I had always assumed, from their builds and demeanor and sudden improvements, that most of Usain Bolt's competitors were juicing. But I had held out hope -- based on his build and demeanor and abnormal talent from a young age -- that Bolt himself was clean.
But then Guy Davis forwarded this article from Muscle Week, which makes the case for Usain Bolt being a doper. If Bolt in fact did hire Heredia -- which some of the commenters dispute -- that's pretty damning evidence.
Guess I should dial down my enthusiasm for Bolt a notch.
Wednesday, August 15, 2012
Tuesday, August 14, 2012
Pinheaded excuse
The USA ended up beating China in the total medal count at the Olympics, 104 - 88, and beat them in gold medals as well.
Yahoo News ran an article this morning with the headline, "China's response to 2012 Olympics: American physique tough to beat."
My first reaction to seeing this headline was, aha, finally, someone is injecting a note of realism when it comes to racial differences in athletic ability. Since the 1984 Olympics, there have been 64 finalists in the men's 100 meter dash; every last one of them has been black. One would have to be willfully blind not to see the obvious genetic correlation there. On top of that, both blacks and whites are generally larger and stronger than Asians, so that's a disadvantage as well.
My only surprise was that this admission was coming from a nominally communist country. In the past, communist countries have been the most aggressive about insisting on all forms of egalitarianism.
Then I read the text of the article. Evidently the China People's Daily had analyzed the matter and come to the conclusion that Americans "had bigger chests and heads."
I can't think of a single sport where having a large head is an advantage. There are some sports where tactics count, but the correlation between brain size and IQ is only .3 to begin with, and most of the tactics employed in Olympic sports aren't all that complicated anyway.
And I can think of many sports where the weight of a large head is a disadvantage.
A larger chest often goes hand in hand with a generally stockier, stronger build. And to the extent that a larger chest harbors more lung capacity, that can help in some events. But a larger head?
The only Chinese who need larger heads are the lamebrains who came up with that excuse.
Yahoo News ran an article this morning with the headline, "China's response to 2012 Olympics: American physique tough to beat."
My first reaction to seeing this headline was, aha, finally, someone is injecting a note of realism when it comes to racial differences in athletic ability. Since the 1984 Olympics, there have been 64 finalists in the men's 100 meter dash; every last one of them has been black. One would have to be willfully blind not to see the obvious genetic correlation there. On top of that, both blacks and whites are generally larger and stronger than Asians, so that's a disadvantage as well.
My only surprise was that this admission was coming from a nominally communist country. In the past, communist countries have been the most aggressive about insisting on all forms of egalitarianism.
Then I read the text of the article. Evidently the China People's Daily had analyzed the matter and come to the conclusion that Americans "had bigger chests and heads."
I can't think of a single sport where having a large head is an advantage. There are some sports where tactics count, but the correlation between brain size and IQ is only .3 to begin with, and most of the tactics employed in Olympic sports aren't all that complicated anyway.
And I can think of many sports where the weight of a large head is a disadvantage.
A larger chest often goes hand in hand with a generally stockier, stronger build. And to the extent that a larger chest harbors more lung capacity, that can help in some events. But a larger head?
The only Chinese who need larger heads are the lamebrains who came up with that excuse.
More evidence for the sweet spot
I'd been wondering what happened to Genzebe Dibaba, the Ethiopian pre-Olympic favorite in the 1500 meter run and the younger sister of Tirunesh Dibaba, who won the 10,000 meter run in London. Turns out she pulled her hamstring in the opening round of the 1500.
Looking at her picture reminded me of what I'd said earlier about how from an attractiveness point of view, it's far better to run middle distance than distance races. With two sisters, we actually have a somewhat controlled experiment. Here's Tirunesh, the 10K champ:
She has that somewhat emaciated, mummified look that long distance runners can get.
Here's Genzebe, the younger sister. She doesn't have Olympic gold; but she does still have her cuteness:
Even Genzebe may be too lean for some; but at least your initial instinct on seeing her would not be to wonder what refuge camp she came from.
Looking at her picture reminded me of what I'd said earlier about how from an attractiveness point of view, it's far better to run middle distance than distance races. With two sisters, we actually have a somewhat controlled experiment. Here's Tirunesh, the 10K champ:
She has that somewhat emaciated, mummified look that long distance runners can get.
Here's Genzebe, the younger sister. She doesn't have Olympic gold; but she does still have her cuteness:
Even Genzebe may be too lean for some; but at least your initial instinct on seeing her would not be to wonder what refuge camp she came from.
The anti-McCain, anti-Palin ticket
A common tendency in human behavior is to act in the way we were most recently reinforced to act -- or not to act.
Last time around, the Republicans picked a physically unattractive war hero who had been a young hellion and screwup and who'd been married twice to be their Presidential candidate. He, in turn, picked a sexy woman with more spunk than know-how as his running mate.
Their campaign fell short.
This time, the Republicans picked a handsome man who'd never been in the military, who has lived his life on the straight and narrow, and who has been married to the same woman for 43 years. He, in turn, picked a nerdy-looking, well-mannered budget wonk as his running mate.
We have yet to see how this campaign will turn out.
But if it doesn't turn out well, at least it won't be for the same reasons as last time.
Last time around, the Republicans picked a physically unattractive war hero who had been a young hellion and screwup and who'd been married twice to be their Presidential candidate. He, in turn, picked a sexy woman with more spunk than know-how as his running mate.
Their campaign fell short.
This time, the Republicans picked a handsome man who'd never been in the military, who has lived his life on the straight and narrow, and who has been married to the same woman for 43 years. He, in turn, picked a nerdy-looking, well-mannered budget wonk as his running mate.
We have yet to see how this campaign will turn out.
But if it doesn't turn out well, at least it won't be for the same reasons as last time.
How not to pose
Couldn't help but notice the goofy grin on the face of Thomas Caffall, the Texas A&M shooter, when his picture was released last night:
It reminded me of the look I'd seen on two other faces in the news. Most recently, of James Holmes, the Aurora, Colorado movie theater shooter:
And before that, of Jared Loughner, the January, 2011 Tucson shooter:
The only picture that would have alarmed me on its own was the bottom one, of Jared Loughner, but his unhinged look stems from his blackened left eye and shaven head. Hold your hand over the top of Loughner's face and his smile appears the same as the other two.
Their expressions seem to be halfway between foolish grins ("Okay, so I'm a pervert, so what?") and smirks ("I'm going to kill a whole lot of people and you have no idea").
Is this the new look of mental illness?
