Questioning a sporting triumph

So it is never a problem when America and Britain pours huge amount of money on training athletes but a huge problem when China does it. I smell double standards topped with sour grapes.

I just don't get it. Winning lots of gold medals or any medal for that matter used to be a very good thing. How did it turn into such a bad thing? This is bewildering. Did I inadvertently end up in a parallel universe where things are mostly sour?

I used to dismiss the idea that this newspaper had any bias against China but now I'm not so sure ... what with the stupefying ability to find the most negative perspective on a basically good thing as long as China is involved. This is a high art. Wow! I'm floored!

Even by the prevailing anti-China standard of this paper, this article on the Olympics was exceptionally mean spirited. Has nothing positive come of China's hosting of the Games? The article's insinuation that China should follow India's athletic lead is absurd. One can only deduce that the Economist would prefer to see China prone and prostrate in athletics.For an illustration of this paper's self dealing, consider the comments made on August 21 in the article, "Britain's record-breaking performance.""A shot of public money has undoubtedly helped a lot.""The way public cash is awarded, ..., has sharpened the incentives to take a more professional approach."The article even heaps praise upon John Major, proponent of public financing for sports in the UK, calling him victor ludorum (winner of the games).In the same issue but with a change of scenery, somehow public money becomes obscene."Central planning in sports has its limitations."A litany of quotes on how state spending on athletics is a waste of money follows. A sampling of pejoratives contained within: profligate, waste, unfair.How were these articles possibly edited and pasted into the same issue of the Economist without heads exploding in Westminster?

Let's not forget that a heavily state-sponsored sports system wouldn't work in a country like the US anyway. Broke as it is, the US government really has no money to spare!

If the Chinese government has some extra cash to burn, it's up to them how they spent it. Better investing it in some olympic atheletes to boost the national pride, than invading other courtries and killing innocent lives. If you think the chinese government's ROI on their cash is poor in this olympics, talk about the US government's ROI on the Iraq war! By the way, how much is the gas price today?

The author seems to believe that a population-weighted gold metal ranking is more reasonable. Why don't NBC rank Jamaica at the top then?

Holy Smokey!! god blezz the quinn!!This year China won its International Mathematics Olympic Gold medal. And then China won the 39th International Physics Olympiad contest.And now China tops the 2008 Beijing Olympic Gold medals.All this magazine can do is to say the gold does not glitter!!If this happens to China, I am sure they will look at the facts, analyze the reasons for losing, review, reform and strategize. But all this cotton picking magazine can do is to say that the gold does not glitter!!If this magazine is influential in UK society (which I don’t think it is and I hope not), this article will encourage the UK people to find excuses when they under achieve.To become lower, slower, and weakerTo acquire bigger and bigger posteriorsTo become dumb, dumber, and dumbest.

Scathing article on China. Criticism is due, many of those athletes are indeed deprived of a normal life. This would be a fine article had it been accompanied by a larger article focusing on achievements. Seems unnecessarily harsh. Can't we write something positive about China in at least one of these Olympic articles, good things have happened."breakthrough for the yellow race in an event dominated by black people" is not the sort of language I'd like to see regurgitated by this publication.

As far as I'm concerned, I've come to realize the The Economist is very anti-China, even in its non-editorial articles such as this one. The subtle ways these writers end their sentences and their tone show this.1. The opening ceremony was amazing. There is not argument about it. Yet, these writers still have the guts to criticize it with "still much to learn from Kim Jong Il". What Zhang Yimou said is true. However, you don't need to lead of what he said with that anti-communist title.2. The torch relay was not as "protest-plagued" as many people think it was. It only SEEMED like it because the western media LOVED reporting on the protest-plagued aspect of the race. Go on Google and search all the stops in the relay. Less than 1/8 of the stops were as wild as what happened in France, and most of those countries were in the west.3. The Economist has the penchant for talking about Taiwan like it is a country, usually saying things like "with countries like the USA, Brazil, Taiwan etc." The put it bluntly, this is bad journalism. Taiwan's status, in the western view at best, is like that of Hong Kong. It's real status is somewhere between a Chinese province and Special Administrative Region. The British recognizes the People's Republic of China as the sole government of China, after all they have an embassy there. Thus they should stop referring to Taiwan as a "country" and more like a rebellious American teenager.4. This periodical has not said anything about the positive impact of the Beijing Olympics. Unbiased journalism? Enough said.5. Up until now, I thought only the Republic of Korea ranked countries according to # of medals to country population ratio, which I thought was extremely funny considering how Koreans want to achieve prestige despite their small population. Now The Economist has also resorted to this absurd way of ranking countries in the Olympics?? Haha. To think they would go this far to insult China. If you don't know already, the IOC ranks countries according to # of gold medals. So does the rest of the world except the USA (which ranks total medals. obviously. they always win that) and Korea (which has a small population). China has always been following the IOC example and has always ranked according to # of gold medals (even when they weren't winning the medal count). The point is, as of today, China is leading the medal count. To The Economist: Applaud them for their efforts (without your subtle witty anti-China comments. Remember, the more positive you are, the longer you'll live. And I'm sure there are thousands of Economist readers who want to see this periodical survive through the ages.

