WWTBAM Bored

One medal a Gold in air rifle and one billion people.

macrae1234 wrote:One medal a Gold in air rifle and one billion people.

Because everyone is terrified that if they do pick on them they will stop providing tech support.

---Jay (The show "The Kumars at No. what" which stars a fictional British Indian family - if you know what number to fill in - you will know the approximate days to my air date)

macrae1234 wrote:One medal a Gold in air rifle and one billion people.

I thought this comment got it right

Wealth and the Olympics

One of Megan McArdle's readers wonders why India, which in population is larger than any other country save China, has so few Olympic medalists. I think the answer is fairly easy: wealth.

It's a situation very parallel to the Italian Renaissance. Then, the issue was the proliferation of so many great artists rather than athletes, but the fundamentals were fairly similar. For a society to be able to give up its strongest and most talented youth to non-productive (meaning they don't contribute to food, clothing, or shelter) occupations like painting or competitive swimming requires a lot of wealth and leisure time. Subsistence farmers can't give up a strong back from the fields, much less pay any kind of specialized training costs. The explosion of artists in the Italian Renaissance was made possible by an explosion of wealth in the great Italian city-states of Florence and Venice and the like. Further, wealth also means better neo-natal care and better childhood nutrition which leads to bigger and stronger adults.

As with Renaissance painters, modern Olympic athletes need either a family that is wealthy enough to give up their labor and support him or her; or, they need a wealthy patron; or, they need support of the government. US Olympic athletes generally have some of all three, though the role of the government is smaller than in other nations thanks to corporate patrons and the relative wealth of the American middle class. China, and before it Russia, were successful because, lacking the first two, they had the government shoulder the entire burden. India has chosen not to go the government route, which is fine. It will have its successes in time, as the exploding middle class will raise kids who have the time and money to pursue excellence in various sports.

Most of those one billion people do not have the leisure time to pursue athletics.

Or anything else.

The Kumar trio in boxing have a chance to add to the totals.

This fits in with the original Olympic 'ideal,' which was that the Olympics would be reserved for the upper crust, and the riff-raff would not be allowed to compete. That is why the Olympics (in the old days) prohibited professional athletes from competing-- almost by definition, a 'professional' athlete would be someone from the lower classes, someone who would engage in athletic competitions for money (as a 'professional') precisely because he was a member of the lower classes and thus could not sit back on the family fortune to support himself. The 'amateur' athletes who satisfied the Olympic ideal, on the other hand, would have to be people who had the money and leisure time to train and compete, which by definition means that they would be from the upper crust.

The US 'team' at the first Olympics (1896) consisted entirely (I'm pretty sure) of college undergraduates, all of them Ivy Leaguers (primarily Princeton and Harvard), all of whom paid their own way to Athens, which at that time would have made them all 'upper crust' types who fit in perfectly with the then-Olympic ideal. As for being 'amateurs,' the guy who won the discus throw in 1896 was a Princetonian who had never even picked up a discus until the week before the event.

That sort of thing still goes on, not just with respect to India (which does not have a high level of government or corporate support for the games, and apparently not enough people of affluence to send real 'amateurs') to the games. If you look at the non-money events (i.e., the ones that do not get a lot of revenue for sponsors and not get a lot of government support), you find that they are largely dominated by the traditional upper crust types-- things like sailing, equestrian events, sculls, etc., are the events in which the competitors are drawn from the elites, including royalty.

Oh, the good old days...

wintergreen48 wrote:As for being 'amateurs,' the guy who won the discus throw in 1896 was a Princetonian who had never even picked up a discus until the week before the event.

Darn! I missed my big chance.

Was this discus thrower bothered by crosswinds, as the guy in that Olympic commercial was?

MarleysGh0st wrote:

wintergreen48 wrote:As for being 'amateurs,' the guy who won the discus throw in 1896 was a Princetonian who had never even picked up a discus until the week before the event.

Darn! I missed my big chance.

Was this discus thrower bothered by crosswinds, as the guy in that Olympic commercial was?

No, but IIRC, the Americans competed so well at the 1896 Olympics because they practiced with non-regulation equipment (higher hurdles, heavier discus', etc).

So when it came time to do the real things, they were ready!

wintergreen48 wrote: Oh, the good old days...

Quiz: What is the ancient Greek word for amateur?

Spoiler

Trick question there was no such word

frogman042 wrote:

macrae1234 wrote:One medal a Gold in air rifle and one billion people.

Because everyone is terrified that if they do pick on them they will stop providing tech support.

