I know a little about equestrian events and can even be excited by
them, but, while I was watching the Olympics this afternoon, I was
totally gripped by the drama unfolding – man and horse welded into one
being, raising the dust as they tore across the course (must be some
sort of cross-country event I thought), leaping ditches, splashing
through rivers (hmmm, must be a kind of steeplechase), then the rest of
the team joined him (a team steeplechase?), then they stop to fire their
rifles (aha, must be the team equestrian biathlon), the other team were
in the distance and didn’t seem to be doing so well. Then the adverts came up. ‘We will return shortly to your Saturday afternoon film, Gunfight at Dodge City’. Oh, I seemed to be watching the only channel that isn’t showing any Olympics.
Never the less, another exciting Olympic day here. But are we satisfied? First
we were moaning and carping because we hadn’t won a medal, then came
the goldrush and somehow we just got used to winning, now there are
beginning to be doubts about whether we should be winning so many. Isn’t that just so British?! On the other hand, I do wonder whether we place a bit too much importance on the gold medal. Or on medals per se. More on that in a moment. First I thought you might like to see the impartial BBC commentary box as Mo Farah took the gold in the 10,000m.
And here’s the commentary box when he gained double gold by winning the 5,000m.
Not the most exciting races I’ve ever seen, but you can tell that the last laps were electric.
But back to medals. Originally, winners were given an olive branch. Not
even a special olive branch - just one from a wild tree that anyone
could go and pick, if they wanted to, out in the countryside. Afrter that, winners came to be given an olive branch and a silver medal, while runners-up got a laurel branch and a bronze. Then, some Olympic hosts started giving cups to the winners. Finally, in the St Louis games, gold, silver and bronze were introduced. So now the object is to win a gold medal. The prowess of athletes is measured in the number of golds they have.
Of
course, some athletes have a better chance of taking medals than
others; Mark Spitz won seven gold medals at the 1972 Olympics – a
phenomenal achievement – but it was a trickier task for John Williams,
another American gold medal winner in those Games, who won one medal for
archery. But what chance did he have to win another medal? Not even a relay event in archery. But that’s a debate for another day. And
then look at the reactions of the British silver medal winners, Mark
Hunter and Zac Purchase, who put so much into their double sculls race
that they had to be carried practically from the boat and could hardly
speak. Of course interviewing them then was bonkers, but that’s another story too.
So
we have come from the day, when the honour was simply taking part in
the Olympics, to today, when not winning a gold is somehow a total
failure.
I don’t think we have too many
medals and certainly not too many golds, but sometimes I wish they would
devote less of the end of day round-up on television to positions on
the medal table and the number of gold medals we have won (actually
Russia has more medals than us; but we are above them purely because of
our golds). Maybe we’ve placed too much emphasis on the trophies and not enough on the winning of them? I
watched excerpts of today’s Mo Farah race on the news followed by the
display of the medals won by each country to date and the shot of the
medals table was longer than the clip of the 5,000m.
And don’t forget that sometimes the result is not purely based on athleticism. There were several falls or off-days or rules infringements that cost competitors a medal. Victoria
Pendleton for example was disqualified from two cycling events that she
had won, whereas she had never made those mistakes in reaching the same
results in training. She could have taken home three gold medals instead of the one single one she won, all on a technical fault. And what about the team ball sports? With
very few exceptions, there were no out and out expected winners; they
all benefited from the odd fortunate score or fortunate miss. So is awarding gold medals to the winning team justified? Who can say? It’s
based on the winning score on the day, regardless of who’s fastest,
fittest or strongest in fact, so we accept the result and the medal
awards.
But isn’t it wonderful when someone wins an exciting event?! And wouldn’t you like to have a gold medal for something? I
think, after this two weeks, that I should get a gold medal for
bouncing in an armchair and screaming (and, yes, it’s hardly believable,
but it’s the closing ceremony tomorrow! And my spies tell me that it’s to be a celebration of great British music. So no Lily Allen then. But they are
trying to get the Spice Girls back; apparently, there is too much
happiness and smiling after the Olympics and they thought Posh Spice
might help make everyone miserable again). Anyway, if you want a gold medal, I’ve just discovered you can buy one for £6 on eBay. Maybe that’s like going into the countryside and cutting a branch of wild olive after all?
No comments:
Post a Comment