It's been a while since I wrote a technology post so, without further ado, let's get up to speed on what's new in the world of Apple.
It's been a bit of an up and down month for them. They had a big keynote September 12th announcing, not unexpectedly, the new iPhone 5, as well as iOS 6 and a completely revamped iPod line ... including (finally!) a decent iPod Touch.
The iPhone 5 came out first, on the 21st, and from all accounts is a decent performer. It boasts a faster processor and bigger screen, it's thinner and lighter, and the camera has been updated, although it remains at 8 MP. Of course there are people who complain that it's not a significant enough upgrade but, honestly, you can only advance a phone in so many ways and the five million plus people who bought it the first weekend alone seem to suggest overall approval.
Next came iOS 6, and this hasn't turned out as well as hoped at all. You have complaints from people whose devices won't run some features - or be able to use it at all. (And this includes all iPad 1 users whose device may theoretically be less than a year and a half old and really shouldn't be considered obsolete in my opinion.)
Then you have the even bigger complaints from the people who did upgrade and, even with the newest iPhone and iPad, are not impressed at all. Apple hasn't been getting along with Google of late, so they removed both YouTube and Google Maps. The first isn't a huge issue; there are alternatives. The second, however, is a fiasco. Apple's own maps app is clearly not ready for the big time. There are whole web sites dedicated to some of the most egregious examples of mis-mapping imaginable - things like bridges sinking into the water and highways to nowhere. And woe betide the poor users who have tried to follow its directions to places like hospitals that don't exist! Tim Cook even issued a public apology and (gasp) suggested alternatives including Google until the situation can be remedied.
There are a few less serious complaints as well about things like wifi connectivity problems and of apps not working well with iOS 6 - including the popular photo editing app Snapseed that just happens to belong to Google. Coincidence anyone? Needless to say I'll be sticking to iOS 5 awhile longer. It's running along just fine and I've only seen a single app that actually requires iOS 6 ... and it was a YouTube replacement which I obviously don't need anyway. It is a little disappointing that Apple released what seems to be a subpar product though. We expect the best from them.
Next up are the new iPods and I'll be watching the iPod Touch reviews very attentively. If the camera is up to snuff, it could be THE item on my birthday/Christmas list this year. I was hoping for 5 MP and my wish came true ... although naturally I immediately wished it were 8 and that they'd bumped the iPhone up to 10. Anyway, even at 5 it is a very significant improvement and it has a lot of the mechanics of the iPhone camera and even an LED flash. I can hardly wait for those first photographs to start appearing!
Of course the Touch itself has to appear first and Apple is being uncharacteristically vague about the release date: currently it's just “October” which could be today (obviously not likely) or over four weeks from now. And then there is the wild card of the mythical iPad Mini. Whether the world really needs a 7” iPad is debatable. Personally I think the combination of the ultraportable Touch and the powerhouse full-size iPad is hard to beat, but I'm sure if Apple builds it the buyers will come. And if you only want one device, a Mini might be the best of both worlds for you.
So I'm still a little skeptical, but there is a rumour of a rumour that there will be another keynote on the 17th, at which time the Mini will be unveiled. The main reason I think it just might be a possibility is that it could explain them holding off on the Touch. They wouldn't want a whole bunch of unhappy people who had just bought a Touch only to discover they could have had the option of a Mini if they'd waited a few weeks more. So I guess I'll be hanging in there with bated breath watching for the next big news from the world of Apple. It's always nice to have something to look forward to, after all, even if you don't think you could possibly need it.
Monday, October 1, 2012
Saturday, September 22, 2012
An "Age of Miracles"
I just finished reading one of those “could hardly put it down” type books: Karen Thompson Walker's exquisite “Age of Miracles”.
It has a fascinating premise: the world is gradually but steadily slowing. Days and nights grow ever longer - by mere minutes at first, but they’re up to sixty hours each by the time the story ends some twelve years later. Of course there are all kinds of inevitable side-effects because of this - everything from food to fuel shortages. Birds tumble from the sky; whales beach themselves en masse. Tides shift; lawns wither and die - as do virtually all plants and trees. Yet in the midst of all the natural changes, life more or less goes on and the narrator, eleven-year old Julia continues the challenging, sometimes painful process of growing up.