It reminded me of the look I'd seen on two other faces in the news. Most recently, of James Holmes, the Aurora, Colorado movie theater shooter:
And before that, of Jared Loughner, the January, 2011 Tucson shooter:
The only picture that would have alarmed me on its own was the bottom one, of Jared Loughner, but his unhinged look stems from his blackened left eye and shaven head. Hold your hand over the top of Loughner's face and his smile appears the same as the other two.
Their expressions seem to be halfway between foolish grins ("Okay, so I'm a pervert, so what?") and smirks ("I'm going to kill a whole lot of people and you have no idea").
Is this the new look of mental illness?
Sunday, August 12, 2012
Spartan
A friend, Ed Gendreau, did the 3.7 mile version of the Spartan race yesterday. The official video makes it look like a lot of fun.
After watching the video, and also a couple videos of specific races, I really wanted to try this. Luckily, the feeling passed after about four hours.
This kind of thing is always more fun to contemplate than to actually participate in. When you actually get onto the course, the reality of the mud, cold water, barbed wire, mosquitoes, and so on set in and tend to dampen your initial enthusiasm.
Ed said it wasn't that much fun, and he sustained a bad cut and possible shoulder injury. But, he's planning to do it again next year. (Pump a guy full of testosterone and he has a hard time resisting a challenge.)
Spartan seems to be a ripoff of the Tough Mudder. They are very similar in concept and in terms of the obstacles that have to be overcome.
Evidently it's a very profitable enterprise. The entry fee was over $119, the unavoidable parking fee was $10, and you had to pay $5 to check your bag. They ran heats of up to 300 people from 8AM to 5:30 PM all weekend, and a total of 8418 people participated. So even assuming an average of two people per car, the organizers took in over a million dollars for the weekend.
That's a lot of people paying a lot of money merely to be put through some unpleasantness.
So instead of doing it, I'll probably just sit at home and think about how good I would have been at it had I actually done it.
After watching the video, and also a couple videos of specific races, I really wanted to try this. Luckily, the feeling passed after about four hours.
This kind of thing is always more fun to contemplate than to actually participate in. When you actually get onto the course, the reality of the mud, cold water, barbed wire, mosquitoes, and so on set in and tend to dampen your initial enthusiasm.
Ed said it wasn't that much fun, and he sustained a bad cut and possible shoulder injury. But, he's planning to do it again next year. (Pump a guy full of testosterone and he has a hard time resisting a challenge.)
Spartan seems to be a ripoff of the Tough Mudder. They are very similar in concept and in terms of the obstacles that have to be overcome.
Evidently it's a very profitable enterprise. The entry fee was over $119, the unavoidable parking fee was $10, and you had to pay $5 to check your bag. They ran heats of up to 300 people from 8AM to 5:30 PM all weekend, and a total of 8418 people participated. So even assuming an average of two people per car, the organizers took in over a million dollars for the weekend.
That's a lot of people paying a lot of money merely to be put through some unpleasantness.
So instead of doing it, I'll probably just sit at home and think about how good I would have been at it had I actually done it.
Saturday, August 11, 2012
The bodies
I mentioned a few posts ago that the reason we watch the Olympics is to see athletes perform feats we could never dream of doing, and feel awe.
I forgot the other reason we watch: to see perfect physical specimens.
Given that sports are in large part a testosterone contest for both men and women, one would expect to see fewer ideal examples of feminine beauty at the Olympics. And it's true, you do see a lot of mannish women there.
Track and field is, at it highest levels, a sport of freaks, for both men and women. One would never mistake the unnaturally well muscled 100 meter runners for marathoners. As a matter of fact, one would rarely even mistake them for 400 meter runners. And one would certainly never confuse the monstrous shot putters or discus throwers for any sort of runners.
Watching the women's 1500 meter run yesterday reminded me of a conclusion I came to after watching the world track and field championships in Seville in 1999: the sweet spot for women runners is generally the 800 or 1500.
The 100 and 200 runners are generally far too muscular to be attractive in any sort of traditional feminine way. (Alysson Felix is an exception.) The distance runners, from the 5000 on up to the marathon, tend to be stick figures, almost anorexic-looking. But the 800 and 1500 runners are often quite pretty, with rumps and legs which are pretty close to the feminine ideal.
Occasionally you'll get an 800 runner who looks as if she's on steroids, like Jarmila Kratochvilova, who set the current world record back in 1983. But watch any world class 800 or 1500 field, and there will always be one or two runners -- usually not the medalists -- who look as if they could be fashion models.
Here are two views of Lucia Klocova, who got eighth place in the 1500 yesterday:
Ekaterina Kostetskaya of Russia ended up in ninth place in the same race:
For men, the pole vaulters and decathletes tend to have ideal builds. There's pretty much not a single competitor in either event who isn't close to the masculine ideal. All evoke those original Greek statues.
Here's Bjorn Otto of Germany, who won the silver medal in that event yesterday:
The decathletes have to balance the power needed to put the shot and throw the discus with the litheness required to run and jump. And they need endurance for both the 400 or 1500. Here are yesterday's three medal winners after they finished the 1500, the last event:
If you're going to pursue a sport, you might as well pick one which is going to make you look good.
I forgot the other reason we watch: to see perfect physical specimens.
Given that sports are in large part a testosterone contest for both men and women, one would expect to see fewer ideal examples of feminine beauty at the Olympics. And it's true, you do see a lot of mannish women there.
Track and field is, at it highest levels, a sport of freaks, for both men and women. One would never mistake the unnaturally well muscled 100 meter runners for marathoners. As a matter of fact, one would rarely even mistake them for 400 meter runners. And one would certainly never confuse the monstrous shot putters or discus throwers for any sort of runners.
Watching the women's 1500 meter run yesterday reminded me of a conclusion I came to after watching the world track and field championships in Seville in 1999: the sweet spot for women runners is generally the 800 or 1500.
The 100 and 200 runners are generally far too muscular to be attractive in any sort of traditional feminine way. (Alysson Felix is an exception.) The distance runners, from the 5000 on up to the marathon, tend to be stick figures, almost anorexic-looking. But the 800 and 1500 runners are often quite pretty, with rumps and legs which are pretty close to the feminine ideal.
Occasionally you'll get an 800 runner who looks as if she's on steroids, like Jarmila Kratochvilova, who set the current world record back in 1983. But watch any world class 800 or 1500 field, and there will always be one or two runners -- usually not the medalists -- who look as if they could be fashion models.
Here are two views of Lucia Klocova, who got eighth place in the 1500 yesterday:
Ekaterina Kostetskaya of Russia ended up in ninth place in the same race:
For men, the pole vaulters and decathletes tend to have ideal builds. There's pretty much not a single competitor in either event who isn't close to the masculine ideal. All evoke those original Greek statues.
