What do YOU think

[Diekan]

The Olympics got me thinking about a lot of things one of which leads to a question I have for you.

First let me say that I think overall we as a species are coming closer to realizing our full potential - physiologically speaking. I think that we are going to start see a slowing of world records being set because of this. I *think* currently the fastest a human being is supposed to be able to run (due to physiological restrictions) is roughly 29 miles per hour. As we come closer to reaching our absolute potential it will be harder and harder to set new records.

Anyway - what got me thinking was - we've come to believe that people in their 30's and 40's are "too old" to compete at levels as a high as the Olympics I think this belief is archaic and hasn't evolved with the breakthroughs we've made in medicine, etc. If you think about it for a moment, we've made astonishing quantum leaps in medicine, nutrition science, fitness science, technology to analyze and help in conditioning, and physiology - yet we still think that once we reach 40 we are to sit back complain about our hair lines and watch our fiber intake.

I'm not completely sold that more 30 and 40 somethings couldn't actually compete quite well against the 20 somethings that dominate most sports. 20 or 30 years ago? Maybe then it was different. But now?

I guess what I am getting at is because of those things I spoke of above I can quite easily believe that our "prime" can now extend well into our 30's if not 40's for some people - rather than being more restricted to our 20's as might have been in the case a few decades ago. Yet, our cultural belief system hasn't yet realized this. Even though medicine and physiology is now telling us otherwise - we still live under the erroneous belief that we "can't do it anymore" once we reach the big 30 and 40 as it were.

Do you think our culture has become a limiting factor for 30s and 40s to compete (not just at the Olympics, but in other competitions such as National Championships, etc)? Meaning - the even though the science, medicine and technology are there - they won't try because their societal norms have told them they are too old.

I already have "my" answer - but I want to see what YOU think.

[brinstar]

i will agree with you in that i think the "prime" is expanding, due to increased knowledge of our own anatomy and how to maximize its potential

but i disagree with your assertion that record-setting will "taper off" anytime soon. granted i have not watched more than a few minutes (literally) of the current olympic competitions, but from what i saw (and have heard), those athletes that are breaking records are doing so easily

[araby]

I am curious about something that pertains to the Olympics and age. I am sure that the older some athletes get, the better they become at their sport. Gymnastics seem to be an exception. Why not let them compete at younger ages, maybe in categories of ages?

A nine year old seems capable of winning against a sixteen year old (as we have seen) but does that mean that the nine year old will get better, year after year? Will the nine year old still be winning when she's sixteen? Doesn't seem fair...they should allow the younger gymnasts to compete in age categories, if being younger means being better.

Maybe I don't make sense, I just find it interesting that this particular sport career seems to be short-lived. Once you're past a certain age you aren't really good anymore.

[Tikker]

gymnastics is a bit different because you literally reach a critical mass where your strength/agility just can't match your increased body size

as for the original assertion, there are some sports/activities where knowledge can be greater than raw physical talents (take wrestling/judo/etc) but certain things are just pure physical ability

running, jumping, etc are all going to be the domain of the younger folks

[Diekan]

and why do you think that?

[Harrison]

Someone is getting old and more bitter about it, IMO.

This should be pretty self explanatory. There aren't very many sports in the world that you can compete professionally at, as you age past a certain point. It's just not feasible.

[Diekan]

You're understanding of the point of this topic is lacking. All I am saying is that the age range of the human "prime" is now extended into the 30's and possibly into the 40's for some people.

Age is not completely irrelevant - I said I think it's becoming less relevant in terms of 20 to 40 year olds. Obviously, we're not going to see a 77 year old participating in MMA pay-per-view matches. My point is that we've made great leaps in science and technology to the point we've now extended our life span potential well into the 90's; and soon with in the next few decades I predict we'll start seeing more and more people living into the 100's. With that being said I don't believe that a person's "prime" ends on the first day after their 30th birthday. Science and technology are telling us that our prime can extend well into higher age ranges (as our life expectancies have also increased) but the ignorance of culture and the sluggish evolution of our societal views fail to recognize this. So, rather than a capable 40 year old pushing themselves to partake in and even strive to win something like the Tour de France, or a 30 year old pushing themselves and striving to win something like the Boston Marathon - our cultural beliefs make them believe they're "too old" to really compete. When the reality is - THIS day and age BECAUSE of our advances in everything I've mentioned they may very well be more than capable of achieving those goals.