So besides being a very decent coming-of-age story, the book also raises big issues that are hard to stop thinking about. How would I deal with a slowing? Would I be a real-timer, trying desperately to continue to follow the sun’s rise and set, hoping my body will adapt? Or would I be a clock-timer, sticking rigidly to the twenty-four hour cycle even if it did frequently mean rising in the pitch dark and going to bed in broad daylight?
There is no ideal solution, of course. Either one would be a huge challenge for a person who can't even adjust with ease to the routine change of time every fall. In the end, though, I suppose I'd opt for clock time; it just seems it would give a greater sense of normalcy and badly needed structure to life. And in the book, that's the government mandated option that the majority do adopt.
The other major thing I ponder is how many small things we take completely for granted, yet would miss terribly. When Walker writes something like “it was the last banana (or grape or pineapple) I would ever taste” I just found it so intensely painful; heartbreaking, really. No birdsong. No wind in the trees because there are no trees. No smell of fresh grass. No flowers.
How many tiny pleasures we have to cherish. How little we appreciate them. How much we'd ache for them if they were to leave forever. How much we would miss the sun’s warmth on our cheeks. (A year or so into the slowing, the sun’s rays are growing so intense you can no longer safely go out in the sun. It can burn right through clothing. People clad their homes with radiation shields, build underground shelters, and essentially live their lives in darkness.) And how much more might we appreciate the miracle of sunrises and sunsets if we only got to see them every five days.
Despite what is obviously a somber topic, I didn't find the book totally negative or depressing. I certainly wouldn't want to live through a similar situation, but I had to admire the ones who did. Although there were some people who fled to alternative, real-time communities or religious communities, as well as the inevitable suicide cults, the majority continued to live more or less as normally as possible. (The book does hint that the situation was considerably more dire in places like Asia and Africa but doesn't get into details.)
Some did suffer - even die - from a mysterious “syndrome”, but most continued to go to work or school; to fall in love, marry and even have children. Scientists continued to work on solutions to meet food and energy needs. World War III didn't break out. There wasn't massive civil chaos. Humans really are incredibly adaptable creatures with an indomitable spirit and will to survive. Julia, in fact, is planning to follow in her father’s footsteps and become a doctor by the book's end (a flash forward to when she is 23).
The world has shrunk in many ways - no more Internet, for one example - yet life goes on, will always go on if humans have any possible way to keep it so. Because, underneath everything, we want to exist, to have made our mark, however small, on the universe. As a young Julia and her first boyfriend, Seth, etch into a freshly cast sidewalk, “We were here”. And that, in itself, is a small one of many in an age of miracles.
It has a fascinating premise: the world is gradually but steadily slowing. Days and nights grow ever longer - by mere minutes at first, but they’re up to sixty hours each by the time the story ends some twelve years later. Of course there are all kinds of inevitable side-effects because of this - everything from food to fuel shortages. Birds tumble from the sky; whales beach themselves en masse. Tides shift; lawns wither and die - as do virtually all plants and trees. Yet in the midst of all the natural changes, life more or less goes on and the narrator, eleven-year old Julia continues the challenging, sometimes painful process of growing up.
So besides being a very decent coming-of-age story, the book also raises big issues that are hard to stop thinking about. How would I deal with a slowing? Would I be a real-timer, trying desperately to continue to follow the sun’s rise and set, hoping my body will adapt? Or would I be a clock-timer, sticking rigidly to the twenty-four hour cycle even if it did frequently mean rising in the pitch dark and going to bed in broad daylight?
There is no ideal solution, of course. Either one would be a huge challenge for a person who can't even adjust with ease to the routine change of time every fall. In the end, though, I suppose I'd opt for clock time; it just seems it would give a greater sense of normalcy and badly needed structure to life. And in the book, that's the government mandated option that the majority do adopt.
