Olympic Games should {not} be held evey 2 years.

Change the Olymipcs?!

Total Votes:

[ 0 ]

This poll closed on July 13, 2004.
No longer accepting new votes.

[Kara * Zone]

Here is something I thought was not realy talked about. Most people love the Olymic Games. They have been going on for centuries, and have brought coutries togeather.

So here is the Question

Should Olympic Games be held evey two years or stay the same at four?

Feel free to chat.

[Azaroq]

stay at four, since its consistancy is not only out of consideration for audience's enjoyment. Athletes need to train, hosting cities need to set up, and the costs would be enormous to have the Games more frequently.

[Koji_Law]

It's not the length of time between the games that concerns me, but the length of the games themselves.
It's like they're over as soon as they start. I think they should space events out and let more teams qualify so that we can see more competitors.

[Maemae]

The Olimpics is held every two years. The summer games are this year, and in 2006 there will be the winter games.

[S. Shark]

Two years does not sound like enough for the athletes to train in. neutral I'm not really for it. We hold them every four years, that's enough. It's confusing enough to plan them as it is...

[Koji_Law]

Maemae

The Olimpics is held every two years. The summer games are this year, and in 2006 there will be the winter games.

The summer and winter olympics are two entirely different events. Each of them is four years apart.

[The Great Lina Inverse]

Koji_Law

It's not the length of time between the games that concerns me, but the length of the games themselves.
It's like they're over as soon as they start. I think they should space events out and let more teams qualify so that we can se more competitors.

I second that!

Maemae

The Olimpics is held every two years. The summer games are this year, and in 2006 there will be the winter games.

Soo...then techincally there IS 4 years between the Olympics....each season. So if there are atheletes that are only in the winter Olympics, they have plenty of time to train.

I say its up to the athletes to decide how hard they train. Two years isn't that long, but its not that short either.

[oZabethy]

I think the games should stay as they are seeing as this has lasted this long, and true it brings people together.. but if we were constantly together I think it would eventually loose its significance. Then you have to add the scouting and training time you have in between these years.. I suppose thats just what I think though ^_^

[Consp!racy Theory]

If you think of it from a competitors point of view, 4 years is better. Then you have enough time to rest up and come back at your best, or if you didn't make it in the first place you have enough time to train at your best, and hope to make it then. Plus the Olympics cost way too much to hold the summer and winter ones once every 2 years each eek

[Kara * Zone]

Personally I feel that they should remain how they are. These games have been played for cenueries and shouldnot be tampered with because of impations.

[DebbieCake]

Hsien

stay at four, since its consistancy is not only out of consideration for audience's enjoyment. Athletes need to train, hosting cities need to set up, and the costs would be enormous to have the Games more frequently.

Took the words right outta my mouth!!! 3nodding

[siryn]

I believe the reason why the winter and summer Olympics were split up was so that the hosting cities would better be able to accommodate the games themselves.

Think about it this way: any city that holds the Olympics must build sites for the individual games to take place. This means that the buildings for skating events/ gymnastic events/ swimming events/ and who knows what else all must be built safely and securely within four years. Also, hotel and other living accommodations for the atheletes and visiting guests must be built. Accommodations for food, security and removal of personal waste must be supplied.

This is a lot of work and space that many cities cannot supply.

Now, if a place is to host both Winter and Summer games, then the place must be geographically viable to hold skiing events. I don't know how easy or practical it is for any location remotely near the equator to be able to host the Olympics in order for this to happen. Thus, this discriminates against a lot of countries from ever being able to host.

So, while I was extremely disappointed that the Olympics were split up, when I understood some of the basic reasons for the change, I realized that I could live with the decision. I don't necessarily like it, nor do I feel the Olympics are as special any more ... but I do believe that there were good reasons for the split.

[ioevrh68394f5634]

i think 3 years is the berst becuz for the olypic sports fans, 4 years is much too long....and atheletes have enough training time in three years...also depending on how hard and agressive they train themselves...2 years may be a bit short...but hree years is not that short and fours years is a bit long in my opinion 3nodding

[WraithGod]

4 years - athletes need a lot of time to train and prepare, and countries need lots of time to select which athletes they wish to send. Besides, absence makes the heart grow fonder...

[crystal_raye]

Maemae

The Olimpics is held every two years. The summer games are this year, and in 2006 there will be the winter games.

Your right. The summer and winter Olympics happen ever four years but they don't happen in the same year. 2004 is the summer Olympics, 2006 is the winter, and 2008 will be summer, 2010 is the winter, and so on.