Olympic Soup -- London Style

Olympic Soup -- London Style

My favorite Olympic quote so far came this morning from Allen St. John at Salon: "Over the first weekend, I've watched equestrian, dressage, women's table tennis, women's fencing, archery, bicycle racing, volleyball, team hand ball, and men's water polo. It's like Wide World of Sports on steroids.

"Just this afternoon I learned that when you shoot over the goalie in water polo, it's called a bunny, that it's really, really hard to get a dressage horse to just walk in a straight line, and watched a one-armed Polish table tennis player quietly compete against able-bodied rivals without a tenth of the hype surrounding amputee track star Oscar Pistorious."

Myself, I'm wondering what the ratings were like for dressage and whether anyone would have watched it at all if not for a cameo from the Romneys. Or, perhaps, I should say for the inevitable endless David Letterman bits on "horse dancing."

When I went to camp, I was pretty good at archery, but our bows look nothing like the ones they now use in Olympic competition. I went to a tough camp; we were given axes, told to go into the woods and carve our own bows. For bow strings we used strips of intestines from a moose we had hunted and killed ourselves. All this crap they've got on them now - rods, and tubes and stabling screws. What a bunch of wimps. And the Italians, of all nations, win the gold in archery. Jennifer Lawrence didn't need any of those gizmos in The Hunger Games, and neither did Jeremy Renner as Hawkeye in "The Avengers."

I think to have a genuine Olympic competition you should have to make your own bow in a style unique to your nation. The Brits should have to use the Robin Hood-type longbow, Chinese and Mongols should have to come up with a collapsible bow that Asian horse archers perfected, and Italians should be required to use the cross bow their ancestors invented in the Middle Ages. Americans should have to use some kind of bow peculiar to American Indians (only with artificial feathers because I've heard most of the birds they used are now endangered. I've sent this plan to the IOC over the years, but it always falls on deaf ears).

Of all the sports I don't follow until I watch the Olympics, I think gymnastics are, far and away, the most thorough, strenuous, and beautiful of all athletic endeavors. For sheer physical virtuosity it surpasses everything else in all the competitions. Nothing seems so impossible as those triple turns on the high bar; every time I see it I wonder "What must that have been like the first time he or she did that?" What courage it must take to try that for the first time. A diver isn't risking his life the first time he tries a triple somersault. But a gymnast, damn, you could break anything in your body - including your neck - because of the tiniest slip-up.

This is why it was so heartbreaking watching our men's and women's teams screw up. I say screw-up because even the worst gymnastic performance - by Olympics standards - still places the gymnast in the top 12 or 15 in the world. But fifth place for the American men? How did that happen? We were supposed to be competing with the Chinese for gold, and we ended up two spaces behind the Brits?

Our two top men, Danell Leyva and New York's John Orozco, ranked fourth going into today's competition, seemed oddly out of kilter and had serious trouble on the pommel horse. How bad were they (relative to the other athletes)? Well, I only watch gymnastics every four years, and it was obvious to me.

But why did they falter so badly? Why did they fail to live up to such high expectations? Nothing in the analysis, even when their performances were replayed in slo0mot, could explain it. That's what bugs me about so much Olympic commentary. Too many commentators make it sound like it's all heart and magic and the will to win; they never say something like "The Chinese believe in starting slowly and accelerating midway through the performance" or "The Americans don't have proper wrist technique when dismounting the pommel." Stuff like that.

The most baffling failure, though - in fact the one that's going to hurt most when we add up the medals -- Jordyn Wieber missing the all-around finals in women's gymnastics. A number of critics are now bemoaning the fact that Aly Raisman is now our best hope because of the rule restricting each country to just two competitors.

Yes, there are probably better U.S. women's gymnasts than Raisman who aren't even on the team - Elizabeth Price, who finished 4th in the Olympic trials, didn't make our five-member team because of a technicality. Yes, our own rules should be changed to include the best all-around gymnasts. But even after that happens, it won't explain how an athlete of Wieber's caliber performed so poorly.

The best Olymoic writer I've found, Bill Oram of the Salt Lake City Tribune, described her performance: "There was a step out of bounds on the vault and a break in form on the uneven bars, and Wieber never quite seemed to achieve balance on the beam. On the final rotation, the floor exercise, she stepped beyond the corner boundary. (That's how I would have written it if my eye was as sharp as Oram's).

Anyone can have an off-day, but I can't remember an Olympics when three top American athletes all failed, badly, to live up to expectations within 24 hours.

Sponsor Content


All-access pass to the top stories, events and offers around town.

  • Top Stories


All-access pass to top stories, events and offers around town.

Sign Up >

No Thanks!

Remind Me Later >