The other major thing I ponder is how many small things we take completely for granted, yet would miss terribly. When Walker writes something like “it was the last banana (or grape or pineapple) I would ever taste” I just found it so intensely painful; heartbreaking, really. No birdsong. No wind in the trees because there are no trees. No smell of fresh grass. No flowers.
How many tiny pleasures we have to cherish. How little we appreciate them. How much we'd ache for them if they were to leave forever. How much we would miss the sun’s warmth on our cheeks. (A year or so into the slowing, the sun’s rays are growing so intense you can no longer safely go out in the sun. It can burn right through clothing. People clad their homes with radiation shields, build underground shelters, and essentially live their lives in darkness.) And how much more might we appreciate the miracle of sunrises and sunsets if we only got to see them every five days.
Despite what is obviously a somber topic, I didn't find the book totally negative or depressing. I certainly wouldn't want to live through a similar situation, but I had to admire the ones who did. Although there were some people who fled to alternative, real-time communities or religious communities, as well as the inevitable suicide cults, the majority continued to live more or less as normally as possible. (The book does hint that the situation was considerably more dire in places like Asia and Africa but doesn't get into details.)
Some did suffer - even die - from a mysterious “syndrome”, but most continued to go to work or school; to fall in love, marry and even have children. Scientists continued to work on solutions to meet food and energy needs. World War III didn't break out. There wasn't massive civil chaos. Humans really are incredibly adaptable creatures with an indomitable spirit and will to survive. Julia, in fact, is planning to follow in her father’s footsteps and become a doctor by the book's end (a flash forward to when she is 23).
The world has shrunk in many ways - no more Internet, for one example - yet life goes on, will always go on if humans have any possible way to keep it so. Because, underneath everything, we want to exist, to have made our mark, however small, on the universe. As a young Julia and her first boyfriend, Seth, etch into a freshly cast sidewalk, “We were here”. And that, in itself, is a small one of many in an age of miracles.
Tuesday, September 18, 2012
The Treasure of Tasha
Lately, in honour of what would have been Tasha Tudor’s 97th birthday on August 28th, I read “Drawn from New England” by daughter Bethany and also “The Private World of Tasha Tudor” written in conjunction with Richard Brown. I have a few more related volumes I may treat myself to as well. Like Beatrix Potter, she was a unique and exceptional woman, a talented artist, a little unconventional, and lived life very much on her own terms.
Born into what she called “genteel poverty”, she had an interesting childhood, experiencing both Boston high society and the Bohemian lifestyle of rural relatives in Connecticut. Her mother was a gifted artist in her own right, her father a naval engineer. Her education was minimal, yet she was surrounded by books and could quote from Shakespeare and many more at length.
From girlhood she was drawn to the country and the lifestyle of days gone by - somewhere back around 1830. And she pretty much lived that way her entire life. When her children were young, frugality was a necessity; but ultimately she became quite a successful commercial artist/picture book author and that gave her the luxury to follow her desires. She lived in remote, antique-filled homes, first in New Hampshire then Vermont her entire adult life, maintaining the lifestyle of a century ago or more. That meant wood stoves and candles, weaving and long gowns, not to mention massive flower and vegetable gardens and a collection of animals; she was especially fond of corgis and Nubian goats.
I suppose some would claim - and probably not without reason - that she was eccentric. But how much more interesting a person it made her! And I'm sure being so immersed in the past lent an authenticity to her artwork that wouldn't have existed otherwise. Besides, you have to admire people who live their passions. They may be a little different, but I'm certain they're happier than the vast majority of more traditional folk. Tasha Tudor was certainly unique and a treasure whose art I will forever cherish and admire.
Tuesday, August 28, 2012
So Much More than Peter
Although she is certainly best remembered - and arguably most loved - for her creation of Peter Rabbit and his woodland and barnyard friends, Beatrix Potter was so much more than the author/illustrator of children's books. That became evident the further I read in Linda Lear's marvellous biography Beatrix Potter: A Life in Nature. In fact, years before Peter, Beatrix was a very knowledgeable amateur scientist, with a particular interest in fungi. She made incredibly detailed illustrations of these as well as other plants which are still studied today. And some of her observations about fungal reproduction and spores were decades ahead of their time. While not appreciated when she made them (especially with the double curse of being an amateur and female), they were subsequently borne out.
