The Olympics

Some types of dancing most definitely qualify as sport. You can't tell me that ice dancing isn't athletic.

To summarize my position on this:

1. Not everything athletic is a sport and not everything athletic should be an olympic sport.
2. If one form of dancing qualifies as a sport, why not all of them? Or at least some of them?

1. There are many examples of athletic activities that just aren't a sport. Hiking is athletic and isn't a sport. Jumprope, rock climbing, walking on stilts, pushups, arm wrestling, cheerleading, yoga, pilates, bungyjumping..

"It's athletic, so it's a sport and belongs in the olympics" is not a good argument, IMO. "It's athletic AND competitive" is a slightly better argument, but there are nevertheless examples of athletic & competitive things that just aren't sports either. Like arm wrestling.. or competitive handstands. or competitive grape stomping. I'm sure there are far better examples.

2. Why should breakdancing be the only dance that's deemed to be an olympic sport? Yes, sure, I understand that a group of people lobbied for this to happen, and that's in part why it did, but there are literally tens of thousands of types of dances out there, if not more. If we're going to make just one of them an olympic sport.. what about the others?

Swimming is another group of activities that's made the olympics. Consider that there exist far less swim styles than types of dances, yet.. do we only have 1 or 2 swimming categories at the olympics? Nope, there's a whole bunch. There's events revolving around the distance, events revolving around the type of swim, there's group swimming events, and probably others I'm forgetting.

Even cycling has 11 different events. And IMO cycling is far more of a specific activity than the vague notion of "dancing", of which there are thousands of various forms.

If we are going to accept that dancing is an olympic level activity and introduce dancing as a group of events into the olympics, we need to bring in a lot more of them than just one. From what I understand there are zero plans for anything of the sort - breakdancing is sort of the only one that's made the cut.

And sure, the following are sort of dances that are or have been at the olympics at some point: Figure Skating, Gymnastics, Synchronized Swimming, Pole Dance.. What pattern do I see here? None of them are something you'd see on the dancefloor, like breakdancing. Breakdancing belongs more in the category of the tango, the waltz, swing, and tapdancing. Not ski jump, volleyball, hockey, or the 100 metre relay

My position is that something like breakdancing would be better suited for a multi-dance event revolving around dancing (and not sport), something where dancers get together and where various forms of dance are performed and judged.

I don't expect everyone or anyone to agree with me, but that's my position on breakdancing in the olympics. It seems obvious that the only reason they accepted it as an olympic sport is because they are hoping it brings in more viewers, specifically more younger viewers. It's all $$$. If people were lobbying to get skanking or the macarena into the olympics instead, it would never happen.
 
The Olympics are entertainment with recordkeeping. People like to see muscular men and women in skimpy or tight fitting clothes getting sweaty and tired while doing hard things. :)
 
The Olympics are entertainment with recordkeeping. People like to see muscular men and women in skimpy or tight fitting clothes getting sweaty and tired while doing hard things. :)

Let's be honest, if that's what the olympic spirt was all about, there would be far more interesting events than nude ski jump, and in order to watch you'd need to get an onlyfans account
 
To summarize my position on this:

1. Not everything athletic is a sport and not everything athletic should be an olympic sport.
2. If one form of dancing qualifies as a sport, why not all of them? Or at least some of them?

1. There are many examples of athletic activities that just aren't a sport. Hiking is athletic and isn't a sport. Jumprope, rock climbing, walking on stilts, pushups, arm wrestling, cheerleading, yoga, pilates, bungyjumping..

"It's athletic, so it's a sport and belongs in the olympics" is not a good argument, IMO. "It's athletic AND competitive" is a slightly better argument, but there are nevertheless examples of athletic & competitive things that just aren't sports either. Like arm wrestling.. or competitive handstands. or competitive grape stomping. I'm sure there are far better examples.

2. Why should breakdancing be the only dance that's deemed to be an olympic sport? Yes, sure, I understand that a group of people lobbied for this to happen, and that's in part why it did, but there are literally tens of thousands of types of dances out there, if not more. If we're going to make just one of them an olympic sport.. what about the others?

Swimming is another group of activities that's made the olympics. Consider that there exist far less swim styles than types of dances, yet.. do we only have 1 or 2 swimming categories at the olympics? Nope, there's a whole bunch. There's events revolving around the distance, events revolving around the type of swim, there's group swimming events, and probably others I'm forgetting.