Here's Bjorn Otto of Germany, who won the silver medal in that event yesterday:
The decathletes have to balance the power needed to put the shot and throw the discus with the litheness required to run and jump. And they need endurance for both the 400 or 1500. Here are yesterday's three medal winners after they finished the 1500, the last event:
If you're going to pursue a sport, you might as well pick one which is going to make you look good.
Friday, August 10, 2012
The NBC coverage
I know no one who doesn't have some complaint about the way NBC has covered these Olympics.
Some dislike the way they have to wait until after 11PM to watch their favorite events. Some disdain the uninformed commentators. Others object to the US-centric coverage. Some dislike Bob Costas.
At least we no longer have those "up close and personal" segments we were forced to sit through 12 and 16 years ago. Remember those? "Little Johnny lost his grandfather when he was only 12. Ever since that traumatic loss, he's trained with his grandfather's original encouragement in mind, and he's dedicating this Olympics to his grandfather's memory."
NBC filmed those in a cynical attempt to woo female viewers for the Olympics, thinking that these sappy, prepackaged, utterly ridiculous vignettes would stir emotions in female viewers which would cause them to want to watch the Games more.
Journalism is at its worst -- and this is saying a lot -- when it tries to milk emotions for and from their viewers. How many times have you seen some reporter, under the guise of false sympathy, ask some recently bereaved relative how she feels about her loss, hoping desperately to get her to cry?
NBC's up close and personal segments, now long gone, were really not too far removed in spirit from that.
At least we can be thankful that those are gone.
Some dislike the way they have to wait until after 11PM to watch their favorite events. Some disdain the uninformed commentators. Others object to the US-centric coverage. Some dislike Bob Costas.
At least we no longer have those "up close and personal" segments we were forced to sit through 12 and 16 years ago. Remember those? "Little Johnny lost his grandfather when he was only 12. Ever since that traumatic loss, he's trained with his grandfather's original encouragement in mind, and he's dedicating this Olympics to his grandfather's memory."
NBC filmed those in a cynical attempt to woo female viewers for the Olympics, thinking that these sappy, prepackaged, utterly ridiculous vignettes would stir emotions in female viewers which would cause them to want to watch the Games more.
Journalism is at its worst -- and this is saying a lot -- when it tries to milk emotions for and from their viewers. How many times have you seen some reporter, under the guise of false sympathy, ask some recently bereaved relative how she feels about her loss, hoping desperately to get her to cry?
NBC's up close and personal segments, now long gone, were really not too far removed in spirit from that.
At least we can be thankful that those are gone.
Michael and Usain
Michael Phelps has been the dominant figure in swimming for the past three Olympiads, and Usain Bolt has been the dominant figure in track and field for the past two.
Phelps had his first taste of the Olympics at age 15, in 2000. After that, his goals obviously centered around world records, world championships, and, mostly, future Olympics.
Phelps turned pro as a high schooler, never competed collegiately, and thus never really focused on competitions conducted in 25 yard pools, which are actually the most common in this country. He competed in yards meets a few times, mostly in Baltimore, and set a couple of American records at them, seemingly almost by accident. But he never took a serious run at the yards record book.
Bolt also competed in the 2004 Olympics, but did not do well. He became a household name in 2008 at the Beijing Olympics, furthered his reputation with his remarkable world records at the world championships in Berlin in 2009, and cemented his legacy as the greatest sprinter in history at the London Games.
Bolt has never bothered to compete at any of the major indoor meets. I've never seen a time listed for him for the 60 meter dash, or the 300.
There's a certain telling symmetry here. If you're that big, why bother to compete on a smaller stage? Leave that to the mortals, who have to scramble for glory where they can find it.
Phelps had his first taste of the Olympics at age 15, in 2000. After that, his goals obviously centered around world records, world championships, and, mostly, future Olympics.
Phelps turned pro as a high schooler, never competed collegiately, and thus never really focused on competitions conducted in 25 yard pools, which are actually the most common in this country. He competed in yards meets a few times, mostly in Baltimore, and set a couple of American records at them, seemingly almost by accident. But he never took a serious run at the yards record book.
Bolt also competed in the 2004 Olympics, but did not do well. He became a household name in 2008 at the Beijing Olympics, furthered his reputation with his remarkable world records at the world championships in Berlin in 2009, and cemented his legacy as the greatest sprinter in history at the London Games.
Bolt has never bothered to compete at any of the major indoor meets. I've never seen a time listed for him for the 60 meter dash, or the 300.
There's a certain telling symmetry here. If you're that big, why bother to compete on a smaller stage? Leave that to the mortals, who have to scramble for glory where they can find it.
Thursday, August 9, 2012
Usain, again
I've followed track and field for a long time, but have never seen another athlete who's come close to capturing the public like Usain Bolt, who repeated as Olympic 200 champion today.
Bryan Oldfield, the shot putter from the 1970's who revolutionized the event with the double spin, set a world record of 75 feet which was disallowed because of his association with professional track. Oldfield finally set an officially accepted world record with 72' 9" in 1984, at age 38. When asked by an interviewer how he did it, he said that he had had a "throw-gasm." Oldfield appeared in Playgirl in 1975, and declared "When God created man, he wanted him to look like me." Oldfield could reportedly high jump 6' 6", and once ran 80 meters in 8.8 seconds. He sometimes smoked in between throws at competitions. He was a controversial figure, not always beloved by the public or his competitors. But he knew how to make a joke out of his size and strength and garnered a lot of attention while he was competing.
Sergei Bubka, the Russian pole vaulter active in the 80's and 90's, exuded a certain robust virility that was appealing. He had the speed of a sprinter, and the upper body strength of a gymnast. This combination allowed him to clear twenty feet, a height no man has cleared since. Bubka also had the demeanor of a Spetsnaz operative. He was widely regarded with awe, if not affection.
Here is Bubka as he looks now:
Eamonn Coghlan, the great Irish miler from the 70's and 80's who set the world indoor record for that event several times, was a very popular athlete. (I put a recent picture of him right below Bubka's because I was struck by their similarity. One has a Slavic cast to his face, the other an Irish one, but even in middle age, both look like men just spoiling to get into a fight.)
Coghlan was known as the "Chairman of the Boards" for his dominance indoors. There was no one else who could get the crowd at Madison Square Garden on its feet the way he did. (That a lot of Irish-Americans always showed up to the Millrose Games may have helped.) But Coghlan was also beloved by the folks at home, and now serves as an Irish Senator.