Despite having to deal with somewhat difficult parents, Beatrix was a very fortunate girl and young woman. She was well educated, albeit at home with governesses, never attending school (something she was grateful for later, saying school would have rubbed off some of her originality). Her parents were very well off and able to indulge her interests, whether she needed new reference books or art lessons. She was able to experience life outside of London on annual holidays to places like Scotland, Wales and the Lake District. And her parents were tolerant enough to accept the wide variety of creatures she and her brother kept in their third-floor schoolroom. Really, her parents were probably just conventional Victorians of a certain class who expected a dutiful daughter to care for them - not one as ambitious and energetic as Beatrix. All things considered, Beatrix was certainly far better off than most women of her era I'm sure.
Beatrix's most productive years, literature-wise, actually constitute a relatively small portion of her life, mainly in the first decade and a half of the 1900's. Subsequently, with her Peter Rabbit et al proceeds as well as some family inheritances, her focus turned increasingly to farming and land preservation. In conjunction with the National Trust, Beatrix was almost single-handedly responsible for saving huge swaths of land in her beloved Lake District. She was also a canny shepherd, and worked hard to preserve and promote the hardy Herdwick breed of sheep native to the region. Other areas of interest included the Boy Scouts and Girl Guides whose camps she welcomed on her land and classic furniture (especially old oak pieces from the area). And, although she really didn't write or illustrate much in her later years, she did become close with the editor of Horn Book magazine and kept abreast of the world of children's literature.
She certainly was a busy and active woman, very much involved in her community. Just reading about all her work left me feeling slightly exhausted! Although it would have been nice had she written more, I respect her choice to move on to other things that she found more interesting and important. Unlike many authors, she had a relatively happy life in later years. She didn't let the tragic loss of her first love and fiancé blight her, enjoying a happy thirty year marriage with a local lawyer, despite her demanding parents' disapproval. All in all Beatrix Potter Heelis was a remarkable woman who left England a rich legacy in both literature and land.
Despite having to deal with somewhat difficult parents, Beatrix was a very fortunate girl and young woman. She was well educated, albeit at home with governesses, never attending school (something she was grateful for later, saying school would have rubbed off some of her originality). Her parents were very well off and able to indulge her interests, whether she needed new reference books or art lessons. She was able to experience life outside of London on annual holidays to places like Scotland, Wales and the Lake District. And her parents were tolerant enough to accept the wide variety of creatures she and her brother kept in their third-floor schoolroom. Really, her parents were probably just conventional Victorians of a certain class who expected a dutiful daughter to care for them - not one as ambitious and energetic as Beatrix. All things considered, Beatrix was certainly far better off than most women of her era I'm sure.
Beatrix's most productive years, literature-wise, actually constitute a relatively small portion of her life, mainly in the first decade and a half of the 1900's. Subsequently, with her Peter Rabbit et al proceeds as well as some family inheritances, her focus turned increasingly to farming and land preservation. In conjunction with the National Trust, Beatrix was almost single-handedly responsible for saving huge swaths of land in her beloved Lake District. She was also a canny shepherd, and worked hard to preserve and promote the hardy Herdwick breed of sheep native to the region. Other areas of interest included the Boy Scouts and Girl Guides whose camps she welcomed on her land and classic furniture (especially old oak pieces from the area). And, although she really didn't write or illustrate much in her later years, she did become close with the editor of Horn Book magazine and kept abreast of the world of children's literature.
She certainly was a busy and active woman, very much involved in her community. Just reading about all her work left me feeling slightly exhausted! Although it would have been nice had she written more, I respect her choice to move on to other things that she found more interesting and important. Unlike many authors, she had a relatively happy life in later years. She didn't let the tragic loss of her first love and fiancé blight her, enjoying a happy thirty year marriage with a local lawyer, despite her demanding parents' disapproval. All in all Beatrix Potter Heelis was a remarkable woman who left England a rich legacy in both literature and land.
Thursday, August 23, 2012
I Would I Were a Penderwick!
