PDA

View Full Version : Rhythmic Gymnastics



Foilling Around
-28th August 2004, 14:19
Sorry folks can't help this thread

I'm watching this on the telly at the moment.

Brilliant - yes
Circus performers - yes
Ballet Dancers - yes
Entertainment - yes

But a sport - do me a favour!!

If we ever get kicked out of the Olympics for this I will take up fly fishing. (have to make some use of flick hitting technique in the future!!!)

reposte
-28th August 2004, 14:37
what's your beef exactly?

Foilling Around
-28th August 2004, 14:43
What makes this any more of a sport than ballroom dancing, Sadler's Wells Ballet or the Chinese State circus!!

Rdb811
-28th August 2004, 14:52
The scoring is judgement based (pace Hungarian referees), therefore it is not a sport.

TBennett
-28th August 2004, 20:18
Erm, so if thats the case....what about the diving, boxing, equestrian, judo, fencing (to an extent), trampolining, synchronised swimming (!) and taekwondo. All of these sports are judgement based and in my opinion are all sports worthy of being in the Olympics.

Granted, I have been quite shocked at some of the judging in the gymnastics but I am in absolute awe of what the athletes are doing in it. It is a sport and should be in the Olympics (btw, Koreans should have won all-round mens gymnastics and Nemov should have won Parallel bars and the High Bar, not Hamm (or whoever). If you saw the reaction of the crowd etc, you will know what I mean).

There are some sports that I think should not be in the Olympics (I wont name them) but I live with it....

I really dont mind these extra 'sports' such as basketball as it allows a greater variety of sport to be seen but to say gymnastics shouldnt be allowed is amazing. Its one of THE hardest sports around.......

Foilling Around
-28th August 2004, 20:55
My objection also applies to Synchronised Swimming and Ice skating. Part of the judging is for the artistic element and timing to the music.

To quote the commentary today "the choice of music is vitally important." How is that relevant to a sport?

It is not just the judgement aspect it is what they are judged on.

TBennett
-28th August 2004, 21:11
It wouldnt be as viewer-friendly if the gymnasts just did flips. There wold be no sequencing. Anyway, the fact that they can time their routine to mere seconds is impressive.

It also reflects the dynamism of the routine that the athlete is doing. You are referring to one of the aspects of the gymnastics. What about the other sections?? The rings look scary.....:eek:

I feel that no-one would really like it if the athletes just did their routines in silence as they do last a reasonable amount of time, especially the judges. The artistic element separates the boring usual routines the judges see to the interesting ones. Those who have a good musical accompaniment look more interesting.

Now what would be interesting...........rythmic fencing to Beethoven or someone.....lol

Rdb811
-28th August 2004, 23:02
In fencing, the judgement is based on objective criteria, like the lbw in cricket - it's not based on "artistic merit"

Robert
-29th August 2004, 09:33
Beach Volleyball... That should lose its place until the governing body withdraws its absurd clothing regulations.

Robert

jonny
-29th August 2004, 11:33
Walking, that's a sport?

TBennett
-29th August 2004, 12:51
I'd like to see you walk 50k.....so yes, its a sport. The rules are that you have to have both feet on the ground thought coz it would be running otherwise (only one foot on the ground at a time).

ceprab
-29th August 2004, 13:15
Originally posted by Gordon
I'd like to see you walk 50k.....so yes, its a sport. The rules are that you have to have both feet on the ground thought coz it would be running otherwise (only one foot on the ground at a time).

Surely one foot on the ground at all times? The 50k shuffle would certainly be a tiring event. Running is when at some points you have no feet on the ground?

ceprab
-29th August 2004, 13:18
Originally posted by Foilling Around
What makes this any more of a sport than ballroom dancing, Sadler's Wells Ballet or the Chinese State circus!!

And I would like to point out that ballroom dancing is a sport...

You get marked with several couples on the floor at a time and for performing steps correctly and with panache. Progress is by elimination of the bottom fraction of the aggregate results from several judges. At least at the student level I compete at.

I would draw at least a comparison with foil where you have to time your action to what the opponent is doing and if you do not perform it correctly you are unlikely to get the point.

Rdb811
-29th August 2004, 13:21
Originally posted by ceprab
and with panache.

Therefore it isn't a sport.

jonny
-29th August 2004, 16:51
Didn't say a 50k walk wasn't difficult or physical but not a sport.... any yes i'm fairly confident I could walk 50k, tho not at the speed they do (I just wouldnt expect a medal for it).

nirvana
-29th August 2004, 17:27
whats your defination of a sport?

jonny
-29th August 2004, 17:57
Me? Oh dear that thread went on for hours on fencing.net. I just know one when I see one, ok? :tongue:

gbm
-29th August 2004, 19:29
Originally posted by nirvana
whats your defination of a sport?

Ooooh, a tricky one...
Firstly I think you must be competing against other people. Even people who, for example, race against times rather than people, or who try for maximum height/length in a jump/throw, are still comparing those times against those of other peoples...

Any other important aspects (because mine doesn't eliminate much!)?

Foilling Around
-29th August 2004, 20:02
Just because Ballroom Dancing is competitive does not mean it is a sport.

You may call it a sport, it may even get into the Olympics one day, but that will not make it a sport in the eyes of the majority of the population.

Brass Band competitions are competitive, but they are not a sport.

gbm
-29th August 2004, 20:08
So would you argue that sports have to involve a test of physical prowess?

