U.S. domination of Olympics continues to fade away

[starroute]

(Note to moderators: I'm posting this here because, even though it's about the Olympics, the implications are deeply political. It sheds a lot of light on why the U.S. can't seem to compete or innovate in any field any more.)

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5735416

"The overall trend for Team USA over the past three Olympiads is toward fewer medals, even as the total number of medals available to win grows. As ever more countries take international competition more seriously — and have the resources to develop talented youth — America’s totals will continue to shrink. ... Yes, it won those 97 medals four years ago, but for the past three Olympiads, the medal count has been declining from 108 in 1992 in Barcelona to 101 in Atlanta to 97 in Sydney.

<snip>

"The real harvest is out there in sports Americans rarely think about — judo, tae kwon do, freestyle and Greco-Roman wrestling and weightlifting. Like boxing, therse sports have numerous weight classes, each one with three medals to be won. Rising teams like China try to win them with organized developmental programs. The United States has no comparable programs.

"You can’t dominate the medals simply by dominating on the track and in the pool. And America’s grip on those two bastions is weakening. We’re seeing it with the swim team, and the track squad has already lost several top performers to the drug testers.

<snip>

"America relies on kids to pick sports they love and hope that the cream rises to the top. But with three major professional sports and golf and tennis as prime individual sports, the United States is never going to have great numbers of young people dying to win gold medals in table tennis, badminton, judo, fencing, or any of the other host of Olympic sports."

[fearnobush]

1. I have thought about it: More medals - good Bu$h. Less Medals - bad Bu$h?

[DieboldMustDie]

2. We seem to be doing much better in gymnastics than ever before.

:shrug:

[Llewlladdwr]

3. The US has taken gold medals...

in cycling, fencing, gymnastics (mens) and shooting as well as swimming. Silver in athletics, canoe/kayak slalom, cycling and men's gymnastics and Bronze in cycling, judo, fencing and equestrian, all in addition to swimming. Sounds like a fairly diverse range of interests to me.

[ClintonTyree]

4. It amazes me.......................

that a majority (I'm guessing here) of these foreign athletes go to College and train in the U.S. after which they go back to their respective countries and compete in events for said country.

I know it bodes well for American sportsmanship etc. but I find it somewhat hypocritical of these athletes who live, work and train here taking medals back to thier home country after receiving all of the benefits from their training here.

I know that many of these countries are poor and can't afford up to date training facilities, but shouldn't the U.S. get some credit for producing these athletes? Just my two cents.

[muriel_volestrangler]

5. Why should the US get the credit?

Shouldn't it go to the colleges?

Really, the fact that a college thinks it gets a good deal by offering scholarships to overseas students has nothing to do with the Olympics.

The author of the original article needs a bit of international perspective. He says: "Meanwhile, the world is learning about team sports from America". Oh, really? Yeah, we learn all about soccer from the Americans. And hockey. And handball. And volleyball. </sarcasm>

[rooboy]

6. I don't know if your guess of it being a majority is correct...

Many countries have dedicated sports institutes to develop talent now. Here in Australia every sport has money poured into elite development programs, and apart from one or two women basketballers and an old baseballer (Dave Nilsson), I don't think we have any Olympians who were developed overseas.

Interestingly enough, a German woman equestrian rider who won gold yesterday was riding an Australian horse, and one of Russia's top swimmers, Alex Popov, trains in Australia. The triathlon gold medallist from Sydney was a Canadian who trained and competed mostly in Australia, too. So there's a lot of cross-pollenation in sports now - it's just a simple fact that Americans tend to play sports which don't have universal worldwide appeal.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

8. As far as I know, you can't compete for a country unless

you're a citizen of that country. That's why that Chinese NBA player is playing for China instead of for the U.S.

[geek tragedy]

7. It's not the US stumbling--it's the rest of the world catching up.

It only makes sense that the dominance of once country would be lessened as others made giant strides forward.

The swimming team seems to be doing really damn well--especially given the stiff competition out there.

[alarimer]

9. yes

And that is a good thing, in my opinion. It makes the sports more interesting to watch. I went to the Atlanta games and because of ticket prices I could not get into the marquee events like swimming and track. So I ended up watching sports like rowing (which I really liked) and team handball (I still have no idea what that was all about). I saw a baseball game with the Netherlands vs. somebody else (neither of them good teams compared to US or Cuba).

Basketball is a case in point. Many European countries have excellent programs where they teach the FUNDAMENTALS, you know, like passing and not traveling. LOL The American men's team is a bunch of selfish prima donnas. I would like to see another team win the gold in that sport. The women's team seems a lot different though.

[geek tragedy]

10. Basketball is an excellent example.

Though, to be fair, I think it has less to do with player's egos than:

a) their lack of fundamental skill;

b) their lack of playing time together;

c) the fact that players were chosen on marketability rather than their suitability for international play