Actually, the question would be more "what is judged by a competition ?". Levelling the playing field is not only a reason for pleasing the crowds (which happens sometimes) but also a way to assert what the competition is for. A car racing organization can decide that to judge the pilot skills is more important than judging the technology level, and therefore setup rules for that. On the other hand, we could see in the foreseeable future another competition judging only the technology and letting a standard I.A. do the driving (Google car racing team ?). But spectators would maybe not enjoy much such competitions because they have to relate to competitors. Same thing : at the Olympics, it is generally considered that the important part is the human effort, not the technological one, so they set up standards to judge only this human part. This is not a marketing strategy, but a philosophical choice. And this is interesting because this can be debated as the lines between the technology and the human will become blurred (remember the polemic when it was discussed if the blades of Oscar Pistorius were or not giving him an advantage ?). But my view on that is we need to keep a strong 'human only' part of sports, even those where tech can play a role. I don't mind that there is a whole range of competitions with the whole spectrum of human / tech association in any proportion, but I would not be very interested long if the human part was very minor.

For the same reason Tour de France riders ride standardized bikes. You can actually buy faster bikes than the ones used in the Tour de France (it's difficult to also get the necessary legs though).

Similar to sailing in the olympics: Everyone has the same model boat.

Not like the America's cup boat race where you need a huge R&D budget to design a boat. Then someone shows up with a catamaran with a wing sail and they have to regiger the rules again.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sailing_at_the_2012_Summer_Oly...

Can you explain more about the America's Cup? The linked article didn't really help me understand what the catamaran-with-wing-sail did...

The Americas cup had rules about boat configuration. So technology started driving the race. There was in the 1980s the australians showed up with a secret weapon the "winged keel" on the boat "Australia II". It helped a lot and raised the game for yachting.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winged_keel

1988 rolls around, and a New Zeland team is trying for the cup. Giant boat. US shows up in a catamaran. Catamarans are just faster.. The boats don't even seem like they should race. http://www.yachtphoto.com/data/photos/176_1r1988_02.jpg

Lawsuits about the boat rules after the race was over. The rules didn't say anything about having 2 hulls.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1988_America%27s_Cup

http://archive.sailingscuttlebutt.com/news/08/0212a/

Now americas cup is all about catamarans that seems to have. http://www.techweekeurope.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/A...

Your comment was very interesting, thank you. Allow me to vent my spleen on a different topic for a sec.

> Now americas cup is all about catamarans that seems to have. http://www.techweekeurope.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/A...

God it pisses me off that Oracle has enough money to blow sponsoring shit like this while simultaneously working to destroy the software development industry. "We've got enough money to buy useful technologies and run them into the ground, and to run lawsuits that are incredibly harmful to the software industry for decades, and enough left over on the side to race expensive boats for fun." Fuck you, Oracle.

Thanks!

> I would appreciate a game with rules set up so people would be free to develop better strategies and better tech in order to dominate.

There are games like that. But they don't tend to have as many spectators or business support - and they don't tend to be as much fun - because they're not optimized for those things.

Arthur Chu [0] is a great example of where winning and fan enjoyment can come into conflict.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Chu

>As a player, your goal is to win the game, period. //

When I take part in sports or play games my object is to enjoy the game and if it's competitive to make a good account of myself. I used to play football (we were runners up in our University cup competition, so not terribly shoddy) and later played competitive volleyball - one can do well and not win, one can win and play poorly.

Just as not all companies are solely built on a motive of profit above all else so too not all competitive players play solely to beat their competition, some wish to enjoy the game and better themselves more than they care to be labelled "winner".

> As a player, your goal is to win the game, period. But for everyone else, including spectators and the whole support industry that is built around the game, it doesn't matter who wins. It matters only that the crowd is entertained. A player being too good makes the game boring, and so it is discouraged.

I think this misses the point that in many games, for many players, they simultaneously have the role you describe as "player" and "spectator"; while they want to win the game, they want the game to be entertaining and not boring, as well.

Actually curious: is the goal of the F-1 rule changes to level the playing field? I'd heard it was to keep automakers on their toes, guiding the competition towards things that the general public wants, too, like gas efficiency. If I remember correctly, one of the more recent years saw a huge tank capacity reduction, ostensibly to force automakers to create powerful engines while maintaining some semblance of efficiency.

There are many, many objectives for which the F1 rules need to account. Competitive balance is one of them. Providing interesting and relevant technical challenges for automakers and teams is another (and was a major driver behind the recent switch to hybrid engines). In addition to those, you have safety, spectacle, cost-containment, logistical considerations, and about a thousand other goals that need to be incorporated. The FIA takes incredible flak for whatever they do because there are myriad tradeoffs between these objectives, and it's impossible to balance them all in a way that makes everyone happy.

Modern day sport is more business than anything. Competition/show business is a weird thing - you need to have rules and you hope you don't get someone so good that the match becomes boring (there are exceptions though - Rhonda's fights last a few seconds to few mins at max). Money makes things weird. That is probably why some incredible athletes don't compete - Laird Hamilton for example.

You're referring to capitalism, the game where rich parents raise their entrepeneurial offspring.

You got me here. At the time of writing of my original comment it didn't occur to me that capitalism is an example of a game thst doesn't set the rules to level the playing field. I guess I was thinking about games with well-defined victory conditions and relatively short play time.