One mo' gold for Great Britain!
Champions celebrated as glorious
Olympics end
Text adapted from an article in THE DAY, Monday, 22 August 2016
Early this morning, the curtain fell on the 2016 Rio Olympics. At the closing ceremony in the Maracana stadium, the Olympic flame was extinguished and the official flag of the Games was handed to Tokyo, the host in 2020.
306 gold medals have been won, but thousands
of athletes have left empty-handed. Are the Games inspirational because they
harshly divide winners from losers?
During Brazil’s Olympic fortnight, 19 new world records and 65 Olympic
records were set. Michael Phelps won his 23rd gold medal. Usain Bolt once again
won all three men’s sprinting titles. Young competitors Simone Biles and Katie
Ledecky won four events each.
According to the website Medals per Capita, the USA - which finished top of the official medal table - was 63rd when medals were weighted and divided by each country’s population size. Great Britain was 19th (France 30th). Grenada (population: 106,825) has the distinction of being the most efficient country at the Rio Games as regards the medal tally (number of medals) when compared to the country's population (one silver in the Men's 400m).
According to the website Medals per Capita, the USA - which finished top of the official medal table - was 63rd when medals were weighted and divided by each country’s population size. Great Britain was 19th (France 30th). Grenada (population: 106,825) has the distinction of being the most efficient country at the Rio Games as regards the medal tally (number of medals) when compared to the country's population (one silver in the Men's 400m).
Tim Black, a columnist for Spiked, thinks we should draw wider lessons
from these champions. In the Olympics, he says, ‘there can only be one winner,
not many or plural winners’. This ethos, he argues, is ‘almost entirely at odds
with that writ large in today’s mainstream cultural script, rich as it is in
relativism and low aspiration’. Relativism is the idea that nothing is absolutely right or wrong; all moral questions are relative to the circumstances around them. Relativists are more likely to argue that the winner of a competition is not the worthiest of praise. Black criticises this idea, saying the Olympics should simply be seen as ‘universally human’.
A similarly competitive instinct helps to explain Great Britain’s
stunning Games. British athletes claimed 27 gold medals and second place in the
medal table – behind only the USA. Just 20 years ago, at Atlanta 1996, Britain
won only one gold.
The turnaround has largely been credited to UK Sport, which allocates
funding and prioritises sports in which Britain has previously been
successful. Sports in which athletes had missed their medal targets in 2008 and
2012, such as wrestling, table tennis and volleyball, were stripped of funds.
‘It is a brutal regime, but as crude as it is effective,’ says sports management
lecturer Dr Borja Garcia.
But how meritocratic are the Olympics? Public policy decisions and
countries’ relative wealth had a significant impact on the outcome. Whereas 48%
of medallists came from Europe, only 5% were from Africa. How fair are the Olympic Games, when most of the athletes who have won medals are those who have benefitted from a decent sporting infrastructure, financial support, and moral support from their families and fans? The losers are often talented people who have received little encouragement or reward. For the Olympics to be more fair, surely all sportspeople should have the same quality of training?
Medallists however were not the only competitors to draw praise. When Abbey D’Agostino collided with Nikki Hamblin during the women’s 5,000m heats, Abbey stopped running to help up and encourage Nikki, her rival. Hamblin ran through the pain for the last 2,000m and then declared: "That girl (Abbey) is the Olympic spirit right there".
Medallists however were not the only competitors to draw praise. When Abbey D’Agostino collided with Nikki Hamblin during the women’s 5,000m heats, Abbey stopped running to help up and encourage Nikki, her rival. Hamblin ran through the pain for the last 2,000m and then declared: "That girl (Abbey) is the Olympic spirit right there".
The winners should be our biggest inspiration, say some. They
unashamedly pursue excellence and show what we are all capable of. Those who
never settle for second best break boundaries and achieve things which improve
the human condition. As Black writes, ‘the Olympics world is harsh,
discriminating and judgmental’; that is why Rio was so good.
Winning is not everything, respond others. The true beauty of sport is
its accessibility - anyone can give it a try. Winners’ medals only have value
if they are won against many other people. We can learn more from those who
battle against the odds or put sporting values ahead of personal glory than
from a procession of successful people.