There have been a number of great sprinters before Bolt, though I can't think of any I'd consider charismatic. Michael Johnson, whose 200 record was beaten by Bolt and who still holds the 400 record, had a workmanlike personality. He was exciting on the track, but dull off it. Carl Lewis, the great sprinter and long jumper from the 80's and 90's, was utterly charisma-free. (Unless you consider being bitchily self-righteous charismatic.)
Long distance runners are almost by definition introverted and dweeby (and East or North African, meaning, there will probably be a language barrier as well).
In any case, I've never seen a track athlete who captures the public's fancy the way Bolt has. He is not tough like Bubka or Coghlan, nor witty like Oldfield. But he has a certain loose-limbed playfulness that is all his own. He is the star attraction wherever he goes, and even has to have teammates act as quasi-bodyguards in the Olympic Village. Pictures of him in his famous archer pose greet visitors at Jamaican airports, and European meet organizers know that his appearance guarantees a sellout crowd.
Maybe the ultimate accolade is that the other sprinters, generally a trash-talking lot, never have a bad word to say about him.
Addendum, a couple days later: No, the ultimate accolade is actually that so many other athletes in other sports seem to be imitating his archer pose now.
Bryan Oldfield, the shot putter from the 1970's who revolutionized the event with the double spin, set a world record of 75 feet which was disallowed because of his association with professional track. Oldfield finally set an officially accepted world record with 72' 9" in 1984, at age 38. When asked by an interviewer how he did it, he said that he had had a "throw-gasm." Oldfield appeared in Playgirl in 1975, and declared "When God created man, he wanted him to look like me." Oldfield could reportedly high jump 6' 6", and once ran 80 meters in 8.8 seconds. He sometimes smoked in between throws at competitions. He was a controversial figure, not always beloved by the public or his competitors. But he knew how to make a joke out of his size and strength and garnered a lot of attention while he was competing.
Sergei Bubka, the Russian pole vaulter active in the 80's and 90's, exuded a certain robust virility that was appealing. He had the speed of a sprinter, and the upper body strength of a gymnast. This combination allowed him to clear twenty feet, a height no man has cleared since. Bubka also had the demeanor of a Spetsnaz operative. He was widely regarded with awe, if not affection.
Here is Bubka as he looks now:
Eamonn Coghlan, the great Irish miler from the 70's and 80's who set the world indoor record for that event several times, was a very popular athlete. (I put a recent picture of him right below Bubka's because I was struck by their similarity. One has a Slavic cast to his face, the other an Irish one, but even in middle age, both look like men just spoiling to get into a fight.)
Coghlan was known as the "Chairman of the Boards" for his dominance indoors. There was no one else who could get the crowd at Madison Square Garden on its feet the way he did. (That a lot of Irish-Americans always showed up to the Millrose Games may have helped.) But Coghlan was also beloved by the folks at home, and now serves as an Irish Senator.
There have been a number of great sprinters before Bolt, though I can't think of any I'd consider charismatic. Michael Johnson, whose 200 record was beaten by Bolt and who still holds the 400 record, had a workmanlike personality. He was exciting on the track, but dull off it. Carl Lewis, the great sprinter and long jumper from the 80's and 90's, was utterly charisma-free. (Unless you consider being bitchily self-righteous charismatic.)
Long distance runners are almost by definition introverted and dweeby (and East or North African, meaning, there will probably be a language barrier as well).
In any case, I've never seen a track athlete who captures the public's fancy the way Bolt has. He is not tough like Bubka or Coghlan, nor witty like Oldfield. But he has a certain loose-limbed playfulness that is all his own. He is the star attraction wherever he goes, and even has to have teammates act as quasi-bodyguards in the Olympic Village. Pictures of him in his famous archer pose greet visitors at Jamaican airports, and European meet organizers know that his appearance guarantees a sellout crowd.
Maybe the ultimate accolade is that the other sprinters, generally a trash-talking lot, never have a bad word to say about him.
Addendum, a couple days later: No, the ultimate accolade is actually that so many other athletes in other sports seem to be imitating his archer pose now.
Wednesday, August 8, 2012
Usain
The extent to which Bolt left the fastest field in history in the dust is mind-boggling. It's as if for the last three years, since he set those unbelievable world records in '09, he's just been playing with his competitors, letting them think they had a chance, when, really, they did not. As he showed in the finals of the 100 on Sunday evening.
So we'd all be marveling at his athletic feats no matter what. But if he were just another big, threatening, suspiciously well muscled black sprinter who glowered behind the blocks and was constantly proclaiming that he was the greatest of all time, we wouldn't like him.
Bolt simply doesn't take himself that seriously.
When the camera focuses on him before the start, he pretends to be an airplane about to take off. He pretends to be arranging his hair while looking at himself in the reflection of the camera lens. He pretends to be a boxer warming up. While the other sprinters try to look formidable, he plays at acting cute.
(It's a lot easier to get away with this act when you can blow the doors off all of the badasses.)
After his races, Bolt continues to run for another 100 meters or so. Then he does his famous archer pose. He has a number of silly dance moves he makes. And he likes to wade into the crowd and interact with the fans.
What makes Bolt so appealing is that he expresses joy so eloquently, and seems to be without animus. There are no chips on his shoulder, no grudge matches of any kind to settle. He simply delights in his ability to run fast and amuse the crowd.
At a recent press conference, when told of the plastic beer bottle that had been thrown in his direction before the start of the 100 meter dash, he said that was the first he'd heard of it and seemed amused. When he was told that a female Dutch judo champion had taken the offender down, slapped him hard on the back, and held him until police arrived, he simply shrugged and said, "I don't advocate violence, so I can't approve of that."
Had this been the typical champion American sprinter of the past three decades, one suspects the response might not have been quite so pacifist.
Sunday, August 5, 2012
Heroes
Just finished reading a few wrap ups of the Olympic swimming. Most of the editorials were pretty Phelps-centric, as they should have been. The greatest swimmer in history just put the finishing touches on his glorious career. But the tone was just a tad overly reverential for my taste.
After reading them, my only question is, what will Saint Michael do next?
Just a reminder: he's a great athlete, not a hero. A hero is someone who risks his life for other people. Every single one of those guys who used himself as a body shield for someone else in that movie theater in Colorado three weeks ago is a hero. Every soldier who goes to war is a hero.
Michael Phelps is just a guy who swims incredibly fast.
After reading them, my only question is, what will Saint Michael do next?
Just a reminder: he's a great athlete, not a hero. A hero is someone who risks his life for other people. Every single one of those guys who used himself as a body shield for someone else in that movie theater in Colorado three weeks ago is a hero. Every soldier who goes to war is a hero.
