A little theory of mine.

One will notice that Russians aren't performing as well in the Olympics as compared to years past. Only today have they moved into 3rd overall in the medal count - and even so the totals are uninspiring.

I think a country's athletics capability are indicative of the developmental and training capacity (and of course the finances involved) of the years prior to the competition.

So (as an example) when a 14-17 year old athlete starts truly training for the particular sport he's involved in - it depends on the infrastructure of the society he's attempting to do so in. If a country's economic period is poor at the time - the money invested and therefore equipment and gym time/classes and instructors costs will be reflective of what can be afforded.

Most of the Russian athletes are about 22-25 now. So the few years back that they were being trained - there simply wasn't enough money (as Russia was going though an unsteady economic period in its history) in the country to properly train and support these athletes. Hence the drop-off in talent and ability and retroactively the medal count in these years Olympics.

But Denys! (you might say) Russians just swept womens tennis!

This is true. And if you know your Russian history and past presidents you'll realize that Yeltsin loved two other things besides vodka. And that was women and tennis. At the time of his presidency there was a slight increase in government funding towards tennis clinics which young girls were encouraged to attend (while young men were busy being trained to fight in Chechnya). Now we see the results of that particular time in Russian history.

...of course I may be way off. Just a thought...

Last edited by denys envy on Aug-18-2008 at 00:38

i guess they no longer send them to Gulags when they lose
Clearly the lack of motivation is the problem

___________________

insignificant cor member alliance

quote:

Originally posted by stren i guess they no longer send them to Gulags when they lose Clearly the lack of motivation is the problem

that makes way more sense.

quote:

Originally posted by denys envy that makes way more sense.

/thread

quote:

Originally posted by denys envy I think a country's athletics capability are indicative of the developmental and training capacity (and of course the finances involved) of the years prior to the competition.

I don't agree with this at all, unless you are talking about the "developmental and training capacity" of sports alone.

The losers should build a new road of bones.


Seriously you are looking way too much into sports. Olympic sports at that.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On OOKA-OOKA ME NACHOS ME PRESS KEYS ON COMPUTER GOOD

quote:

Originally posted by Cetra³ I don't agree with this at all, unless you are talking about the "developmental and training capacity" of sports alone.

i guess to clarify - the athlete's family (unlike the united states) will most of the time not have enough money to support an athlete. a swimmer (for example) needs pool time and training. they need good coaches that have been around the sport for a while and know what they're talking about - these people cost a bit more money - after all no one does things for free anymore.

usually a government of that country steps in and supports the athlete if there's enough future in it. through grants and things like olympic development programs (popular in the united states). buys him the latest technology suits etc.

also (generally) there need to be people to support this individual - whether crowds at an event or others buying merchandise. when an economy suffers the supporters are less likely to spend money and follow the sport.

however up and coming economies aren't capable of supporting such expenses and are more that likely to not fully fund an athlete.

i'm saying a country's financial success is directly related to the success of its athletes in various areas.

I see. I still think that a country could be economically viable enough to support athletes, but choose not to.

Conversely though, if they don't have a stable economy, they won't be able to support athletes at all.

quote:

Originally posted by Cetra³ I see. I still think that a country could be economically viable enough to support athletes, but choose not to. Conversely though, if they don't have a stable economy, they won't be able to support athletes at all.

I just think there's a lot of talent all over the world. A little faith never hurt anyone .

But take a look at the African continent for example. A lot of these countries have very good and talented athletes but those that do succeed usually do so abroad.

Take a look at football (soccer) - a lot of French players have roots or were born in Congo / Senegal / Guadeloupe (Gallas) / Cameroon / Benin / Mali / Tunisia / French Guiana / Algeria / Lesser Antilles (and this is just browsing through the first team. Their countries didn't have the economic capabilities to raise these players' talents properly - so they did the only sensible thing and moved.

EDIT: Some of the countries mentioned above are not of the African continent. But you get the point.

The last 3 tennis prodigies have been russian women: Kournikova Sharapova and what's her face that just exploded on the circuit.

The answer is either "What is the Cold War?" or "What is communism?"

___________________
last minute disco dot net

Russia brought home the gold in headbutting.

___________________
. . .. . .. . . . .. . .