|
King of Kafiristan -> RE: No interest in the London Olympics (28/1/2012 4:28:42 PM)
|
For Londeners fraught with trepidation over the mounting costs required to hold these games, I've come up with some humble suggestions that I think would improve the quality of the Olympics and their value for the host country:
As I watched the 2010 Winter Olympics, I thought to myself: Is it fair that an accomplished athlete might be awesome, they might have won the world cup at their sport, but if they suffer just one mishap at the Olympics, they now will never medal? Why should someone who is great in between Olympics lose out on a medal just because of how they happened to do when the Olympics role around? Perhaps the four year delay between games made sense when athletes had to travel by tramp steamer in order to participate, but in the days of instant communication and transcontinental flights, it seems to me like the Olympics could be held much more regularly
If you're kick ass in an odd numbered year, I think the IOC should come up with a way to recognize that. If you're #1 in the world, that means something, even if you were not #1 at the exact moment the Olympics happened to role around
Also, it's a crazy waste of money to spend billions for games that will last only two weeks. Most of the Olympic structures that get erected (like the infamous 'birds nest' ) fall into slovenly disrepair once their time sensitive purpose has expired. I'm sure London would love the business boost my plan would provide
What do I suggest? This:
*Hold the Olympics every year*
YEAR ONE: London opens the games, and does the competitions, awarding medals
Year TWO: Athletes return to year two of the LONDON OLYMPICS, medals are awarded
YEAR 3: Same thing
YEAR 4: Whoever did the best over years one and two and three face off in year four. They are awarded a special kind of medal (palladium or something), that acknowledges their unique achievement of being the highest ranked Olympic athlete over the course of the London games. If an athlete did not do well enough in the first two years then they can rest up during year four for the next games
Essentially the different years of the games act as super heats for the Super Olympics to be held in the fourth year of an Olympic city's games.
There is a closing ceremony, and the Olympics leave London
YEAR FIVE: New games begin, with a new opening ceremony in a new location
This gives athletes a chance to prove that they were at least able to be
the best in the world at one time. So if you got a gold in year two,
you could look at that and say "At that moment, I was the best in the
world". An athlete with a palladium medal could look at it and know that
they were the best athlete at the entire London games , because they
succeeded more than anyone else at their discipline over that set time
FINAL IDEA: I am against the extinguishing of the Olympic flame. I read
in a book once ("In the Footsteps of Alexander The Great") that there is
a sacred Zoroastrian flame that's been burning for 3000 years. During
times of invasion/threat to the flame, it was hidden and kept in remote
locations, sometimes reduced to mere embers that were carefully tended
for centuries. And so, today, you can walk into a building in Iran and
see a fire that has been burning since before Alexander entered Babylon
And so... I think they should keep the Olympic flame burning, from game
to game. Extinguish the host city's cauldron, but keep the flame alive
between games. Perhaps make that the responsibility of certain nations.
The duty could rotate, so that even nations who would never get to host
the games would have a chance to share in the glory and the honor of
safeguarding the flame.
It would be great to see the torch lighting in 2012 and know it's the
same fire that burned in Munich in '36. Obviously that can't happen, but
we could start a tradition now at least
|
|
|
|
