Can someone explain to me why, where all the skaters more or less execute the same mandatory moves in more or less the same order interspersed with bad choreography how this is any different than the old compulsories they did away with? Moreover, is there any sane reason to have men's and women's skating seperated at all anymore? All I heard from the commentators was 'you don't see that in men's skating....' So mix it up why don't they?

Outdoor hockey, at least in our more northern climes, is making something of a comeback. The Edmonton Oilers played a game outdoors a few years ago, and college hockey is making something of a regular practice of playing games in the crisp, winter air. The Wolverines and Spartans have played a couple of outdoor games in Lansing, and I seem to recall hearing that the Badgers will playing or have played in Lambeau this year. The best thing about these outdoor games are the crowds that show up for the novelty of a game outdoors. It's not everyday that you can convince 50,000 people to show up for a hockey game.

All hail the snowboarders! The merits of their sport can be debated, sure, but the attitude that most of them seem to bring to the notion of competition is refreshing, to say the least. After two of yesterday's races, one of them the final, the immediate reaction of the top two finishers was a joyous hug, and in both cases the competitors were from different countries. They were having a blast, and what's more fun than that to watch?

Contrast this with the attitude of the American figure skaters, about whom Jayson Stark at espn.com felt compelled to say "it's hardly accurate to refer to figure skaters as teammates."

Snowboarders are routinely described as cultivating an ironic remove from societal norms re competitiveness and the industry that's grown up around our notions of what a competition should look like. It's clear to me that they are indeed competitive, but refuse to conflate competitiveness with joylessness. Good for them.

In the commentary about the Olypmics television ratings, few have suggested that moving the Olypics to an "every two years" event was a mistake. Part of the Olympic mystique came from the fact that it wasn't a routine or annual event. By switching to every two years, the Olympics debased their own currency. The Olympics used to be something you geared up to watch every four years; now they come every two years. Making them more frequently accessible, presumably in the hope of boosting television audiences, has had the opposite effect. It's abolished the very thing that made them special.

Baseball made the same mistake with the World Series. Moving all the games to prime time made for a bigger audience and a smaller event. Everything from the stock exchange to the nation's classrooms slowed down for the Series. Stock trading fell way off and kids smuggled radios into the schools to follow the game, with recesses dominated by discussion of the latest home run or big strike out. Even though it came every year, it was genuine national event. Now it's just another prime time televsion show -- and one that runs too late.

The Olympics are sharing that fate.

There are two kinds of sport, one is where competitors (or teams) strive to beat each other in a pre-determined fashion and officials are there just to enforce rules.

The second sport is where where competitors (or teams) strive to beat each other in a pre-determined fashion and officials are there to judge a winner.

The second kind is always sort of second-tier in America, and often derided as not really a sport (ice skating, diving, half-pipe snow/skateboarding, synchronized swimming, ballroom dancing, gymnastics, etc.). Americans will never feel totally comfortable with being judged on how well one does something, we are a results-oriented society.

Art vs. business.

Or as one comedian says: get 'er done!

Bullfighting

Mountain climbing

...and something else, maybe dueling or lion wrestling or something.

Everything else is a game. And the Olympics are games too. We need to dial back a little bit on the life and death struggle of it all and the sense that anything not evaluated by a target, a tapemeasure or a clock is somehow less valid. If they put darts and billiards in the Olympics would that satisfy the quantitative purists? C'm on get a grip - it's entertainment so be entertained by the typical low score from the Romanian judge.

Ed I agree with your Olympics comment (having Olympics every two years has lessened the appeal), but you confound me with your World Series comment. Being on the East Coast, my problem with the World Series games is that they start too late, not that it's too easy to see them.

By your logic the Super Bowl should start at 10:00 a.m. on a Tuesday. [Actually, this year it probably would've been a good idea. Then the game would have sounded interesting. "Did you hear the Steelers converted a 3rd down and 28?" "Wow, a 75 yard run? Is that a Super Bowl record?!?" People may have thought they'd missed something worth watching.]

I don't see how you can argue that it would've been better for me as a baseball fan (and White Sox fan) to claw the walls of my office while the games were on or to have to take my vacation days to watch the World Series. Or how that would be good for baseball as a sport.

The hockey game at Lambeau Field was last Saturday.

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/news/story?id=2332675

http://www.madison.com/wsj/home/sports/index.php?ntid=72388&ntpid=1

The final race for the SBX was fantastic. I agree with the fact that Americans can't get into subjectively judged sports like the snowboard halfpipe. It's so damn tedious. Maybe if four people went down at once it would be worth watching. But the speed and tension of the SBX makes it exciting and entertaining. King is completely right, though, that the snowboarders bring a refreshing dose of normality to the games. They all seem very genuine. Probably because 10-15 years ago, no one was paying attention to their sport, and they were just doing it as a hobby on the weekends. Oh, and to the person who quoted "Get r done", I don't think you can accurately call Larry the Cable Guy a "comedian". He's more of a philosopher.....