Will the Chinese Finish First at the Olympics?
We're about half way through the 2012 Olympic Games. The Chinese team keeps winning medals at the Olympics. They may even exceed the total medals won by U.S. athletes. To listen to some of the reports, you'd think this was a big deal. Why should it be?
Does anyone remember how the Soviet Union used to win the most medals? During the Cold War, there was a special kind of competition between the U.S. and the Soviet Union during the Olympics. I remember it was always good to see a U.S. athlete beat "the Russians" back then.
But, of course, many of the Soviet athletes weren't Russian. The Soviet Union was a collection of countries under a Communist totalitarian central government n Moscow, a Russian city. Russia was the largest of the countries that made up the Soviet Union. So many of the Soviet athletes were from other countries like Ukraine, Georgia, Kazakhstan, etc. And when the Soviet Union collapsed and all these countries competed under their own flags, the old "Russian" dominance of the Games ended.
Now we've got China. China consists of a lot of ethnically different groups, under the rule of a Communist totalitarian central government in Beijing. In spite of it's reputation for having embraced "free markets" with the result that this formerly dirt poor country became an economic powerhouse, China remains a country ruled in a totalitarian manner by the Communist party.
In addition, compared to the U.S. with a bit over 300,000 people, the Chinese have over 1 billion people. Plus, now that the country isn't dirt poor, the government has money to support the training and development of lots of athletes.
Their central planning mentality carries over to their government-sponsored athletic programs. For example, "they" decided to develop good divers. So they did. Now they're winning most of the diving medals.
So between their huge size and their central planning mentality, backed up with huge resources to support their athletes, wouldn't you expect their athletes to have some sort of edge?
So what?
Why should anyone make a big deal about this? If a totalitarian government uses the resources of its people to develop athletes so they can "show the world" that they're...well, whatever they're trying to show the world they are, what's it to you?
On the other hand, with all that, wouldn't you kind of expect the Chinese to actually dominate the Olympics? But they're not dominating. Even if the Chinese government-supported atheletes win more medals than the athletes of any other country - say, for example, the U.S. - why should anyone be surprised? It actually surprises me that they aren't winning more medals than they're winning.
You know, I really do enjoy watching the athletes perform. But sometimes when I think about all this political stuff about which country wins so many medals, I wonder whether it's really the right way to view the Olympics. But it's all we've got, I suppose.
Oh, by the way, I doubt that the Chinese will wind up with the most medals anyway. The events they dominate are concentrated in the first week of the Games. They're really not all that competitive in Track and Field, which dominates the second week. At least they're not competitive now. Let's see what happens in four years at the next Summer Olympics.
Does anyone remember how the Soviet Union used to win the most medals? During the Cold War, there was a special kind of competition between the U.S. and the Soviet Union during the Olympics. I remember it was always good to see a U.S. athlete beat "the Russians" back then.
But, of course, many of the Soviet athletes weren't Russian. The Soviet Union was a collection of countries under a Communist totalitarian central government n Moscow, a Russian city. Russia was the largest of the countries that made up the Soviet Union. So many of the Soviet athletes were from other countries like Ukraine, Georgia, Kazakhstan, etc. And when the Soviet Union collapsed and all these countries competed under their own flags, the old "Russian" dominance of the Games ended.
Now we've got China. China consists of a lot of ethnically different groups, under the rule of a Communist totalitarian central government in Beijing. In spite of it's reputation for having embraced "free markets" with the result that this formerly dirt poor country became an economic powerhouse, China remains a country ruled in a totalitarian manner by the Communist party.
In addition, compared to the U.S. with a bit over 300,000 people, the Chinese have over 1 billion people. Plus, now that the country isn't dirt poor, the government has money to support the training and development of lots of athletes.
Their central planning mentality carries over to their government-sponsored athletic programs. For example, "they" decided to develop good divers. So they did. Now they're winning most of the diving medals.
So between their huge size and their central planning mentality, backed up with huge resources to support their athletes, wouldn't you expect their athletes to have some sort of edge?
So what?
Why should anyone make a big deal about this? If a totalitarian government uses the resources of its people to develop athletes so they can "show the world" that they're...well, whatever they're trying to show the world they are, what's it to you?
On the other hand, with all that, wouldn't you kind of expect the Chinese to actually dominate the Olympics? But they're not dominating. Even if the Chinese government-supported atheletes win more medals than the athletes of any other country - say, for example, the U.S. - why should anyone be surprised? It actually surprises me that they aren't winning more medals than they're winning.
You know, I really do enjoy watching the athletes perform. But sometimes when I think about all this political stuff about which country wins so many medals, I wonder whether it's really the right way to view the Olympics. But it's all we've got, I suppose.
Oh, by the way, I doubt that the Chinese will wind up with the most medals anyway. The events they dominate are concentrated in the first week of the Games. They're really not all that competitive in Track and Field, which dominates the second week. At least they're not competitive now. Let's see what happens in four years at the next Summer Olympics.
Comments