As a Canadian-born Chinese, I have mixed feelings about this article. I was brought up to be aware (and therefore critical of) the decreased individual freedoms in a Juguo system -- athletics related or not -- and cannot imagine the rigorous training that Chinese athletes undergo starting from childhood. But the narrow-mindedness of this article is disappointing from the Economist. By focusing on governmental policies, the author has dismissed the individual achievements of the Chinese Olympic athletes, as if to say, their bodies were actually just militarized robots and not actually human? As if to say, just because the state had put in money into their training (and I agree, lots of it), the near-perfect form, control, strength and overall performance under stress are simply dismissed and passed over for athletes who didn't perform as well? Everyone knows that certain ethnicities are physically built to exceed in certain areas, and I personally think it is quite amazing (somewhat amusing, even) for a Chinese to be able to break into the hurdles scene. Sure, funding is needed to train -- but the key word is train -- there's something to be said for any athlete who can compete on the same level of another 'ball game'. In the Olympics, a gold medal performance deserves a gold medal; no footnote is required.As if athletes in Western countries didn't look for their 'break'. Don't rising sports stars in secondary school look forward to the day when they get to study on a full sports scholarship? And didn't Tiger Woods start as a child, leading to many stories of new parents having high and early hopes for their children? We all have the same dreams of personal achievement (wasn't particularly thinking of the Olympic slogan) and now, up-and-coming Chinese athletes will have more opportunities in sports that Western athletes have enjoyed in their lifetimes. Opportunities are created. Lastly, on spending policy, all countries have their criticis, inside and outside of the state. The last I heard, no country had a perfect education or health system for its entire population, and we all work on that. In my opinion, spending money with the objective of raising top athletes and providing opportunities for individuals, while providing hope to the rest of the population and unifying national pride(1), is a world more constructive than spending on destruction and wars... I'm sure we don't need to go into that.(1) Further, for any observant individual living in a multi-cultural environment, they will notice that this pride of the Chinese Olympics has permeated across national borders across the large 'Chinese remnant' of the globe.

When China did something great, then others will think about because China has a big population. However, when China got some problems, these people just became fooled and ignored the big population. It is very difficult to manage 1/5 population of the whole world. Call Bush, Obama or other presidents to manage this, they will definitely ..........

Why should this journal spit on the genuine happiness and enthusiasm of the People of China at being the hosts for the 2008 Olympic Games. It is obvious that all the voulanteers and those who were part of the Cultural sections of the various ceremonies in the games took a great deal of pride in their contribution to the spectacular performances. Do you think that Hu Jin Tao held a gun to their heads to ensure their performance? Why do you not have a kind word for them? Is it too difficult for you to believe that these were a willing contribution by young and proud people to the glory of their country? Is it too difficult for you to understand and appreciate chinese culture? You are the Economist with a reputation for understanding and appreciating the development of countries, and I have been reading your journal since I was 16 years old. I have never seen a section so full of bile and negative sentiments as your reporting on the games in China, perhaps you think that the chinese are sub human. My Great grand mother was chinese and She could do the Times crossword published in our local newspaper as she ate her breakfast, and that was 65 years ago: I am sure your correspondent cannot do so today. China is a modern country with a vast heritage and those who pettifog on the fringe deny themselves an opportunity to particpate in its glorious future.

