What is the point of the Paralympics? I understand that these people train hard but are cruelly unable to compete on an equal footing (no pun intended) with able bodied athletes, but that applies to alot of people. How about an Olympics for people born fat or asthmatic, or running for people with short legs or flat feet? In the context of the Olympics and the physical perfection it embodies, 99.9% of the world's population is disabled.
I enjoy watching it for the technology and I think it can be an excellent driver of technology. I firmly believe that in 10 years the runners will be outpacing the able bodied Olympians and I think that is what the Paralympics are about, much like Formula One. That's why when Pistorius moans about the other guy's longer blades I don't particularly have any sympathy. I also don't want to hear the word 'brave' anymore. There's nothing brave about turning up to a sporting event that's been tailored to ensure you get to enter when you wouldn't make the grade in a regular sporting competition. If this is really about the disabled being brave they should replace the medals with Blue Peter badges.
Yes, I know I'm an absolute cunt. I'm just interested in hearing opinions on the validity of the Paralympics.
>I also don't want to hear the word 'brave' anymore.
I don't completely share your overall view, but I can agree with this. Some of the condescension in the coverage has been staggering. It's felt about one hair's breadth away from patting them on the head as though they were pets.
>>4480 It sounds stupid but really it's no different to having weight classes in boxing. Small people can't beat big people so they have to put them in their own class. Fat people can't outrun regular people so why shouldn't they have their own weight class in running? I suppose the only difference is that people want to see small people box.
>>4478 >I understand that these people train hard but are cruelly unable to compete on an equal footing (no pun intended) with able bodied athletes, but that applies to alot of people.
Not... really. You've got that wrong. You'll find there are many athletes in the Olympics who did start out with flat feet but iron out their technique, or work with their short legs (in some events that's an advantage), or who are asthmatic. There is no athlete who is a perfect physical specimen, they all just train very hard. Only at the very upper echelons or people who storm the sport completely do you see spectators pointing to physical characteristics as a reason, like Bolt or Phelps.
The reason the Paralympics are separated from the regular Olympics is not necessarily because one group is better than the other, but because such major physical augmentations to their bodies make it such a different sport that it's impossible to meaningfully compare them. You point out yourself, those artificial limbs and other technologies will become so sophisticated that, in time, it's very likely that a Paralympian will run faster than an Olympian. The categorisations you suggest are nonsensical.
So while I don't agree with your reasoning, it is a good idea to question the validity of the Paralympics for another reason which you sort of touch upon in your post; since the competitions rely so heavily on money, does it alienate disabled non-competitors even more? You could argue the Olympics also relies heavily on money, but the disabled are a marginalised group in society. Would that make it worse for them? Those are the questions worth considering.
That's a really dull, simplistic view and I get the feeling you don't know much about boxing. Weight classes exist to promote good competition. Again, not because one group are better boxers than the other, but because keeping fighters of similar weights produces better fighters and better fights.* Ask anyone who knows anything about boxing who the best fighters were, it's never down to weight. It's why people choose to use the phrase 'pound for pound' when talking about it. Most pro boxers themselves would cite Sugar Ray Robinson whose career spanned three or four weight classes.
The reason that doesn't happen with running is because including a 'fat people' weight class in other sports does not potentially yield better athletes or events. It's not just about whether people 'want to see it', it's about seeing the value in a sporting event and tweaking the rules to produce the best possible expression of those values (which is actually a very nice summary of this entire post).
*Also, my personal opinion on this is that it's just as likely you'd see the lighter weight evade and jab for the entire fight, which if being consistently knocked around increases chances of injury, and/or strike lucky a few times on the bigger opponent, as seeing the heavier fighter lump the little one right off the bat. It would generally produce a hazardous, very boring, potentially ugly, match.
>>4482 I know anyone can get somewhere (local or maybe even regional level) by training hard but I'm fairly certain that those that make it as far as the Olympics got lucky with their genes too. Going back to fat people, if you're born fat you're never going to make it to the 100 metres sprint in the Olympics no matter how hard you work. If you're born tall and athletic you might make it with proper training. I don't see the difference between a fat person and a bloke with one leg in this context.