Even cycling has 11 different events. And IMO cycling is far more of a specific activity than the vague notion of "dancing", of which there are thousands of various forms.

If we are going to accept that dancing is an olympic level activity and introduce dancing as a group of events into the olympics, we need to bring in a lot more of them than just one. From what I understand there are zero plans for anything of the sort - breakdancing is sort of the only one that's made the cut.

And sure, the following are sort of dances that are or have been at the olympics at some point: Figure Skating, Gymnastics, Synchronized Swimming, Pole Dance.. What pattern do I see here? None of them are something you'd see on the dancefloor, like breakdancing. Breakdancing belongs more in the category of the tango, the waltz, swing, and tapdancing. Not ski jump, volleyball, hockey, or the 100 metre relay

My position is that something like breakdancing would be better suited for a multi-dance event revolving around dancing (and not sport), something where dancers get together and where various forms of dance are performed and judged.

I don't expect everyone or anyone to agree with me, but that's my position on breakdancing in the olympics. It seems obvious that the only reason they accepted it as an olympic sport is because they are hoping it brings in more viewers, specifically more younger viewers. It's all $$$. If people were lobbying to get skanking or the macarena into the olympics instead, it would never happen.

@warpus, I'm going to ask you about your Olympic viewing experiences. Mine began in February 1988, when Calgary hosted the Winter Olympics. I actually knew one of the performers in the Opening Ceremonies. Even Red Deer hotel rooms were sold out because Calgary was close enough to make the commute worthwhile.

My grandmother insisted that I tape the Opening Ceremonies, and holy crap, it was a challenge. They were shown on about half a dozen channels, both Canadian and American, and no two of them had commercial breaks at the same time. Even so, I got most of it.

It was spectacular, and at that point I decided to watch as much as I could, even the sports I'd never heard of (ie. biathlon, which is a combination of cross-country skiing and rifle shooting). There were some interesting controversies that year, over equipment - that was the first year that clapper skates were allowed in Olympic speedskating competition. Some people got sniffy over the 'quality' of the competitors, saying that Eddie "the Eagle" Edwards shouldn't have been allowed to compete in ski jumping, and they figured it was ludicrous for Jamaica to have a bobsled team. Others said that they did so for the joy of competing, which was definitely part of the Olympic spirit.

And there was a giggle-worthy moment (besides the ladies' barrel wrestling at the mini-Stampede they put on for the international visitors): The Americans had been so insistent that Calgary hold the Olympics in February because of sweeps month. The Calgary Olympic Committee tried to explain that February wasn't a good month due to the chinook winds. The Americans brushed that off, got their way about the dates, and one morning they woke up and started demanding to know WTF happened to all the SNOW?! :gripe:

The Calgary Olympic Committee said, "We told you so." The chinook had come as expected and melted so much snow on the ski runs that they had to make artificial snow in order to hold the ski events.

The talk of the '88 Olympics was, among a bunch of other incredible stories, the Battle of the Brians - Canadian Brian Orser vs. American Brian Boitano. They were so closely matched in skill that either of them could have won gold. As it turned out, Boitano had the skate of a lifetime and Orser made a small mistake that lost him the gold by 1 tenth of a point.

The thing about figure skating that appeals to me is how the skaters interpret the music. The best ones tell a story even when the program isn't obviously based on a movie soundtrack. And as I watched and listened to the commentators, I learned what to look for in the skaters' programs - what they were required to do, how they had to do it, what constitutes a mistake, what's considered sloppy, and how incredibly technical it all is. They don't just make it all up on the fly. And skaters' training includes much more than just on-ice training. They need to cross-train in both athletics and dance, to be able to pull off those long programs and make them look effortless. The psychological pressure on these athletes is incredible.


Here's Boitano's performance:



And here's Orser's performance:



I'll admit it: I was rooting for Orser (naturally), but Boitano had the superior program. Oh, and the bronze was won by Viktor Petrenko, of Russia. Petrenko was only 17 at the time, and by the time of the next Olympics, Canada's Kurt Browning was firmly established as King of the Quad (the two Brians retired from amateur competition after the 1988 Olympics).


