quote:
Originally posted by norompanlasolas:
personally, i like sports that dont depend on a jury calling out the winner. it just seems that if there are jurys to select the winner its not that impartial and prone to corruption (look at boxing). football (soccer for my american friends), basket, rugby, etc... are great examples of sports that the winner will be the best, luckier, more in form, whatever. referees might get things wrong but they can never affect the outcome as in the other sports.
on a side note, i believe football is the greatest sports on earth. the most popular, the one played in most countries, the most simple and most complex at the same time, and the most exciting overall. the world cup must be the most exciting sports event in the world (even more than the olympics, imo).
or in the words of a popular commentator for espn at the start of a big game... "welcome to 90 minutes of the greatest sport on earth". 
I wholeheartedly agree. Football is brilliant, and Artistry is what we normally call that which is judged subjectively.
If you run fast enough you win. = Sport.
You played that note/danced that step/skated that jump (subjectively) better than the next person = Artistic competition.
I don't believe non sporting artistry has a place in the Olympics. What next? A Guitar solo gold medal?
But then it's all about ratings isn't it. Rythmic gymnastics and Ice dancing are huge ratings winners aren't they?
Oh, and while I don't have an opinion on whether the Canadians should have won or not (I didn't see either routine) I objected to the U.S. media's use of north American opinion presented as 'proof' the Canadians should have won. Where were the Russian polls?
Interviewers would say things like "The whole world thinks this..."
Is the whole world North America to these journalists? I'm sure millions of Indians didn't care, and Slavics disagreed.
Ah well. It's all more important than a screwed health system, pollution, poverty and social injustice right?
[img]smile.gif[/img]