Also, I am not saying that EVERYONE in their 30's and 40's can compete at that level. I am saying that I believe there are a hell of a lot more that could, but don't - because they have fallen victim to ignorant and erroneous thinking.

Some interesting links:

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/2007-08- ... 2157_x.htm -- 41 years old.

http://blueollie.wordpress.com/2008/07/ ... -racewalk/ --33 years old.

http://www.recordholdersrepublic.co.uk/latestnews.asp -- 43 years old.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catherine_Ndereba -- 36 years old and won the silver in Beijing.

Another interesting fact I found was that the average age of the national track team back in '76 was 21.6 years old - in 2000 the average age was 29.2.

I just find the rift between actual science / medical fact and the ignorance of cultural stereotypes to fascinating.

[araby]

Nolan Ryan is a good example, as well as Mark McGriff.

I'm sorry about my (slight) diversion of the topic, I just find it interesting the opposite is true for the gymnasts, and it doesn't seem fair that they have to be beyond the age of what's considered "best" when they compete in the Olympics.

Barack Obama is speaking now...shh.

[KaiineTN]

Wasn't there someone competing in the Olympics that was pushing 60? A horse racer, or something like that?

[Lueyen]

I'm sorry about my (slight) diversion of the topic, I just find it interesting the opposite is true for the gymnasts, and it doesn't seem fair that they have to be beyond the age of what's considered "best" when they compete in the Olympics.

It was my understanding that the reason they did this was because the "best" age for gymnasts was the "worst" age for injuries from gymnastics.

[araby]

well thanks, that's provides some insight.

[Haylo]

That's actually not true Lueyen. Gymnasts tend to get injured more in that 16-18 year range, as born out by how many of this year's competitors had either just recovered from or just sustained injuries. The reason they changed the age was because Doctors voiced concern that competing at the highest level at a younger age had an adverse effect overall. My problem with that is that these gymnasts still train just as hard at the younger ages. The only thing the age change does is limit the years they can get rewarded for that training. For instance, just because a 14 year old can not compete in the Olympics does not mean she/he will take off those years to let their body rest. No they will just train so that when they are 16 they can compete.

You hear the same story from all of the gymnasts, they have been training just about non-stop since the age of 6. So not having a competition for them at younger ages just mean they don't get a chance to show it off until it's almost over for them, which is just stupid imo. Most of these girls will only get one Olympic games experience because by the time they are 20 they are almost too old. Nastia Liukin should have had a chance in Athens but now if she wants another shot at gold it will be extremely difficult for her to come back as a 22 year old in London. I think that if they are going to keep the age limit, then they should make a junior level. Gymnastics is probably the only sport which basically only gives you one shot to reach for it all.

[Tikker]

Wasn't there someone competing in the Olympics that was pushing 60? A horse racer, or something like that?

Canadian Equestrian rider Ian Miller

he's been to like 6 olympics now, or something stupid like that

but again, he's not really competing, it's the horse, so that's kind of a brutal example

[araby]

thanks Haylo, that definitely makes my point a little more clear.

[Lueyen]

Haylo I didn't mean to imply that younger gymnasts are injured more often, but that the long term results of injuries at that age is more detrimental then if the same injuries are sustained later because their bodies are not fully developed. I don't think it's so much broken bones that is the concern as children tend to heal those faster, but joint and muscle injuries. While they may still be practicing at that age, they are less likely to push themselves to extremes where the propensity for injury is greater then if they are actually in a competition.

[Sithos]

I think that one of the main underlying problems with having the 30-40 year old folks compete isn't that they can't reach the same potential but rather it requires more work to maintain them at the olympic level.