I spent an absolutely delightful couple of days this week with the Penderwick family. I reread "The Penderwicks on Gardam Street" first (I had already read the original volume at least twice anyway), then moved on to "The Penderwicks at Pointe Mouette". That was a pleasure I had been saving for just the right time ... and this week was it.
For the uninitiated, the Penderwicks are a creation of Jeanne Birdsall. Though they are recent volumes, they are also old-fashioned and timeless, definitely destined to be classics. They are reminiscent of authors like Elizabeth Enright with her Saturdays series. They're the kind of books where nothing extraordinary really ever happens (although the third book did have a rather large, coincidental revelation), yet they still manage to be compelling reading. Genre-wise, they'd be classified as family stories; I call them ordinary books or daily life books because they're about the everyday sort of things you do - or wish you did.
Basically, the Penderwicks are four sisters (currently 13, 12, 11, and 5) who lost their mother shortly after the youngest was born. At the very end of the last book their father remarried and they also have a new, toddler step-brother although, conveniently, both parents and brother are absent in the third volume. (So too, largely, is eldest sister Rosalind. The younger three sisters, along with a good friend and their aunt are vacationing in Maine.) Loving but limited adult supervision is a hallmark of stories like this, as is great characterisation. You get to know each sister intimately; each has a strong and distinct voice: Rosalind is the nurturer, Skye the tomboy, Jane the dramatic and it looks like young Batty will be musical, as well as being an animal-lover, perpetually accompanied by the family's beloved dog Hound.
Reading about the Penderwicks life and adventures is such a wonderful experience. You really feel you are a part of the family. I would be a mélange of the sisters - nurturing, an animal lover, a reader/writer with a hint of tomboy too. I would like to come in right between Jane and Batty, I think. As an only child, reading about the relationships between the sisters is fascinating and makes me more than a little envious too. How wonderful to grow up with such a loving, supportive group of people. And how fortunate readers are to be able to share their experiences with them. Supposedly the series will have five volumes ... personally I hope it's even more and can hardly wait for book number four. I don't have an especial favourite yet in the series; I think it's still being written!
Basically, the Penderwicks are four sisters (currently 13, 12, 11, and 5) who lost their mother shortly after the youngest was born. At the very end of the last book their father remarried and they also have a new, toddler step-brother although, conveniently, both parents and brother are absent in the third volume. (So too, largely, is eldest sister Rosalind. The younger three sisters, along with a good friend and their aunt are vacationing in Maine.) Loving but limited adult supervision is a hallmark of stories like this, as is great characterisation. You get to know each sister intimately; each has a strong and distinct voice: Rosalind is the nurturer, Skye the tomboy, Jane the dramatic and it looks like young Batty will be musical, as well as being an animal-lover, perpetually accompanied by the family's beloved dog Hound.
Reading about the Penderwicks life and adventures is such a wonderful experience. You really feel you are a part of the family. I would be a mélange of the sisters - nurturing, an animal lover, a reader/writer with a hint of tomboy too. I would like to come in right between Jane and Batty, I think. As an only child, reading about the relationships between the sisters is fascinating and makes me more than a little envious too. How wonderful to grow up with such a loving, supportive group of people. And how fortunate readers are to be able to share their experiences with them. Supposedly the series will have five volumes ... personally I hope it's even more and can hardly wait for book number four. I don't have an especial favourite yet in the series; I think it's still being written!
Monday, August 13, 2012
Olympic Adieu
Yesterday the games of the 30th Olympiad in London came to a close. As IOC President Jacques Rogge said, they were indeed "happy and glorious" and I thoroughly enjoyed them.
I wasn't particularly fond of the closing ceremonies - just not my style of music, I'm afraid, and to me fashion and models are a bit incongruous with the Olympics - but I certainly enjoyed watching many of the events. Coverage (at least in Canada) was superb; in the rare case I couldn't find something I wanted to see live on one of the five channels covering the games here, I could always catch it online using the CTV app or website.
