Winter Olympics 2018

[Scot Dutchy]

Plus the cultural differences. A love poem is very different to many people.

[Hermit]

Plus the cultural differences. A love poem is very different to many people.

They are games, Scot. Games do not need to be objectively measurable. Why this insistence on tape measure and clock? Have you never been a child, playing games where rules were made up, then changed, throughout its course, and yet someone finished up being declared the winner by common consent? For crying out loud, poetry, chess and theatre contests are not meant to replace the 100 metre foot race. They never were even in the antiquities. They (except for chess) were just part of the Olympic games.

[Scot Dutchy]

Plus the cultural differences. A love poem is very different to many people.

They are games, Scot. Games do not need to be objectively measurable. Why this insistence on tape measure and clock? Have you never been a child, playing games where rules were made up, then changed, throughout its course, and yet someone finished up being declared the winner by common consent?

Nope never did. Did not play many games like that. Street games were never subjective. Hide and seek, kick the can and all the variations of 'tig' games were purely objective. Rules were just known.

[Svartalf]

All subjective sports though.

Yes. That's right. Titled "Olympic games", I see nothing indicating that contests must be restricted to those that can be adjudicated with clocks, tape measures or some such objective devices. They have not been excluded in the 1100 hundred years they were run in antiquity. I see no objective reasons why they needed to be excluded in the 130 or so years since the Olympic games were resurrected.

How would a poetry competition actually work? Mind boggling really.

Really not. Only minds that insist on clocks, tape measures and such to recognise a game or a contest as such boggle.

It is not subjectivity but how would you organise it? Which language for a start? The Greeks were fortunate only one language.

yeah, right, you know that before Alexander conquered all the Greek World, and koinè Greek came about, there were significant dialectal differences? Attic Greeks (around Athens) did not speak quite the same language as people from the Pelopponese, and the Aegean Islands had a different dialect which in turn differed from that of Greeks in Asia Minor, and Cretan was a piece of work all of its own... all those dialects were more or less mutually intercomprehensible, but still had major differences, how would an Attic judge regard a play or poem inCycladic dialect?

[Scot Dutchy]

I think in the poetry section it would be classical Greek.

[Forty Two]

Chess would not be a "sport" because the physical exertion of moving a chess piece is incidential.

You do realise that the original series of Olympic games (776 BCE to 393 CE) included contests in music, theatre, poetry and other arts, don't you?

You do realize that their inclusion in the original Olympic games doesn't make theater, music, poetry and such "sports," don't you?

Yes, I do. They were part of the original Olympic games, though, and I see no reasons, other than Pierre de Coubertin's decision to exclude them and commercial interests, why they should not be now. Of course commercial interests trump. I see no return to the original range of contests.

Pity, though. Theatre can be competitive and fun to watch.

Well, the original Olympic games are not much like the ones we have today. Athletes aren't competing nude, for example. They had horse racing and chariot racing in the ancient Olympics. They'd have footraces in full armor and helmets. The javelin event was done on horseback at full gallop and the javelin was thrown at a mounted shield. Boxers only wore leather straps over their hands, and fought in the open, not in a ring. All sorts of differences.

And, "commercial interests trump" is just a way of saying that the organization must be run in a way that allows it to continue and thrive, and that the people vote with their dollars as to what they want in the Olympic games. If there is a significant population that agreed with you, then it would, by definition, make commercial sense to do it. But, if there isn't that population causing it to make sense to do it, then on what basis would one suggest putting it in there? That a few erudites think some less vulgar should be in the Olympics, and if the masses don't like it, tough?

[Forty Two]

Plus the cultural differences. A love poem is very different to many people.

They are games, Scot. Games do not need to be objectively measurable. Why this insistence on tape measure and clock? Have you never been a child, playing games where rules were made up, then changed, throughout its course, and yet someone finished up being declared the winner by common consent? For crying out loud, poetry, chess and theatre contests are not meant to replace the 100 metre foot race. They never were even in the antiquities. They (except for chess) were just part of the Olympic games.

Chess and Bridge both applied for entry into the 2020 Olympics. I have no idea if they were approved or not. I suppose not, or it wouldn't be under discussion.

Nobody is stopping interested persons from applying to have theatre an poetry or whatever entered as an Olympic game. Go approach the people who run the Olympics. Create a non-profit for that purpose. Raise money. Push for it.

Even if these games are in the Olympics, that doesn't make them sports. They're still not sports. That's o.k. It's not an insult not to be a sport.

