2016 events?

Originally posted by blueboy What sells in volume in the market and what classes should be in the Olympics seem to me two entirely unconnected questions. Olympic classes need to provide spectator value or sailing is out of the Olympics. I'm not ecstatic about that but that's the way it is.

Sales volumes and class selection should be seperated, no dispute, quite agree.

IMO Olympic classes DO NOT NEED to provide "spectator value" to have sailing included or not-included in the games.  This is an old argument, without basis in fact.  Sailing is a traditional event in the Games, it has the same right to be there as archery, fencing, rowiing, cycling, running, javelin etc... If you're saying that some recently introduced events smack of "media first, competitors second" then I'd agree, but binning sailing just because it makes rubbish telly is simply absurd and unless someone has proof of this "threat" from anyone in the IOC, I really wish it would stop being brought up on this forum... it comes around every time someone so much as whispers the O word...


I'm sure having a class selected the sailors want to sail helps with their demeanor and comments (who wants to watch a load of people being miserable?) but I think you'll find event format and course layout much more relevant in "spectator value" terms than the class type.  I don't remember coverage of the China games featuring any miserable looking competitors, apart from the obvious "down-beat after the results look" ...

Chris is quite right that while fast boats may be fantastic, it doesn't mean people want to sail them. I know many people who look at them and say wow, I'd like to try that one day, but most seem to think that it would be too difficult to race them.

I think that sales volume shouldn't really determine what boats are in the olympics, but it is important that as many people as possible can be involved, which is probably a bit of a contradiction. Maybe lasers should be there as an example of a popular and accessible boat, but then to help appeal to the wider audience, a boat that is more exciting to watch should be included, such as a skiff, which is much faster, leaps out of the water and has the potential to crash quite spectacularly. This shows the diversity of sailing and helps to appeal to more people.

Maybe the current set up is right? Tweaks like the "colloseum" style 49er racing could help make it more of a spectator sport too.

If the fast boats are what the youth of today want, why were there so many more at the 420 nationals than at the 29er nationals?

Simple really, Youth Worlds.

Originally posted by blueboy Originally posted by getafix but binning sailing just because it makes rubbish telly is simply absurd and unless someone has proof of this "threat" from anyone in the IOC, I really wish it would stop being brought up on this forum... it comes around every time someone so much as whispers the O word... I'm afraid there are public guidance documents from the IOC to ISAF demanding precisely, amongst other things, that sailing be made more appealing to television and ticket audiences. http://www.sailing.org/tools/documents/OlympicCommissionDraftReportMay2010-%5B8851%5D.pdf EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES.1 In 2002 the IOC noted that, when compared with other summer Olympic sports, sailing had a high number of athletes and events in comparison to its broadcast revenues and spectator appeal. In addition the cost and complexity of the operations of the sailing competition presented challenges for the development of the sport. As a result the IOC reduced the number of sailing events and athletes. ES.2 Since then IOC has introduced a process for systematic review of the Olympic Programme, and has developed a set of 33 criteria to be used to assess the strengths and weaknesses of each sport, and the value that each sport adds to the Olympic Programme. The 4-yearly publication of the IOC review enables IOC delegates, ISAF and sailors, and other sports to compare how well each sport meets the IOC criteria. ES.3 More recently IOC President Jacques Rogge stated that 28 sports is the maximum for the summer Olympics, and that for its process of rejuvenation the IOC has to have a system of elimination and entry. "And in future" he commented, "that is what we are going to do on a regular basis. At times we are removing one sport and adding another one". We have recently seen this with the removal of baseball and softball, and the introduction of golf and rugby. There are many other sports now seeking to become the next new Olympic entrants. CS32-CS40 of the report deals with TV viewing statistics, which are woeful. And so on.

The IOC also wants sailing to be more widespread, which means bringing the sport to more countries.  Will the task of bringing sailing into poorer areas really be made significantly easier by concentrating on skiffs rather than dinghies? In what way?

All else being equal, a skiff with its larger rig is inherently more expensive than a dinghy.  How well does that go down in the poor countries where we must expand the sport?

Have you seen the viewer stats from other sports? Rowing and flat-water kayaking outrate white-water kayaking.  Volleyball outrates beach volleyball.  Road cycling outrates BMX and MTB.  Slow old swimming outrates just about everything.

So the basis of the whole "we need the ratings" argument, which is that "exciting" sports get better ratings, may be groundless.  Slow "boring" sports get better ratings.

The