The Winter Olympics will begin next weekend in Sochi. There has been controversy about the huge budget of the games, especially as all construction work will not be finished before the games. I must say I don’t like about Sochi Olympics being Putin’s expensive PR show but there are also other things I don’t like about in the Olympics.
I think the Olympic Gold is an overvalued achievement in many sports. As a Finn, I can give a great example of an all-time-great athlete who has never won an Olympic Gold, let alone any individual Olympic medal. He is Janne Ahonen, one of the greatest ski jumpers of the last two decades. He has eight World Championship medals, including four gold medals, and he has won the Four Hills Tournament for a record of five times. But his best individual results at the Olympics have been three fourth places. Ski jumping is a good example of a sport where there are a handful of guys who can win the competition and even more guys who have potential to make the podium. It is hard for the best athletes like Ahonen to stand out there. Still, with his consistency he has that excellent record from the World Championships. And moreover, his consistency has won him the Four Hills titles, there are jumpers who can beat him in one competition but lack the consistency to do it over four competitions.
And that is something I dislike about the Olympics. In ski sports, the Olympics are like any World Cup event. In ski jumping, I prefer the Ski-Flying World Championships over other major championships; there they have four competition rounds instead of the usual two. I think that is how it should be also at the Olympics. As the games last over two weeks, for sure there would be time to have four-round competitions over two days. To take a comparison from men’s tennis, in Grand Slam events you need to win three sets instead of the usual two, separating the truly best players from others. I think the Olympics should have competition formats that separate the truly best athletes from others.
Another thing I dislike about the Olympics is the size and huge cost of the games. Countries willing to improve their image, like China and Russia, are willing to sink huge amounts of money to host the games at extravagant arenas. That is hard for other countries to repeat, the costs of the Beijing 2008 summer games were €32 billion whereas the London games four years later cost “only” €10.1 billion. And the huge cost of the games made local people vote against the Munich bid for the 2022 winter games and also Stockholm’s ruling party withdrew the bid for those games.
I think downsizing the Olympics would be very important. It would reduce not only the construction costs but also the maintaining costs after the games. Too often the Olympics leave “white elephants”, sports venues without use. That’s why I was upset to read that the IOC president Bach has suggested adding baseball, softball, and squash to the 2020 summer games. That might not be a problem for Tokyo but what about the next host city. I think the games need to be downsized so that more cities are capable of hosting them.
But, after all, the Olympics are all about business. You could see that when the IOC were planning to drop wrestling from the games and replace it with baseball with star athletes. Or when they added golf to the Olympics, despite the fact that the Olympics will be more of an exhibition event for golfers whose aim is in the major championships. The Olympics may try to keep up an anti-commercialism image by not allowing advertising in athletes clothing or at the competition venues. Yet the Olympics have huge sponsorship deals with e.g. Coca-Cola and McDonald’s, and athletes are allowed to appear in adverts as long as they are IOC sponsors’ adverts.
Well, is there anything good at the Olympics then? For most athletes, the Olympics are the big goal in their career and they aim to peak during the games. So we will have high-quality sports for over two weeks. Especially great at the Olympics is ice hockey. The Olympics are the only event where the national teams have the best possible teams.
Showing posts with label commercialism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label commercialism. Show all posts
Tuesday, February 4, 2014
Monday, August 12, 2013
How commercialism is destroying sports – Part 2: Tennis
I wrote in the previous text about how commercialism has changed the racing in Formula One. But it isn't the only sport that has changed because of the commercial interests. The game of tennis has changed over the last decade for commercial reasons.
Tennis originated in the 19th century as lawn tennis played on grass courts. Since then other playing surfaces have been introduced and those different surfaces favour different playing styles. The contrast between playing styles on different surfaces had become biggest in the 90s. French Open champions were struggling to get past even the early rounds on Wimbledon's grass and players like Sampras, Becker, and Edberg never managed to win the French Open on clay to complete the Grand Slam. That's why Andre Agassi's Career Grand Slam is a truly amazing achievement.
Unfortunately the game seen on the fastest surfaces in the 90s didn't please the big crowd. The big crowd found serve-and-volley boring and rather wanted to see long rallies. That's why the two fastest Grand Slam events; Wimbledon on grass and the US Open on hard courts slowed down their surfaces. After that you could hear players saying that the US Open is already faster than Wimbledon. That shows how much Wimbledon was slowed down. Grass is supposed to be the fastest surface but Wimbledon became slower than US Open on slowed-down hard courts. Nowadays Wimbledon is probably again the fastest slam, but not because it would have been speeded up. Instead the US Open has been even slower in the last years.
