Is "sport" good or bad? « CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum

CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Debate!

Is "sport" good or bad?

(28 posts)

Started 12 years ago by chdot
Latest reply from Roibeard

No tags yet.

chdot
Admin

A slightly controversial heading perhaps!

'We' have often discussed 'how to get more people on bikes' and there is a general view that 'cycling' should be be seen as 'normal'. Easier said than done of course.

I have just come across a post by the Scottish Sports Minister hoping to get more people involved in sport and/or exercise in the context of the CG.

So really I'm asking is this 'a good thing' will it work or 'confirm' that (for some people) 'it's no' for the likes of us'?

"
Scotland gets fit for 2014

Shona Robison MSP

As Minister for Commonwealth Games and Sport I want Scotland to compete on the international stage and win more medals than ever before. To do that we are planning to invest £8m to fund our elite athlete programme because we want to see the Saltire rising up the flagpole at more medal ceremonies in 2014.

I also want all Scots to be able to participate - not just those who are elite athletes – all Scots of all ages – in better, fitter and more active lives. Scots are passionate about sport. Scotland has a long tradition of great sportsmen and women excelling and winning medals for their country.

Sport gives purpose and meaning to people’s lives, encourages discipline and rewards participants with a sense of achievement and success towards personal goals.

"

http://banffshireandbuchancoastsnp.blogspot.com/2011/07/scotland-gets-fit-for-2014.html

Posted 12 years ago #
wingpig
Member

The first and second paragraphs don't match. £8m for the elite athlete programme is all well and good for the elite athlete programme. Wishing all Scots of all ages to be more active is also good, but is not being directly funded by the £8m if the £8m is to get feet on podia by 2014.

There might be the possibility of continuity between an inactive person and an elite athlete but (depending on the activity) it will require equipment as well as time and other people's time and skills and so on. Whilst cycling definitely requires equipment and there's a huge gap between an activity-enabling £100 second-hand starter bike, a £1000 discipline-specific enthusiast bike and a helium-framed rarefied racing device, elite athleticism can definitely inspire bottom-level starter activity as any municipal tennis court will demonstrate every June.

"Sport gives purpose and meaning to people’s lives, encourages discipline and rewards participants with a sense of achievement and success towards personal goals."

Ignoring the fact that the way it's written makes it look like they replaced "Scientology" with "Sport" there, "physical activity" would look better. The [physical activity] and [sport] sets intersect, but are not the same.

Posted 12 years ago #
chdot
Admin

"can definitely inspire bottom-level starter activity as any municipal tennis court will demonstrate every June."

Is that deliberately undermining the case...

Posted 12 years ago #
Wilmington's Cow
Member

"elite athleticism can definitely inspire bottom-level starter activity as any municipal tennis court will demonstrate every June."

Precisely, although I'm not sure the Tour de France has the same effect for cycling...

Posted 12 years ago #
chdot
Admin

"although I'm not sure the Tour de France has the same effect for cycling..."

I think it does - short term enthusiasm plus a tiny number of (young) people who aspire to be Andy Murray, David Millar etc.

With football it's clearly on 'all the time' AND a school sport. But the 'national game' hardly translates to a fit male ( - as those most interested) population.

Posted 12 years ago #
PS
Member

Precisely, although I'm not sure the Tour de France has the same effect for cycling...

Watching the TdF at first hand on top of the Port be Bales is what spurred me on to buying (and more inmportantly using) my first proper bike for 20 years, so it worked for me.

That said, it's slightly cheaper to buy a tennis bat (or dig out that knackered old one from the loft) in order to emulate Andy Murray...

Posted 12 years ago #
Min
Member

There is way too much emphasis on winning Olympic medals and
not nearly enough on getting ordinary people active. Those of
us who are not physically gifted can just get lost really. I
think it is a disgrace.

Posted 12 years ago #
Cyclingmollie
Member

I agree with PS. Cycling helped me understand why people can be passionate about sport. I played golf for ten years without ever actually liking it that much and before that at school, rugby, football, cricket and athletics. Seeing the Tour de France in the late nineties was a revelation because up until then I'd been a bit dismissive of people who liked sport. I've had to completely re-think my views on that. Cycling as a sport definitely inspired me to become a more committed cyclist. But there are loads of ways into becoming that.

Posted 12 years ago #
gembo
Member

Scotland's mono-culture of Football is very bad (especially if like me you are useless and support DUFC)

The Tour is heroic, pompous, drug fuelled, crazy, epic.