Robert
-29th August 2004, 21:20
Originally posted by goodbadandme
So would you argue that sports have to involve a test of physical prowess?

All definitions fail, that is one of the basic features of language that it doesn't map on to reality exactly (unless we have any pre-structuralists on the list).

At best you can produce a rough definition. I would say two things: one, that it should be a test of physical ability (excluding chess, bridge, for example), secondly, that it should posess a set of arbitrary rules.

The second criteria eliminates ice-dance, ballroom, rythmic gymnastics, but not fencing, boxing etc (which have arbitrary rules but the rules have to be applied by subjective people).

In addition to be an olympic sport I think it should make a couple more qualifications. It should not discriminate on the basis of gender (which would exclude beach volleyball). There should be an international body represented in the majority of countries in the world (which makes basketball, fencing, and equestrian borderline, and definitely prevents American football from ever getting in). It should not duplicate an already existing discipline or event (ie no Karate, Kickboxing or Kung-fu while TaeKwondo is in).

But again, remember that definitions never quite work. The one I have outlined would exclude ice-dance which I rather like and think should stay in the winter games, but it would allow synchronised diving in which I think is a waste of time.

Robert

ceprab
-30th August 2004, 01:46
Purely to be argumentative, Ballroom does involve physical exertion, can (if multiple couples are on the floor at the same time) involve skill and technique to disrupt the opposition, and involves arbitrary criteria for when a step is performed correctly (and these criteria sometimes do change over time). And it is perfectly acceptable that the majority of the population should be unaware of the sporting side of dancing, as for many it is a purely social function. The ratings of a dance are based on success of actions, and on the difficulty of those actions to perform.

Further to be argumentative, if duplication of events as olympic sports is not to be allowed, which track event will you keep, which swimming event, and which of tennis, badminton, table tennis and volleyball (and squash if it is in there?).

Incidentally:

define:sport (from google)

an active diversion requiring physical exertion and competition
www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn


the occupation of athletes who compete for pay
www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn

Both of these definitions work for dancing. (edit: at least I think the second one does. Certainly at the remove that if you want to get paid for coaching you establish a reputation first and then maintain it in the professional competitions)

TBennett
-30th August 2004, 19:32
Thats better.....

SPORT - Physical Exercise with the element of competition

RECREATION - Sport without competition

LEISURE - Physical activity done in one's own free time for enjoyment

Basic definitions so all the 'sports' mentioned in this thread are indeed sports whether you like it or not......:tongue: (Although some may disagree still).

(Btw..... Also shows that Gymnastics is a sport which was the origional complaint of this thread)

hokers
-30th August 2004, 20:29
Dressage is not a sport.

Who's got the best trained dancing horse is hardly a measure of athleticism or skill. Showjumping is a good test of horsemanship, but sitting still during dressage doesn't look that sporting to me.

Foilling Around
-30th August 2004, 21:54
I wasn't getting on my high horse about all gymnastics, just the rhythmic sort.

All of these things are subjective, which is why it is fun to discuss them.

It is not simply the judgement element in the marking, but what is marked.

I had not thought of dressage, but it does also fall into my objection.

It is the idea of artistic impression and being marked for the music you have picked and how you "interpret" it which I find to be a problem in my definition of a sport.

You may perform the most technically difficult routine and perform it perfectly, but if your artistry is not good enough then you may not win.

Take the 100 metres. Gold Medal in say 9.87 seconds, silver medal in say 9.92 seconds. But hold on a minute, the running style of the winning athelete was considered by the judges to worse than that of the second placed athelete so the winner has 0.1 seconds added to their time and is demoted to the silver medal.

Sounds daft, but there is only a marginal difference to what actually happens in some "sports". Competition and sport are not the same thing.

Come to think of it we actually give style prizes in fencing. I know because my daughter won the style prize at the BYC foil last January. Now maybe she should have got a few extra hits per fight for being the most stylish, then she would have made the final instead of taking bronze!

At least we don't have to fence to music!(yet)

Sorry, I'm getting a little silly here. You may not agree with me but hey wouldn't the world be boring if we were all the same.

Australian
-30th August 2004, 22:04
Originally posted by Foilling Around
Come to think of it we actually give style prizes in fencing. I know because my daughter won the style prize at the BYC foil last January.


mm, can't remember who that was..... i remember the boy who one it (he's kinda unforgettable)

ceprab
-30th August 2004, 22:39
Originally posted by Foilling Around

Take the 100 metres. Gold Medal in say 9.87 seconds, silver medal in say 9.92 seconds. But hold on a minute, the running style of the winning athelete was considered by the judges to worse than that of the second placed athelete so the winner has 0.1 seconds added to their time and is demoted to the silver medal.

Sounds daft, but there is only a marginal difference to what actually happens in some "sports". Competition and sport are not the same thing.

Come to think of it we actually give style prizes in fencing. I know because my daughter won the style prize at the BYC foil last January. Now maybe she should have got a few extra hits per fight for being the most stylish, then she would have made the final instead of taking bronze!

At least we don't have to fence to music!(yet)

Sorry, I'm getting a little silly here. You may not agree with me but hey wouldn't the world be boring if we were all the same.

Is this really that silly? If fencing does not include an element of showmanship, then why is it important to not only get the hit, but to react to the double as if there is absolutely no question that the priority hit was your one, and to head back to the engarde line confidently?

Australian, can you remember that quote Norman had at Millfield about persuading the referee?