The other hardcourt slam, the Australian Open, changed their surface for the 2008 tournament because the previous Rebound Ace hardcourt became sticky on hot weather causing injuries. Already Rebound Ace was slower than the US Open's DecoTurf hardcourt, and be it intentional or not, the new Plexicushion hardcourt was even slower. Also, the fast indoor carpet courts were abandoned on the tour after 2008 and replaced with slower indoor hard courts. A real reason or an excuse to slow down the game, but one of the aims was to reduce the risk of injuries.
There is still one surface that hasn't been slowed down, it is clay. If anything, it has rather been speeded up. The French Open plays faster than previously, even though it can be explained by the faster balls introduced in 2011. Then again, balls can be used to homogenize court speeds; not only Wimbledon's grass has been slowed down but also the balls are slow there.
I find it sad that they are homogenizing surfaces. Homogenized surfaces take away variety from the game. I think that has depreciated the Grand Slam as an achievement. It is easier to master different surfaces than it was in the 90s when Agassi reached the Career Grand Slam. And not only Agassi reached the Career Grand Slam on four very different surfaces but he also won the Year-End Championship on indoor carpet. Also, as the homogenization is done mainly by slowing down the fastest surfaces, it has favoured players with great defensive abilities at the expense of players with great offensive abilities. Moreover, I think the slower surfaces make the game more physical. Longer rallies require better stamina and you need to be stronger to hit through the slow courts. Of course, faster surfaces favour big-hitters but you have less time to prepare the shots there. That hurts some big-hitters. Also, fast surfaces enable players with weaker shots to hit winners. I would say the average pace of courts on today's tour is medium-slow; courts are more often slow than fast. Then again, I think the average pace of 90s' courts was too fast. Most hard courts were fast, the 90s US Open was very fast as even the slowed-down mid-00s' US Open was still fast. I think grass and clay should have been left like they were, they are the two most traditional surfaces. But I think hard courts needed some slowing down. The Australian Open on Rebound Ace was fine. It was a slow hard court but not as slow as the current Plexicusion surface. And I think the US Open was fine in the mid-00s when it had been slowed down a bit from the 90s. It was still fast but not too fast as shown by the French Open champion Juan Carlos Ferrero reaching the 2003 final.
But the slower surfaces have brought what the big crowd wanted. More long rallies, less serve-and-volley. And the homogenized surfaces have one effect which the ATP and the WTA must like. As the surfaces play more similarly, it is more likely the same players that make the late rounds in all events. In the 90s it was hard to succeed at both the French Open and Wimbledon, in the recent years it has been much easier as shown by Nadal winning them both in 2008 and 2010 and Federer doing that in 2009. The previous time that had happened was in 1980 by Björn Borg.
But maybe the surfaces might be speeded up again in the near future. The slow surfaces can lead to long matches like the six-hour final between Djokovic and Nadal at the 2012 Australian Open. TV channels probably aren't too happy with matches being so long. By speeding up the courts, points would become shorter and matches would be over in a shorter time.
Tennis originated in the 19th century as lawn tennis played on grass courts. Since then other playing surfaces have been introduced and those different surfaces favour different playing styles. The contrast between playing styles on different surfaces had become biggest in the 90s. French Open champions were struggling to get past even the early rounds on Wimbledon's grass and players like Sampras, Becker, and Edberg never managed to win the French Open on clay to complete the Grand Slam. That's why Andre Agassi's Career Grand Slam is a truly amazing achievement.
Unfortunately the game seen on the fastest surfaces in the 90s didn't please the big crowd. The big crowd found serve-and-volley boring and rather wanted to see long rallies. That's why the two fastest Grand Slam events; Wimbledon on grass and the US Open on hard courts slowed down their surfaces. After that you could hear players saying that the US Open is already faster than Wimbledon. That shows how much Wimbledon was slowed down. Grass is supposed to be the fastest surface but Wimbledon became slower than US Open on slowed-down hard courts. Nowadays Wimbledon is probably again the fastest slam, but not because it would have been speeded up. Instead the US Open has been even slower in the last years.