Michael Phelps is just a guy who swims incredibly fast.
Saturday, August 4, 2012
The endorsement Romney was waiting for
An article on Yahoo News today stated that porn star Jenna Jameson endorsed Mitt Romney while at a strip club on Thursday:
"I'm very looking forward to a Republican being back in office. When you're rich, you want a Republican in office."
Is that exactly the way Romney would want to be endorsed? One has to wonder how Romney would react if asked by a reporter about Jameson's endorsement. Would he pretend not to know who she is?
The article was brief, but there were over a thousand comments which followed the article, some of which were quite funny. Two of the better ones:
"I'm still waiting to see who Traci Lords endorses before I make my final decision."
"Does Jenna support Mitt? YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! OHhhh YES! YES! YES!"
"I'm very looking forward to a Republican being back in office. When you're rich, you want a Republican in office."
Is that exactly the way Romney would want to be endorsed? One has to wonder how Romney would react if asked by a reporter about Jameson's endorsement. Would he pretend not to know who she is?
The article was brief, but there were over a thousand comments which followed the article, some of which were quite funny. Two of the better ones:
"I'm still waiting to see who Traci Lords endorses before I make my final decision."
"Does Jenna support Mitt? YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! OHhhh YES! YES! YES!"
Investing vs. gambling
After going through the analysis in the previous post with a friend a couple days ago, he said he had a contact in London, and I was able to put a tiny amount of money down on Ledecky. He suggested -- jocularly -- that I sell some stocks in order to increase the size of my bet.
The suggestion, of course, sounds ridiculous. If you do research and trade stocks, you're considered hard-working. But if you bet on sports, you're a degenerate gambler.
Don't ever think that when you invest in a stock you're not gambling, because you are. I've invested in stocks where I've lost my entire investment. That happens much more frequently with options than with stocks, but some stocks go to zero as well. And, of course, I've also lost sports bets.
There's really less difference between the two than meets the eye. Both boil down to probabilities, odds, informational advantage, psychology, and judgment.
As is obvious from this past week's posts, I follow swimming very closely. I could hardly justify my fan-dom by dignifying it with the name "research." (It's actually more of a vice.) But, from a sports betting point of view, it actually is research. I follow the sport more closely than the British bookmakers who set the odds. And I swam myself, so have a better feel for how and why and when swimmers perform.
When it comes to stocks, I don't have that kind of informational advantage. In fact, a lot of people, especially company insiders, have an informational advantage on me. There have been many times where, it's become quite clear in retrospect, I was nothing more than a sheep ready for shearing.
So, my friend was right. I should have sold my stocks and bet more on the race.
The suggestion, of course, sounds ridiculous. If you do research and trade stocks, you're considered hard-working. But if you bet on sports, you're a degenerate gambler.
Don't ever think that when you invest in a stock you're not gambling, because you are. I've invested in stocks where I've lost my entire investment. That happens much more frequently with options than with stocks, but some stocks go to zero as well. And, of course, I've also lost sports bets.
There's really less difference between the two than meets the eye. Both boil down to probabilities, odds, informational advantage, psychology, and judgment.
As is obvious from this past week's posts, I follow swimming very closely. I could hardly justify my fan-dom by dignifying it with the name "research." (It's actually more of a vice.) But, from a sports betting point of view, it actually is research. I follow the sport more closely than the British bookmakers who set the odds. And I swam myself, so have a better feel for how and why and when swimmers perform.
When it comes to stocks, I don't have that kind of informational advantage. In fact, a lot of people, especially company insiders, have an informational advantage on me. There have been many times where, it's become quite clear in retrospect, I was nothing more than a sheep ready for shearing.
So, my friend was right. I should have sold my stocks and bet more on the race.
Friday, August 3, 2012
The women's 800 freestyle
Coming into today's 800 freestyle, Londoner Rebecca Adlington was the 1 - 2 betting favorite with the British bookies, meaning you had to bet two dollars on her to win one. She was the defending Olympic champion in the 800 free, the world record holder at 8:14.1 (a time set in a tech suit), and had the fastest time in the world so far this year at 8:18. Fifteen year old Katie Ledecky, who had won the US Olympic Trials with an 8:19, was going off at 18 - 1, meaning if you bet one dollar on her to win, you could get eighteen in return.
Adlington was the one with the royal swimming pedigree. But she had swum her 400 earlier this week in 4:03.0, eight-tenths of a second slower than she had gone at British Trials in March, so it seemed unlikely that she would improve much on her 8:18 from March.
Ledecky, on the other hand, had been doing best times virtually every time she swam since January. At the beginning of this year, she had never broken 4:10 for a 400; by Trials she went a 4:05.0. Likewise, she'd never broken 8:33 for the 800 until early this year. If you extrapolated from her recent performance curve, it seemed a pretty safe bet that her next swim would be an improvement as well.
So Adlington had the credentials, but Ledecky had the momentum.
The TV announcers kept saying that the British swimmers were being helped by the roar of the hometown crowd. But to this point, the only British swimmer who had performed up to expectations was 200 breaststroker Michael Jamiesen (who in fact performed beyond them). Virtually every other British swimmer had fallen short. The pressure from that hometown crowd evidently cut both ways.
Adlington must have felt the weight of the world on her shoulders.
Fifteen year old Katie Ledecky felt no such pressure. She had the fearlessness of one blithely unaware of all the history that the Olympics represented. Plus her quote from earlier in the week was heartening: "I'm just having so much fun being here with everybody." If Ledecky had been paralyzed with nerves, she would likely not have said that. Mindlessly upbeat is usually the appropriate frame of mind for fast swimming, and that outlook comes naturally to 15-year-olds.
Given all this, why were the pre-race odds so skewed toward Adlington? People -- bookmakers included -- tend to be overly impressed by resumes, and in swimming, there is no resume more impressive than "Olympic champion and world record holder."
On top of that, the odds were being set by British bookmakers, in Britain, on a British woman who is very popular at home. All the sentimental money which poured in for Adlington from her countrymen undoubtedly helped skew those odds.
A lot of people seem to bet with their hearts rather than their minds. This certainly doesn't make them bad people. It does, however, make them people you want to bet with.
Ledecky won with an 8:14.6, the fastest time in textile ever, a Spanish woman got second in 8:18.7, and Adlington got third in 8:20.3.
Adlington was the one with the royal swimming pedigree. But she had swum her 400 earlier this week in 4:03.0, eight-tenths of a second slower than she had gone at British Trials in March, so it seemed unlikely that she would improve much on her 8:18 from March.
