from it. What I'm saying is that the vast majority of Olympians in other sports are _adults_, who can make conscious decisions about their training, desires and choices. If you wait until an aspiring gymnast is early-teens to begin training strenuously, it's far too late by contemporary standards, because she'll be competing with gymnasts who've already been doing triple backflips for years. Plus, your daughter might've eaten a cheeseburger at some point and thus not meet the aesthetic ideal necessary for competitive judges to take her seriously.

Should young girls be prohibited from participating in informal gymnastics? Of course not. But the age ranges for competition should be increased dramatically, and the judges' expectations should be revised to focus on what actual, mature bodies are capable of. Nations should not be trotting out parades of sixteen-year-old eighty-pound waifs with the eyes of the world and the expectations of their countries upon them.

Anybody know if they are bothering to broadcast the target shooting and archery?

I had wanted to watch the opening ceremonies, but Eagles Preseason Football was on, and well, you gotta have priorities.

Don't make me get political wolfie. :)
Anyway, apparently there is a ban on blogging by athletes... so here is one.

http://www.goldblatt.info/

Let's see. Hmm - a lot of ideas in there.

- Yes, I know about stage mothers. I don't know, but am willing to suppose that this occurs for some of the gymnasts.

- According to the nbcolympics web site the current ages for the us team are 25, 26, 18, 18, 16, 16. That sounds, to me, old enough that they could make the decision themselves.

- Young, small-chested girls are on the gymnastics team because young, small-chested girls have the balance, coordination and stamina to do the best at the routines that make up the competition. It's the same reason all basketball players are tall.

- On the other hand I don't think kids should be forced into it.

- What would happen, if the age limit was raised? Most early teen girls haven't developed yet and are naturally skinny and flat. If you raise the age limit, won't girls that could have competed naturally at a young age be forced to have surgery and starve themselves if they want to compete? I don't know that this is the answer either.

Mrs lookout and i have been watching gymnastics because my wife was a gymnast until college when real life and the breastessessess took over. she still loves it even though her knees, ankles, and wrists are shot at 33.
we were talking about the age thing last night and the way i see it is that a "generation" of american female gymnasts missed their shot at the olympics.

the girls from the '96 games were so popular that they brought a number of them back for 2000. the girls competing this time around were too young for 2000 - so where did all the girls of the "right age" from 2000 go? but anyway - in 2000 there were a number of the top girls who were 19-24, not from just america either. i think the one russian (or ukranian, whatever) svetlana ob..... was 23-24 and she just rocked. but for 2004 they've got all the pre-pubescents back. bummer.

for some reason I watched men's synchronized diving. the Greeks won gold! Watching them celebrate was more entertaining than watching the diving, but I wasn't exactly watching for the diving...I was watching for the cuties in speed-os. The shame! :blush:

That's how the team is now, after the age restriction was imposed a few years ago. Wasn't that long ago that I remember a fourteen-year-old on the US squad. It's a step in the right direction.

Hardly. The average pro basketball player is certainly taller than the average everyday person, just as an average gymnast is more agile and flexible than an average everyday person. This doesn't suggest that either basketball players or gymnasts do or should all fit into the same physical mold. The NBA had room for Muggsy Bogues, Manute Bol, Charles Barkley and John Stockton, as each filled a different role on their teams.

Gymnastics is more of an individual sport than basketball, obviously, but a similar principle applies. If the standards by which gymnasts are judged are rigidly set in such a way that only prepubescent pixies can attain them, which should change -- the standards or the gymnasts? Changing the standards (or, in some cases, the preconceived notions of judges about how gymnasts should appear) would seem to be the saner route, IMHO.

There are athletic feats that 14-year-old, 4'7, 80-pound gymnasts are capable of that an 19-year-old or 22-year-old gymnast, having matured a bit more and added some height, weight and muscle to their frames, cannot do. There are athletic feats that the older, bigger, stronger girls are capable of that the less physically mature girls are not. All of these girls can be as physically fit and toned as their age, build, diet and exercise regimens can make them. Should elite gymnastics admit one group but not the other?

Figure skating has these adaptations built into judging, to some extent. If one is sufficiently technically skilled, one doesn't have to be an aesthetic delight to watch, and vice versa. The champions tend to be a blend of both, but many Olympics have pitted someone who attempts groundbreaking jump combinations against someone performs less spectacular jumps but is more elegant in style. (Like any sport that's primarily ranked via subjective judging, it's severely flawed, and some forms of it are more reasonable than others.)

If girls need to have surgery and starve themselves in order to compete in a sport, the sport needs to be changed radically. If only participants of a particular body type (an unhealthy one, at that) have any chance of succeeding in a sport, the sport needs to be changed radically. Them's the breaks.

I can't believe NBN and other Cellar dirty ol' men let that one get by without comment!

:eyebrow: um, "women's snatch"? i know what that means to me, but what does that mean to you?

edit: i didn't realize 99 pointed this out before i got to it.

As always, I'm enjoying the Olympics and not giving one damn about too many commercials (typical!), that the US Men's BBall team lost (I'm like big deal!), NBC's coverage (which isn't all that bad to me) and anything else that has complaints. To me, this is just one great big sports festival and I am loving it. The opening ceremonies were awesome..the Greeks really put on a show!

*and it's only the 3rd day! More on the wayyyy!* :thumbsup: :D

Have you been watching the male swimmers? Some of those guys are gorgeous. Plus they're muscular, but not TOO muscular. :thumbsup:

The women's (girls?) gymnastics is the only other thing remotely interesting to me. It's amazing what they can do, but their bodies are going to be trashed by the time they retire.

[quote=garnet]Have you been watching the male swimmers? Some of those guys are gorgeous. Plus they're muscular, but not TOO muscular. :thumbsup:[quote]

Oh, yes. I am watching the men's swimming. Those guys are...are...well, they are HOT.

I've always enjoyed the girl's gymnastics. I was a big fan of Olga Korbut. She was just so awesome. And despite everything that has been posted about the arbitrary nature of gymnastics and the pixie-girls who inhabit the sport, I find it inspiring to watch.

So! Which country looked best in 'em? :D