The other hardcourt slam, the Australian Open, changed their surface for the 2008 tournament because the previous Rebound Ace hardcourt became sticky on hot weather causing injuries. Already Rebound Ace was slower than the US Open's DecoTurf hardcourt, and be it intentional or not, the new Plexicushion hardcourt was even slower. Also, the fast indoor carpet courts were abandoned on the tour after 2008 and replaced with slower indoor hard courts. A real reason or an excuse to slow down the game, but one of the aims was to reduce the risk of injuries.
There is still one surface that hasn't been slowed down, it is clay. If anything, it has rather been speeded up. The French Open plays faster than previously, even though it can be explained by the faster balls introduced in 2011. Then again, balls can be used to homogenize court speeds; not only Wimbledon's grass has been slowed down but also the balls are slow there.
I find it sad that they are homogenizing surfaces. Homogenized surfaces take away variety from the game. I think that has depreciated the Grand Slam as an achievement. It is easier to master different surfaces than it was in the 90s when Agassi reached the Career Grand Slam. And not only Agassi reached the Career Grand Slam on four very different surfaces but he also won the Year-End Championship on indoor carpet. Also, as the homogenization is done mainly by slowing down the fastest surfaces, it has favoured players with great defensive abilities at the expense of players with great offensive abilities. Moreover, I think the slower surfaces make the game more physical. Longer rallies require better stamina and you need to be stronger to hit through the slow courts. Of course, faster surfaces favour big-hitters but you have less time to prepare the shots there. That hurts some big-hitters. Also, fast surfaces enable players with weaker shots to hit winners. I would say the average pace of courts on today's tour is medium-slow; courts are more often slow than fast. Then again, I think the average pace of 90s' courts was too fast. Most hard courts were fast, the 90s US Open was very fast as even the slowed-down mid-00s' US Open was still fast. I think grass and clay should have been left like they were, they are the two most traditional surfaces. But I think hard courts needed some slowing down. The Australian Open on Rebound Ace was fine. It was a slow hard court but not as slow as the current Plexicusion surface. And I think the US Open was fine in the mid-00s when it had been slowed down a bit from the 90s. It was still fast but not too fast as shown by the French Open champion Juan Carlos Ferrero reaching the 2003 final.
But the slower surfaces have brought what the big crowd wanted. More long rallies, less serve-and-volley. And the homogenized surfaces have one effect which the ATP and the WTA must like. As the surfaces play more similarly, it is more likely the same players that make the late rounds in all events. In the 90s it was hard to succeed at both the French Open and Wimbledon, in the recent years it has been much easier as shown by Nadal winning them both in 2008 and 2010 and Federer doing that in 2009. The previous time that had happened was in 1980 by Björn Borg.
But maybe the surfaces might be speeded up again in the near future. The slow surfaces can lead to long matches like the six-hour final between Djokovic and Nadal at the 2012 Australian Open. TV channels probably aren't too happy with matches being so long. By speeding up the courts, points would become shorter and matches would be over in a shorter time.
Monday, August 5, 2013
How commercialism is destroying sports – Part 1: Formula One
The rapidly degrading Pirelli tyres and DRS have somewhat changed the nature of racing in Formula One. DRS has made overtaking easier and rapidly degrading tyres give more overtaking opportunities for the drivers whose tyres are in a better shape. And that was the reason for why DRS and rapidly degrading tyres were introduced. Overtaking had become very difficult in F1. They tried to make overtaking easier with rule changes for 2009, for example aerodynamics were reduced and slick tyres were introduced to help to follow a car ahead. But that didn't increase overtaking very much. That's why something more radical was made for 2011; a driver can open his rear wing when he is enough close to the car ahead. Also, the tyres were made to degrade more rapidly. That was made because some drivers having much fresher tyres would enable more overtaking.
But was that good for F1? We can hear people praising today's F1 as it has much more overtaking than there was some years ago. But we can also hear other people complaining about how F1 isn't anymore proper racing. And that is my opinion, too. Rapidly degrading tyres have brought an endurance aspect to F1. Drivers need to nurse their tyres to avoid additional tyre changes. That wasn't the case some years ago when the tyres didn't degrade as much. Over the last decades, F1 had lost the endurance aspect it had had in its early decades. The relatively short race distance allowed building cars that lasted well for the whole race and drivers didn't need to save the car. The longlife engines and gearboxes introduced in the 00s multiplied the distances driven with them but because of their great reliability, drivers don't have to save the engines unless they are in a position where they can do it without losing their position.
