This will not be a popular column. (My wife, for one, dislikes it.) The Winter Olympics in South Korea end tomorrow. The Games have gotten too big. Too expensive for most cities to host. And too subjective. The Games -- Winter or Summer -- need to get back to their motto: Citius, Altius, Fortius, which is Latin for faster, higher, stronger.
That means events should be limited to competitions that can be measured with a tape, a scale, or a stopwatch. Or by the number of rocks in a house or pucks in a goal.
Don’t leap to conclusions -- I’m not arguing against adding new events. The original Olympic Games were limited to what we now call track and field events. Then they added swimming. Rowing. Cycling. Team sports.
And eventually, curling -- the only sport played in slow motion.
But notice -- every one of those are won by a measurable finish.
If the International Olympic Committee wants to introduce a downhill race that involves competitors balancing on their heads on a skateboard while playing a violin with their toes, let them go ahead. If it can be measured at the finish line, I call it a legitimate race. If it involves judges evaluating the quality of violin playing, it’s not.
In other words, I argue that anything requiring judging for style and presentation shouldn’t be included in the Olympics.
Crowd favourites
Yes, yes, I know that would disqualify figure skating and ice dance. To say nothing of skiers and snowboarders who perform more aerial gyrations than a drone on steroids.
Personally, I was entranced by Tessa Virtue and Scott Moir in the ice dance. They were superb. Their skill, their grace, their artistry, was simply beyond comparison.
But that’s my point. It was artistry.
If ice dance is in the Winter Olympics, why isn’t ballet in the Summer Olympics?
In what I call the “objective” events -- where the outcome is determined by a measuring tape or a finish line -- a skier does not lose points for a sloppy turn in the giant slalom. She loses milliseconds at the finish line.
Of course, if her gaffe somehow saves a millisecond or two, others will copy it and make it standard practice.
High jumping depends only on clearing a bar. Remember the uproar when Dick Fosbury went over the bar on his back, violating all conventions? Today his innovation is taken for granted. But judges, I’m sure, would have penalized him for style flaws.
Weight-lifters sweat, grunt, and fart. They will never win contests for beauty, style, or grace. Who cares? All that matters is how much they can lift.
A subjective element
Events need referees, for sure. To ensure that one competitor doesn’t trip another, stray into someone else’s lane, or skip a downhill gate. Rules are rules, and need to apply equally to everyone. Cheating must not be rewarded -- whether by using steroids or sneaking a shortcut in a marathon.
But events should not need discretionary judges.
I’m not suggesting that judging panels are crooked or biased. Or even incompetent. That controversy was settled years ago. They were, and the process was fixed -- or so we’re assured.
But judging is always subjective. No matter how many technical factors are calculated into the process, judging always depends to some extent on what each judge considers to be an ideal performance.
How would you judge between Picasso and Rembrandt? Between Mozart and Gershwin? Between Sir Laurence Olivier’s Hamlet and Sir John Gielgud’s? Michelangelo and Henry Moore?
You don’t. You choose one over another not by an objective measure but by recognizing how that portrayal, that presentation, affects you.
A different venue
Figure skating, gymnastics, and acrobatic snowboarding are, I contend, dramatic portrayals and presentations.
These “sports” do have expected moves, certainly. And they certainly demand muscle, training, and skill. But we’ve come a long way from Barbara Ann Scott tracing mandatory figures on the ice to be examined with a magnifying glass. Torvill and Dean knocked the conventional rules of ice dance out of the rink in 1984 -- ever since then, the emphasis has been on artistry.
If artists want to compete with each other, good for them. Set up the rules; invite the contestants; bring on the judges. Hand out cups and statuettes and championships. Hold world competitions every two years, every four years, whenever.
But don’t do it under the Olympic banner.
*******************************************************
Copyright © 2017 by Jim Taylor. Non-profit use in congregations and study groups encouraged; links from other blogs welcomed; all other rights reserved.
To send comments, to subscribe, or to unsubscribe, write jimt@quixotic.ca
********************************************************
YOUR TURN
I sounded off last week about political correctness, and how it has become incorrect. Some of you support “PC” language; some don’t.
Rob Brown, for example, a former broadcaster who has some skill with words, wrote. “I must confess, Jim, that I am no fan of political correctness. It seems so foppish, so trendy. On the other hand, I do like to find words and phrases which more accurately describe things.”
Chris Duxbury singled out the word that Justin Trudeau used: “I have never used the word ‘peoplekind.’ I use ‘humanity’.”
Leslie Burns: "I've always despised the use of "man" to mean all people. I didn't understand it when I was a child and my mother explained it to me. It didn't seem fair. I'm especially rankled and resentful when I read the founding documents of our nation. "All men are created equal." They meant men and only men. It wasn't as if the words "human" and "people" weren't in the founders' vocabulary: "When in the course of human events..." "We, the people..." No, they meant men; only what they were actually implying was all white men who owned property. And we women and people of color and those of us who are "lesser than" have been trying to claw our way to our rightful, equal place in this country for almost 250 years. Words have real meaning and power. They can be many things, including a weapon and a drug."
