Russia sticking their OARs in: Winter Olympics 2018

[Hot Pepsi]

I just spent an enjoyable half hour disappearing into the rabbit hole that is the history of ice hockey, mostly with the aim of trying to find out the origins of the different rink sizes. Broadly speaking (and having read a number of message board rants from angry Canadians who believe that they invented the sport and should be listened to on all matters) the story is this :
*various hockey ish games were played in most European countries that had significant winters and these were replicated in North America upon colonisation
*the first game that we would recognise today as being close to the modern game happened in Montreal and it was codified there (though in fact they basically took nearly the entire rulebook wholesale from field hockey)
*Europe was a mass of different games with different rinks all sort of related
*the LIHG (the forerunner to the IIHF) was founded to try and come up with rules that would allow international /cross border play. Of all the challenges they faced, rink size was the trickiest because of course that was the most physical and difficult to alter aspect. But they managed
*As Canada (and latterly the US) didn't have to mediate between loads of national conventions it was much easier to find a set of rules and stick with them (tweaking as necessary). This made the development of the game much easier there. But it also meant that the LIHG could genuinely claim to be an international association.
*later there were efforts made to unify hockey and much was agreed (in general the LIHG moved closer to the North American code than the other way around). However for the same reason as the first time round agreeing on rink sizes proved impossible

I have no idea why I just typed all that. I think mostly to argue that what HP calls "European rules" are genuinely international and have come about over time to form a genuinely international sport, and while North American rules evolved differently (and understandably so) to argue that the IOC adopting LIHG/IIHF rules was somehow a stitch up doesn't really wash

I didn't say it was a stitch up. Though, during the Soviet era it was. I was saying that it was no more of a stitch-up than the situation in curling or snowboarding or any of the other winter disciplines that have been added over the years. Just because some countries are better at them than others doesn't mean the decision to add it was necessarily corrupt.

The IIHF hockey standad may have been intended as a compromise, but for all practical purposss, the "international" standard is European, unless you count Asia as an important hockey influence, which you shouldn't.

When the Olympics chose to feature hockey over bandy (which the Russians were more into, as I recall), they could have gone with the Canadian version already flourishing, relatively, but chose not to.*

There may have been very good reasons to do it that way but it's still the European style and not the North American style (and a load of American journalists who don't understand hockey think that it's superior to the NA version.) It slightly favors European teams, and nobody should pretend otherwise.


*It's not a given that every international sport has to be designed by an international committee. Baseball wasn't. Nor was football/soccer, or rugby. And that's fine.

[ursus arctos]

I wonder to what extent, if any, the North American standard was influenced by a) the preference for NA rinks to fit within a standard city block and b) the fact that in the US ice hockey was developed by boxing promoters who owned arenas that would already have had permanent seating installed for that sport.

Ridiculous finish in the biathlon. There have been dead heats before in World Championships, and that was incredibly close to being another.

[Hot Pepsi]

Of course, if the big ice is a problem then the NHL could have mandated it during the last round of arena building.

If Britain can build Olympic sized ice pads then I’m pretty sure the North Americans can.

It's not a "problem." The NHL and the rest of North American hockey isn't going to damage their sport just to slightly improve our chances at Olympic medals.

There are some Olympic sized rinks in North America. For a while in the early 90s when it looked like that was the future, a few were built - U of Minnesota and U or New Hampshire has them - but it has proven to be, if anything, a disadvantage for their teams. And neither the NHL players or owners seem to want it, so talk of changing has died down.

Besides, Canada and the US have largely managed to overcome this disadvantage and generally done fairly well across all international competitions over the last 20 years or so - especially Canada, which has dominated "best vs best" competitions in recent years.

If it were up to me, I'd create a new international standard halfway between the Euro/Olympic one and the NA/NHL width and see if that worked in the professional game. I believe Finland has some rinks like that, but I havent seen any games on them.

[ad hoc]

You implied heavily that it was a stitch up.

Yes it's played by European rules as the LIHG/IIHF was a European body (for reasons outlined above). As it happens given the preeminence of the NHL all the top ice hockey players in the world are familiar with North American rules, so they would all have to switch to play in the Olympics (they would if the NHL didn't take their puck home and whine about how terribly unfair and anti American it all is.)

I wonder if competitive origami is blighted by US competitors complaining about having to use A4 paper

[Hot Pepsi]

I wonder to what extent, if any, the North American standard was influenced by a) the preference for NA rinks to fit within a standard city block and b) the fact that in the US ice hockey was developed by boxing promoters who owned arenas that would already have had permanent seating installed for that sport.

