Discussion in 'Odds & Ends' started by Brett UK, Aug 18, 2014.
I have achieved the pinnacle of tennis success in the USA club scene.
About 22% of the population lives on less than 55 cents a day! Thats about 270 million people! And thats just the national estimate of poverty line.
World bank PPP adjusted poverty line for India is about $1.25. That would be about 350+ million people.
comfortable subsistence level is much higher.
India has far more important problems to solve than worry about some contrived, frivolous activities like running on a track, throwing a ball in a hoop or thrashing fuzzy yellow ball.
Yes Kenyans are poor and they run. If they had better schools and colleges, i bet they would prefer to study.
Why not plasce that in its context.
Growing to 5ft6 is rarely that negative, the average indian is far from starving, its only negative in a few contexts including competing on a world level of competitive sports. Living in urban conditions without proper sanitation has more real world life impacting effect than growing bigger.
These numbers are misleading. It doesn't take into account how many things are free or cheap for people in those sections of society, and how many things considered important to us do not matter to them.
I haven;t gone through the entire thread, just glanced at a couple posts.
We are not really a sporty country. (Please don't call cricket a sport, it goes very well with the sedentary culture here).
Men are lazy, and don't like to exert, the women have to do the housework and often fieldwork as well. Today, most people are trying to get their kids an education.
Sports is largely used by the poor to get a job (either in the government, or some large public sector) and once they get the job then they ease up. So even in our top athletes (runners), I never saw a love for running -- most of them smoked and stuff, just did not care.
In any case, the likelihood of making money through sports is quite low (you have to be at the top), whereas you can easily make money in a decent job.
Yet, I think we are doing well in other areas such as technology, medicine, engineering.
Someone spoke of Ethiopia and Kenya being poor. There (I think) genetic selection favored those who could run long distances for water, whereas our civilization was a river-based one. Our folks settled around rivers, and there never was much of a threat. West Africa, i presume has a lot of jungles and deadly animals/snakes etc, so again possibly selection favored those who could run fast.
That's very true, and i have spoken about it too. But i don't think it is the cause. As i see it, the focus is on education and job, and the mentality is not really a health-conscious one.
Today obesity and diabetes is on the rise. I hope this spurs people to at least take to walking.
Poor chap had severe constipation in India, and it went away "with a bang" the moment he reached the US (by his own admission, in the Congratulations thread).
perhaps wheater & climate makes a difference too. I certainly wouldn't do too much sport in 35°C and high humidity. Well I'm a bad example because I actually like those kind of conditions and do play sport also when it's hot outside but I mean generally.
I think Yorkshire is the best per capita (based on London 2012), or at the commonwealth games it was Loughborough University!
Then how do you explain China?
About the same population and also still a relatively poor developing country. Yet, China does very well in the Olympics. They also have a female tennis player ranked in the Top 3.
That contradicts the fact that there are huge numbers of Indian entrepreneurs in Silicon Valley.
You sound ignorant about tennis.
The Grand Slams don't award trophies and prize money for "recreational tennis".
The same way you would explain the seemingly mindless **** of the rivers, the air and the environment in their country.
And India is so clean?
you are one of the poor indians who does not know history, better to stay calm than to prove your ignorance!
Maybe the cast system isnt so hot.
And actually how good are the US ?
some good cricketers and tennis players and that is it¡¡¡
True. But the PRC still plans the areas of focus - and they chose to throw resources at sports as a way of boosting national pride. And don't mind cheating (female gymnasts under the min age). Not to mention some of the 'sports' - dancing with ribbons' that they medal in. We'll see how many more Li Na's they create - I'm not holding my breath.
Which part of 'they left the country' did you miss? On LinkedIn there are native Indians constantly pestering people in the US and EU to 'share' their app ideas. Aka 'they have a building full of programmers - rote memorization - but no ideas of their own to develop into products'. That's why so many Indian programmers come to the US (at least as many as can get an H-1B visa) - there are no risk takers or people with original ideas in IND.