Posted 12 years ago #
chdot
Admin

"
The chairman of the British Olympic Association, Lord Moynihan, has called on the government to make local authority spending on recreation facilities mandatory to bring about a "sea change" in faltering attempts to boost the number of people playing sport as an Olympic legacy.
-----
Cycling: Provides "some of the best examples of a national governing body working hard to understand and satisfy its customers" with mass participation initiatives such as Skyride.

"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2011/jul/24/olympic-chief-local-sports-facilities

Posted 12 years ago #
Nelly
Member

We have an odd relationship with sport in this country.

A lot of people see 'Sport' and 'Exercise' as things they do separately from their everyday lives - i.e. they go to the gym on a friday night, or play squash on a monday (as I used to until my hip gave up the ghost)

As well as being extremely dashing and clever (!) cyclists are also lucky in that we generally get to indulge one of our sporting pashions en route to work - and thereby do what 99% of the population cant - i.e. to incorporate exercise into the daily routine.

Posted 12 years ago #
chdot
Admin

"and thereby do what 99% of the population can't - i.e. to incorporate exercise into the daily routine."

I think your 99% is a bit pessimistic. Cycling's about 2%! - and more walk.

Clearly you are overstating when you say "can't" - but it's partly what I'm asking. How many people think 'exercise = sport' and, directly related, 'I don't do sport'.

SO is the emphasis on 'getting more people active through sport' counterproductive? - never mind 'cost effective'.

Of course the people on here are hardly representative, but there are quite a few who have posted 'their story' (there's a thread for that somewhere). Quite a few became regular/commuter cyclists having started cycling (often after a big gap) for basic exercise/health reasons.

Some started gradually on off-road paths, parks, the canal and quiet roads and then tried busier roads - 'we' encouraged some of them.

A few people have tried/do sport - particularly 'sportives' (some long charity rides too) BUT how many do cycling for exercise/transport having started with sport?

Posted 12 years ago #
Nelly
Member

Vick Reeves said 88.2% of statistics are made up on the spot.

My number is higher......

I see a lot of people in my office who should do more exercise (of any form)- so perhaps substiture my 'Cant' for 'Dont' or 'Wont' - it can be as much to do with mindset as opportunity.

Your comment about walking is of interest - I imagine there are many who could walk to work but take motorised forms of transport for a variety of reasons.

Turning a decent proportion of them into walkers/cyclists would help on many fronts.

Posted 12 years ago #
Min
Member

"SO is the emphasis on 'getting more people active through sport' counterproductive? - never mind 'cost effective'. "

Yes because anyone who is not brilliant (which will be most people) will be dropped and then what are they left with? It is a kind of snobby elitism which is why the majority think they are not capable of moving about. They are not one of the superior masterrace which just means (to them) that "they can't do it".

This is why I hate the initiatives that are going round just now where people go into schools and take out the "talented" children to do specific sports and don't bother with the rest as they are useless.

Can you tell this is a real bugbear of mine?

Posted 12 years ago #
Wilmington's Cow
Member

You need to form that bugbear into words in an article... Emails going out tonight about next citycycling issue deadlines...

Posted 12 years ago #
Min
Member

You didn't publish my last one.. :-P

Posted 12 years ago #
Wilmington's Cow
Member

No, I know, I completely forgot... :-/

Posted 12 years ago #
wingpig
Member

From what I read before I was blocked from the forum, some people in the office cyclo-sport and amazing athleticism club suffer a bike to be used for commuting, having approached utility use from the direction of sport.

My sister cycled as a child, less so as a student as far as I could tell, then suddenly returned to cycling for use in triathlons, subsequently drifting back into utility cycling for commuting.

There's a bloke at my work who cycles to work after getting his electrically-assisted bike through CTW who was driven off the buses through misanthropy rather than a desire for exercise, love of cycling or inspiration from sport. There are other people in the team who like sport but don't cycle (and appear to be surprisingly fit for their shape/diet/smoking-level) who occasionally moan about parking charges or spaces or the time it sometimes takes to get along Princes Street on a bus at whom I occasionally suggest looking at alternative commuting-transport options.

Posted 12 years ago #
crowriver
Member

Politicians like elite sporting competitions such as the Olympics/Commonwealth games etc. because they're about international prestige, national pride, and winners (ie. people like themselves). Also they get to be photographed shaking hands with/hanging medals around the necks of the winners.

The participation bit is part sop to special (sporting) interests, part 'you too can be a winner' propaganda.

