We don't hate the world enough.
(media.scored.co)
New here?
Create an account to submit posts, participate in discussions and chat with people.
You are viewing a single comment's thread. View all
Toast message
You have a race. The first one to the finish wins.
You have weightlifting. Whoever lifts the most wins.
You have jumping, throwing, wrestling. All have clear winners.
Then you have points, where someone wins because one judge though the other guy's pinky toe was slightly bent.
It would, however, be interesting if they were to implement a sudden death round where the 2 fighters just trade blows back and forth, no blocking, until one goes down. Like a hockey fight.
One man standing,one man wins.
And even in powerlifting the judges make decisions on whether the lift is valid or not, and it's often a grey area.
In any case I disagree; there are a lot of competitive endeavors that can be fairly judged by experts. Like art.
What, objectivly, qualifies them as experts?
Or honest, for that matter. The Olympic games see some of the shadiest shit in sports; you trust all your experts to refuse the kind of bribe entire countries pay?
The only way you know if you win is if everyone can clearly see it. Having better cameras or clarification on ambiguous situations doesn't change that. If you need to trust an expert, why even watch?
>Wrestling is not a sport.
You're not a sport.
The fact that a judge may be wrong does not invalidate this.
You're promoting the idea of the liberals, who claim that art cannot be objectively assessed and therefore the Sistine Chapel is the same as some feminist modern art bullshit.
1) Competitive b-boy dancing has always been a less-than-serious affair and there's less on the line, so there's less conflict over subjective calls.
2) ANYTHING involving the IOC's IOC's corrupt bullshit is trash.
Now honestly I don't have a problem with this being in the Olympics, or a lot of other stuff. I think it definitely should be kind of in its own sort of 'subdivision' of said Olympics, though.