<br>
<br>
<p>I can answer that. Because of the old practice (since discontinued?)of allowing each host country to add one new sport/event each Olympiad. Taekwando is Korea’s national sport, and so they added it in 1988 when the games were in Seoul. No one has added karate yet. In the 1964 Tokyo games they added Judo, not karate.</p>
<p>Great explanation, Coureur. </p>
<p>Didn’t the Japanese also introduce volleyball at the 1964 Tokyo games and the Koreans ping pong in 1988 Seoul? Taekwondo was featured on the programme of the 1988 and 1992 Olympics as a demonstration sport. However, taekwondo and triathlon debuted as official sports in 2000 at the Sydney games. </p>
<p>It also seems that the Germans introduced kayaking/canoe and handball at the 1936 games.</p>
<p>Sports can be added by the IOC and not just the host country (and I’m not sure the host countries get to do that any more). So volleyball may have been added in 1964, but I don’t think “the Japanese” added it so much as the IOC.</p>
<p>I was a kid in 1964, but I remember that there was some grumbling in the press about how allowing the Japanese to add judo was a gimme - that they would sweep all the gold medals. This proved to be not quite true. They won all the weight classes except the Super Heavyweight, where a huge Dutch guy crushed the Japanese wrestler in the finals. Some of the Japanese spectators in the arena literally wept over that loss.</p>
<p>Bullsht. Soccer is popular, but it did not attract that many people unless you are going to believe the BS statistics that FIFA is putting out itself (surprise surprise). For an entire event (the entire world cup) it is the most watched, but for a single game, the Superbowl is the winner. Even being in Europe, most of the people who cared about sports of any sort watched at least the first half of the Superbowl and American football in Europe is a hell of a lot more popular than soccer in the US. Kids at my school (this was a foreign public school) could name American football players. I on the other hand couldn’t name one soccer player from that country (hint hint, arguably the best soccer country in Europe).</p>
<p>really?
Freddy Adu is a idol here across the country in Seattle
My H watches football- but I knew very few other people who do-
college football yes- pro not really
as for soccer- our soccer fields run day and night- year round.
we don’t have enough fields and while it doesn’t necessarily translate into attending all of the pro exhibition games that are held- like my daughter said- the Olympics helped her to maintain her interest and expand her knowledge of her favorite sports- she would love for them to be held every year! ( we don’t have cable- so other comparable events aren’t available)</p>
<p>What a great line: “the holy trinity of imsomnia cures”.</p>
<p>Frankly, I don’t give a hoot about the Olympics–they’re an expensive boondoggle that does nothing for international relations–but I do love this kind of brouhaha!</p>
<p>Man alive. I must be dreaming. The IOC is a corrupt little fiefdom. Samaranch and his cronies set up a little mordida monopoly that for decades enriched his friends and allies and little has changed. He ran it like a mob boss, but most mob bosses dressed better. Rogge appears to be just as petty and partisan. No doubt time will prove him crooked and corrupt.</p>
<p>Oh. And I DON’T give a whit about baseball (basketball, hockey, football, tennis, golf, soccer) being in the Olympics .Actually, I think it’s silly and the competitors in those sports don’t value their participation as they would an NBA title, or a World Cup but softball ? Let it hang around. To not let it stay was just plain mean spirited.</p>
<p>The commie foot sport (soccer) is the ultimate insomnia cure. The only thing that keeps the fans awake is load music and liters of beer. Just what I want to do is watch men in short pants run up and down a field playing kick the can for a couple of hours just so they can settle a nothin’ nothin’ tie with a kick off. Sheesh! I guess it is OK for girls though. At least they take their shirts off when it is all over.</p>
<p>Also if youare going to kick out professionals from the olympis you will have to toss all the track and field guys. It is a huge money professional sport on the European circuit for Americans and europeans alike. The top guys are all making six and seven figure incomes.</p>
<p>PS - baseball is the ultimate poor mans sport. For soccer you need a $30 ball. For baseball a $2 rubber ball and a stick will do. If you can’t find a stick a stoop will do.</p>
<p>BTW the sport of rowing which was hubeky popular in the 18th century fell into disrepute because the professional rowers of the day were fixing races.</p>
<p>Soccer more popular than football in Seattle? Never heard about that from any of my relatives there.</p>
<p>Amazing how one’s view may be distorted …</p>
<p>Sandlot nostalgia? Many places in the world have never seen a 30 dollars soccer ball, yet produce world cup players. It’s OK to show your bias: baseball maybe the ultimate summer sport in the US, but that is what soccer is worldwide. One of the reasons why soccer took so long to develop in the US was the absence of non-organized games (where kids simply play outside w/o parents’ supervision.) Obviously, you have never bought a soccer ball, because it does cost a lot less than 30 bucks. As far as your stick, I’m not sure how many kids play with a piece of two-by-four or a broom stick. </p>