Good question. I've never read that, but it makes sense.

Of course, the old Boston Garden was even smaller.

[ad hoc]

As far as I read the North American standard derives directly from the first game in Montreal. That was the rink size then and it's never been changed

[Hot Pepsi]

You implied heavily that it was a stitch up.

Yes it's played by European rules as the LIHG/IIHF was a European body (for reasons outlined above). As it happens given the preeminence of the NHL all the top ice hockey players in the world are familiar with North American rules, so they would all have to switch to play in the Olympics (they would if the NHL didn't take their puck home and whine about how terribly unfair and anti American it all is.)

I wonder if competitive origami is blighted by US competitors complaining about having to use A4 paper

I said the exact opposite, but OK.

The NHL has only had all the best players since about 1990 - though that's a long time now - before that, the Eastern European countries especially had, essentially, full time professional national teams.

I don't believe the NHL has called it "anti-American." They just want their "assets" protected. They said they wanted the IOC to cover more costs.

It should be up to the players. Not the TV people or the blazerati. And, to some extent, it is. The players could just walk out on their employers. But the players are unionized, as they should be, and aren't going to make massive concessions to the owners that would I!pascf all players just for the chance for a few of them to play in the Olympics.

All of this discussion seems to assume that the Olympics are just so inherently important that it's a damn shame if one's sport isn't properly featured there. If that was ever true, I don't think it is now. There was a time when being in the Olympics was one of the only ways to get ones sport on TV - even in the rich countries - but that's not true any more and TV as we've known it is being/has been displaced by the internet.

And the IOC has been widely exposed for the extortion racket that it is, and it remains to be seen if any legitimate governments will ever bid to host in the future.

It makes much more sense for sports - including traditional Olympic sports like baseball and hockey - to see how they can break free of reliance on the Olympics. They'd all like to be more like cricket and rugby.

Football is sort of unique in that it is in the Olympics but the Olympics don't matter much to it compared to its own competitions -On the men's side. Not the women's side - I suppose tennis is in that category too.

[ad hoc]

You implied heavily that it was a stitch up.

Yes it's played by European rules as the LIHG/IIHF was a European body (for reasons outlined above). As it happens given the preeminence of the NHL all the top ice hockey players in the world are familiar with North American rules, so they would all have to switch to play in the Olympics (they would if the NHL didn't take their puck home and whine about how terribly unfair and anti American it all is.)

I wonder if competitive origami is blighted by US competitors complaining about having to use A4 paper

I may in places here be arguing with posts I read elsewhere and not on this forum

[Hot Pepsi]

As far as I read the North American standard derives directly from the first game in Montreal. That was the rink size then and it's never been changed

There have been experiments with other sizes - the Boston Garden being one. The rink at the University of Illinois is even bigger than Olympic size. I have no idea why.

The reason it's never shifted much from the first indoor (well, under a roof - it was still cold as fuck) rinks may be because of the factors UA suggests.

Certainly bandy or anything on a much bigger surface or an outdoor surface wasn't going to stand much chance of taking off.

[Hot Pepsi]

I may in places here be arguing with posts I read elsewhere and not on this forum

No problem. We are on the same page now.

I don't know what A4 paper is, but oragami usually uses square paper, doesn't it?

[ursus arctos]

The male half of the OAR team that won bronze in Mixed Pairs Curling has tested positive for Meldonium. B test to come.

[ad hoc]

The rest of the Winter Olympics were bent in favor of the alpine and Scandinavian countries. Indeed, all the sliding-on-an-ice-track sports wouldn’t really exist without the Olympics.* Until the NHL got involved, Olympic hockey was set-up to favor European teams and now it is again.
)

In what way is this not saying and heavily implying that it's a stitch up?

[ad hoc]

I don't know what A4 paper is, but oragami usually uses square paper, doesn't it?

I think so. It wasn't meant to be serious

[SouthdownRebel]

The BBC Sport app is promoting its video from yesterday of its own commentators behaving unprofessionally during the Skelton final (labelled “Commentary Box Chaos”) ahead of stories about the actual athletes that were published this morning. It’s this kind of thing that really puts me off watching any international sport, but Olympic sports above all. Which is a shame, but presumably I’m in a minority and would be seen by most as an unpatriotic miserable bastard for preferring a bit of old-school decorum.

[Hot Pepsi]

In what way is this not saying and heavily implying that it's a stitch up?