As of now, that's pretty much it Kiki. In tennis, India must do much better than they have so far. They dominated field hockey as well for years, yet I get the impression that in India the general consensus is, hey we're the best cricket country in the world so what's the problem? They need to make a concerted effort to get much better at the Olympics and in global sports such as basketball, track & field, and football (soccer). The population is so large that they do have a large number of very tall, fast and strong athletes. They just need to harness the talent and lay all the groundwork first. Corruption is a huge issue. It saps motivation out of the entire system. From a big picture perspective, the country has to spend tax their tax dollars properly for first rate sports infrastructure. They could get it done if the will was there.
I actually know such people, but no one gives them funding. It's not that people don't have original ideas, those who can fund aren't willing to take risks.
I have attended classes on Vedic mathematics and lectures on ancient Indian science and engineering. As I said, there are certain things they knew but many of the techniques were ad-hoc, approximate, or useless compared to what came later. It was good for that time. It is not a question of inferiority or superiority. It is about how ideas developed.
Wrong. The constipation started in the US once the antibiotics started kicking in. Then it away with a bang, like Nadal's explosive forehand.
India also had jungles with tigers, lions, elephants and cobras in the old days.
Somdev lost in the USO qualies yesterday.
I was reading in INC magazine about the divorce or no-marriage rate among the current crop of entrepreneurs in the US, and it is shocking. It seems even Sergei Brin of Google divorced recently. They are hyper-aggressive and working most of the day, and pay no attention to family, or have none. They are also often selfish, rude, and abusive to their employees. That will not be considered acceptable in any traditional religious culture, whatever the religion or place may be. It is a question of priorities.
This is probably the dumbest post I have ever read. First, I'll just glance over the fact that you included winter sports and tennis when assessing India's "per capita" performance in sports. Whatever that means...you can't just use technical terms to sound smart.
The vast majority of the country's population lives under poverty, with no access to toilets. Do you think a super tennis player or a striker or a master snowboarder is going to rise out of the filthy ponds of Mumbai like a feces-covered phoenix?
Then, you choose to compare India's performance in its main sport--cricket--with other elite nations only--thereby diminishing its accomplishments. Meanwhile, you compare its performance in other sports with ALL countries.
There is so much wrong in your post that I am troubled.
Bhambri and Singh both won today.
That explains why I can run !
Do these traditional cultures happily accept someone who posts 30K on a tennis forum ?
With The Forehand Of Evolution he is accepted everywhere. The Dalai Lama called and asked for lessons!
The harsh reality of China's Muslim divide
This will be a good read for you.
It's not ethnic minorities that are being marginalized in China. But rather any separatist group or entity that pose a threat to the central government.
These indications have always existed, they just won't reported before.
One r@pe every 30 minutes in India... God knows what are the unreported figures.
Well, democracy isn't a surefire blueprint to success.
yes only if you have the wealth and education to back it up. if your Population is poor and uneducated they will often vote for radical guys because they don't see another way for Change.
china has improved a lot and the middle class is growing fast but still they have hundreds of millions of **** poor People.
if they would give those People freedom, voting rights and would not opress them those People would burn anything down and start a Revolution (that could happen anyway in the future- china is not as united and quiet as the government says).
china Needs to be smart with giving more freedom and opening the Country or everything could explode and end in chaos. I think china is changing very slowly and will ultimately give People more freedom but they will be careful and slow doing that. I think that is not a dumb decision although it is of course bad for the People who are opressed, poor and have no freedom.
I think there are multiple factors at play here.
1. Cultural - it's simply not looked upon as that important and few parents want to take the risky bet and have their kids go for a career in sports, when they could become a doctor, lawyer, MBA etc. instead.
2. Cultural 2 - the state doesn't put a whole lot of money into making athletes -> the infrastructure is missing
3. Size is a factor for many sports and the vast majority of Indians are simply not build like natural athletes. Perhaps also hence why China succeeds more in sports, where height is not that important? (badminton, tabletennis etc.)?
Soccer would be a very odd choice if one is going for the medals and glory. Sure, they could improve on their world ranking, but there's no chance they will become a top-10 soccer nation within the next 10-15 years. Heck, even if they put every conceivable effort into it from the state, I doubt they would be ranked higher than 10 in 20 years time. Soccer is probably the most competitive sport worldwide and you don't succeed at it, unless you have lot and lots of kids training from age 5.
