PM Lee: What future do you want for Singapore?
-
http://www.straitstimes.com:80/premium/asia/story/nanjing-yog-will-buck-trend-big-spending-20120816
[quote]Nanjing YOG will buck trend of big spending
2014 Games will not cost more than S'pore predecessor, say organisers
After the big-bang extravaganzas of the 2008 Beijing Olympics and the Asian Games in Guangzhou two years after that, China's next major sporting event will be cheaper, smaller and cuter.
The Nanjing Youth Olympic Games (YOG) will break the Chinese habit of mega-expensive events and will not cost more than its Singapore predecessor, its organisers pledged.
The 2014 event, which will kick off exactly two years from today, will be different, they added.
\"We are hosting the YOG, not the Olympics,\" said Mr Ding Ming, head of the Games' communications and public relations.
\"We cannot replicate the success of the Beijing Olympics. Our budget does not allow us to do that. Our model is Singapore, not Beijing.\"
Singapore hosted the first Youth Olympic Games in 2010 and saw its budget ballooning from $104 million to more than $380million...[/quote]Pls spend Ah Gong's $$ wisely... Let people laugh only... :faint: -
3Boys:
Yes, there is plenty of professional sportsmen.. but it doesn't mean there is nothing wrong with it.
That is a highly philosophical question. I don't think there is anything totally right or wrong about that approach. There are plenty of professional sportspersons in the world today, are there not? So sports as a profession is well accepted in modern day culture, so I must say I don't see a problem.limlim:
And, I feel, training a full time sportsmen with the sole purpose being to take part in Olympics is wrong use of resources and money.
Isn't it more constructive if these sportsmen are trainers, coaches, promoting the sports etc..? why must the sole purpose be to win.. ONLY.
And I am very disgusted by the fact that some sportsmen end up a deformed human.. totally a shame.
Win as a healthy, normal human.. not some mutant..
Mutants winning medal.. what a mockery of the value of sports.. -
limlim:
Yes, there is plenty of professional sportsmen.. but it doesn't mean there is nothing wrong with it.
That is a highly philosophical question. I don't think there is anything totally right or wrong about that approach. There are plenty of professional sportspersons in the world today, are there not? So sports as a profession is well accepted in modern day culture, so I must say I don't see a problem.3Boys:
[quote=\"limlim\"]
And, I feel, training a full time sportsmen with the sole purpose being to take part in Olympics is wrong use of resources and money.
Isn't it more constructive if these sportsmen are trainers, coaches, promoting the sports etc..? why must the sole purpose be to win.. ONLY.
And I am very disgusted by the fact that some sportsmen end up a deformed human.. totally a shame.
Win as a healthy, normal human.. not some mutant..
Mutants winning medal.. what a mockery of the value of sports..[/quote]
I think if we were to look at the article more closely, only the first case deformity resulted from the harsh training. The rest are due to injuries, which is inevitable in sports. The main issue here is that after these former champions retire, what's next for them? Nothing to fall back on despite all the years of training... look at our silver Olympic medalist Tan Howe Liang. . Yes, he did it without any monetary rewards, purely for the nation.
But now, realistically , we can't expect our sportsmen to think about national glory without considering the bread and butter issues -
limlim:
Yes, there is plenty of professional sportsmen.. but it doesn't mean there is nothing wrong with it.
That is a highly philosophical question. I don't think there is anything totally right or wrong about that approach. There are plenty of professional sportspersons in the world today, are there not? So sports as a profession is well accepted in modern day culture, so I must say I don't see a problem.3Boys:
[quote=\"limlim\"]
And, I feel, training a full time sportsmen with the sole purpose being to take part in Olympics is wrong use of resources and money.
Isn't it more constructive if these sportsmen are trainers, coaches, promoting the sports etc..? why must the sole purpose be to win.. ONLY.
And I am very disgusted by the fact that some sportsmen end up a deformed human.. totally a shame.
Win as a healthy, normal human.. not some mutant..
Mutants winning medal.. what a mockery of the value of sports..[/quote]No, the interest in sports in the competition, and winning is part of the competition. That's why a sports event is not about one person strutting his stuff, its about Usain Bolt at the starting line at the 100m with 7 other top sprinters, its about Spain playing tiki-taka and crushing Italy, its about Roger Federer and his beautiful craftsmanship with the tennis racquet winning a record Wimbledon title against a dogged Murray. The reason why these sportspersons make huge fortunes is because people all over the world pay to see them play.
And they pay because sports is inspirational and aspirational. It arouses passions like almost no other endeavour.
