Michael Phelps is the most dominant swimmer ever. Canada is having the worst Olympics ever. The opening ceremonies were the most fake ever. Etc, etc, etc.
Seems like these, the 2008 Summer Olympics, are the most (blank) Olympics ever.
No mattr where one looks, seeing or eharing about how dominant the Men’s swimming team is cannot be overlooked. And while they are doing exceptionally well, one wonders if the media – especially the US media – has gone more then a little overboard in their touting of Micael Phelps as the greatest ever.
Really, he is? Better then Jim Thorpe? How about Babe Dickerson? Are you telling me that because he has shattered records while wearing a swimsuit that dramatically cuts friction, because he has training regime that was unthinkable 20 years ago, because he has better dietary habits then any Olympic athlete before him…
Are you honestly saying with a straight face that he is the best ever?
True, he is shattering records. And yes, he has gone undefeated thus far in the Olympics. His team had a dramatic come-from-behind win over France a few nights ago.
But is it really fair to say he’s better then Jesse Owens? He succeeded in harsher times, with less training, less-advanceed equipement and under more pressure - the middle of Nazi Germany in 1936. A country where he couldn’t sit on a bus wherever he wanted? Where he was called an ape by the national press?
Did you really think that the US was under any kind of pressure when they beat the French a couple days ago? That’s not pressure. Jesse Owens winning in Nazi Germany was pressure. Mark Spitz competing in Munich after Israeli athletes were abducted and killed was pressure. If only they just had some trash talk directed at them.
A less pressing topic, Canada’s fruitless Olympics. No medals yet, behind countries such as China, the United States and the Netherlands. This could go down as Canada’s worst summer Olympics ever, one supposes.
But it’s not a huge deal. For a country of our size and population, competing with China or the US is entirely the wrong idea. They have more money, more people – more talent, if only by sheer numbers.
Besides. Canada has never been much of a summer games country. Only once has Canada won more then 20 medals (the 1984 Olympics don’t really count because of the Soviet boycott which resulted in over 400 people representing the country, a number that is rarely approached since then).
No, Canada should be comparing itself to countries like Morocco or Kenya, countries with similar populations. To Belgum or Austria, which have similar GDP. To Finland or the Netherlands, which have similar total medal counts. They should be the competition, if Canada really needs one.
A more superficial matter, the opening ceremonies and the seats. Two girls, one ceremony, as it were. Does it matter that one girl lipsynced and the other sang? Or that the firework display was a CGI production? Only about as much as the other falsehoods in China, and perhaps less.
The internet sites are blocked by the Chinese government are blocked because they make China look bad. Rules recently put into effect – no spitting, keep it quiet, etc – are to keep China from looking bad.
Basically, China is an insecure country with an image problem. All these creations from the opening ceremony, as well as the problem with nobody getting to the games, stem from this. China doesn’t ever want to look bad, espically not to it’s own people and espically when the whole world is watching.
But does it ultimately matter? One would assume that no, it does not. It means nothing at the end of the day. What does matter are actions of consequence – if their athletes are clean, of legal age and the like. That matters – it cheats people out of a medal.
You could say it’s the most pressing Olympic issue ever.
Showing posts with label olympics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label olympics. Show all posts
Thursday, August 14, 2008
Monday, August 04, 2008
Canada needs to change Olympic priorities
Gearing up for the Olympic there seems to be a number of suprises: no smog, the USA basketball team hasn’t been upset (or even challenged) yet and there’s a slim, slim chance that Canada may win a medal of some kind.
In most countries, that would be seen as a disappointment; most would rather try and rake in the medals, to win as many as they could. But this is Canada, where the 2002 Olympics are fondly looked back upon, even with 17 total medals.
But this year, it looks like the current trend will continue: Canada has been winning less and less medals in the summer games since a high of 22 in the 1996 Atlanta games: in the last summer games, Canada won just 12 medals.
So this could be why Canada has all but thrown in the towel in some events. Only one boxer has made the cut, Adam Trupish. The women’s archery team only received a quota spot because the Netherlands pulled out. The women’s soccer team, perhaps the best Canadian team in the Olympics, is only ranked ninth in the world.
And those are the teams that qualified for the Olympics: the basketball team, for one, didn’t.