Track and field? Not the best choice either if I'm correct on the natural athlete stereotype above. No country can compete with the East African countries in terms of middle and long distance running. No country can compete with the nations, who have descendents from West Africa - Jaimaica, USA etc.
And for most other disciplines you need a lot more height and strength than what is common in India - surely, they have some, but nothing compared to what you would expect with 1,2 billion there.
All in all - if a country like India would choose to divert some of it resources from it's more pressing problems to creating the next Olympic medalist, a better approach would be to aim for some of the more technical sports, where there's less competition and less natural athleticism required imo.
GB did great in terms of focusing on where the 'cheapest' medals where to be found at the London Olympics and the state went fully behind the athletes in those disciplines 7-10 years in advance.
Again, I'm no native Indian, but I've been to most of the country and spend several months there. And I can go for days without seeing a single person who's 6 foot tall or above - or people who looks like they're build for sport for that matter.
And as I said above, if India would chose to focus more on sports, the wiser decision would to go for ones with less competition in it -> 'cheaper medals'. As China and GB have done recently.
An authoritarian state throwing money, dope, infrastructure and selecting the best athletes via early tests vs. a relatively democratic state, who does neither of that?
I don't know about cricket or soccer, etc., but Indian tennis players were always known for their smooth, silky style of play.
In any event, here's an interesting (and fairly recent) article:
CHENNAI, India — In a reprise of the operatic bickering last summer over the Olympics, India’s top tennis players are once again locked in a bitter dispute with the national tennis association.
Mark Humphrey/Associated Press
Leander Paes, left, and Sania Mirza playing mixed doubles at the Summer Games. India's tennis team was plagued by bickering.
Eight players banded together last week during the Chennai Open, India’s only top-tier tennis tournament, and sent a letter to the All India Tennis Association demanding personnel and financial changes in the country’s Davis Cup effort before they would agree to play South Korea in February.
An association official responded by saying that any new agreement with the players would have to include a disciplinary code, which enraged the players. Since then, relations have deteriorated further.
Detailed and lengthy letters have become public, with both sides stating that certain demands are nonnegotiable. The players asked for a specific physiotherapist, for all players to be given similar travel arrangements and for the transparent apportionment of prize money. The association agreed to increase the players’ share of the prize money but said its officials would select the team captain and support staff.
In comments to the news media, association officials have said they will no longer negotiate with the players and may cut off government grants to those who refuse to play next month. Some players receive government training grants of as much as 1.5 million rupees, which is slightly more than $27,000.
“The players who want to play for India will get all the support,” Hironmoy Chatterjee, the tennis association’s chief executive, told The Press Trust of India.
Mahesh Bhupathi, one of the eight players who have threatened to boycott the Davis Cup, said in an interview that he was confident a resolution would be reached.
“At the end of the day, we’re not asking for the moon,” he said. “These are basic requirements.”
The tennis mess is just one in a series of troubles that have befallen prominent sports in India over the past year. In December the International Olympic Committee suspended the Indian Olympic Association, an intensely embarrassing episode that remains unresolved. India’s boxing and archery federations have also been suspended.
The country’s sports associations have been plagued by nepotism and corruption, making India, despite its vast population and growing economic might, a paper tiger in most international competitions. India has won only 26 Olympic medals, fewer than Slovakia or Ireland. The 2010 Commonwealth Games in New Delhi were marked by poor facilities, disorganization and allegations of corruption. Match-fixing scandals have recently rocked even cricket, India’s true sports passion.
India does not have a tennis player ranked in the top 200 in singles. Its two best players are Leander Paes and Bhupathi, doubles specialists who won three Grand Slam titles together but had a rancorous breakup. The enmity between the two is so intense that Bhupathi and his new partner, Rohan Bopanna, threatened not to play in the Olympics if either was paired with Paes. In turn, Paes threatened not to play if he was not partnered with either Bhupathi or Bopanna, another of the players involved in the threatened boycott.
In the end, Paes agreed to play men’s doubles with a lower-ranked Indian player if he was allowed to play mixed doubles with Sania Mirza, India’s highest-ranked woman and Bhupathi’s longtime mixed doubles partner. Mirza went along with the switch but complained about male chauvinism on the part of the association.
“As an Indian woman belonging to the 21st century, what I find disillusioning is the humiliating manner in which I was put up as a bait to try and pacify one of the disgruntled stalwarts of Indian tennis,” she said last summer.
