London 2012 - Do you care ?

London are set to host the 2012 Olympics. The usual array of sports, the usual array of sports stars flocking in from around the world - but do you care ?

Frankly, I don't.

Now I can appreciate Londoners being delighted that regeneration is going on, sports centres are being built and that their city can have a great time.

However the Olympics has come in - billions of pounds over budget, middle of a recession with 2.5 million unemployed.

I just don't care about London though. I'm a Northerner - the Olympics just doesn't resonate - its an event full of minority sports that a lot of toffs from public schools play (canoeing, rowing).

The future of the Olympic stadium remains up in the air.

Its an event that will no doubt attract cooperate lard-butts from around the world, who are allocated thousands of tickets, will pocket the $$$ and munch on their caviar in their executive boxes.

But don't worry, they'll let us commoners touch the torch.

London will be the city that gets the global media coverage - not Birmingham, Leeds, Newcastle, Sheffield, Leicester and so on.

As for the opening ceremony, Beijing have set the bar high, what about London ?

We're just going to have a parade of obese single mums pushing their spawn round in a circle to the sound of our notoriously crap BRIT school graduates singing their forced number one, then at the end some spray painted sign just says 'welcum 2 briten'.

The media, especially the London media are obviously having all their Christmases/Eids/Hanukkahs come along in one summer - they can gloat 'Ooh look at London, look how marvellous it is, look at our lovely stadiums'.

I don't care !

Do you ?

What a classic thread. But i have to agree with you, from my point of view and everyone i know, No one gives a crap about it.
Yes it's great that London got the Olympics but other then that i don't find the Olympics fun at all. It's as you said yourself "the Olympics just doesn't resonate - its an event full of minority sports that a lot of toffs from public schools play (canoeing, rowing)." I couldn't agree more.

I tried getting the opening ceremony tickets and missed out.

Just getting into East London is an absolute nightmare already as it is. With the London tourists and Olympics crowd, its going to be an unpleasant experience getting to the stadium and purchasing overpriced food.

Just watch your favourite Olympics events on HD TV without taking out a mortgage to follow the whole mallarcy in person

I care little about the event itself but as I work in London, it will be affecting me massively.

Apparently by investing billions in the event, the returns will be greater but I don't buy it. The ticket pricing is also aimed IMO at a premium crowd.

In summary - I totally agree with @Markhor

Olympics. I have always taken a lot of interest in the Olympics but more specifically from 1996 Olympics at Atlanta when Leander Paes won a bronze for India in tennis. Since then I have always looked at the medal's tally and see where India is faring as India has started to appear in the tally of late by winning at least 1 medal in the last few Olympics since 1996.


But there are certain things which I find difficult to understand about the Olympics. I wont be able to list all of them as there are many but a few which I can remember now:

• Is an Olympic sport for it to be part of Olympics- is it to be played by a majority of the sporting nations? How can synchronized swimming or BMX or mountain biking be an Olympic sport? First of all, is synchronised swimming even a sport? This sport has already eliminated the possibility of the participation of Islamic countries on religious grounds, which is perhaps 1/3rd of the global population if I am not wrong. I do not know if Turkey or Malaysia send their athletes to this sport.
• Also it is difficult to understand one single event being divided into exclusive disciplines on their own. For example Swimming---50 metres, 100 metres, 200 metres, 400 metres, 1500 metres. And, even among this there is freestyle, backstroke, breaststroke, butterfuly, individual medley, freestyle relay, medley relay etc, etc. What is the criterion of this classification? What stops them from having a 75 metre, 150 metre, 200 metre, marathon etc.,? I do not think there is a huge difference in the skill level required for 50 metre and 100 metre, I have seen several times just one athlete winning both 50 and 100 metres in swimming and 100 and 200 metres in athletics. It is like having 10 over, 20 over, 30 over, 40 over and 50 over cricket matches and then awarding medals for each discipline treating them as exclusive events of sports.
• Some of the sports appear elitist where it would not be possible for people from developing and under developed countries to participate. Events like Equestrian, Dressage, and several other so called sports.
• Some of the popular sports are not even part of Olympics like cricket. I know it is not truly a global sport but it certainly has more viewers and followers, players than say the magnificent sport of synchronized swimming.

Perhaps, the Olympics can never be said to be a consummate, truly representative collection of games reflecting the participation of the majority of the nations in those sports. Overall, I still like it as a global event where I can witness several champions showcasing their skills in their respective fields.
To the OP yes I do care for this Olympics especially since I expect India to bag at least 3-4 medals. Even otherwise I would still follow it.

although no good results are expected from Pakistan in hockey, yet the game keeps me interested in olympics.

Tbh olympics are overrated.

could never have asked for a better random comment