>>4482 >Weight classes exist to promote good competition... because keeping fighters of similar weights produces better fighters and better fights.
Couldn't the same be said of any sport? Perhaps if we had weight classes in tennis we'd get better rallies from the men with more strategy and less power and it would yield better events. I'm sure any event would see differences in styles developing between weight classes because obviously the optimum winning strategy would be slightly different.
>>4483 >if you're born fat you're never going to make it to the 100 metres sprint in the Olympics no matter how hard you work.
I'm not sure that's true. By far the highest stake in becoming an athlete is in training, and athletes generally don't decide to specialise in a particular sport until well into puberty. The bodies adapt to the training.
I would say that the difference between regional level competitors and Olympic level competitors is still mostly training and resources. I'm not sure how much regional competitors train at their sport, but I'm guessing most will hold down a day job, too. Perhaps it's genetic potential that distinguishes them and gets them those resources to train more? Or perhaps a larger personal commitment to the sport? More time and money? I can't say, all this is purely speculative.
However I do think I've made the point that it's much harder to distinguish between the conditions you/the OP use and missing a limb or sensory input.
You know, I wouldn't disagree with you, there. Tennis is one of those sports that's fascinating for how player techniques evolve over time.
I think perhaps that's where we come down to a question of public interest, and more importantly, funding. For obvious reasons, weight classes were more of a necessity in boxing/martial arts than in other sports (i.e. safety). I have to say, though, I'd love to see what a lightweight tennis is like. I imagine we'd have less baseline defenders and see more little guys dancing up and down the court again.
I mistook your tone for deliberate trolling. In short, I think you're wrong because there are disabled people other than the athletes who compete in the Paralympic games, but they still invariably has an impact on how disabled people are viewed as a whole. This debate keeps recurring, in fact, partially because there are disabled activists and commentators who bring it up.
And they do more harm than good to their cause, in the same way your hair-trigger feminist blogger does. To paraphrase a point made on the Channel 4 coverage a couple of days ago, the paralympians represent disabled people as a whole about as much as Usain Bolt represents the able-bodied. They are a rare elite, and personally I consider them less sportsmen with disabilities, and more sportsmen in very specialised sports.
The debate may drag on forever, doesn't mean there's anything in it.
You implied in your post that the able-bodied have less valid opinions, now you're saying that the disabled who do speak out are wrong to. They don't do more harm than good to their cause because the slant of the coverage of the Paralympics never changes. They're still treated as representatives of disabled people as a whole, and I'm guessing your Channel 4 quote was on the supplementary broadcast rather than the main one. If that were to change, if they were to be treated as highly trained and equipped competitors rather than just disabled people, perhaps the 'hair-trigger' commentators would have no reason to fire off?
Okay, apologies if this has been talked about but I got halfway through the thread and kept reading born fat, born fat, BORN FAT.
WHO THE FUCK IS BORN FAT? Babies are just plump little gelatinous blobs with a face. If parents let their kids sit on their arses all day and feed them shit, then that's a shame but NOBODY IS BORN FAT.
It can take time to change attitudes, and surely it does require people to draw attention to it to start that change at all? You have to remember that the disabled are in an extreme minority, so it is difficult to have their attitudes affect broadcasters.
Personally? I think it ties into the much broader problem of television dumbing down and simplifying concepts so that they're easily digestible for the public. The reason it's bemoaned so loudly here is that the way in which it affects the disabled is especially acute because of their fewer numbers. So while you are right that the Paralympians should probably be regarded as specialised sportsmen by now, or at least in the near future, you should have more patience with those pointing out how it's not covered that way. It could even be down to this continued discourse that you find so tedious that stations do run those features on secondary programmes at all.
>>4493 I'm sure I read about babies being born obese because they have obese mothers who constantly stuffed themselves full of McDonald's while pregnant.
On topic, I was watching table tennis between people missing a forearm and I couldn't see the point as I doubt they'd have been disadvantaged against someone with both arms.
Perhaps you can't be literally born fat, but you could certainly be born with a huge propensity to become fat. An endomorphic body, poor insulin response, shit metabolism, whatever it is, some people have an uphill struggle through no fault of thier own. Eating poorly and sitting on thier arse is often the cause, yes, but some people will gain exponentially more weight than others by doing this because of their body.