---Jay (The show "The Kumars at No. what" which stars a fictional British Indian family - if you know what number to fill in - you will know the approximate days to my air date)

I would be happy if they stopped providing tech support!

Why not hire Americans and pay them a living wage!

I read that Bindra comes from a wealthy family and that his parents built him a shooting range after they caught him shooting targets off of a maid's head when he was younger.

PlacentiaSoccerMom wrote:I read that Bindra comes from a wealthy family and that his parents built him a shooting range after they caught him shooting targets off of a maid's head when he was younger.

So he was the William Tell of India?

I 100% agree with PSM. The offshoring tech people are provided with communication classes, English classes, programming classes and so on. Why not just hire US workers who already know all of this?

My neighbor has to travel to Pittsburgh for his job Mon-Thurs because his real job was outsourced to India. It is so unfair.

PlacentiaSoccerMom wrote:

frogman042 wrote:

macrae1234 wrote:One medal a Gold in air rifle and one billion people.

Because everyone is terrified that if they do pick on them they will stop providing tech support.

---Jay (The show "The Kumars at No. what" which stars a fictional British Indian family - if you know what number to fill in - you will know the approximate days to my air date)

I would be happy if they stopped providing tech support!

Why not hire Americans and pay them a living wage!

It's the American way to find the cheapest possible labor with no regard to the consequences - why do you want to destroy the country by insuring that Americans have the oppertunity to work? Why do you hate America so?

On a final note, has the phrase 'Customer Service' become an oxymoron?

---Jay (If you know the average time you spend waiting for tech support from that turns out to be useless then you will know the number of days until my show airs)

Because no one cares?

When cricket is made an Olympic sport, and until then, not much.

India did dominate in field hockey,or just plain "hockey" from the IOC point of view, given that it antedated the icy game in the Olympics. (which is why international bodies including the IOC, official standings from Winter Games, and the IIHF always say "ice hockey". 9 consecutive gold medals and 11 out of 13 for India or Pakistan until 1984. But, as with the other great team sports, that is one medal opportunity per games, only, and for whatever reason, the rest of the world seems to play better on synthetic turf. Or so it is said.

As far as track and field....

My late FIL born in Bombay might have challenged for pole vault, had there been Olympics in 1940.

India is going for the Olympic Joe Mays Medal

The comments on the olympic ideal and the lack of a middle class where children can be groomed for athletic competition look valid on the surface. However, a major point is being missed.
The Commonwealth Games, while not as prestigious as the Olympics are the only other multi-continental games. In these games India has consistently finished in a strong fifth place behind Australia, England(UK is separated for these games), Canada and New Zealand.
When you include the fact that the 2010 Commonwealth Games are being held in and around Delhi, this would seem to be a situation where the Indian Athletic Federation would have instituted a push to develop more world class atheletes.

macrae1234 wrote: The Commonwealth Games, while not as prestigious as the Olympics are the only other multi-continental games.

So, for the Pan-American Games, North & South America are the same continent?

I don't want to start an argument, I just need to match mac in post count.

Maybe it is a Canadianism but my impression that bi was used for 2 and multi for more than 2.

macrae1234 wrote: The Commonwealth Games, while not as prestigious as the Olympics are the only other multi-continental games. In these games India has consistently finished in a strong fifth place behind Australia, England(UK is separated for these games), Canada and New Zealand.

I noticed that England competes under the rubric of "Great Britain" in the Olympics. I assume that classification also includes Wales and Scotland. But what about Northern Ireland? Are they on the Ireland team? Last I checked, Ireland hasn't earned any medals.

I'm surprised there's not a United Kingdom team. I thought that was the accepted name for the country.

TheConfessor wrote:

macrae1234 wrote: The Commonwealth Games, while not as prestigious as the Olympics are the only other multi-continental games. In these games India has consistently finished in a strong fifth place behind Australia, England(UK is separated for these games), Canada and New Zealand.

I noticed that England competes under the rubric of "Great Britain" in the Olympics. I assume that classification also includes Wales and Scotland. But what about Northern Ireland? Are they on the Ireland team? Last I checked, Ireland hasn't earned any medals.

I'm surprised there's not a United Kingdom team. I thought that was the accepted name for the country.

Great Britain = United Kingdom in the Olympics. Athletes from Northern Ireland are allowed to compete as part of the Great Britain or the Ireland teams in the Olympics. That is part of an agreement between the British Olympic Committee and the Olympic Council of Ireland.

I'm not sure why it is called Great Britain in the Olympics but the name of the UK Olympic committee is the British Olympic Committee. That might be why. And in any case, it is the same team, Great Britain or United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, whichever you call it.