The women's singles had a rivalry going on as well: The Battle of the Carmens. East German Katarina Witt vs. American Debi Thomas, both skating to the music of "Carmen." Witt won, as expected, and Thomas choked. She didn't win gold, or even silver. She had to be satisfied with bronze, because Canada's Elizabeth Manley had the skate of her lifetime and won silver:


Again, I defy anyone to not see the athleticism necessary to pull this off. The commentators point out some of the jumps and other elements that the skaters have to do. Back in the late '80s, part of the marks they received was for figures - the skating equivalent of scales in a music exam (I had to learn a lot of that for my Western Board of Music exams; both figures and scales are a grueling slog, but it's also the foundation for everything else and they had to demonstrate their proficiency at it).


Now, dancing in general. I don't discount breakdancing as an athletic endeavor. Clearly you have to be in good shape to do it well. How they decided on ways to judge it, I don't know. I've never been interested in watching it, and never bothered watching even a single minute of the Paris Olympics. Just reading about how the swimmers were getting sick in the river was enough of a turnoff. I didn't even bother watching the opening and closing ceremonies.

Some years ago there was talk of making ballroom dancing an Olympic sport. There were a lot of naysayers, but again, it is something that can be considered athletic and measurable at the elite levels. I used to watch world championship ballroom dancing on TV. Some of those teams were amazing. As I recall, Canada's best team at the time were from Quebec.

Oh, and your contention that you'd never see figure skating on a dance floor? Well, normally not. But ice dancing is essentially ballroom dancing on skates. And you remember that old dance number to "Singing in the Rain" by Gene Kelly?

Here's Kurt Browning doing it on skates:

 
accumulate points, and the athlete with more points at the end wins the bout.
That same criteria applies to dancing, synchronized swimming, gymnastics, figure skating and so on.
Boxing also uses a tool - the boxing gloves - so both parts of my criteria are met.
By that metric the swimsuit in water dancing is a tool. Gloves are clothes. If the clothes of the athlete counts as a tool then the criteria is meaningless. If we are counting protective clothing, then that includes sneakers, cleats, ankle wraps, sunglasses etc.

I also don't think that you had boxing gloves in mind when you articulated that criteria, rather you are stretching to try and make your criteria sensible and consistent when it really isn't. When you said "tool" you were talking about bats and balls, not the protective clothing the athlete wears. You specifically said balls, surfboards, skis. Now it seems like you're just moving the goalpost, going against the real spirit of your criteria to retroactively try and make it fit.

As an aside, if skis count, then surely ice skates count, right? If surfboards count then snowboards count. Also, it doesn't follow to say "tools" if you are going to exclude the uneven bars, the vault, the diving board... and so on. Isn't the horse in equestrian a tool as well?
In terms of Greco-Roman wrestling the athletes are also trying to win by scoring points as well, and the points are given out when athletes execute holds, locks, throws or other legal takedowns. I just quickly googled that. Also an easy to understand subjective goal - take your opponent down more often than they take you down, and execute specific moves on them before they are able to counter. Fits within my definition of a sport well enough.
See, but you don't have to convince me, that Greco-Roman wrestling is a sport. I already know its a sport. I just don't think your criteria system makes sense. I included Greco-Roman wrestling because like boxing, there's no "tool", unless again, we're moving the goalpost to leotards and earwraps... or sneakers... or the mat...

Again, I just don't think your criteria system adds up, that's all.
 
I also don't think that you had boxing gloves in mind when you articulated that criteria, rather you are stretching to try and make your criteria sensible and consistent when it really isn't.
Is this going to be like the ‘who says it's art?’ scene in Mona Lisa Smile?
 
By that metric the swimsuit in water dancing is a tool.

Y'know, it's looking to me like neither of you have actually sat and watched synchronized swimming much. Yes, it's decorative. Yes, there's music. Yes, the swimmers have to do their routine in time to the music. They're penalized if they don't.

But is it "water dancing"? No. Not really. Nobody's doing a tango or disco underwater. In some respects it's more similar to some elements of the floor exercises in gymnastics, except some of it's done at least partially underwater. The times when a gymnast stops moving and poses aren't just the gymnast being lazy. Yes, they're taking a very brief breather of a few seconds. But they're also demonstrating their balance and flexibility, two things that are fundamental to gymnastics.