>What is the point of the Paralympics?
To promote the understanding of the plight of disabled people in society.
>I understand that these people train hard but are cruelly unable to compete on an equal footing (no pun intended) with able bodied athletes, but that applies to alot of people. How about an Olympics for people born fat or asthmatic, or running for people with short legs or flat feet?
Those people are not consistently ridiculed and maligned by the general populace.
>In the context of the Olympics and the physical perfection it embodies, 99.9% of the world's population is disabled.
No. If you train hard enough as a completely able bodied person, i.e. no debilitating illnesses, no physical reason you can't be equal to others with 2 arms and 2 legs, then you can be as good as anyone. See: Michael Owen.
>I enjoy watching it for the technology and I think it can be an excellent driver of technology. I firmly believe that in 10 years the runners will be outpacing the able bodied Olympians
Possibly true.
>I think that is what the Paralympics are about, much like Formula One.
No. As I said earlier, the paralympics are about promoting understanding towards disabled people.
>That's why when Pistorius moans about the other guy's longer blades I don't particularly have any sympathy.
Some people may have better technology than other competitors, but that doesn't change the underlying message of "stop being a cunt to people in wheelchairs, as they can easily be so much better than you as a person."
>I also don't want to hear the word 'brave' anymore.
Neither do I.
>There's nothing brave about turning up to a sporting event that's been tailored to ensure you get to enter when you wouldn't make the grade in a regular sporting competition.
Yes there is. Disabled people are regularly ridiculed and abused in the street, in some areas they are mistaken for junkies who took their addictions too far and looked down upon. The paralympics are their chance to show the world that they are more than just useless amputees draining our tax fund, which many people mistakenly believe they are. They are putting themselves out there in front of millions or billions of people who could have any opinion of them ranging from scum to hero.
>If this is really about the disabled being brave they should replace the medals with Blue Peter badges.
You're an absolute cunt.
>Yes, I know I'm an absolute cunt.
Oh.
>I'm just interested in hearing opinions on the validity of the Paralympics.
Well, I've presented mine. Pick them apart if you like, I'm actually interested in any retorts you or anyone else has to my replies.
>>4497 >How about an Olympics for people born fat or asthmatic, or running for people with short legs or flat feet?
>Those people are not consistently ridiculed and maligned by the general populace.
When have you ever seen someone ridicule a midget, wheelchair user or amputee?
I've seen people take the piss out of asthmatics, people with short legs and those with flat feet (on the few occasions they knew what that meant), and to suggest that no-one takes the piss out of fat people is fucking absurd.
>>4497 >To promote the understanding of the plight of disabled people in society.
I get that, which is my main beef. It's not a real competition. It's a massive PR stunt. Much as I care about the plight of the disabled, a huge international competition with international TV coverage is way over the top. Also, these people are the lucky disabled. What about an Olympics for paraplegics or those with locked in syndrome? Those people really suffer.
>If you train hard enough as a completely able bodied person, i.e. no debilitating illnesses, no physical reason you can't be equal to others with 2 arms and 2 legs.
Maybe in some events, but 100m winners are born into it. Training won't increase the length of your legs.
>>4497 Just noticed this:
>Disabled people are regularly ridiculed and abused in the street, in some areas they are mistaken for junkies who took their addictions too far and looked down upon.
Yes, you are absolutely right. But those disabled people are not going to make it into the Paralympics. We are attempting to promote the rights of the excluded by celebrating an elite. It doesn't make sense to me.
>What about an Olympics for paraplegics or those with locked in syndrome?
I'll be charitable and assume you mean quadriplegia. Either way they are represented at the paralympics, many of the BC2 class players in the boccia can only move their heads, and as far as I recall you're not actually allowed on the wheelchair rugby teams unless you're tetraplegic or above.
Also, are you saying people with disabilities less profound than the examples you give don't 'really suffer'? Careful now.
These people will live their whole lives with varying degrees of disability, for various reasons, whereas you and I have the luxury of (hopefully!) living out our days as an able bodied human being. Let them have their fucking sports day.
The difference between them not being able to compete with able athletes is they are physically incapable of doing so, you are just too fucking lazy to try to.
