From: eset08@castle.ed.ac.uk (J Strobridge)
Newsgroups: alt.peeves
Subject: Re: Oleolimpics
Date: 28 Jul 92 18:45:16 GMT
Organization: Edinburgh University

minch@lotka.stanford.edu (Eric Minch) writes:

>(Undoubtedly the first of many)

>Peeve the First: The merest glimpse of a newspaper will suffice to tell  
>you how much of the world's troubles today are due to people's blind  
>allegiance to nations, languages, regions, and tiny-city-block-size  
>communities. Why then do we tolerate all of this foofaraw over flags  
>and which country has how many olympic golds, silvers, and bronzes?

>Mind you, I love the idea of getting all these folks together from all  
>over the world for peaceful athletic competition. Stirring and all  
>that. But let's let the athletes compete, and let them take credit for  
>their accomplishments, without trying to puff ourselves up simply  
>because they come from the same political unit as us. I've said it  
>before and I'll say it again: borrowed glory is only for losers too  
>gormless or feckless to accomplish anything themselves. 



Must say I more or less agree with this - I LIKE the idea that the
Olympiad creates a neutral area where all people and nations set aside
political differences and compete on purely atheletic terms.   Let each
athelete compete as an individual - forget about country, race and creed
- it might even restore a sense of fair competitive spirit since those
countries that are prepared to condone chemically-enhanced performance
might be a bit less generous with their money if they got no national or
political advantage from it.



>Peeve the Second: What is it with the hair-splitting of competitive  
>classes? We want to know who the best boxers are, or the best runners,  
>or the best (I dunno) solo synchronized swimmers. We *don't* need the  
>matches all finely chopped up into forty-seven different classes of  
>weight, height, sex, hair color, and so forth. Women want to compete on  
>an equal footing? Fine, let 'em. Get rid of so-called "women's events"  
>and let all the runners or gymnasts compete together. More power and  
>glory then to those who make the grade.


Hmmm  -  less sure about this one.    It's hardly 'fair' competition if
the odds are always weighted or biased in one particular direction and
in contests of sheer power and physical prowess the men competitors will
generally win out over the women.    However, if intellect and tactics
were also involved......  8-)))

>We've got weight classes down to the bantam-, feather-, and fly-weight  
>level. Hell, my little nephew is pretty good. Why can't he go for the  
>gold in an under-70-lb class? How about my local elementary school in  
>hockey? It's so unfair (sniff) that they can't compete. I'm just trying  
>to point out how absurd this trend is: in the limit, everybody stays  
>home and gets a trophy in the mail. My answer: ONE 400-meter event, ONE  
>boxing event, ONE set of weightlifting events, and so forth. Otherwise  
>in a few years we'll find ourselves watching the quarterfinals in  
>bedwetters-with-hangnails-and-alcoholic-mothers basketball.


I would suggest that some divisions are necessary if only so that power
doesn't always win out over ability



jill
Newsgroups: alt.peeves