Measuring things on a per capita basis seems reasonable enough -- or a per million population basis. That way, pollution per capita puts China way behind the US. China is more than four times cleaner in terms of CO2 emissions. Canada and South Korea seems pretty bad at this pollutant per capita measurement.My point is there are all sorts of seemingly intelligent ways to make a nation look bad or good. At some point this sort of incessant negativity against China is just going to make really important issues get rejected off-hand by the Chinese as yet another petty complaint against them.

I agree with most of the points Xinhua and other Chinese media is making about funding of sports in China. I think that China needs to have better grass roots infrastructure for popular sports like badminton, soccer, volleyball, tennis, basketball, table tennis, tennis, gymnastics and even weighlifting. For these type of sports there is no need to have children training from 6-7 years of age, China should spend more money on funding clubs/school at the local level for these sports. National/Provincial training centers should only be necessary then athletes reach 17-18 years old for these sports if they are trained under a good club/school system. But the big question is if the government is really interested in making people play more sports or just in it for national glory. I think this is what Xinhua is pointing out, they believe the whole point of the gold medals is to make more Chinese people interested in sports no matter what the sport. What Xinhua is getting at is you need both support of sport at elite and grassroots levels for it to be sustainable.Centralized training is good if the sports is not popular, but it could actually hurt performance in certain sports particularly where success is not easily attributed to certain physical attributes. Soccer is the best example, and even basketball to an extent. If you look at the Chinese Olympic Basketball team they are on average taller than the Americans players by two inches, but they did not make it to the semifinals. By selecting and training children based on physical attributes you would not have athletes like Usian Bolt, Allen Iverson, Diego Maradona, Justine Henin, Martina Hingis, Michael Chang, Andre Agassi or Susi Susanti.

"This funding will allow our governing bodies to set in motion the most ambitious programme we've ever seen in this country for spotting talent and turning it into medal success on the world stage." Q: Who has made such statement?A: Tessa Jowell in 2006.Q: Who?A: The Olympics Minister and Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport.Q: From which country?A: From UK, also known as the "Great" Britain.Q: How much funding?A: £600m added to the £60m a year already targeted at elite athletes and potential medal winners.Here is the link:http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/other_sports/olympics_2012/4833876.stm Here are some other quote:"The additional £300m means all Olympic sports can focus on programmes that will contribute to the target of fourth place in the 2012 medals table." --- Simon Clegg BOA chief executive."with this new funding we can prepare for an even brighter future with many more gold medals to celebrate." --- Tessa Jowell

Unfortunately, The Economist discourse on China's sporting triumph is weakly substantiated if not outright superfluous. The Chinese way of training the athletic elites may not be the best or most acceptable to the eyes of the West, but at least it has brought home 47 golds till this moment to top the medal list, 19 ahead of the nearest rival.

It defies common wisdom to argue that commercialized sports would be the best way to reach the pinnacle of sports arena and secure more gold medals in Olympics. The comparison of China with India has been unfortunate.

The chart shows that Britain has 0.28 gold medals per million population, far above China. One would wonder how many of these gold medalists were born and bred in Britain. If world top class sports-persons can be bought over by and later represent the rich nations to compete in world events, then obviously commercial sponsorship has its unsurpassed advantages. However, there is no need for China to import any, it only exports.

Just wait till London organizes its 2012 Olympics.
(Tan Boon Tee)

I do not think the UK has earned the privilege to host the 2012 Olympic until she has done the following:1. Formally apologize to the Africans for the slave trade, and pay retribution.2. Formally apologize to the Chinese for being the biggest opium trafficker and drug pusher in history, and pay retribution.3. Formally apologize to the Indians for enslaving the Indian citizens to build the biggest opium manufacturing operations in human history, and pay retribution.

It is disappointing to see a formerly distinguished publication like this one sink to such lows. At every opportunity and on every topic the Economist can be relied upon to take cheap shots at China. This puts the paper into the tradition of yellow journalism most useful in dehumanizing rivals, intensifying antagonisms, and eventually supporting war.

All for what? Because a culture they don't understand is using a political system they don't understand to overcome a history they don't understand to achieve successes they begrudge. That is petty, juvenile, niggardly behaviour which isn't just unbecoming. It is dangerously irresponsible.