Londoners truly did themselves proud and made their city a place I'd definitely like to visit some day too. Everything ran like clockwork - if an event was scheduled for 9 AM, it started then - and the literally thousands of volunteers always seemed to be smiling and pleasant. Regular glimpses of royalty (William, Kate and Harry were at many of the events) were a nice treat too. It was lovely to see the pride Great Britain had, and it was well justified. Not only were the games a huge success, so too were their athletes. They came in fourth in the medal count with 29 gold!
I was also glad the games came off safely; beforehand there were some concerns about security and I admit I was a little worried someone might try something. (I really need to be a lot more positive and optimistic and just trust that everything is going to be OK. It puts such a damper on things when you're always fearful.) It was so good to see the world coming together, being happy and fair for at least a few weeks.
There were so many heartwarming stories too. There's Oscar Pistorious, the double amputee who nonetheless ran (and well) for South Africa. There's Jamaica's Usain Bolt who won the "triple double" or "double triple" depending on how you want to say it: the 100m, 200m, and 4x100m gold medals in both the 2008 and 2012 Olympics and has to be the greatest runner - at least the greatest sprinter - of all time.
And there were several stories from the pool: Michael Phelps - the greatest swimmer of all time - ended his career with an additional four gold and two silver medals for an astonishing total of 22 Olympic medals ... 18 golden! In men's diving, our own Alexandre Despatie competed despite smashing his head on the board in training only a month or so before the games. Two other young divers might not have been there at all. Three years ago Britain's Chris Mears ruptured his spleen in a diving competition, lost five pints of blood and was given only a five percent chance of surviving - let alone diving. And Australia's Ethan Warren had a serious heart infection just last year and wasn't sure he'd ever be able to dive again. None of these three won medals, but they all made the event finals and exemplify what the games are all about - just going out there and doing your best. In my book that definitely makes them all - just like the games - winners.
I wasn't particularly fond of the closing ceremonies - just not my style of music, I'm afraid, and to me fashion and models are a bit incongruous with the Olympics - but I certainly enjoyed watching many of the events. Coverage (at least in Canada) was superb; in the rare case I couldn't find something I wanted to see live on one of the five channels covering the games here, I could always catch it online using the CTV app or website.
Londoners truly did themselves proud and made their city a place I'd definitely like to visit some day too. Everything ran like clockwork - if an event was scheduled for 9 AM, it started then - and the literally thousands of volunteers always seemed to be smiling and pleasant. Regular glimpses of royalty (William, Kate and Harry were at many of the events) were a nice treat too. It was lovely to see the pride Great Britain had, and it was well justified. Not only were the games a huge success, so too were their athletes. They came in fourth in the medal count with 29 gold!
I was also glad the games came off safely; beforehand there were some concerns about security and I admit I was a little worried someone might try something. (I really need to be a lot more positive and optimistic and just trust that everything is going to be OK. It puts such a damper on things when you're always fearful.) It was so good to see the world coming together, being happy and fair for at least a few weeks.
There were so many heartwarming stories too. There's Oscar Pistorious, the double amputee who nonetheless ran (and well) for South Africa. There's Jamaica's Usain Bolt who won the "triple double" or "double triple" depending on how you want to say it: the 100m, 200m, and 4x100m gold medals in both the 2008 and 2012 Olympics and has to be the greatest runner - at least the greatest sprinter - of all time.
And there were several stories from the pool: Michael Phelps - the greatest swimmer of all time - ended his career with an additional four gold and two silver medals for an astonishing total of 22 Olympic medals ... 18 golden! In men's diving, our own Alexandre Despatie competed despite smashing his head on the board in training only a month or so before the games. Two other young divers might not have been there at all. Three years ago Britain's Chris Mears ruptured his spleen in a diving competition, lost five pints of blood and was given only a five percent chance of surviving - let alone diving. And Australia's Ethan Warren had a serious heart infection just last year and wasn't sure he'd ever be able to dive again. None of these three won medals, but they all made the event finals and exemplify what the games are all about - just going out there and doing your best. In my book that definitely makes them all - just like the games - winners.