Mirza and Paes, who has won 13 Grand Slam titles in doubles and mixed doubles, lost in the quarterfinals. India won no medals in tennis in London, and sports commentators savaged almost everyone involved in the fiasco.
In September the tennis association barred Bhupathi and Bopanna from playing for India for two years because of the Olympics bickering, an action that prompted Bhupathi to hold a news conference to criticize the association’s “dictatorial rule.” The action has since been stayed by an Indian court.
Now a new crop of young players has joined Bhupathi’s fight against the tennis association because many have played in the United States and have gotten a taste for effective sports management, said Sukhwant Basra, the national sports editor for The Hindustan Times. “They are educated kids from good families who are raising questions about things the older generation took for granted,” he said. “It’s about time this happened.”
Continuing his role as the preferred player of the tennis association, Paes said he would play in the Davis Cup. On Tuesday the tennis association sought permission from the Indian government to select Prakash Amritraj, an American citizen, to play for India in the Davis Cup despite a government policy barring noncitizens from playing for the nation. Chatterjee, the tennis association chief executive, told Reuters the association would choose its Davis Cup roster from those players who declare their availability by Thursday.
Rahul Mehra, a lawyer who has filed suit against the tennis association as well as other sports governing bodies in India, said corrupt and feckless sports management had led generations of players in India to fail to reach their potential. The present controversies, he said, may finally prompt needed change.
“Indian sports have reached an all-time low,” he said. “But someday we will get the right infrastructure in place, and India will become a superpower in sports.”
Yes. It is like Veda Vyasa who was supposed to be a prolific writer. He would have posted like this if there had been Internet.
That was in the past. There is nothing unique about today's crop like Somdev or Bhambri.
Yuki Bhambri and Sanam Singh.
Well I did say "were."
i naively used to think that democracy > more centralized systems like China's current form of communism, as a rule. but the India/China dichotomy shows otherwise.
i think people prefer stability then oppurtunity then freedom. all the freedom in the world means little if theres nothing but chaos.
Remember that democracy doesn't mean freedom. Even after universal voting rights, African-Americans did not have freedom. Democracy can lead to tyranny of the majority. Blatant discrimination followed by claims of "everyone can vote" is not freedom. Freedom is not simply being free of foreign rule. It also means freedom for everyone inside. Always be wary of politicians who constantly talk about freedom. They want freedom only for themselves and those like them.
In a similar fashion, free market does not necessarily mean economic prosperity. When it works, good. When it doesn't, people ask for tariffs and quotas and form unions and use political clout to keep their jobs. Then it is not a free market even if it is claimed to be so. Just having stock exchanges does not make a free market.
And another twist is that democracy is not needed for economic prosperity. Semi-authoritarian regimes can often produce great wealth, like China and Singapore. Cotton industry was doing great with slave labor in the old South. Under Hitler, trains ran on time, especially the ones headed for concentration camps.
They should have a good football team with their numbers. Tata Motors should sponsor a team and get a good Euro coach if they haven't done so yet.
They have a Dutch coach.
That is like saying the US should have more top male tennis players than Serbia/Switzerland/Spain because of the numbers. It doesn't work that way.
Low Effective Participation
Oppression and Freedom.
A lack of democratic voting rights is a form of oppression. But poverty is an overt form of oppression where often times no one individual, but circumstance and larger societal elements are the oppressor. The poor do not have the freedom to obtain a quality home, material goods, sustenance, financial-resource security, and much more needed for a quality life. Even in countries run by democratic governments the poor often times lack a voice and are marginalized, mistreated. As we see with celebrities the very wealthy seem to often have the freedom of a less harsh set of laws applied to them.
So for many chinese citizens to debate the oppression of poverty vs the oppression of one party system leaves little discussion which is the better choice, of course this doesn't apply to the Tibetans nor the Uyghur. But on the flip side US will never fully reliquish any conquested land to the NA aboriginals and in India there is still discrimination towards the Dalits.
Haha. Touche !
I think Dedans was referring to your tennis video.
Don't forget Milkha Singh and Dhyan Chand, the GOAT of field hockey.
Looking at their social structure,it seems not possible
Separate names with a comma.