And, what, in the end, is the point of the Olympic Games? Are they merely entertainment, a celebration of the sporting ethos, a means to promote a more peaceful and happier world? Or are they rather more the veneration of medal winners, and a way for powerful countries to symbolize their superiority, promoting aggressive competition among not just athletes in a race for the greatest number of medals but between the countries the athletes represent?
And, what, in the end, is the point of the Olympic Games? Are they merely entertainment, a celebration of the sporting ethos, a means to promote a more peaceful and happier world? Or are they rather more the veneration of medal winners, and a way for powerful countries to symbolize their superiority, promoting aggressive competition among not just athletes in a race for the greatest number of medals but between the countries the athletes represent?
Questions:
- Did you enjoy watching the Rio Olympics?
- In what ways are the Olympic Games inspirational (and have the Games inspired you to do (more) sport)?
- Do you agree that nowadays people's aspirations are low?
- What does Black mean by 'universally human'?
- Do you approve of the 'brutal' meritocratic regime of UK Sports?
- Do you agree the Games are good thanks to the fact that the Olympic world is 'harsh, discriminating and judgmental'?
- In sport, is winning (in order to gain 'personal glory') more important than participating do you think (cf. "The important thing is not to win, but to take part", dixit Pierre de Coubertin)?
- Do you think YOU can become the best you can be?
- Should Olympic athletes no longer represent their countries?
- Is the Olympic spirit dead?
Teacher's answers to the above questions:
1. Did you enjoy watching the
Rio Olympics?
Yes, I did very
much, the athletes are amazing! They get better each time. / No, I find
watching sport very boring. I have better things to do (like sport!).
2. In what ways are the
Olympic Games inspirational (and have the Games inspired you to do (more)
sport)?
They are
inspirational in that they show what a human being is capable of achieving. It
is not just about physical prowess - going faster or being stronger or jumping
higher - but about will-power (determination) and hard physical and mental training.
These Olympic athletes show the rest of us how we can make greater efforts and
push our limits (physical but also mental). The Olympics are also inspirational
in giving you patriotic pride. If an athlete from a small or poor nation wins a
medal it is all the more impressive. Some athletes do not have decent training
facilities or financial help, but nonetheless overcome these constraints to
achieve their dream: to take part in an Olympic event for their country and
their personal achievement. Yes, the Games have made me think about doing a
regular physical activity and taking better care of my health.
3. Do you agree that nowadays
people's aspirations are low?
In general, yes,
aspirations are low, especially in most of the highly developed countries, in
particular among youth. I feel people there are often lazy, bored, cynical, selfish,
and pessimistic about the future. They are either content with what they have
or are scared of losing it (unemployment is the main fear of people). They have
little ambition or hope for a more interesting life. They don’t take risks or
use their imagination. People in poorer countries often have more of a “fighting
spirit”, I feel, because they know what it means to survive from day to day…
4. What does Black mean by “universally
human”?
He means that
societies throughout the world have a “competitive instinct”: people “fight” against
each other (sometimes literally, in civil wars) to access jobs and resources (food,
housing, health care, education). I do not agree entirely with Tim Black, because
there are still societies in which people, despite the lack of resources, know
how to cooperate with each other.
5. Do you approve of the
'brutal' meritocratic regime of UK Sports?
No, I think it’s
silly and short-sighted. Helping those who try hard and who succeed is a good
thing (for the sportspeople concerned and for the morale of the nation, since
Team GB win a lot of medals), but not helping those who (if they received
Government grants) would improve their performance is counter-productive; it
means, in the long run, that the UK will only succeed in competitions in a few chosen
sports (i.e. in those sports that receive Government grants). It is also
scandalous that the UK Government does not encourage sport more for ordinary
people (grants for sporting facilities have actually been cut). A nation
becomes healthy thanks to decent living conditions, which includes the possibility
of practicing a physical activity in high-standard sports facilities. Where
will tomorrow’s athletes come from if young people do not have swimming pools
or sports tracks and gymnasiums to train in?
6. Do you agree the Games are
good thanks to the fact that the Olympic world is 'harsh, discriminating and
judgmental'?
Absolutely not!
Sporting events should be festive and unite people in a spirit of fair play.
The world is violent enough as it is; it is ridiculous to make sport a kind of
substitute “war” between individuals and the countries they represent.
7. In sport, is winning (in
order to gain 'personal glory') more important than participating do you think
(cf. "The important thing is not to win, but to take part", dixit
Pierre de Coubertin)?