Given the profound importance of China's rise, I strongly advise the Economist's senior editorial staff to converse at length and depth with a panel of China scholars. I can barely believe I have to teach the Economist this, but cultures are different. China, more than most traditional cultures, values COMMUNITY more than individualism. That isn't bad, wrong, or misguided. It is simply DIFFERENT. While Chinese thereby deemphasize individuality, they gain social stability and harmony. So when a Chinese athlete or scholar spends years training away from home and perchance wins a medal, an imperial post, or a Nobel prize, he honors not only his own sacrifices but those of the family that supported him. The respect he earns is not focused solely on him but spreads to his family, his hometown, his province, and his nation. In traditional times, a family would be honored for generations because of the accomplishments of a single scholar.

For some reason (perhaps because journalism is so poor) Westerners choose not to appreciate these different cultural traditions and instead hear evil, see evil, and speak evil. That is a shame.

And is the West so perfect that it cannot learn lessons from abroad? America, after all, spends more on sports (and weapons) than any nation in history. Far far more than China. And to what end? To squander thousands of lives, billions of man-hours, and many billions of dollars on facile entertainment and beer ads? Because these things are deemed democratic and free market oriented, the West considers them good, right, and proper. They are not. They are merely different.

typingmonkey - as a Westerner I am ashamed for the treatment and bias present in many elements of Western media which is more dangerous for its insidious nature, as it is cloaked in a mantle of 'freedom' and 'democracy'.

I burn with anger at the sneering and superior tones and attitudes infecting many journalists as I am alarmed at the willingness of opinion-leading organisations (the BBC springs particularly to mind) to be reduced to mouthpieces for their governments' policies.

China and Russia - perhaps being the significant rivals - have come in for particular vilification. This would be not half as bad if it were not for the astounding hypocrisy of engaging in widespread corruption and manipulation (Africa in particular), colonial-style empire wars (Middle East, South-Eastern Europe) and then shrilly decrying the same behaviour in others.

Shameful.

I don't think the Economist was being anti-Chinese in this article, but pointing out concerns of the Chinese to have more people participate in Sports.However, the Economist to be balanced should also mentioned that West Germany and to an extent the UK is adopting some aspects of the Soviet model by picking athletes that show promise at an early age (11-12 or later) and grooming them in specialized sport schools. The UK is even selecting athletes that they think will be good for sports that are not competitive like picking former swimmers to be rowers. So for sports it is not cut and dry as Capitalism vs State Planning.Just as the UK and West Germany are adopting various aspects of the Soviet model, so are the Chinese interested in adopting the Western club systems and using private sponsers for certain sports like tennis, golf, badminton, table tennis, basketball and volleyball.As for comparing India with China. Even China was to adopt a system found in most Western countries and the rest of East Asia (ie Korea and Japan) it would not as many medals but would still in the short run get about a decent amount of medals and would move up as the economy improves. India performance is dismal compared not just to China but also to Asian countries like Indonesia and Thailand. The problem is partly to do with poor social indicators in India low literacy, high malnutrition, female inequality and also because Indians love cricket at the expensive of other sports.

It's always easier to be the underdog, and always tougher to defend your gold. China no doubt push the west into the defensive this time. A true champion are those who can face the challenger with confidence and determination, who can take a punch and still fight back. The author's reaction, however, resembles that of a sore loser. Sorry, not a good role model for the olympic spirit.

Lots of Indians admire China's current Olympics performance. As a nation, we have not given that much importance to Olympics but we would like to do better, perhaps, to keep up "appearances".
But not all of China's methods may suit India. Culturally, people here are more individualistic. Not many Indians would send their children to state-sponsored sports facilities to train full time for ten or fifteen years. There may be worries over their education, health and family ties. Money may not move Indian parents when it comes to their children's welfare.

Remember East Germany and her prowess in Olympics? After the country was merged with West Germany, former athletes from the Eastern part complained bitterly about their "spoilt" youth. Many suffered psychologically and physically.

Anything taken to extremes can go sour. Chinese will know about this from their long history.

Obsession can spawn cheating via performance-boosting drugs and may be other manipulations too such as age and so on. You see that in many famous sports events. Sports then ceases to be fun.