Posted 12 years ago #
Min
Member

I should add (on top of my rant) that I am all for sporting competion and winning medals (or jerseys)is great but it should be as well as allowing normal people to compete or - dare I say it - just have fun doing a sport and not to the exclusion of those people.

Posted 12 years ago #
chdot
Admin

"Can you tell this is a real bugbear of mine?"

Yes, but knowing (from the forum) that you are more active than many - you have admitted to RUNNING to work! - you must have a 'back story' and/or evidence based insights.

Well perhaps not the latter.

I share your feeling that some 'initiatives' might disadvantage the many.

I'm not against finding/developing people with talent (not just sport). All the current publicity about schools where children get no/lots of qualifications shows that there are lots of areas where 'something must be done' - but often isn't.

But dealing with background/disadvantage/inequality in education/opportunities is a bit more complicated than a bit of exercise.

But perhaps wellmeaningness/ideology are involved too.

But I don't suppose many people in sport are just looking for the next star and I'm sure they don't imagine they might be making things worse for the less keen/able.

The whole activity/active travel/exercise/sport 'project' has involved many people and ideas and money over the years.

It is quite likely that a lot of the 'there will be spin-off/trickle down benefits' is a useful 'justification' for spending money on the elite end - especially ahead of 2012/4.

It is less clear if the benefits will be delivered - same might also be true of the "re-generation" of the east ends of Glasgow and London.

Perhaps more worrying is the realisation that still people can't identify or agree on what 'works'.

As always (in 'urban cycling') there's discussion about the merits/role of infrastructure - how much should it be 'build and they will come', segregated cycle lanes etc.

Someone emailed me this recently -

"continental cities had delivered high cycle rates because, amongst other things, of appeals to 'quality of life' rather than to the environment or public health or other communications."

We were discussing 'transport' but equally it could be about exercise' -

'it'll improve YOUR life' more than 'if you're good/work hard you could be Hoy/Cav'. If anyone IS that good they should be helped as much as possible, but I think it's clear that 'the rest' probably need more support/spending!

Posted 12 years ago #
kaputnik
Moderator

When I was away I managed to follow the Tour loosely on Twitter and in newspapers. In the latter once could get a 1 page digest article (if lucky) buried in the depths of the "sport" (sorry, Ffootball*) pages. I'm generally pleased that a man with a confusing national identity that can loosely be translated by the media as "British" did well and won the green Jersey and am also pleased that the British-sponsored Team Sky (on their Italian bikes) picked up some first ever stage wins (with their Norwegian riders!). Pleased because I hope this raises the profile of cycling in this country's media as the Hoy / Cav factor does work for youg people I think, and, like it or not, on a competitive level this country (be it Scotland or the UK) seems to be much better at cycling than it does at our "national" sport of football.

Anyway, I'm not actually really into cycling as a sport. Just like any sport, I find it a chore and just uninteresting to follow. I like actually cycling, be it "sport" cycling (TTs etc.), touring or just bimbling around. I find that far mroe engaging and rewarding than filling out the TdF results poster-calendar that most cycling magazines trot out once a year.

But the celebrity sports cyclist factor "worked" for me when I was getting into cycling about 2 years ago. I saw what one man from a loosely similar socio-geographic background could achieve when he put his mind to it and thought I could at least try my hardest too.

So I don't think investing in cycling as a sport is bad at all. Like others though, I think it's all a bit in vain if there isn't commensurate investment in infrastructure and cycling at all levels as a sport, as a way of getting fit and healthy, as a way to reduce our slavish dependence on the car but most important as a practical and enjoyable and safe and economical way of getting around the place.

* or Cricket pages, if the only broadsheet available was the Torygraph

Posted 12 years ago #
Wilmington's Cow
Member

There was a good article at the weekend about Cav being more successful than the England football team had been in the last 45 years.

I honestly don't know why I got into cycling. I've watched the Tour from the age of 13 (my first was the Lemond/Fignon final day time trial 8 seconds victory). But I already rode. Really I just did it because I enjoyed it, then realised I could use it as a way to get to work which meant I could enjoy it every day.

I do still wonder if cycle sport as an activity is too far removed from what 'ordinary' people can achieve...

Posted 12 years ago #
kaputnik
Moderator

I do still wonder if cycle sport as an activity is too far removed from what 'ordinary' people can achieve...

In my opinion, no. At the toppest, most elite levels? Yes. But that's why they are the toppest and most elite levels, as they are the best in the world at it and clearly on a different physical and physiological and (perhaps) pharmaceutical level than most of us!