And, while I tend to agree with Dutchy on the preference for sports which have a defined winner that is measurable, like fastest runner, most points in the game, farthest jumper, farthest thrower, most weight lifted, etc., it doesn't bother me if other sports, like the trick snowboarding or figure skating, are included. It's fun to watch the tricks and choreography, but I don't really get the metrics being used to determine a winner, and it all ends up seeming rather imprecise, mushy and highly subjective, resulting in no clear difference between 1st, 2nd and 3rd, or even 4th, 5th and 6th. They're making decisions which are almost always arguable. But, I don't have to watch it, or care about it, and if people like it, good on 'em.

[Forty Two]

Plus the cultural differences. A love poem is very different to many people.

...can't have love poems unless everyone in the audience consents to hearing about the love, romance, etc. Otherwise, it's sexual harassment of a captive audience.

[Forty Two]

All subjective sports though.

Yes. That's right. Titled "Olympic games", I see nothing indicating that contests must be restricted to those that can be adjudicated with clocks, tape measures or some such objective devices. They have not been excluded in the 1100 hundred years they were run in antiquity. I see no objective reasons why they needed to be excluded in the 130 or so years since the Olympic games were resurrected.

They're not excluded now. Many of the contests are judged subjectively.

How would a poetry competition actually work? Mind boggling really.

Really not. Only minds that insist on clocks, tape measures and such to recognise a game or a contest as such boggle.

To fully understand poetry, we must first be fluent with its meter, rhyme and figures of speech, then ask two questions: 1) How artfully has the objective of the poem been rendered and 2) How important is that objective? Question 1 rates the poem's perfection; question 2 rates its importance. And once these questions have been answered, determining the poem's greatness becomes a relatively simple matter.

If the poem's score for perfection is plotted on the horizontal of a graph and its importance is plotted on the vertical, then calculating the total area of the poem yields the measure of its greatness.

A sonnet by Byron might score high on the vertical but only average on the horizontal. A Shakespearean sonnet, on the other hand, would score high both horizontally and vertically, yielding a massive total area, thereby revealing the poem to be truly great. As you proceed through the poetry in this book, practice this rating method. As your ability to evaluate poems in this matter grows, so will, so will your enjoyment and understanding of poetry.

Understanding Poetry, by Dr. J. Evans Pritchard, PHD.

[Brian Peacock]

Free Verse Half Pipe.
Ski Jump Sonnet Recitation.

[Svartalf]

I think in the poetry section it would be classical Greek.

which version of Classical Greek? Koinè? Attic? Aeolian?

[Forty Two]

I think in the poetry section it would be classical Greek.

which version of Classical Greek? Koinè? Attic? Aeolian?

buttsex

[Scot Dutchy]

Svart.

[Hermit]

Well, the original Olympic games are not much like the ones we have today. Athletes aren't competing nude, for example. They had horse racing and chariot racing in the ancient Olympics. They'd have footraces in full armor and helmets. The javelin event was done on horseback at full gallop and the javelin was thrown at a mounted shield. Boxers only wore leather straps over their hands, and fought in the open, not in a ring. All sorts of differences.

So true, but is that supposed to be a good reason for not having chess, theatre or poetry as part of the program?

And, "commercial interests trump" is just a way of saying that the organization must be run in a way that allows it to continue and thrive, and that the people vote with their dollars as to what they want in the Olympic games. If there is a significant population that agreed with you, then it would, by definition, make commercial sense to do it. But, if there isn't that population causing it to make sense to do it, then on what basis would one suggest putting it in there? That a few erudites think some less vulgar should be in the Olympics, and if the masses don't like it, tough?

Another good reason for not having chess, theatre or poetry as part of the program?

Rhetorical questions, I must admit. I already provided my answer to both here: "The choice of contests in modern times reflects a cretinisation, a descent to the lowest common denominator, especially since broadcasting the games has become big business for the media and advertisers alike..."

[pErvinalia]

Plus the cultural differences. A love poem is very different to many people.

They are games, Scot. Games do not need to be objectively measurable. Why this insistence on tape measure and clock? Have you never been a child, playing games where rules were made up, then changed, throughout its course, and yet someone finished up being declared the winner by common consent? For crying out loud, poetry, chess and theatre contests are not meant to replace the 100 metre foot race. They never were even in the antiquities. They (except for chess) were just part of the Olympic games.

Chess and Bridge both applied for entry into the 2020 Olympics. I have no idea if they were approved or not. I suppose not,

Thank fuck for that.