Top athletes are
incredible and can be positive role models, but the greatest (like Mo Farrah) do
not strive for “personal glory”, they are just pleased to beat their own
records and make the crowd happy (especially their supporters from their home country).
These athletes never “look down” on other athletes (because they also know what
the disappointment of losing can mean). Coubertin was right because just being able
to take part in an Olympic competition is extraordinary enough in itself! Everybody
at the Olympics - especially in the Paralympics - is a “winner” because they
all have amazing dedication and skill (these are the things we should admire,
not just the fact of beating other people). We are in a world today which gives
too much value to individuals “winning” and not enough to “taking part” to the
best of your ability… Beating other people in an aggressive and self-centred
way (and not just in sporting activities) does not make you a better person;
having fun with others is so much more important!
8. Do you think YOU can become
the best you can be?
An individual can
become the best he can be, but only within a fair meritocratic system (i.e.
which encourages everybody’s best efforts)… There is no point in trying to
overcome your shortcomings (physical and mental) or even doing the things you
are good at if the society in which you live does not recognize, encourage or reward
your efforts…
9. Should Olympic athletes no
longer represent their countries?
It would be a good
idea, because events like the Olympics are also, unfortunately, a means for some
of the wealthy and powerful countries to remind the rest of the world of their supposed
“superiority”. Surely, it is the prowess of individuals that we should admire,
not the jingoism of tedious national anthems and nationalistic flag-waving?
10. Is the Olympic spirit dead?
It is not, probably, among most of the sportspeople. Most athletes are honest and believe in fair play, but they are under a lot of pressure (sometimes from their governments) to succeed at all cost (some cheat by taking performance-enhancing drugs). The media (like in the article by Tim Black) often highlight the competitive “winning at all cost” side of sporting events (hence the medal winners being praised to the skies) and belittle the peace-making aim and the fun aspects of the Olympics; the media risk killing the Olympic spirit…
10. Is the Olympic spirit dead?
It is not, probably, among most of the sportspeople. Most athletes are honest and believe in fair play, but they are under a lot of pressure (sometimes from their governments) to succeed at all cost (some cheat by taking performance-enhancing drugs). The media (like in the article by Tim Black) often highlight the competitive “winning at all cost” side of sporting events (hence the medal winners being praised to the skies) and belittle the peace-making aim and the fun aspects of the Olympics; the media risk killing the Olympic spirit…
17 comments:
The Olympic Spirit will be dead soon, because we can see that the differents countries, mainly UK, are here just to win and not to have fun, they used to practice the meritocratic regime, which is very brutal an not encouraging for athlètes who begin. We know that some people are still in the "good spirit", we have the exemple of Abbey and Nikki who perfered being in the right sport spirit than winning, but we also know mainly atlethes use drugs for win. These littles acts are Killing the old olympic spirit.
"We approve of the "brutal" meritocratic regime of UK Sport because we think it is the best path to excellence. Some countries practice another regime: to encourage and reward everyone for their efforts, even those with the worst performances... According to us, it's a really counterproductive method, because money is wasted in grants for athletes of a very low level; these subsidies should be allocated only to the champions! The athletes who train, again and again for years, are those who should be encouraged because of their awesome performances and because it is they who win medals for being "top dogs". If athletes lose and don't have the results they hoped for, it's because they lacked will-power or training; it means that they didn't work hard enough or seize the opportunities given them... If they want to take part in the Olympics, and win a medal, they will have to work harder and prove their motivation, because History only remembers the winners!"
The Originals, Ste Marie 1ere
We dont agree with what you say in question 9, if athletes no longer represent their countries, would not the olympics be even more meritocratic ? Who would give the money they need to train, and the fact that some countries have far more "winners" shows that they support their athletes well and that in those countries if you are good and have the willing power of becoming the best, you wont be limited by money or a lack of training facilities. The fact that some countries remind the rest of the world that they are the best is true but is it wrong to show the fact that they encouraged people that trained hard to become the best in a sport. And is it not normal to want to show that you are the best, all work deserves to be rewarded or at least recognised. To sum up, we think that it is better for the athletes to represent their countries.
Group : always on top.
What means "inspirational"? Something wich is inspirational gives you the strengh for the future and for new projects.