Certainly at a regional and local level, cycling as a sport is accessible to most. It just gets absolutely zero media coverage, even within the cycling press there isn't a huge amount. But throughout the spring, summer and autumn there are loads of open races, time trials etc. that anyone who puts their mind to it can enter, for a lot less than a single ticket to an SPL might set you back. Most races will be categorised into "elite" levels for the top regional and local level cyclists and support races than anyone can take part in.

Posted 12 years ago #
wingpig
Member

The various stats about the horrendous average speeds/wattages of Tour cyclists can't help much with making it look accessible - to novices/newbies they often appear to say "take your top speed downhill in a headwind and add 5 kmph to get what these people can sustain up a 10% gradient all day for three weeks", much like the time-per-mile of an elite marathon runner (which they can sustain for two hours) being at least an entire a minute faster than the time it would take a reasonably fit person to run a single mile before collapsing in a vomity shaking heap.

That said, when I swam lots as a youngling the times achieved by elite swimmers in high-profile international sporting competitions didn't seem too physically unachievable, though the cost and logistics of training for several hours a day would a:) not have been very easy or cheap (the nearest year-round pool was eighteen miles away) and b:) have rapidly sucked the fun out of the activity.

Whilst there might be lots of n00b-level competitive cycling stuff available in many localities, there's the equipment thing to consider; at what sort of level does a reasonably high-spec bike become 'required' rather than, for example, an EBC entry-level-thing-with-drop-bars which, due to its other commitments, also sports heavyish tyres, mudguards and a rack?

Posted 12 years ago #
Min
Member

"'it'll improve YOUR life' more than 'if you're good/work hard you could be Hoy/Cav'. If anyone IS that good they should be helped as much as possible, but I think it's clear that 'the rest' probably need more support/spending! "

Yes, I think that sums up my feelings pretty well.

Rant incoming...

I actually have a certain amount of insight into sport funding. Up until recently (I have now given up as after 10 years I am finally sickened beyond caring) I participated in a sport which favours the physically gifted (for those who have not met me - I am not). Despite this I was good, national (but not international) level. However that didn't matter and people like me don't matter. Physical proportions are the only thing and it didn't matter how often I proved myself or who I kept beating.

The current initiative round schools therefore, is to find the "talented" teenagers. Obviously the nature of the "talent" spotting entirely favours large people and not actually those with any talent. To the point where the massively fat are picked as "talented" just because their bulk gets them through the test. Really, it is staggering. Anyway, these children get to do the sport. Great for them.

So far so bad. Undoubtedly this initiative WILL pick out good athletes and some of them will go on to become successful. Great for them. In the meantime what you see now at competitions is children in floods of tears because of the massive pressure on them to WIN and if they do not, they are dropped like a hot brick because there are no initiatives for the merely keen. The enjoyment and pleasure of reaching and passing milestones along the way will not be for them because if they do not pass these milestones immediately they have failed. Struggle and determination mean nothing unless they produce instant results. The personal and physical development of young people does not matter one jot. It is ALL about winning Olympic medals.

I don't want anything to do with it any more, competition wise anyway.

Posted 12 years ago #
kaputnik
Moderator

To follow Min's point, the events to which I was referring recieve little (if any) funding or sponsorship from national bodies or companies and it relies on the larger cycling clubs (not cycling "teams") putting up the relevant money up to organise the event, rounding up volunteers and covering any losses and occasionally even putting up (small) prizes.

This is one of the reaons I have liked taking part / helping out. It's all done on a shoestring by a committed group of volunteers and for whom it's all about the cycling and the taking part and trying to encourage others (particularly youths) to get involved, take part and improve themselves. I suppose that's a reason why a lot of people get involved in clubs, regardless of what they are about.

At this level, it's not about spending £8million pounds (or even £8,000) on a few people who got the lucky roll of the genetics dice in the quest for a piece of metal.

Posted 12 years ago #
Roibeard
Member

I wouldn't be too quick to assume the national push is for the elite - I've recently attended a Positive Coaching Scotland workshop:

http://www.positivecoachingscotland.com

This is a national initiative pushing for "double goal" coaching, that is, improving as well as winning - the idea is that everyone can enjoy themselves by stretching themselves and seeing improvements, and simply focusing on the winning/elite robs the majority of the potential fun.

This ethos seems to be in the Active Schools programme in Edinburgh too, at least at primary school level (I've none at secondary school so can't speak for that).

Robert

Posted 12 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply

You must log in to post.

// CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum

About This Forum

CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Debate!

Is "sport" good or bad?

Reply

RSS Feeds

Links