Controversy over swimsuits to be used in Olympics.
This controversey has been going on for some time. But the truth is, technology and sport have long been linked. Perhaps the most fundamental improvement is in the manufacture of equipment. Technology has enabled quality and consistency not previously achievable for balls, wheter tennis, soccer, basketball, golf, and american football. The advancement of production processes has also resulted in lighter and stronger baseball and cricket bats. The same can be said for improvements in track shoes.
While technology allows athletes to continuously push the limits of human ability, such technology is available to all athletes of a given time. With improved technology, we are able to appreciate a more idealized sport which emphasizes ability while reducing variances which may result from inconsistent equipment. Thus, technology has little impact on contemporary atheletes as they are in direct competition with others. Federer and Nadal both benefit from improved raquets and balls.
True, historic records may fall. But the beauty of sport lies not in statistics, but debate. People will always compare the achievements of Tiger Wood's and Jack Nicklaus. Imagine if the Golden Bear had access to graphite shafts and golf balls with optimized dimples for aerodynamics?
So, if Michael Phelps wins more gold medals than Mark Spitz or sets more world records, does that automaticaly make him a better athlete? I say no, but its fun to debate. (I say Spitz is better. He found great success despite the drag enduced by his glorius moustache.)
Controversy over swimsuits to be used in Olympics.
ReplyDeleteThis controversey has been going on for some time. But the truth is, technology and sport have long been linked. Perhaps the most fundamental improvement is in the manufacture of equipment. Technology has enabled quality and consistency not previously achievable for balls, wheter tennis, soccer, basketball, golf, and american football. The advancement of production processes has also resulted in lighter and stronger baseball and cricket bats. The same can be said for improvements in track shoes.
While technology allows athletes to continuously push the limits of human ability, such technology is available to all athletes of a given time. With improved technology, we are able to appreciate a more idealized sport which emphasizes ability while reducing variances which may result from inconsistent equipment. Thus, technology has little impact on contemporary atheletes as they are in direct competition with others. Federer and Nadal both benefit from improved raquets and balls.
True, historic records may fall. But the beauty of sport lies not in statistics, but debate. People will always compare the achievements of Tiger Wood's and Jack Nicklaus. Imagine if the Golden Bear had access to graphite shafts and golf balls with optimized dimples for aerodynamics?
So, if Michael Phelps wins more gold medals than Mark Spitz or sets more world records, does that automaticaly make him a better athlete? I say no, but its fun to debate. (I say Spitz is better. He found great success despite the drag enduced by his glorius moustache.)