1) Each country nominates only 1 person per event.
2) Only gold medals will be awarded..silver and bronze are for losers.
3) Swimming events..just have set distance races instead of different stroke races.
Any other ideas ???
2007-06-03 02:48:58 · 12 answers · asked by UFO^pilot 3 in Sports ➔ Olympics
Have the Games in a fixed location (probably Athens) to stop the corruption of IOC members voting & getting bribed etc. Top fifty competing nations (per GDP) to each adopt one of the smallest 50 nations (per GDP) & fund all training, travel, equipment costs for ALL their athletes. Have you ever seen an, say, Equestrian team from, say, the Comoros? Drop all sports in which the winner is subjective (eg. synchronised swimming). Change the rules that allow athletes to compete under a flag of convenience for richer nations (eg. African athletes competing for oil rich Gulf states).
2007-06-03 03:03:10 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Personally, I think it's not fair for each country to nominate only 1 person. Some countries may have more than one person that is able to beat people from other countries.
I also disagree about the medals because the medals are so distinguished anyway. Also, it would be very boring watching one person on the podium when two others came so close to beating him/her.
I have heard that in the 2008 Olympics, there will be a new Open Swim event, but this will be considered a different event than the rest of the different stroke races.
2007-06-03 09:33:04 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Given that on any particular day even the very best can be beaten and also that world records often go to the least expected it would be very harsh to deny anyone the opportunity. Anyway the olympics are supposed to be the very best, the greatest spectacle of sporting achievement on the face of the planet and you want to diminish it to a school sports day!
Even finishing 10th in an event in the olympics means that in the population of the planet (whatever that is ) and in all of recorded history, that is where you stand in that event (probably) so when you put it into perspective being 10th in a pool of maybe 100 billion people is hardly being a loser.
I do think that you have a good idea though!
2007-06-03 03:10:27 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Like numbers 1 and 2 - second is last as far as I'm concerned. Not sure about swimming because the strokes are completely different.
2007-06-05 00:08:47 · answer #4 · answered by chillipope 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No we should not resturture the Olympic games. As soon as you resturture the games someone will cry foul. You send the best atheletes to the games that have meet the olympic qualifing standard. If you say only one person per event you will never see atheletes like Al Otter, Daly Thompson, Mark Spitz, Jenny Thompson, Alexander Popov, Dwn Frazier, Kellie And Pat McCormick.
2007-06-03 04:21:59 · answer #5 · answered by uoptiger_79 4 · 0⤊ 2⤋
1. NO professional athletes
2. Only one Olympic game, then get on with your life
3.Maybe a champion only could return to defend his title, but only once.
4. It's an honor to represent the US, and that alone should be the goal of any inspiring athlete.
5.Let the other countries pay their athletes. We lose anyway (think Pro-basketball players)
2007-06-03 09:12:09 · answer #6 · answered by Buzzy 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
How about each country putting their names in a big hat, and whoever is pulled out wins that event
2007-06-03 03:05:43 · answer #7 · answered by LONE WOLF 1 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Get rid of entertainment "sports" like skating, synchronised swimming, beach volleyball. On second thoughts, leave the ladies beach volleyball in.
2007-06-03 03:37:31 · answer #8 · answered by G C 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
in show jumping, have medals for horses only.
runners that look like weight lifters should be banned
introduce grey hound races
2007-06-03 02:53:22 · answer #9 · answered by bee bee 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Yes - let's have them re-structured somewhere else. This country is in enough trouble.
2007-06-04 02:26:53 · answer #10 · answered by angrynellie 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