trials

I found a couple of observations after watching some of the US Olympic trials.

First, apparently the only summer sports we compete in are track and swimming (and whatever team sports we qualify in, basketball obviously, soccer not so much). Because those are the only ones on TV. I guess I saw some glimpse of the fact that we have gymnasts, who I recall used to be very good (and I guess probably still are). I can recall from the last go around on these in '04 that the only things on TV were: swimming for the first week, track for the second, and basketball spliced in for the later rounds. When they get bored they put some things like rowing, weightlifting or wrestling (the real kind) on. Oh and beach volleyball because men will definitely watch women in tight to practically non-existent bikinis jumping around for an hour in sand. Much like the swimmers, these tend to also be the pool of women who can then capitalize on their Olympic fame with lots of money for nude photos.. I suppose this is an improvement over the original Olympics which were competed in the nude.

Anyway, I also found that it doesn't strike me as a particularly reasonable way to do these things. In basketball for example there are at least two automatic qualifiers: host country and the winner of the previous FIBA tournament from two years ago. Why track for example doesn't accept an automatic bid from the reigning world champion in a particular event seems to demean the competition in some way, because it's no guarantee that the best in the world at some specific athletic event will be there. The 200m guy we had got what amounts to a cramp during the qualifiers and won't be going (at least for the 200). I'm not convinced that's the best way to decide who are the best 3 athletes we have in a given event, but it usually does ok. I think the women's pole vault champ didn't qualify either, as another example. Maybe these are relatively isolated incidents, but considering part of the spirit of the games was the celebration of perfect athleticism it would seem to me that the most renowned athletes should be in attendance.

I suppose this would be a good time to raise the debate by insisting that we also elevate the celebration of mental achievements to a sense of jovial competition where accomplishments are more publicly accepted and broadcast. Unfortunately I think the typical American is likely to get rather bored listening to a scientist or economist who developed a new way to look at the world (a way which nobody had quite considered and expounded upon and which may change the ways that they themselves can conduct their own lives) versus seeing a man race faster than they could ever possibly expect to over a given distance (I mean seriously, <4 minute miles or <10s 100m runs?). Both are worthy achievements in a way as our bodies can be an important expression of self and the perfection of that form, while it lasts, is a thing to be admired in as much as it is a perfection of the self in some way, just as the mind is. One is more widely recognizable and sadly with the increases in specialization taking hold, there are few who can navigate both seas in any small measures without being swept off in one current or the other.