<p>Like it or not, soccer has become the number one PARTICIPANT sport in the US. As far as softball, it is nothing more than a regional sport with very little appeal worldwide. Having baseball as "uncle, does not help much. Have you heard about Palmeiro yesterday? The sports had a chance to clean their act and paid no heed to the warning of Mexico. End of story. Nothing malicious. </p>
<p>Cur, I’dlike to take exception to your opnion of Rogge being a Samaranch look-alike. Let’s the history show if he will be one person with integrity dead set on rooting out corruption and doping from the Olympics or a mere corrupt official. Reading about his past may be more telling than taking a stab in the dark about a man’s accomplishment. </p>
<p>As far as hockey and soccer in the Olympics, I’d think that the US-URSS semifinal is worth many NHL finals … if I could remember any of those! Despite not being televised by the TV duffusses, the US victory in women’ soccer did a LOT to create the image of the US National team being THE power in the world. Obviously, watching some rythmic gymnastics or synchronized swimming was more important for the US. </p>
<p>As far as soccer being a game for insomniacs needing beer to stay awake, let me point out that soccer does not need a seventh-nning stretch to wake up spectators from 3 hours of self-induced torpor. </p>
<p>To each its own.</p>
<p>huh
We just gave him a standing ovation in Seattle
What a letdown</p>
<p>Sorry…but the REAL problem with amateur sports at the Olympic level is that OUR government provides little, if any substantial support to our athletes, while some other countries provide extensive support (training, housing, food, stipends, etc) to their “amateur” athletes.</p>
<p>Thoughts:</p>
<p>Soccer may be the number one participant sport in the US, but this has not translated into being a spectator sport. I remember a co-worker from 30 years ago predicting (based on his kids’ participation) that soccer would be the number one spectator sport in this country when his kids’ generation grew up. It never happened. Its problem is that of being too staid and resistent to change. They need to change the rules to improve scoring (e.g., bigger net) and to make it more TV-friendly (clock stops for corner kicks, etc.) The purists will howl, but these are the types of changes that both baseball and football (the American kind) have made to keep the game interesting for the fan and profitable for the TV networks. I’m not sure it would work in the US, but without such changes, it will never catch on here.</p>
<p>Baseball needs to learn from basketball and football to pick up the pace. Nothing is more boring than watching a pitcher (and batter) go though their respective routines between pitches. I say institute a clock as they do in football and basketball for the max time allowed between pitches. If the ball is not delivered (or thrown to a base if there is a man in stealing position more than x feet from the bag; maximum of three pick-off attempts per batter) in that timeframe, it is counted as a “ball”. The batter is not allowed to stop play by stepping out of the batter’s box once the umpire signals the ball “in play”. The third foul ball after a two-strike count counts as the third strike.</p>
<p>Football (the near-perfect sport) needs to penalize teams that go for the easy field goal rather than risk going for a touchdown. Once a team penetrates the 10-yard line, any subsequent field goal only counts 2 points.</p>
<p>I agree with fundingfather. Also, I have a hard time believing it is the number one participant sport. Maybe for boys and girls combined, but I would be surprised if more boys tried soccer when they were younger than football. Also, soccer generally attracts lesser athletes to the sport in the US than football, basketball, track, and some other sports do.</p>
<p>Sorry Xiggi, but do not even try to bring performance enhancers into this. Soccer is one sport that virtually goes untested or very little, so of course there will not be many positives shown up. If you don’t think guys are blood doping or using EPO you are crazy. I would consider it one of the more unhealthy sports I have seen attract players. By that I mean, MANY of the pro players are smokers, which kind of knocks the whole idea that you must be more conditioned than other sports. They have their fair share of crap outs as well, Maradonna anyone?</p>
<p>Davan, unless you missed it, the fact that the United States snubbed the Olympics and did not send a baseball team is because the athetes would NOT pass the more stringent doping tests of the IOC. So, this issue is smack in the middle of the original post. As far as NOT controlling drug uses in soccer, do some research before stating incorrect facts. Only a few weeks ago, 2 players from Mexico were expelled from the Confederation Cup and severe penalties were imposed on all parties involved. As far as soccer being a girl sports, I think that girls ALSO play a mean game of basketball and know that the track is oval. While it is true that professional soccer players smoke, I doubt they are in the majority. Also, you won’t see many players smoking on the field … or having a Skoal bulging cheek. </p>
<p>Fundingfather, if every sport would be tailored to TV, we have not much left. The strength of the game of soccer is that it has remained an universal sport. Calls to change the game are made all the time but it is not exactly to accomodate the requirements of TV. Some people like continuous sports and others like sports with multiple breaks. For the same reason, people just hate the same ingredients. </p>
