Now that the dust has settled (and for some, that would be gold dust) from the Summer 2012 Olympics, I suppose it's time for the pundits and wiseguys to come out of the bars with their analysis of what just happened in London.
Seeing that I lie somewhere in between, I guess I get to opine on the good, the bad, and the ugly of the Olympics in general, these particular events, Canada's Olympic programme, and anything else Olympic-related.
And Maurice, we are talking about the Olympic meet, not Olympic meat.
Just off the top, I must confess that I have never participated in any Olympic event. While I may discuss, I have never thrown a discus. I may multi-task, but I would never consider myself a triathlete.
The other “confession” is that I never really watched these games this time; if I watched anything, it was a late-night sports programme at someone else's house. No home television will do it every time.
No men's ice hockey may be another factor.
Overall, I am for the Olympics and all the good will, persistent hype, and colossal legacy they leave behind in the host countries. I can verify that, apart from the massive debt load, many countries have benefited greatly from hosting the Olympics.
In a practical way, it seems a lot of effort, expense, and energy about a little thing—the little thing being the 40 seconds on the mat here, or the under-a-minute splash in the pool there. Years and years of prepping and practicing seem so disproportionate to what what actually happens. That is, years can be wiped out in minutes, if they fail to qualify for the next level.
This is done through something called heats. I suppose if you're hot enough at the right time, you make the heat. Essentially, many world-class athletes are dropped before they even get going. I don't even disagree with it; I just feel sorry for the athletes who have put their lives on hold, only to be bumped off the floor before they get to the big dance.
The good will is the one thing that I appreciate the most. Countries coming together as one “big happy,” putting their differences aside (okay, okay, I remember Los Angeles in 1984), makes me feel that it's a good thing.
The difference between first place and tenth place, say, in cycling or swimming, can literally be seconds, even milliseconds. There's no shame in losing on those terms, if, in fact, that is considered “losing.” It's too bad there is no recognition for all competitors at the Olympic level.
One of the factors when assessing the Olympics are the leftovers—leftovers, as in both the many commodious buildings and the massive debt load. The closest to home for me on the former level is the Winter 2010 Olympics in greater Vancouver. I personally have seen some of the Olympic legacy (ie., sports venues), and know of others. They will be a lasting testimony for all.
I cannot speak to the financial issue in Vancouver, but I am aware of the Olympics of years past all over the world, and the fact that those economies are paying (and will still be paying for years—possibly decades—to come). I also cannot comment on how to get around such a devastating legacy. Scaling down the buildings would be one, but I don't think so.
Downsizing the Olympics themselves would be another option, but that is untenable. They are a rich part of our past, present, and future, and that just would not work. Spacing them out so they show up every, say, six years, so they don't occur as often is another, but neither is that tenable.
Now, if they could just create an event for wordsmiths, I might qualify. Let's see: gold in word play; silver is spelling; and bronze in creativity. I'm in.
No comments:
Post a Comment