Ledecky, on the other hand, had been doing best times virtually every time she swam since January. At the beginning of this year, she had never broken 4:10 for a 400; by Trials she went a 4:05.0. Likewise, she'd never broken 8:33 for the 800 until early this year. If you extrapolated from her recent performance curve, it seemed a pretty safe bet that her next swim would be an improvement as well.
So Adlington had the credentials, but Ledecky had the momentum.
The TV announcers kept saying that the British swimmers were being helped by the roar of the hometown crowd. But to this point, the only British swimmer who had performed up to expectations was 200 breaststroker Michael Jamiesen (who in fact performed beyond them). Virtually every other British swimmer had fallen short. The pressure from that hometown crowd evidently cut both ways.
Adlington must have felt the weight of the world on her shoulders.
Fifteen year old Katie Ledecky felt no such pressure. She had the fearlessness of one blithely unaware of all the history that the Olympics represented. Plus her quote from earlier in the week was heartening: "I'm just having so much fun being here with everybody." If Ledecky had been paralyzed with nerves, she would likely not have said that. Mindlessly upbeat is usually the appropriate frame of mind for fast swimming, and that outlook comes naturally to 15-year-olds.
Given all this, why were the pre-race odds so skewed toward Adlington? People -- bookmakers included -- tend to be overly impressed by resumes, and in swimming, there is no resume more impressive than "Olympic champion and world record holder."
On top of that, the odds were being set by British bookmakers, in Britain, on a British woman who is very popular at home. All the sentimental money which poured in for Adlington from her countrymen undoubtedly helped skew those odds.
A lot of people seem to bet with their hearts rather than their minds. This certainly doesn't make them bad people. It does, however, make them people you want to bet with.
Ledecky won with an 8:14.6, the fastest time in textile ever, a Spanish woman got second in 8:18.7, and Adlington got third in 8:20.3.
Thursday's finals
Rebecca Soni was magnificent. I can't recall another event where the winner broke the world record in the semifinals and then broke it again in finals. Soni seems to have only one gear: all out. Her heat time was a 2:21, then she went a 2:20.00, then a 2:19.59.
It's nice for aspiring young swimmers to see a champion of normal size: Soni is only 5' 4". The shortest woman on America's winning 4 x 200 meter free relay, by contrast, was six feet tall.
Lochte only got a third in the 200 meter backstroke, the event in which he was the defending Olympic champion. He must dislike the winner Tyler Clary as much as everyone else; After Clary won the gold, he reached out to shake Lochte's hand, or get some sort of physical contact. Lochte gave him none and barely nodded at him as he went over the lane line past him on his way out of the pool.
Lochte was all smiles on the medal stand, but he didn't say a word to Clary. After the 200 IM, by contrast, it seemed Phelps and Lochte couldn't stop talking.
Other than admiring his swimming, I've alway been fairly neutral toward Phelps, so was a little surprised to find myself myself rooting so hard for him in both the 200 fly and 200 IM. He seems to be benefitting from the George Foreman effect: he's not charismatic, but has grown in our affections simply by virtue of his longevity. We all remember him from way back when.
So it was nice to see that historic threepeat.
Phelps looked awfully sharp in his 100 fly semifinal. After his victory in the 200 IM, his confidence seems to be back. He'll be tough to beat tonight.
Ranomi Kromowidjojo had the most understated reaction of any gold medalist after she won the 100 free tonight. The men tend to raise their arms and pound the water in triumph. The women tend to look at the scoreboard in disbelief, put their hands on their mouths, then hug their nearest competitor. Kromowidjojo just looked at the scoreboard, rested her chin on the back of her hand, gazed at the scoreboard a while longer, then gave a shy smile.
A refreshing change.
Lochte was all smiles on the medal stand, but he didn't say a word to Clary. After the 200 IM, by contrast, it seemed Phelps and Lochte couldn't stop talking.
Other than admiring his swimming, I've alway been fairly neutral toward Phelps, so was a little surprised to find myself myself rooting so hard for him in both the 200 fly and 200 IM. He seems to be benefitting from the George Foreman effect: he's not charismatic, but has grown in our affections simply by virtue of his longevity. We all remember him from way back when.
So it was nice to see that historic threepeat.
Phelps looked awfully sharp in his 100 fly semifinal. After his victory in the 200 IM, his confidence seems to be back. He'll be tough to beat tonight.
Ranomi Kromowidjojo had the most understated reaction of any gold medalist after she won the 100 free tonight. The men tend to raise their arms and pound the water in triumph. The women tend to look at the scoreboard in disbelief, put their hands on their mouths, then hug their nearest competitor. Kromowidjojo just looked at the scoreboard, rested her chin on the back of her hand, gazed at the scoreboard a while longer, then gave a shy smile.
A refreshing change.
Thursday, August 2, 2012
The Hubris Games
For a swimming fan, these Olympics have been a lesson in humility. I've never witnessed a Games where big talk and presumption have been so uniformly punished.
One of the surest bets coming into these Olympics was the Australian men's 400 free relay. They had the two fastest 100 meter freestylers in the world in the world, James "The Missile" Magnusson and James "The Rocket" Roberts (both born on April 11, 1991, coincidentally). The Australian press dubbed the four members of the relay, "The Weapons of Mass Destruction." Magnusson boldly told the Australian press that he wasn't worried about any other swimmers and that he was the man to beat in the 100 free. The Aussies were practically chortling about how much their relay was going to win by.
Magnusson led off the relay with a time almost a full second from his best, the rest of the quartet performed similarly, and they ended up in fourth place, out of the medals.
Magnusson was subsequently beaten in the 100 free, an event in which he had been heavily favored.
Ryan Lochte famously said of these Games that "this is my time." He did win the 400 IM the first night, but then was beaten badly in the 400 free relay, and finished fourth in the 200 free, an event in which he was world champion last year. He was part of the victorious 800 free relay, and may yet pull off today's double (the 200 back and 200 IM, in about two hours as of this writing). But so far, his prediction -- and his sponsors' faith -- have come across a little premature.
Michael Phelps himself has seemed a little presumptuous, thinking he could train half-heartedly for three years before getting serious, and still emerge golden. But so far in individual events he has gotten a fourth and a second.
Tyler Clary gave that well publicized interview in which he criticized Phelps for the lack of dedication he had shown -- before the 2008 Games! (Tyler, there's this little thing called talent you fail to take into account.) Clary said he felt he deserved success more than Phelps. Clary finished off the podium in the 200 fly.
