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?