So perhaps the Canadian Olympic Committee should revamp their look at the Olympics. Maybe they should not worry about the summer games and instead focus on our specialty: the winter games. After all, the next winter games will be held here, in Vancouver, and the whole world will be watching, as it were.
It’s a point that has been increasingly raised lately, most vocally by Prime Time Sports. And it’s a point that makes more and more sense the more I think about it.
Up here it’s winter from November until April – if not longer. The national sport is hockey, a game best played on ice. We know cold, it’s in our collective wheelhouse. So why focus on it?
Add to that our population, about 33 million. That’s the same as that other Olympic powerhouse…
Nobody.
Canada’s population is about that of Morocco, Algeria and maybe Kenya. None of those countries are powerhouses: Algeria has won five medals this decade, Kenya four and Morocco eight. Compared, fair or not, Canada does well above the norm.
But there’s something to be learned from them: they don’t overextend themselves. Morocco hasn’t participated in a winter Olympics since 1992. They harbour no attempt to compete with powerhouse countries like China, Russia or the United States.
Those countries, with many more people and considerably more resources, always contend for medals and almost always deliver, as they should.
But Canada cannot. We don’t have the same money to pour into our Olympic programs and don’t have the same amount of raw talent to compete with. As a result, we overextend ourselves and as a result, disappoint.
Look up the last two Olympic games held by Canada. Look at the medal count: underwhelming, isn’t it? Look at the last time a Canadian team won a gold medal in the summer games. Sad, isn’t it?
Look at how much better Canada already is in the winter.
That’s why Canada needs to re-evaluate it’s Olympic programs and focus on what we do best – the winter sports. Because at the current rate, we’re already better at the winter games. Because the next games are in Canada.
Because it’s about time Canada started to contend.
In most countries, that would be seen as a disappointment; most would rather try and rake in the medals, to win as many as they could. But this is Canada, where the 2002 Olympics are fondly looked back upon, even with 17 total medals.
But this year, it looks like the current trend will continue: Canada has been winning less and less medals in the summer games since a high of 22 in the 1996 Atlanta games: in the last summer games, Canada won just 12 medals.
So this could be why Canada has all but thrown in the towel in some events. Only one boxer has made the cut, Adam Trupish. The women’s archery team only received a quota spot because the Netherlands pulled out. The women’s soccer team, perhaps the best Canadian team in the Olympics, is only ranked ninth in the world.
And those are the teams that qualified for the Olympics: the basketball team, for one, didn’t.
So perhaps the Canadian Olympic Committee should revamp their look at the Olympics. Maybe they should not worry about the summer games and instead focus on our specialty: the winter games. After all, the next winter games will be held here, in Vancouver, and the whole world will be watching, as it were.
It’s a point that has been increasingly raised lately, most vocally by Prime Time Sports. And it’s a point that makes more and more sense the more I think about it.
Up here it’s winter from November until April – if not longer. The national sport is hockey, a game best played on ice. We know cold, it’s in our collective wheelhouse. So why focus on it?
Add to that our population, about 33 million. That’s the same as that other Olympic powerhouse…
Nobody.
Canada’s population is about that of Morocco, Algeria and maybe Kenya. None of those countries are powerhouses: Algeria has won five medals this decade, Kenya four and Morocco eight. Compared, fair or not, Canada does well above the norm.
But there’s something to be learned from them: they don’t overextend themselves. Morocco hasn’t participated in a winter Olympics since 1992. They harbour no attempt to compete with powerhouse countries like China, Russia or the United States.
Those countries, with many more people and considerably more resources, always contend for medals and almost always deliver, as they should.
But Canada cannot. We don’t have the same money to pour into our Olympic programs and don’t have the same amount of raw talent to compete with. As a result, we overextend ourselves and as a result, disappoint.
Look up the last two Olympic games held by Canada. Look at the medal count: underwhelming, isn’t it? Look at the last time a Canadian team won a gold medal in the summer games. Sad, isn’t it?
Look at how much better Canada already is in the winter.
That’s why Canada needs to re-evaluate it’s Olympic programs and focus on what we do best – the winter sports. Because at the current rate, we’re already better at the winter games. Because the next games are in Canada.
Because it’s about time Canada started to contend.
Saturday, May 17, 2008
On the cusp of a better world for sports
We’re sitting on the cusp of something very big here.
No, not Hidiki Matsui’s porn collection. I’m talking about a new, more equal frontier of athletics.