Laszlo Cseh's coaches said before the Games that he would threaten Phelps in the 200 fly. Cseh didn't make the finals of that event.
The Brazilians were arrogant enough to think they could not swim their fastest man and still make the finals of the 400 free relay. They got ninth in the heats, thus didn't qualify for finals.
The Russians didn't swim either of their two fastest men in the heats of the 800 free relay, an event in which they had been favored for bronze. They, too, ended up ninth in the heats.
Camille Lacourt, the fastest 100 backstroker in history (without a tech suit) up until a month ago, reportedly cut back on his training to spend more time on his modeling career, confident that he could still win. He ended up fourth in that event.
Even showing off in the early rounds was punished. Emily Seebohm set a textile world best in the heats of the 100 back, and was only a tenth slower in the semis. Her early bravado cost her in the finals, where she swam slower than either of her two preliminary swims, and got beaten.
Taewhan Park's coach Michael Bohl announced ahead of time that his protege was ready to set a world record. Park was thrown off his game by his initial (unfair) disqualification in the 400, and didn't come close to any records. Park certainly can't be blamed for either the DQ or his coach's predictions; maybe it was his coach that was being punished by the gods this time.
I'm not religious; I fall somewhere between atheist and agnostic. But if I did believe in God, I would surely see His hand at these Games.
One of the surest bets coming into these Olympics was the Australian men's 400 free relay. They had the two fastest 100 meter freestylers in the world in the world, James "The Missile" Magnusson and James "The Rocket" Roberts (both born on April 11, 1991, coincidentally). The Australian press dubbed the four members of the relay, "The Weapons of Mass Destruction." Magnusson boldly told the Australian press that he wasn't worried about any other swimmers and that he was the man to beat in the 100 free. The Aussies were practically chortling about how much their relay was going to win by.
Magnusson led off the relay with a time almost a full second from his best, the rest of the quartet performed similarly, and they ended up in fourth place, out of the medals.
Magnusson was subsequently beaten in the 100 free, an event in which he had been heavily favored.
Ryan Lochte famously said of these Games that "this is my time." He did win the 400 IM the first night, but then was beaten badly in the 400 free relay, and finished fourth in the 200 free, an event in which he was world champion last year. He was part of the victorious 800 free relay, and may yet pull off today's double (the 200 back and 200 IM, in about two hours as of this writing). But so far, his prediction -- and his sponsors' faith -- have come across a little premature.
Michael Phelps himself has seemed a little presumptuous, thinking he could train half-heartedly for three years before getting serious, and still emerge golden. But so far in individual events he has gotten a fourth and a second.
Tyler Clary gave that well publicized interview in which he criticized Phelps for the lack of dedication he had shown -- before the 2008 Games! (Tyler, there's this little thing called talent you fail to take into account.) Clary said he felt he deserved success more than Phelps. Clary finished off the podium in the 200 fly.
Laszlo Cseh's coaches said before the Games that he would threaten Phelps in the 200 fly. Cseh didn't make the finals of that event.
The Brazilians were arrogant enough to think they could not swim their fastest man and still make the finals of the 400 free relay. They got ninth in the heats, thus didn't qualify for finals.
The Russians didn't swim either of their two fastest men in the heats of the 800 free relay, an event in which they had been favored for bronze. They, too, ended up ninth in the heats.
Camille Lacourt, the fastest 100 backstroker in history (without a tech suit) up until a month ago, reportedly cut back on his training to spend more time on his modeling career, confident that he could still win. He ended up fourth in that event.
Even showing off in the early rounds was punished. Emily Seebohm set a textile world best in the heats of the 100 back, and was only a tenth slower in the semis. Her early bravado cost her in the finals, where she swam slower than either of her two preliminary swims, and got beaten.
Taewhan Park's coach Michael Bohl announced ahead of time that his protege was ready to set a world record. Park was thrown off his game by his initial (unfair) disqualification in the 400, and didn't come close to any records. Park certainly can't be blamed for either the DQ or his coach's predictions; maybe it was his coach that was being punished by the gods this time.
I'm not religious; I fall somewhere between atheist and agnostic. But if I did believe in God, I would surely see His hand at these Games.
The other sports
The motto of the modern Olympics motto has been "citius, altius, fortius" ever since they started in 1896. This is Latin for "faster, higher, stronger." I never understood why they used Latin since the original Games were organized by the Greeks, not the Romans. But the motto does seems to reflect the spirit of the original Games.
But the more sports that get added, the further we get from this motto.
Should beach volleyball -- the first sport designed around showing off female derrieres -- really be an Olympic sport?
The wonder of the Olympics comes from watching athletes perform and thinking, wow, I could never do that -- what they do is just incredible! I've never once watched volleyball players and had that thought.
NBC seems to stick the unpopular stuff -- like beach volleyball -- up front so that everybody has to wait around and digest a lot of commercials to see whatever they want to see. Have you ever heard a single person mention the outcome of a tournament away from the TV?
No sport for which the Olympics does not represent the apex of achievement should be in the Olympics. Runners, rowers, and gymnasts grow up dreaming of being in the Olympics. Basketball players dream of making it in the NBA, and tennis players dream of playing at Wimbledon.
The NBA players at the Olympics seem to almost be slumming. Ditto for the top tennis players. They're not quite acting bored, but this is obviously just a sideshow for them. Toss 'em out.
No sport for which the barrier to entry is as high as it is in the equestrian events should be in the Olympics either. To buy and care for the kinds of horses it takes to compete, one must be extremely rich. Dressage (accent on the second syllable, please) isn't a sport for farmhands. It's a sport for the royalty the dignitaries at the IOC like to hobnob with. Toss 'em out. (And the IOC with them.)
Or, at least award the gold medal to the horse and not the rider.
Synchronized diving has gotten a lot of airtime. Every pair I've seen has been impressive, both in their athleticism and their synchronicity. The men's version seems a little gay -- not that there's anything wrong with that.
Diving, although associated with swimming because it takes place in natatoriums, is much closer in spirit to gymnastics, and in fact, a lot of divers are former gymnasts.
The gymnasts themselves are amazing. The male gymnasts are built like body builders -- yet their muscles are actually functional.
The female gymnasts always look a little abused somehow. Many of them look as though their growth was stunted, and their hair has been pulled back so severely they look as if they've just had face lifts. You just know that a fair percentage of them have eating issues, though most are muscular as well as lean.
What they do is breathtaking. I remember being wowed by Olga Korbut doing a back flip on the uneven parallel bars in 1972. That would barely qualify as a warmup for today's muscular little robots. But any semblance of femininity and grace has long since departed.
