Reflections on the Olympic Results
Translated from Russian with the help of AI. Original: Russian version
Reflections on the results of the Olympics, on how sport should be assessed, and on why intellectual development should take priority over athletic achievement.
The Olympic Games are over, and we were immediately met with a wave of hate about the level of our sport. I am more in favor of constructive discussion than of simply venting. After the successes of the first day of the Games, our expectations ran too high, and when the final results came in, we were, naturally, disappointed.
In the world of sport, simply qualifying for the Olympics is already a huge achievement, and winning a gold medal requires a great many factors to come together. That is why such a one-sided assessment is unfair. To finish even in the top 10 at the Olympics, you have to be one of the best in the world. You can win a world championship and still come 8th or 9th at the Olympics, against exactly the same rivals. Fractions of a second and a host of other factors decide the outcome. Meanwhile, athletes must get through a grueling series of qualifying competitions, and thousands never make it to the Games at all.
So, beyond the 1st to 3rd places, we should look at how we performed overall in the sports in which we were entered, how many licenses we won, and what the realistic chances were in sports where we have never been favorites. For example, our athletes did very well in climbing, breaking, table tennis and shooting. They did not win medals, but they came very close, and that is highly valuable in sports where we are not dominant.
We like, for instance, to compare ourselves with Uzbekistan. True, Uzbekistan won 8 gold medals, but it should be noted that Uzbekistan secured only 36 licenses, while Kazakhstan secured 92. This means that Uzbekistan either does not develop some sports at all, or does not develop them as actively, and has concentrated on just a few disciplines. And what is the goal? In my view, it is a healthy nation and the development of mass sport. I think a large number of participants at the Olympics and a system for developing mass sport are far more valuable, and the medals will follow.
There are countries where Olympians receive nothing for winning at the Games, or only a pittance, because athletes compete for their own ambitions rather than the ambitions of the state. Paying athletes large sums for Olympic results is more characteristic of developing countries, which, I think, use it to compensate for failures in the economy, technological development and so on.
It is good when patrons and sponsors give athletes gifts and money, but for the state, developing infrastructure and the system of youth sport is more important. In fact, things are not so bad here. Of course, many problems remain to be solved, but we are certainly not the worst in this regard.
To be honest, for our country to make its mark on the world stage, developing our intellectual capacity should matter more to us than developing our athletic capacity. Yet I have never heard of winners of the International Olympiads in physics or mathematics being honored in our country the way Olympic athletes are. This gives children the wrong idea of what a successful person looks like. I would like children in our country to want to become outstanding inventors, scientists and pioneers, and for us to have our own Elon Musks, Bill Gateses, Larry Pages, Jeff Bezoses, Sergey Brins and so on, not only boxers, wrestlers or tennis players.