The same is fundamental to synchronized swimming. All those swimmers have to time their strokes and movements so everyone is in unison for whatever poses they strike (that show off their timing and flexibility).

And they have to do most of this stuff while holding their breath. As I said, this is not mere aesthetics. They're not making it up as they go along. Just as a fight can be choreographed, so are these routines choreographed. They practice it for months to get everything down exactly right (kinda like how I trained my muscle memory for my music exams so I wouldn't have to rely on the sheet music and risk an error if I lost my place and didn't know what to do next).


As for a swimsuit being a tool, any clothing an athlete wears makes a huge difference to how they perform. I mentioned clapper skates being new in 1988. Those skates, coupled with the fast ice of the indoor Olympic Oval, resulted in many, many world and Olympic speedskating records being broken, sometimes within 5 minutes.

Speedskaters wear skin-tight clothing because of the need to shave off every possible fraction of a second they can. This is also why some ski event clothing is skin-tight.

Ditto swimsuits. There have been controversies over some new fabric giving an unfair advantage to one country over another because they chose innovation and the other countries' coaches and committees would try to get the new swimwear banned.
 
Y'know, it's looking to me like neither of you have actually sat and watched synchronized swimming much. Yes, it's decorative. Yes, there's music. Yes, the swimmers have to do their routine in time to the music. They're penalized if they don't.
Well for my part, I absolutely sit and watch the synchronized swimming with my 11 year old daughter who is, herself a competitive dancer. So if you're concerned about folks who don't respect, understand or watch the sport, you can leave me out of that group.

As an aside, I think it's technically called Artistic Swimming, but that doesn't matter. The point is that its certainly a sport and quite enjoyable to watch. The routine that the US women put on was breathtaking.
As for a swimsuit being a tool, any clothing an athlete wears makes a huge difference to how they perform. I mentioned clapper skates being new in 1988. Those skates, coupled with the fast ice of the indoor Olympic Oval, resulted in many, many world and Olympic speedskating records being broken, sometimes within 5 minutes.

Speedskaters wear skin-tight clothing because of the need to shave off every possible fraction of a second they can. This is also why some ski event clothing is skin-tight.

Ditto swimsuits. There have been controversies over some new fabric giving an unfair advantage to one country over another because they chose innovation and the other countries' coaches and committees would try to get the new swimwear banned.
Again, I agree. My point is/was that I'm not convinced by the criteria that warpus suggested. The whole line of argument that certain events shouldn't/don't count as sports is full of holes and contradictions. That's what I was pointing out.
 
Well for my part, I absolutely sit and watch the synchronized swimming with my 11 year old daughter who is, herself a competitive dancer. So if you're concerned about folks who don't respect, understand or watch the sport, you can leave me out of that group.
I sit corrected.
 
Well, to me, yes, all gymnastics are a sport.. unless I'm forgetting any weird ones. They not only fall under my definition of what a sport is, but also have a long olympic & related history. In contrast, I don't remember the ancient greeks breakdancing while balancing apples on their head in a competitive spirit

Your definition excludes floor exercise (or else if you define "padded/supported floor" as an implement then we've now looped back around to including breaking again) and includes dressage.

If we're going by "traditionality/historicity," then artistic pursuits would be included as a significant component of the games.
 
Your definition excludes floor exercise (or else if you define "padded/supported floor" as an implement then we've now looped back around to including breaking again) and includes dressage.

If we're going by "traditionality/historicity," then artistic pursuits would be included as a significant component of the games.

This discussion has given me an excuse to look up old gymnastics and skating routines I remember from the years when I was an Olympics junkie.

Here's Kyle Shewfelt of Canada, doing one of his floor exercises at the Athens Olympics (2004). It's not as flashy as some of the men's routines, but as the commentator says, it's elegant and gets the job done. Part of what they have to do is stick the landing for their tumbling runs in the corners, as close to the edge as possible, without going over (there's a penalty for going out of bounds, and it's tricky because of the bounciness of the mat).



And here's Kyle Shewfelt appearing on the Rick Mercer Report (Mercer is a Canadian political satirist who also interviews interesting Canadians to learn about their lives and work). In this one, you can see just a small fraction of what's involved in gymnastics training:

 
That same criteria applies to dancing, synchronized swimming, gymnastics, figure skating and so on.

