Philosophically, I think amateurism fits best with the Olympic ideal of the world coming together through sport, whereas pro athletes flips the balance a bit more towards the inter-nation genital measuring contest. But that's just my preference. I think there are pros and cons to both sides, especially in todays modern climate where even the amateurs are getting massive amounts of state funding in certain key sports.
I think part of my problem with having pros in the Olympics comes from the historical perspective. Traditionally, the modern Olympics were about amateurs. Then, in the 1970s, Americans began bitching about the fact that Soviet and and other Warsaw Pact countries were fielding teams of professionals disguised as amateurs. If anyone doesn't know this, what was happening is that the best players were given ranks in the armed forces but, instead, of working as soldiers, they spent all their time training and practicing. One of the big reasons the U.S.'s victory over the USSR in ice hockey in 1980 was such a big deal was because the U.S. team was truly a team of amateurs (mostly college players) playing against professionals from the Soviet Union. In 1984 and 1988, things returned to "normal," with the Soviet Union winning gold both years with a 17-1 record and allowing only 23 goals over 18 games.
At the same time, the Soviet Union was breaking up, and the 1988 games were the last time that the Soviet Union competed at the games (they competed as "the Unified Team" and the "Commonwealth of Independent States" in 1992 and won gold in ice hockey). Also at the same time, the United States had a long streak of gold medals in basketball (broken only by the farce that occurred in 1972, which is a different subject entirely). However, in 1988, the Soviet Union managed to beat the United States for the gold, and this was an outrage that could not be tolerated.
The U.S. Olympic Committee "lobbied heavily to get the rules changed" (i.e., demanded a rule change) to allow professionals so that the U.S. could again be dominant in Olympic basketball. These efforts succeeded, leading to such compelling and iconic games as the U.S.'s 116-48 win over vaunted powerhouse Angola. NHL players didn't end up in Olympic ice hockey until 1998 (needless to say, that wasn't as much of a priority for the U.S. as basketball).
So...given that the reason why professionals came to play in the Olympics was not a result of simply wanting the best players to complete, I still have a bit of a problem with it. But I recognize that my view is rather jaded and may not be popular.
Two other things:
- Apparently some internet bozos were triggered by the Australian swimming coach's spontaneous celebration, which they have characterized as "toxic masculinity."
- My son shared something with me about how the U.S. apparently didn't do well in the skateboarding competition. He said, "well...that's what happens when you have to send skateboarders who can pass the Olympic drug tests.
Biles came out and said she withdrew for mental reasons, stating she wasn't in a good place after facing so much pressure to win.
Damn...
While this is sad for her and the sport.....I personally thing this eliminates the talk of her being the GOAT. I'm sorry to sound insensitive.....but plain and simple GOAT's don't fold under pressure. They perform better under it.
I completely disagree. . . .
I don't think you and I will agree on this.....which is fine. . . .
I'm with G on this. Putting aside all the fluffy, puffy stuff (and I don't know thing 1 about gymnastics), you can't be the GOAT if you don't actually compete (regardless of the reason). I also agree that, in addition to having talent, true GOATs handle the pressure that comes with being the best. They thrive under the pressure and don't succumb to it. A true champion doesn't quit in the middle of a competition "to work on her mental health."