Yesterday, The Court of Arbitration for Sport ruled that amputee sprinter Oscar Pistorius can race in the Olympics, overturning an earlier ruling that said his prosthetic legs gave him an unfair advantage.
This latest, and perhaps one most important, development shows a trend that sports is fast becoming more and more equal, just as society is.
We now live in an age where gay marriage is legal in California; where both a black man and a woman have a shot at being elected as President; where everybody has a chance to compete.
A little over a month ago, Danica Patrick won her first race, the Indy Japan 300, marking the first time that race has been won by a woman – and meaning that Patrick means business.
No longer a curiosity or an also-ran, Patrick is even being considered a favorite now for the Indy 500. Patrick, the driver whose small frame was considered an unfair advantage, could win one of the most famous races in the world.
Funny thing, those unfair advantages. Where else in the world would your gender, or the amount of leg you have, be considered not just unfair, but also an advantage.
When Patrick first started to race, some suggested that she race with weighed plates – making her car heavier then anybody else’s – to make the races fairer. After her win, one newspaper asked “is it time to start taking her seriously as a driver?”
Never mind that she had been racing in the IRL since 2005 and was named rookie of the year, right? She was just a curiosity on four wheels.
It’s not a lot different for Pistorius, either. Like Patrick, it’s easy to see him as a novelty, the racer who runs on fiberglass blades. But there’s something else, too. Like Patrick, he also has an overlooked advantage.
Determination. Patrick did not give up racing, even though she did not win a race in her first two seasons. She refused to let herself be put in the same class as other curiosities as Manon Rheaume or Amy Williams.
Pistorius did not give up when the Internation Association of Athletics Federations ruled he could not race. He fought that decision, right up to the highest court in sport, where he won his appeal.
It’s hard to see many of today’s more successful athletes to have the same kind of determination. If a basketball player doesn’t like his college coach, he can transfer to another school. If a hockey player doesn’t like his team, he can force a trade.
If they feel they’ve been slighted, they can just complain about it to the media or on their blog.
Instead, both Patrick and Pistorius both hung in and each ended up winning the respect they should have had all along.
And sport is better for it.
No, not Hidiki Matsui’s porn collection. I’m talking about a new, more equal frontier of athletics.
Yesterday, The Court of Arbitration for Sport ruled that amputee sprinter Oscar Pistorius can race in the Olympics, overturning an earlier ruling that said his prosthetic legs gave him an unfair advantage.
This latest, and perhaps one most important, development shows a trend that sports is fast becoming more and more equal, just as society is.
We now live in an age where gay marriage is legal in California; where both a black man and a woman have a shot at being elected as President; where everybody has a chance to compete.
A little over a month ago, Danica Patrick won her first race, the Indy Japan 300, marking the first time that race has been won by a woman – and meaning that Patrick means business.
No longer a curiosity or an also-ran, Patrick is even being considered a favorite now for the Indy 500. Patrick, the driver whose small frame was considered an unfair advantage, could win one of the most famous races in the world.
Funny thing, those unfair advantages. Where else in the world would your gender, or the amount of leg you have, be considered not just unfair, but also an advantage.
When Patrick first started to race, some suggested that she race with weighed plates – making her car heavier then anybody else’s – to make the races fairer. After her win, one newspaper asked “is it time to start taking her seriously as a driver?”
Never mind that she had been racing in the IRL since 2005 and was named rookie of the year, right? She was just a curiosity on four wheels.
It’s not a lot different for Pistorius, either. Like Patrick, it’s easy to see him as a novelty, the racer who runs on fiberglass blades. But there’s something else, too. Like Patrick, he also has an overlooked advantage.
Determination. Patrick did not give up racing, even though she did not win a race in her first two seasons. She refused to let herself be put in the same class as other curiosities as Manon Rheaume or Amy Williams.
Pistorius did not give up when the Internation Association of Athletics Federations ruled he could not race. He fought that decision, right up to the highest court in sport, where he won his appeal.
It’s hard to see many of today’s more successful athletes to have the same kind of determination. If a basketball player doesn’t like his college coach, he can transfer to another school. If a hockey player doesn’t like his team, he can force a trade.
If they feel they’ve been slighted, they can just complain about it to the media or on their blog.
Instead, both Patrick and Pistorius both hung in and each ended up winning the respect they should have had all along.
And sport is better for it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)