I didn’t mean “were bent” to imply that somebody with a nefarious motive was bending them. Just that they skew one way or the other. But I can see how my vague use of the passive voice could be read as you read it. So I accept the blame there.

To cite a more clear example, cross-country skiing is really only taken seriously in about 20 countries and without the Olympics, that number would probably be about only five (seeing as so much of the funding mechanisms for sportin a lot of places are built around the Olympics). So that’s a sport that clearly helps certain countries - Norway, especially - boost their medal count. But I couldn’t imagine a Winter Olympics without it. Same with speedskating.



But having said all of that, I am curious about how the Winter Olympics came to be and if there might not have been just a bit of a racist element behind it all. Or at least, nobody cared that they were creating a supposedly international event with sports only pursued in a small group of predominantly white, wealthy nations. Indeed, it appears that the whole thing might have just been a scheme to increase tourism in the alps.

Then again, in those days - and now too, I suppose - the summer games were dominated by the rich countries (what were racistly referred to as “civilized” countries back then) and, in many cases, by rich individuals (euphemistically called amateurs) and that didn’t seem to bother the IOC.

[Fussbudget]

Gosh, the US don't use A-size paper? What is that all about?

[ursus arctos]

American exceptionalism (and the economic interests of our paper companies)

[ursus arctos]

I hadn't realised that it was the position of the front foot (and not the tip of the front ski) that is determinant in Biathlon



I'm pretty sure that Fourcade's ski was second.

[Hot Pepsi]

As for “anti-Americanism,” I haven’t heard that from hockey people, but it has come from baseball and softball people after those got cut. Especially the softball people who, like the supporters of all women’s sports, see the Olympics as vital to their cause.

Defenders of he decision to cut those sports say that it’s because they don’t want to saddle countries with venues that will become white elephants, but after Rio, it’s very hard to believe the IOC actually cares about that issue at all. And that wouldn’t be a factor in Tokyo, so why not at least have them there?

There’s also the idea that they’re using this as leverage to get MLB to send it’s players. But everyone knows that will never ever happen, but they could instead create an interesting format to showcase the best young prospects - sort of how Olympic soccer is supposed to work.

But I think that after that whole bullshit about *wrestling* being kicked out of the Olympics, many observers finally realized that there’s simply no point in trying to ascribe rational sports-related motives to the decisions of the IOC, so why bother arguing about it, especially since the ongoing existence, let alone importance, of the Olympics as we’ve known them is far from a sure thing anyway.

Baseball people aren’t really too bothered about the Olympics. Those that care about growing the game - which isn’t many - seem to think that the WBC or some version of it is the vehicle to do it, and they’re probably right. Shutting down baseball for the Olympics doesn’t make sense, not just because of MLB revenues, but because of the way pitching rotations work. You couldn’t just take a bunch of ace pitchers away from their teams in mid August or September and tell them “Ok, now we need you to pitch in three-man rotation in a compressed two-week double-elimination tournament with a catcher you barely know, in a country 10 time zones away, and then go back to your normal five-day cycle and try to win a pennant.”

Softball has a lot more reason to be salty about it as they really needed the Olympics to grow their sport, not only internationally but in the countries where it’s already established - USA, Canada, Australia, and Japan. There is a World Cup of women’s fastpitch, but it doesn’t get the same attention.

[Hot Pepsi]

I hadn't realised that it was the position of the front foot (and not the tip of the front ski) that is determinant in Biathlon



I'm pretty sure that Fourcade's ski was second.

Seems fair. No reason to advantage the taller guy with longer skis.

What an amazing finish.

[Hot Pepsi]

Gosh, the US don't use A-size paper? What is that all about?

Our most common is 8.5 in x 11 in. Which is wider but shorter than A4, I think. I thought it was because of English vs Metric, but then the A4 size dimensions doing hit nice round numbers in mm either, 210 x 297 mm. You’d think 200 x 300 would be easier, but there must be other factors.

[ursus arctos]

The A Sizes are all derived from a sheet with an area of one square metre.

[Hot Pepsi]

The A Sizes are all derived from a sheet with an area of one square metre.

I had no idea there was so much to know about paper standards, or that there were so many standards.

[ursus arctos]

It is a definite annoyance for international firms that produce a lot of work on paper.

[Fussbudget]

You’d think 200 x 300 would be easier, but there must be other factors.

As per ursus's link, the point of A sizes is the constant ratio of height to width across all the sizes, and the doubling/halving to get from one standard size to the next one. It's very neat.