I'll use myself as an example as I am within that age range. I used to be in the military and even after I left I still continue on an almost daily basis with the same "work out" that I did when I was in my 20's. I usually jog/bike to and from work each day (14km all told). I do push up's and sit up's like they are going out of style. I can still do the exercise that I did in my 20's BUT each morning when I wake up I feel the strain,not just in the muscles but right down to the bones. I didn't feel that back when I was 20ish.

If I were an olympic athlete at my age I would require more "upkeep" than a 20 year old. I heal slower, even with help, from aches/strains that would impede my 100 meter dash or my pommel horse routine. A 20 something would recover much faster or it would bother them less than it would me.

In some ways it could boil down to $$$. Some countries have a set budget allotted per team whether diving or running. It would serve them better to have a younger person who is less likely to get hurt or who recovers from hurt faster so as to save some $$$.

Overall a 30-40 year old could certainly do whats needed but I think it would require more work for them and their training/medical staff as opposed to the younger folks.

[Gidan]

You also need to keep in mind that the 30 - 40 year old may not have the luxury to live for their event like the 20 year old. Sure there are some younger athletes who have children and family to think of but it seems not many. The older athlete who needs to train just as much if not more to keep the same level also needs to sacrifice time with their family as well. I can completely understand a person just not wanting to sacrifice time with their family as well as the extra hour of training just to keep pace with a younger person.

[araby]

Regarding the female gymnasts:

I read that the Chinese girls are taken from their families at young ages and they train nonstop. They don't get to play or go to birthday parties or anything else. I suppose I should've known this, but it probably pertains to a lot of the other athletes as well. I'm going to keep reading.

[Kramer]

i wouldn't be suprised if what you have read is mostly true.... it's not by accident that the US and China were fairly equal in medal count but China wtfpwnd in golds... very different expectations

[Haylo]

There's been a lot of coverage on the new philosophy China has regarding the games. What it is, is a complete focus on what's best for the State as a whole, completely negating individual possibilities. They want Gold and only gold. So they completely committed to putting their best athletes in events where there are 1) More individual medals vs team medals and 2) Sports with little big name competition. They won 8 golds in weightlifting, 5 golds in shooting and a similar amount in some lesser known sports. There's a good writeup on Yahoo about it, and how it's unlikely that anyone will ever beat them again in Gold count. The article poses the question as to whether any other nation has athletes willing to sacrifice personal glory for national glory. Like instead of having an extremely gifted youngster go into football/baseball/basketball, where they can certainly make a lot of money, but when the Olympics roll around, they would only win 1 gold; China would put that kid in swimming/diving/track/gymnastics or something along that line.

Araby, yes they do remove the kids at young ages, definitely for gymnastics but I believe it's starting to filter to all sports now. They run local training camps and then the national people go to them and any kid that shows promise is removed to train with the national team. Once they are on the national team they will only see their parents once or twice a year.

[Tikker]

. They run local training camps and then the national people go to them and any kid that shows promise is removed to train with the national team.

that is in theory how communism works for pretty much everything

show some ability in woodwork, boom you're a cabinet maker
mechanically inclined? here's your wrench

etc etc

in theory, you put people to work in the role they're best suited for, all for the good of the whole

[Diekan]

Which is exactly why I oppose communist systems. I like having the freedom to pursue whatever career/sport/lifestyle *I* so choose - regardless if I excel or suck at it.

[Tikker]

that's because you're a stereotypical selfish american




communism is on paper a neat idea, but it just doesn't account for slackers, or go-getters

[Evermore]

how about opposing communism because it simply cannot work?

[Drem]

Or because it always turns out a shell of what it's supposed to be? If it were true Marxism, like dialectical materialism or idealism (late or early, imo), it'd be one thing. But every government that tries to paint itself Marxist is also critically off on real Marxist theories and ideology and eventually lends itself to a much further off system: communism, or some more concentrated form like Trotskyism, Stalinism, Maoism, or the newer anarchist and christian communism movements that've recently sprung up since the fall of the USSR. Or it might turn out to be some other branch of socialism all-together


Unless we turn into mindless zombies, this sort of gov't is a vehicle for discord 100% of the time