Let me give you a simple example. Before Euro 2012, I could hardly get my boys out of the house to play a game of kickabout. But because we were travelling and get caught up with the excitement of that tournament in Europe, they now bug me everyday to get the ball out. We wear our sneakers, have a $15 ball I bought, and we are out on the street for a 20 minute workout. Its an extremely cheap and easy way to get exercise. I don't NEED a coach or trainer, in fact, if ALL I did was to hire a coach, they would have had ZERO interest. But the fact they they saw what GOOD was, they see what WINNERS do, how hard the play, they became inspired. Of course at our level, it is not about winning, its about having fun, but being INSPIRED, feeling passionate, competitive, drives the flame of motivation. I didn't have to lift a finger, Xavi, Iniesta and Fabregas did all the work for me.
That's why we invest, so that people can see what GOOD looks like, what WINNING is. How many winners will there be in any event? Only 1. But everyone aspires to be Mr Bolt, just ask my 3 Boys who race each other on at the local sports track every weekend. They are all under 10 y.o. but I'm being bugged to record their lap times on a stopwatch! That's Jamaican athletics money inspiring 3 youngsters in Singapore! Worth it? You betcha, no coach, no matter how excellent, could have the same effect.
If for the same amount of money, I could either produce 1 Olympic Gold medal winner in say, marathon, vs hiring 200 running coaches, I think producing 1 Gold winner is the more worthwhile enterprise. -
limlim:
Further, I want to add that you mis-construe sport. By and large, sports is an artificial construct, for which the main aim is in fact to WIN. Healthy living and fitness can be seen, from some perspectives, to be a by-product of training to win.
Isn't it more constructive if these sportsmen are trainers, coaches, promoting the sports etc..? why must the sole purpose be to win.. ONLY.
For instance, how many of us in real life would run around in with a leather ball at our feet, kicking it to a colleague or trying to shoot it into a goal? But yet, if we join up with a club or even just a bunch of buddies on a weekend, is the aim of football game not to score more goals than the opposing team? So casual teams will take it further, organise training, so they play better, give themselves a better shot at winning. So the motivation is to excel at competing. So your contention that winning is the \"sole\" purpose is wrong in the vast majority, as the motivation to train hard so as to excel in competition would be the primary driver in the vast majority.
Let me remind you of the Olympic Motto \"Citius, Altius, Fortius\", \"Faster, Higher, Stronger\" -
Sports is also about entertainment. There are plenty of professional sportspeople around. Their purpose is to provide entertainment for the rest of us. That is also why professionals in the S-League earn a lot less than the Premier League. They entertain far fewer people. And as can be seen from the Olympics badminton decable, they are not very entertaining when they are all trying to lose.
-
pirate:
Sports is also about entertainment. There are plenty of professional sportspeople around. Their purpose is to provide entertainment for the rest of us. That is also why professionals in the S-League earn a lot less than the Premier League. They entertain far fewer people. And as can be seen from the Olympics badminton decable, they are not very entertaining when they are all trying to lose.
Yes, they can only be entertaining if they are competitive. Sports is nothing without competition, and competition is nothing without winning (or at least trying to win). -
3Boys:
What I am against is \"to win at all cost\".So the motivation is to excel at competing. So your contention that winning is the \"sole\" purpose is wrong in the vast majority, as the motivation to train hard so as to excel in competition would be the primary driver in the vast majority.
Let me remind you of the Olympic Motto \"Citius, Altius, Fortius\", \"Faster, Higher, Stronger\"
Of coz, train to excel in competition is good in itself.. but a line has to be drawn somewhere. Like I said.. if it takes a mutant to win a sport, it defeats the pleasure in winning. IMO..
well. the mutant is a little extreme.. what I'm saying is.. there should be a limit.. a line..
Anyway, we're on very different frequency here.. I don't see the GOOD that you mentioned. it is \"good\".. but not that \"good\" to me. -
3Boys:
Not really.. Sports can be to \"deliver your best\".pirate:
Sports is also about entertainment. There are plenty of professional sportspeople around. Their purpose is to provide entertainment for the rest of us. That is also why professionals in the S-League earn a lot less than the Premier League. They entertain far fewer people. And as can be seen from the Olympics badminton decable, they are not very entertaining when they are all trying to lose.
Yes, they can only be entertaining if they are competitive. Sports is nothing without competition, and competition is nothing without winning (or at least trying to win).
Show us what your \"best\" can do.
they can just be as entertaining as long as they're showing their best.
Winning.. is a by product. if their best happens to be better.
Winning is not under full control. delivering the best, is. And it is what that matters.
If a participant can easily win.. but not showing their best.. it may not be entertaining at all. -
limlim:
Of course one should not mutilate oneself in the name of sport (or winning), but being paid to win, well, why not? If they entertain and serve as inspiring examples of human physical achievement, I don't have a problem of them being rewarded for it.
well. the mutant is a little extreme.. what I'm saying is.. there should be a limit.. a line..
I honestly think you you taken your disdain of our China-born Olympians being paid for their victories, and stretched the logic out too far.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better š
Register Login