Rowing is a sport that represents the Olympic ideal. Rowers train hard in obscurity, end up extremely fit, and emerge once every four years to shine. It's not exactly exciting to watch, though.
I suppose the same could be said of swimming.
But the more sports that get added, the further we get from this motto.
Should beach volleyball -- the first sport designed around showing off female derrieres -- really be an Olympic sport?
The wonder of the Olympics comes from watching athletes perform and thinking, wow, I could never do that -- what they do is just incredible! I've never once watched volleyball players and had that thought.
NBC seems to stick the unpopular stuff -- like beach volleyball -- up front so that everybody has to wait around and digest a lot of commercials to see whatever they want to see. Have you ever heard a single person mention the outcome of a tournament away from the TV?
No sport for which the Olympics does not represent the apex of achievement should be in the Olympics. Runners, rowers, and gymnasts grow up dreaming of being in the Olympics. Basketball players dream of making it in the NBA, and tennis players dream of playing at Wimbledon.
The NBA players at the Olympics seem to almost be slumming. Ditto for the top tennis players. They're not quite acting bored, but this is obviously just a sideshow for them. Toss 'em out.
No sport for which the barrier to entry is as high as it is in the equestrian events should be in the Olympics either. To buy and care for the kinds of horses it takes to compete, one must be extremely rich. Dressage (accent on the second syllable, please) isn't a sport for farmhands. It's a sport for the royalty the dignitaries at the IOC like to hobnob with. Toss 'em out. (And the IOC with them.)
Or, at least award the gold medal to the horse and not the rider.
Synchronized diving has gotten a lot of airtime. Every pair I've seen has been impressive, both in their athleticism and their synchronicity. The men's version seems a little gay -- not that there's anything wrong with that.
Diving, although associated with swimming because it takes place in natatoriums, is much closer in spirit to gymnastics, and in fact, a lot of divers are former gymnasts.
The gymnasts themselves are amazing. The male gymnasts are built like body builders -- yet their muscles are actually functional.
The female gymnasts always look a little abused somehow. Many of them look as though their growth was stunted, and their hair has been pulled back so severely they look as if they've just had face lifts. You just know that a fair percentage of them have eating issues, though most are muscular as well as lean.
What they do is breathtaking. I remember being wowed by Olga Korbut doing a back flip on the uneven parallel bars in 1972. That would barely qualify as a warmup for today's muscular little robots. But any semblance of femininity and grace has long since departed.
Rowing is a sport that represents the Olympic ideal. Rowers train hard in obscurity, end up extremely fit, and emerge once every four years to shine. It's not exactly exciting to watch, though.
I suppose the same could be said of swimming.
Tuesday, July 31, 2012
Missy
Emily Seebohm blew her wad early in the 100 backstroke with swims of 58.2 in the heats and 58.3 in the semis; she only had a 58.6 left in her for finals. Missy Franklin did the opposite, going a 59.6 in the heats, a 59.3 in the semis, and saving her best for last: a 58.3 in the finals, even after having just swum in the semis of the 200 free fourteen minutes earlier.
It was a masterful performance; and Missy is obviously an all around exemplary girl.
I just wish they wouldn't interview her afterward. Am I the only one who feels as if he needs an insulin shot every time he hears Franklin speak?
Everything means the world to her, everyone is just so wonderful, and every new experience is just the greatest ever.
At a certain level, her uniformly upbeat emotional state seems to keep her on an even keel; it must help her swimming to only think positive thoughts. (She is the poster girl for Norman Vincent Peale.)
But there also seems to be an undertone of near-hysteria to her niceness. You almost get the impression that if a single negative thought entered her consciousness, her head would explode.
She reminds me a little of all the people I've met who alway try to say the right thing. I always want to tell them, "You know, you'd be a far more interesting person if instead of always saying whatever it is you think you're supposed to be say, you'd occasionally say what you actually think."
Who knows, maybe Missy really is that nice. Maybe when she was born, the dial just got set to HAPPY, and that's just where she's at neurobiologically. Maybe she was born with an excess of serotonin, and the world is just a great big rave party for her.
She's certainly not a hypocrite: she's turned down an awful lot of money just to be able to have the experience of being on a college team.
(Note to Missy: I've been on one, and it ain't all that great. After these Games you'll be at your peak earning potential: take the money and run!)
Yes, I know I'm a horrible old grouch for pointing all this out.
I guess I'm jealous, partly of Missy's Olympic gold, but mostly of her frame of mind. I only wish that over the course of an entire week I could experience the amount of happiness she seems to feel every five minutes.
Ryan
A lot of people seemed to make a lot of assumptions when they anointed Ryan Lochte as the next Michael Phelps. You could just hear the wheels turning in the sponsors' brains: he's just like Phelps, except he's handsome! And if we sign him up now, we'll get to air our ads during the Olympics, when they'll be most effective!
Well, Lochte is certainly handsomer than the dorky-looking Phelps. But as for the swimming, Michael set the bar at Olympic perfection, and that's an awfully high bar to clear.
Ryan has gotten beaten badly each of the last two nights, yesterday not even medaling in the 200 free. And that's made some of those ads which air immediately following his events ("Luck didn't get me to London -- I swam there") seem just a tad presumptuous.
Part of the problem is that Phelps was more naturally inclined to go into automaton-mode; in Beijing he put the blinders on, and didn't come up for air until his eight events were over. Ryan, by contrast, stayed up until 2AM celebrating with his family the night of the 400 IM, even though he had two 200 freestyles to swim the next day. (Note to Ryan -- you're not supposed to celebrate until all your events are over.)
But part of the problem is simply that there are other swimmers, like the 6' 8" Yannick Agnel, who want to win just as badly as Ryan, and who may simply be more talented in their specialties.
People forget that Phelps was in fact lucky to win his eight golds. First, Milorad Cavic raised his head too early at the end of the 100 fly, slowing himself down. Second, Jason Lezak managed a superhuman performance on the anchor leg of the 400 freestyle relay to save Phelps's gold there.
And even Michael hasn't been able to pull off another Phelps this time around.
Ryan will swim in the 800 free relay tonight, which the Americans will most likely win, though they're no longer the overwhelming favorites they were a week ago. And he will probably win the 200 backstroke. The 200 IM is still a tossup between him and Phelps; we'll get a better sense of Michael's condition when he swims the 200 fly tonight. But it's already too late for Lochte to achieve perfection, and given that that's what he's been set up to do, he looks a trifle silly.
This is a little unfair, because he's still a great all around swimmer.
And he still looks like a Greek god.
Unfortunately, the character from Greek mythology he most resembles at the moment is Icarus.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