Steve Roney focused on the same word: “Like you, I thought it was silly that everyone jumped on Justin Trudeau for his ‘peoplekind’ comment. It seemed obvious to me that it was a joke, and was understood as a joke by everyone present. The proof of this is that Trudeau said ‘peoplekind,’ instead of the well-established alternative ‘humankind.’ If he’d said the latter, it would not have sounded foolish enough to be funny.
“But it turns out that you, at least, took it seriously. And actually endorse the suggestion of ‘peoplekind’ as a good idea.”
JT: Actually, I don’t recall saying that.
Bill Rogers objected not to the word as much as Trudeau’s handling of it: “I agree with you that we (and our Prime Minister and those who wish to communicate without offence) must learn and appreciate 'politically correct' language. However the criticism for Mr. Trudeau's interjection is that he rudely interrupted and corrected the questioner. He could have responded to her [afterwards], and thus avoided taking over her question, avoided annoyance, and looked better for doing so.”
John McTavish took on the inclusivity of language: “You're right of course that one can make too much of the supposed rule that the masculine includes the feminine. But surely one can also make too little of the fact that the feminine includes the masculine -- as in 'Mother Nature,’ or in feminine references to cars and boats. Of course humans are rated much higher than cars or boats, and so the comparison obviously isn't the same. Then again, linguistic conventions have a way of taking on a life of their own. Which is why some women at least can be just as annoyed as some men with the aesthetic implications of politically correct language.”
Bonnie Mulligan made a “Case in point, our national anthem. Facebook has a meme criticizing the change of wording from ‘all our sons’ to ‘all of us’. It states the word ‘sons’ was to honor the young men who fought in the war. Well, what about the sacrifices women made helping the war effort? What about women, who also join the Canadian Armed Forces today? Whoever created the meme was trying to sound ‘noble’ -- without really thinking!”
Isabel Gibson picked up two issues: “First to language. Of course language matters: It both reflects and, over time, affects how we think. So speaking/writing respectfully and inclusively is a good thing from a people perspective.
“Back when hymns mattered to me, I thought the resistance from people to updating pronouns about people and God was fuzzy headed. I still do, although the 60-something me empathizes more now with ‘change fatigue’ than I did.
“Is ‘mankind’ really a masculine exclusionary term, in the same way that ‘man’ and ‘male’ and ‘he’ and ‘son’ are? I wouldn't have thought so, but my knowledge of the language doesn't extend to the derivation of those words. And maybe we're past the point where these facts matter. Maybe all that matters is that someone feels disrespected.
“Next to expressing views that conflict with someone else's. I objected to our Governor General's remarks at that speech because she was speaking outside the purview of her role but with all its profile. I objected because I think she spoke disrespectfully and dismissively about those who hold other views. I objected because I think she made a false analogy between astrology, most religions, and honest (and some scientific) skepticism about the extent to which people have caused climate change.”
On the other hand, Cliff Boldt commented, “The Payette reference sealed the debate.”
******************************************
TECHNICAL STUFF
If you want to comment on something, write me at jimt@quixotic.ca. Or just hit the ‘Reply’ button.
To subscribe or unsubscribe, send me an e-mail message at the address above. Or subscribe electronically by sending a blank e-mail (no message) to sharpedges-subscribe@lists.quixotic.ca. Similarly, you can un-subscribe at sharpedges-unsubscribe@lists.quixotic.ca.
My webpage is running again -- thanks to Wayne Irwin and ChurchWeb Canada. You can now access current columns and five years of archives at http://quixotic.ca
I write a second column each Wednesday, called Soft Edges, which deals somewhat more gently with issues of life and faith. To sign up for Soft Edges, write to me directly at the address above, or send a blank e-mail to softedges-subscribe@lists.quixotic.ca
********************************************
PROMOTION STUFF…
To use the links in this section, you’ll have to insert the necessary symbols.
Ralph Milton ’s latest project is called “Sing Hallelujah” -- the world’s first video hymnal. It consists of 100 popular hymns, both new and old, on five DVDs that can be played using a standard DVD player and TV screen, for use in congregations who lack skilled musicians to play piano or organ. More details at wwwDOTsinghallelujahDOTca
Ralph’s HymnSight webpage is still up, http://wwwDOThymnsightDOTca, with a vast gallery of photos you can use to enhance the appearance of the visual images you project for liturgical use (prayers, responses, hymn verses, etc.)
Wayne Irwin's “Churchweb Canada,” an inexpensive service for any congregation wanting to develop a web presence, with free consultation. <http://wwwDOTchurchwebcanadaDOTca>
I recommend Isabel Gibson’s thoughtful and well-written blog, wwwDOTtraditionaliconoclastDOTcom
Alva Wood’s satiric stories about incompetent bureaucrats and prejudiced attitudes in a small town -- not particularly religious, but fun; alvawoodATgmailDOTcom to get onto her mailing list.
Tom Watson writes a weekly blog called “The View from Grandpa Tom’s Balcony” -- ruminations on various subjects, and feedback from Tom’s readers. Write him at tomwatsoATgmailDOTcom or twatsonATsentexDOTnet