Some people take competitions like Olympic Games as a way to be the best, but Olympic Games means more .
In what ways are the Olympic Games inspirational (and have the games inspired you to do more sport) ?
On our first hand, Olympic Games is like an example for us because all the athletes realized their dreams. We think that in the life the most important is to achieve our goals. Supporting our team make us feel more patriotic than before. So it make us grow up.
On our other hand, the spirit of competition is too much. The most important is too take part of it and not to win it (of course we are very happy by winning a medal, but happy too by participating). So now, we try to do more sport than before.
So, yes, the Olympic Games gives us of course an inspiration.
Group : The Invicibles.
We disagree with your answer about the 'brutal' meritocratic of UK Sports. We think if you can't win you have to let other try particularly in important competitions like Olympic Games where countries and people invest much money in you.It explains why UK government encourage winning and not participating. Reward efforts and not really the winning is harder than encourage winning mainly if you loose much money. So you train the best and give the best to the best. You say "Where will tomorrow's athletes come from if young people do not have swimming pools or sports tracks and gymnasiums to train in ?" but for UK government it's the opportunity to orientate young people to sports where UK ever win and it's the opportunity for UK to specialize in specific sports to already win. Moreover it's a good thing because it learns to young athletes to take their responsibilities, to become the best they can be and to work hard. Finally win medals and achieve your goal in Olympic Games are very hard and this 'brutal' meritocratic regime prepare you for the judgemental and discriminating Olympic world. UK government can't help everyone so it's logical to reward the one who wins, isn't it?
The FAMAH's crew said:
We don't agree with the fact the media risk killing the Olympic Spirit. Due to the media, they highlight some parts of the Games which we could miss. Certainly, the media (like in the article by Tim Black) often hightlight the competitive 'winning at all cost" side of sporting events but they display the mutual aid between the athletes (as Abbey D'Agostino who has helped Nikki Hamblin when they collided). Moreover, the athletes still stun us by their incredible performance. Without the media, we couldn't know this side of the Games. The Olympic Games are also a moment of gathering between world's nation, a moment which brings us ecstasy. In a way, thanks to the media, we live at the rate of the Games
We cannot agree with you because we think that the Olympic spirit is already dead. Most athletes today just think about winning by taking drugs to improve their strength and stamina. Also, the media show us only the competitive aspects of the Olympic Games. And governments only have one reason to send their athletes to take part in the Games, which is to bring back as many medals for their country as possible; governments just exacerbate the universally human competitive instinct that Tim Black writes about in his article...
The Vacuums
We are disagree with the answer 3, we think people's aspirations are high in most of the case. At first, for example, in poor countries, all Citizen believe in aspiration. For them it's the only one way to leave misery. Nowadays, most of people are courageous and they fight for what they really want and specially the youth who follow this spirit. There are more athlets than in the past, so that mean there are more and more people with a lot of aspiration. Moreover Olympic Games are the biggest sport's event and most of the countries take part and all people are very enthusiastic. So the Olympic spirit is still present and it inspires people to move and to do more sport. At last, people saying that nowadays people are lazy and bored are wrong, these people have to look around them.
The Crew
Question 8: Inès, Élodie, Sarah, Maximilien, Rachel
First, we would change just a bit the question number 8 and replace « you » by « we » because, as a team, we replied all together.
So, unanimously we think we can become the best we can be, even if it can be hard sometimes. We think, nobody but us can choose how far we can go, how much we can give, how much we can do. As you might already heard this slogan before « The only limit is the one you set yourself » (as Red Bull says) Almost everything is in your head and if you want to become the best you can be, you’ll certainly have to train harder, to always want to do better, even if some people think you’re at your best. YOU have to define when you are satisfied and feel when you gave enough.
Each person defines his own meaning of « best », and knows how to reach it, she « just » has to give herself the oppurtunity if she wants to get there.
Anna, Laetitia, Nathan, Gaël et Alice
Massillon 1ere
We disagree with the teacher's answer for the question 10. We believe that the Olympic spirit is already dead. Most of athletes only take part in the Olympic games because it's their work and they need to earn money like everyone. And not only because it's what they want and love. Many athletes do the Olympic Games in order to became famous or for the glory! Their only goal is to win and win and win again, they don't even care about the team Spirit. Even the athletes start to cheat by taking drugs. It show that the fun side of the games didn’t exist anymore...