<p>Scoring is not always THAT important in a game. Isn’t one of the BEST thing for a pitcher to go for a no-hitter in baseball. Can a great game not be decided in the 9th inning of 0-0 game? A 0-0 game in soccer can have had non-stop action. That is just part of the game. </p>
<p>Every game is subject to criticism. Why have three quarters of basketbal when the majority of the games are decided in the last 5-5 minutes that happen to last 45 minutes? Isn’t the value of a great basket diminished in a game where 100 other basket were scored. Why not play the best of three quarters like in volleyball. The list goes on and on. </p>
<p>As far as soccer not being a spectator sport, that is obviously only true in the US. The reasons are multiple but it is not because the game is not adapted to create a faster pace action with more goals scored. That is what the indoor soccer was meant to bring. Have you see many indoor games on TV lately? The reality is that soccer is caught in a vicious circle: people can’t warm up to it because it is not SHOWN on TV, and when it is shown it is marred by TV crews and announcers who could not get a job at a high school game overseas. If you asked the best soccer announcers -any who cover the English Premier League- to cover a NFL game, you’d have the same disaster. You can hear the difference when the Fox loses its overseas signal and has has to use local broadcaster. It’s as painful as visiting your dentist. </p>
<p>One of the reason the US does not see more of the sport is also because its development does not follow the same pattern as basketball and football: high school is not a recruiting grounds for soccer as much as the club scene. The penalty is that the local TV and papers are too dumb and set in their ways to understand the difference. All they know is that Friday night is supposed to be football night -at least in Texas. It is also hard to write comments on a sport you don’t understand.</p>
<p>The only reason kids play soccer in this country is because Mom won’t let them play a real sport because she is afraid the kid will get hurt. As soon as the Soccer Moms of America find out that soccer players have the second highest number of brain injuries in sports - second only to boxing, synchronized swimming and ballroom dancing will become the sport of choice. Heading the ball is basically just like taking a jab to the head.</p>
<p>Soccers worldwide popularlity is undeniable but I suspect a lot of it is popularity by default. In a lot of the world it is the only game in town. I am not sure how well it will fair as more and more people are exposed to alternative sports. I do know that baseball is rapidly becoming a world sport. I wouldn’t be surprised to see American players become a minority in MLB in a decade or two.</p>
<p>IOC stringent with doping? Don’t fool me, it is well known among athletes how much of a joke the IOC is. They don’t even do blood tests 99% of the time. You expect them to catch cheats with just urine tests? Why would I not be surprised if most of the “positives” are simply people being framed (aka Ben Johnson), or else there would be a hell of a lot more positives. Heck, you don’t even need designer steroids if you know what you are doing. Testosterone suspension is a fairly widely available steroid that has a detection time of HOURS in most athletes up to 3 days in people with slowest metabolism. You can’t even test for HGH or insulin or IGF-1.</p>
<p>LOL. </p>
<p>It is not that hard to manipulate statistics. There is a huge difference between “5% of injuries in soccer are head injuries” and “5% of soccer players will experience a head injury”. The difference is the NUMBER of injuries in the sport altogether. With 16,000,000 registered members, the incidence of head injuries/concussions should be staggering for soccer alone. </p>
<p>There are a few companes that have launched an all-out attack to peddle some ridicuoous contraptions to prevent head injuries. The problem is that there is no conclusive evidence that the devices would not cause MORE injuries than prevent them. Soccer is a contact sport and most of the head injuries occur from contact between players and not contact with the ball. The companies helped by a few “well-meaning” doctors have believed that by pushing the safety envelope they could convince the federation to adopt safety measures and force millions of members to buy the goods. To their great consternation, the FIFA and most federations did not find any evidence to back the claims and have issue a steadfast PROHIBITION to league to force playest to wear the gear. The only accomodation is that a ref might AUTHORIZE the use of it on a case-by-case basis. The millions of profit from selling the gears are and will remain a pipe dream for the few lunatics who endorsed the products. </p>
<p>And, Patuxent, while you are entitled to your opinion, calling soccer a non-real sports is pretty idiotic and does not speak well for your erudition. You are obviously oblivious to the fact that most young athletes play different sports. While soccer might be for sissies, it may surprise you that the sissies also tend to be your MVP in real sports such as basketball, baseball, lacrosse, or football.</p>
<p>Soccer is popular because people can play it anywhere. It really is the poor man’s game.</p>
<p>BTW
There is still no disputing that in the US, soccer attracts athletes of far less talent than any of the other popular sports.</p>