What constitutes an Olympic sport?

Sports that shouldn't be in the Summer Olympics: Backstroke, sidestroke, doggy paddle, etc. You don't get medals for running backwards or sideways or hopping on one leg. It's the fastest over a set distance. Talking about fastest, walking is not a sport. They cheat anyway. Beach volleyball. Give me a break. Otherwise we can add beach cricket, one handed catches diving into surf and sand castle building (but only for the under eights world championship). Diving, dressage, artistic, rhythmic and trampoline. Anything that relies on subjective judgement is not a sport. I don't care how difficult it is to do, a scoring system based on opinion is open to abuse. The only opinion that matters is mine and they should all go. Add boxing to this list. Unfortunately it's a shadow of its former self. For the same reasons, taekwondo and judo. In their place you can add cage fighting. In fact, get rid of the cage and put them in a small round stadium. Add some lions to the mix - talk about a spectator sport!

Irrelevant. Televised audience is all that matters.

I would love to see the standing high and long jumps reinstalled.

Exactly, they might as well have an Under 21 Olympics....oh, wait......what....they do?!

Aussie Rules 9s for the 2028 olympic games in Melbourne.

brilliant article, i also dont understand some of the criteria. futsal and beach soccer should definately be in it. futsal especially. i used to think it was the games where olympics are the pinnacle of the sport, but why then (as pointed out) do they allow football, tennis and golf in. i understand they have headaches with football, on the one side they have to have a sport tournament with the mother of all sports, but on the other side its miles off the pinnacle lagging behind world cups, continental cups (euro etc), champions leagues, domestic competitions and then comes the olympics. they made it that countries send out u23 teams to ensure that countries participate and even then alot of clubs are unwilling to release their stars. all in all i tend to beleive that the big hitting international games like tennis and football slightly undermine the credibility of the olympics. whereas track and field will send the best they have, i really doubt we will see messi, ronaldo, gerrard, henry etc being released for olympic duty

The commitment shown by the IRB to remove the world cup in order to position rugby 7s with the greatest chance of Olympic inclusion is a tremendous show of faith to the cause. I totally agree with this article rugby 7s embodies the ethos of the Olympics and golf will always have other interested that will eclipses the games. It’s got to be rugby 7s day to be included.

Well said., AndyS

What, as opposed to the incredible evenness between countries on the track or in the pool?

Tsk, tsk, resorting to name-calling (albeit disguised). I've watched some Middlesex Sevens and I can understand why you say what you've said. But if you've watched the best of sevens - esp the period 1984 to 1995, and at the World Cups of 1997, 2001, 2005 and 2009 - and don't find the games exciting then there really is nothing more to say. You were either not watching or sevens is just not your cup of tea. There usually are one-sided games at sevens tournamnets but at an olympics, which is likely to feature the best 16 teams, such mismatches are unlikely. Besides, mismatches happen regularly at tennis majors and soccer world cups in the early rounds and will always happen when the top teams play the worst at any tournament and in any sport. Finally, if you want to compare playing records, I have played at HK, Dubai and Singapore sevens and with and against some top-rate players. But I've played in only two continents (Asia and Oceania) so I must not be as good as you.

If they want golf to be in the Olympics, they will need to make it a team event like the Golf World Cup. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Cup_(men's_golf) The olympic prize will then become something to strive for and it won't feel like a glorified run of the mill tournament. They should have done the same thing to tennis - they should make it a mini - davis cup.

If football were played with full "A" teams and not under 23s then I would agree that it should be a part of the Olympics. But FIFA , the major leagues and the big clubs would not want this to happen.

I have been attending Sevens competitions since 1958 when I went with my father as a little lad to the Middlesex Sevens at Twickenham. I have played the game on three continents. What's your heroic record, DH?

The situation we have now isn't that farcial IMO. Only where a sport is included in the olympics but the best in the sport do not take it seriously and a substandard competition exists. An olympic gold medal should be of equal worth/ recognition/ acheivement across the sports (there may be a loophole in my general statement there), but when substandard teams/ players attend and the competition for the gold medal does not represent the highest standard of the sport including the sport in the Olympics definitely would require re-examination. Another point that I'm not sure has been covered is the ambitions of youth watching the OIympics. If I'm a 5 year old kid playing say Basketball, and my goal isn't the NBA, but to represent Australia in the Olympics, to have that dream snatched away from me in 20odd years when they reassess the inclusion of the sport would be cruel. Some consistency is required regarding the sports included, and therefore sufficient scrutiny/ effective decision making when adding and removing sports from the Olympics.

Ok I concede that a silver or a bronze may not be a true indication of a person's world ranking, as an Aussie might get 2nd place, whereas in a true non Olympic tournament, 1-10 may have been filled by Chinese table tennis players. But as for the gold medal, the Chinese player that takes it out has already competed against all his/ her countrymen/women and proved that he/she is the best to compete for his/her country. Going even further off tangent... Steven Bradbury is a good example where the "best" team or person in the world didn't win gold. Bradbury was strategic and fortuitous. A bit like italy at the last world cup, not necessarily the best national team in the world at the time, but clearly in line for the least sportsmanlike/ dirtiest (I can't think of the most appropriate word to describe the diving...).

I agree Pauly that it's extremely unlikely to ever be that way now, but I understand that's how it used to be...And to me, I find it much more appealing: that an ordinary person, who is *not* paid to compete in the sport he/she loves, reaches a pinnacle in that sport. That seems to be the problem for many people - that professional athletes already have multiple tournaments/competitions, and the inclusion of these sports makes it seem like a money-grabbing opportunity for them and the IOC. I don't necessarily agree that all amateur competitors would be farcical - Try telling that to the 1980 USA Hockey team...As for the best golf amateur at the olympics being farcical - Is that any more farcical than the situation we find ourselves in now?

ActuallyQC the example is even more telling in table tennis. In reality, the best Australian may not even be in the top thousand best chinese players in the world, yet with restriction on numbers from countries, the best Australian will get to play the best player from China.

Sadly thats not completely tue Pauly, for rowing a country can only supply one crew per class catergory. I'm not sure how laden other countries are with rowers but I know NZ and Germany could field two plus teams in some catergorys where they would all challenge for medals. So depending on the actual sport it does not necessarily mean you are beating the best there is when some aren't able to compete due to the restriction of entry.

Don't forget NZ got to fourth once at the world champs something our big brothers across the ditch have never managed to do even though they routinely use us as whipping boys lol :-)

I'm in agreeance too. Isn't it funny how the IOC refuses to acknowledge Wales, Scotland and England as independant countries. I guess with rugby 7's that is automatically allowing two other countries a shot at Olympic glory but at the same time a combined British team could be very good.