Nowadays, less and less people pay attention to the Olympic games, they only care about the results and the medals their country won. Also, we noticed that the impact of the Olympic Games isn’t as important as it used to be. Indeed, we thought that this year the games weren’t in the center of attention, people didn’t talk about it that much.
We disagree with question 7 !
Are you kidding? Would you rather win or just take part in a sporting occasion?
If you are competing, you are trying to win? If you feel the same when you're placed last in a competition then why compete in a COMPETITION?
Winning buids confidence
Wining makes you want to keep participationg
Winning encourages everyone(including the winner)to keep training
Winning gives the coach a chance to teach about humility and congratulating the losers anyway.
Winning keeps the game going; there has to be a winner and a loser
Winning gives the audience a chance to applaud
To conclude this points i would like to add that winning tells us you were successful.Participating just means a warm body showed up.
Hope you'll enjoy my comment !
The united Team
We disagree with the answer of the question 9 "Should Olympic athletes no longer represent their countries ?" ! Why ? Because the Olympics games were created to show athletes' skills in many sports who came from different countries and to nominate a winner which represented his country. This principle is still the same today.
Winning medals on behalf of his country is a way of honoring all your compatriots. So the Olympics Games only can strengthen your patriotism. Indeed, when you see someone who represents your country, if you are at least a bit jingoistic, you want to encourage this athlete. This patriotism is demonstrated by the hearings on TV : the athlete is that close to winning the gold medal and of course everybody is watching the event. I really think no one would to that if it wasn't written FRANCE on the athlete's shirt.
The feeling of being the country's hope can help you to do your utmost and not give up.
Moreover, when you represent the country, you can have a moral support and gain a financial backing from the sport federation of the country. You won't have all this kind of stuff when you will be a single-handedly athlete !
The athletes must continue to represent their countries !
Team Stone
Margaux Couturier, Léa Durif and Amélie Courtine.
We do not really agree with you in the question 4! We think that Black is right, it is true that some societies live on principles of equality and sharing but they are minorities. It seems to us that the majority of countries and the peoples live in a selfish way and think that has to earn money and to made war. We think that today many people have a competitive instinct and do not think any more about others people around them.That's the case in USA and in a lot of countries of europe for exemple!
We disagree with your answer about the 'brutal' meritocratic regime of UK Sports. We think if you can't win you have to let others try particularly in important competitions like the Olympic Games where countries and people invest much money in you. Investments are very expensive and they explain why the UK government encourages winning and not just participating. Also rewarding efforts and not just the fact of winning is harder than to encourage only winning mainly if you loose much money. So the government trains the best and gives the most to the best.
You say "Where will tomorrow's athletes come from if young people do not have swimming pools or sports tracks and gymnasiums to train in ?" but for the UK government it's the opportunity to orient young people toward sports which UK ever win and it's the opportunity for UK to specialize in specific sports to win each time. Moreover it's a good thing because it teaches young athletes to take their responsibilities, to become the best they can be and to work hard. Finally, winning medals and achieving your goal in the Olympic Games is very hard and this 'brutal' meritocratic regime prepares you for the judgemental and discriminating Olympic world.
The UK government can't help everyone, so it's logical to reward the one who wins, isn't it?
The Olympic spirit will be dead soon, because we can see that the differents countries, especially UK, are there just to win and not having fun; they used to have a meritocratic regime,wich is very brutal and not encouraging atheles who are beginners.
We know that some people still have the "right attitude", we have the example of Abbey and Nikki who prefered to respect the Olympic spirit rather than winning, but we also know most athlètes use drugs to win.
Little by little, this meritocratic system and dopping are Killing the old Olympic spirit.
Anne Florence Goenvec, Maud Lafoy et Mathilde Bardonnet
We don't agree with the answer of the question 9. We just wondered: what will happen if Olympic athletes no longer represent their country?
The spectators following the Olympic Games think certainly that the athletes of their own country represent of course their country but also the country's population. The athletes symbolize their country's culture, their country's way of life, their country's values. So, athletes represent in an indirect way the spectators who support them.
And if the athletes no longer represent their country, what will they represent?
We concluded that The Olympic Games will probably lose their value because a lot of persons (who are used to see this event)won't watch it anymore: they will feel they won't be represented.
Post a Comment