But the rapidly degrading tyres have caused that the drivers need to save tyres and that's why we can hear engineers warning them of driving too fast. I don't think that kind of an endurance aspect belongs to F1. Endurance racing like Le Mans is another thing, even though the improved reliability has reduced much of its endurance aspect, too. Also, the rapidly degrading tyres have affected to racing in F1. It is easier to get overtaking chances if you have fresher tyres than the car ahead. That has increased overtaking. But if the driver ahead is struggling with his tyres and trying to preserve them, he may be reluctant to do all he can to defend his position. And I think defending a position is an important element of racing. That's why it is sad to see drivers being unable to try to defend their positions. Also, overtakes where a driver passes another driver who cannot defend are not so spectacular in my opinion. The greatest overtakes are the ones where a driver battles his way past a well-defending driver.
That is also the reason why I don't like DRS. Too often it leads to easy overtakes where the driver ahead cannot defend. I think DRS works best on circuits like the Hungaroring where it is almost impossible to overtake otherwise. On those circuits, DRS doesn't make overtakes so inevitable. But it is sad to think there is a DRS zone on places like the Kemmel straight at Spa. That was always a great overtaking spot even without DRS. DRS takes away all challenge in overtakes there. If there has to be an overtaking aid in F1, I would prefer the push-to-pass system used in IndyCar. You can get extra horsepower only for a limited number of times and you can use it also to defend.
But why does F1 need those overtaking aids? The purists may be complaining but more overtakes and drama is what the big crowd wants. The big crowd was bored of most races being processions after the first lap and it was hard to win from behind the front row. Now we can see a driver winning a race after a poor qualifying if he can manage his tyres better than others and now races aren't over after the first lap.
And F1 isn't the only sport which has been affected be commercial interests. One of my next texts will be about how commercialism has changed the game of tennis.
But was that good for F1? We can hear people praising today's F1 as it has much more overtaking than there was some years ago. But we can also hear other people complaining about how F1 isn't anymore proper racing. And that is my opinion, too. Rapidly degrading tyres have brought an endurance aspect to F1. Drivers need to nurse their tyres to avoid additional tyre changes. That wasn't the case some years ago when the tyres didn't degrade as much. Over the last decades, F1 had lost the endurance aspect it had had in its early decades. The relatively short race distance allowed building cars that lasted well for the whole race and drivers didn't need to save the car. The longlife engines and gearboxes introduced in the 00s multiplied the distances driven with them but because of their great reliability, drivers don't have to save the engines unless they are in a position where they can do it without losing their position.
But the rapidly degrading tyres have caused that the drivers need to save tyres and that's why we can hear engineers warning them of driving too fast. I don't think that kind of an endurance aspect belongs to F1. Endurance racing like Le Mans is another thing, even though the improved reliability has reduced much of its endurance aspect, too. Also, the rapidly degrading tyres have affected to racing in F1. It is easier to get overtaking chances if you have fresher tyres than the car ahead. That has increased overtaking. But if the driver ahead is struggling with his tyres and trying to preserve them, he may be reluctant to do all he can to defend his position. And I think defending a position is an important element of racing. That's why it is sad to see drivers being unable to try to defend their positions. Also, overtakes where a driver passes another driver who cannot defend are not so spectacular in my opinion. The greatest overtakes are the ones where a driver battles his way past a well-defending driver.
That is also the reason why I don't like DRS. Too often it leads to easy overtakes where the driver ahead cannot defend. I think DRS works best on circuits like the Hungaroring where it is almost impossible to overtake otherwise. On those circuits, DRS doesn't make overtakes so inevitable. But it is sad to think there is a DRS zone on places like the Kemmel straight at Spa. That was always a great overtaking spot even without DRS. DRS takes away all challenge in overtakes there. If there has to be an overtaking aid in F1, I would prefer the push-to-pass system used in IndyCar. You can get extra horsepower only for a limited number of times and you can use it also to defend.
But why does F1 need those overtaking aids? The purists may be complaining but more overtakes and drama is what the big crowd wants. The big crowd was bored of most races being processions after the first lap and it was hard to win from behind the front row. Now we can see a driver winning a race after a poor qualifying if he can manage his tyres better than others and now races aren't over after the first lap.
And F1 isn't the only sport which has been affected be commercial interests. One of my next texts will be about how commercialism has changed the game of tennis.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)