Yeah but you're just taking one tiny part of the criteria I gave. Also, like I have pointed out previously, swimming, gymnastics, and ice skating sports all have multiple competitive athletic events that are definitely sports. Dancing on the other hand is.. well.. dancing.

If dancing in general is a sport, then we should see more dancing events at the olympics, and not just one.. Shouldn't we? We don't have just one swimming event at the olympics.. not just one gymnastics event.. not just one ice skating event..

By that metric the swimsuit in water dancing is a tool. Gloves are clothes. If the clothes of the athlete counts as a tool then the criteria is meaningless. If we are counting protective clothing, then that includes sneakers, cleats, ankle wraps, sunglasses etc.

We could obviously discuss the merits of gloves or swimsuits being tools, but let's just focus on the fact that swimming would theoretically be the exact same event with or without the swimsuit. That's my point. Boxing uses the glove as a specialized tool that alters the sport had it been just two athletes fist boxing. The gloves alter the event and are integral part of the sport.

As an aside, if skis count, then surely ice skates count, right? If surfboards count then snowboards count. Also, it doesn't follow to say "tools" if you are going to exclude the uneven bars, the vault, the diving board... and so on. Isn't the horse in equestrian a tool as well?

Why wouldn't uneven bars tools? By "tool" I am referring to something that's a component of the sport that would completely change the sport if you removed the tool. So, boxing gloves, uneven bars, the vault, diving board, the ball in gymnastics, etc. Ice skates count too, yes, definitely. Also snowboards. Swimsuits don't cause you can swim naked just fine.

@warpus, I'm going to ask you about your Olympic viewing experiences

I've been watching random olympic events since the 90s if not the 80s. Pole vault, ice hockey, volleyball, figure skating, curling, ping pong, cycling, etc. I oppose the IOC and their corrupt ways but I do enjoy watching athletes square off against each other, especially if it's the top athletes from around the planet
 
We could obviously discuss the merits of gloves or swimsuits being tools, but let's just focus on the fact that swimming would theoretically be the exact same event with or without the swimsuit
It would not be the same televised sport :p
 
I might actually watch some of it.

Is it over yet?

Edit: whoa, not even close.
 
The tool in greco-roman wrestling is the opponent :)
 
Last edited:
Some years ago there was talk of making ballroom dancing an Olympic sport. There were a lot of naysayers, but again, it is something that can be considered athletic and measurable at the elite levels. I used to watch world championship ballroom dancing on TV. Some of those teams were amazing. As I recall, Canada's best team at the time were from Quebec.
Funnily enough the ballroom dancing governing body the WDSF is the one that had itself declared also the governing body for breaking so they could get access to the Olympics that way, after ballroom kept getting rejected.

They identified breaking as something decentralised and basically ungoverned (local scenes ran themselves, event organisers largely set the conditions unilaterally), and something with the youth orientation the IOC would be amenable to including, and just took over. Breaking was basically there because ballroom wasn't wanted.
 
the only reason they accepted it as an olympic sport is because they are hoping it brings in more viewers, specifically more younger viewers
I have exciting news about pretty much every other Olympic sport!

At least 2028 is finally adding cricket, the second most popular team sport in the world, decades after baseball and softball already got a go. And lacrosse, one of the few non European sports to be added so far. And squash, which somehow never featured before even though rackets, basque pelota and jeu de paume all have.

I'm hoping for 2032 they get netball in there. If the Americans can add flag football then netball should be a no brainer.

The other glaring omissions I think are the lack of subcontinental sports, if India gets to host I expect we see kabaddi at the very least.
 
Last edited:
And lacrosse, one of the few non European sports to be added so far.

Shame the IOC's nation weirdness means the Haudenosaunee will almost certainly not be represented
 
Honestly they have full latittude to make arrangements. The IOC's stated position is nations dont compete, olympic committees do, and there's a Refugee Olympic Team plus there can be "individual" olympic athletes compete if the IOC decides it for things like political change. It would be very easy to admit the Haudenosaunee as a temporary IOC-linked entry if they wanted to/if the lacrosse federation asked.

It would also be very easy to sneaky exclude them through qualifying rules, purely by setting up the qualifications so that only two North America teams can qualify, or the host plus one, because the Haudenosaunee are usually a step behind the USA and Canada.
 
Top Bottom