Thursday, August 2, 2012
Another Day, Another Controversy
Yesterday it was a badminton scandal, with eight players (from four teams) being sent home for trying to throw matches in the hopes of getting more favourable matches subsequently. It was pretty pathetic to watch. The poor referee was pleading with them to just play, to actually attempt to hit the shuttlecock. Instead they just kept swatting it limply into the net or batting at it so halfheartedly that the longest rally was a mere four shots. Talk about unsportsmanlike conduct!
Today we're back to gymnastics again, the women's all-around finals this time. That would be the event where the best aren't all competing because their countries' teams were too strong and had too many good athletes. Anyway, the U.S.'s Gabby Douglas was awesome and deservedly won the gold medal, followed fairly closely by Russian Victoria Komova. And the two of them were followed by the second Russian, Aliya Mustofina and the second American, Aly Raisman.
In fact, they were followed identically by those two. Now in other sports, if there were an exact tie, all the way down to the thousandth of a second or point, they would share the bronze medal (and I'm positive I remember shared medals in previous games, although perhaps not that recently) . But for gymnastics, that would be too generous, apparently. So there's a whole complicated procedure to prevent ties from happening. You drop the lowest scoring apparatus, one at a time, until the tie is broken. In the highly improbable case that it isn't, you then go by the highest execution scores and, if it still isn't, by start values. At that point - which of course will never happen - a tie would stand.
So in the end, because Mustafina's three best events were better than Raisman's, she got the final medal. It just seems so petty. To tie to the thousandth of a point was already pretty remarkable, showing they were both worthy of a medal. Why not give it to them both? Would it really have done any harm? I think, along with the "maximum two qualifiers per country" rule, this is another area the Gymnastics Federation really has to take a look at. As with all other sports, don't you really want the best competing, and don't you really want to reward deserved achievements even if they do cause the slight inconvenience of an extra medal? Hopefully by the next Olympics things will be just a little bit different, just a little bit better.
Today we're back to gymnastics again, the women's all-around finals this time. That would be the event where the best aren't all competing because their countries' teams were too strong and had too many good athletes. Anyway, the U.S.'s Gabby Douglas was awesome and deservedly won the gold medal, followed fairly closely by Russian Victoria Komova. And the two of them were followed by the second Russian, Aliya Mustofina and the second American, Aly Raisman.
In fact, they were followed identically by those two. Now in other sports, if there were an exact tie, all the way down to the thousandth of a second or point, they would share the bronze medal (and I'm positive I remember shared medals in previous games, although perhaps not that recently) . But for gymnastics, that would be too generous, apparently. So there's a whole complicated procedure to prevent ties from happening. You drop the lowest scoring apparatus, one at a time, until the tie is broken. In the highly improbable case that it isn't, you then go by the highest execution scores and, if it still isn't, by start values. At that point - which of course will never happen - a tie would stand.
So in the end, because Mustafina's three best events were better than Raisman's, she got the final medal. It just seems so petty. To tie to the thousandth of a point was already pretty remarkable, showing they were both worthy of a medal. Why not give it to them both? Would it really have done any harm? I think, along with the "maximum two qualifiers per country" rule, this is another area the Gymnastics Federation really has to take a look at. As with all other sports, don't you really want the best competing, and don't you really want to reward deserved achievements even if they do cause the slight inconvenience of an extra medal? Hopefully by the next Olympics things will be just a little bit different, just a little bit better.
Tuesday, July 31, 2012
Golden Redemption
Any internal turmoil the American women's gymnastics team might be dealing with following Sunday's Olympic qualifications certainly wasn't evident in today's team final. Today they were golden through and through, hitting twelve for twelve routines with scarcely a bobble and finishing up over five points ahead of second place Russia - a decisive victory in a sport of tenths. It was a wonderful competition and nice to see most teams hitting most of their routines; you really don't want to see victories based primarily on someone else's mistakes. Clearly the Americans had the superior team and their victory was both well-earned and well-deserved.
The ever classy Romanians took the bronze, while China, who don't have the strongest team this time around came fourth. But the big news for me? Guess which team came in fifth (up from eighth in qualifications, which itself was an accomplishment to be proud of)? That's right: Canada!!! We've never even made the finals in the current eight team format, and the official goal was a top ten finish; cracking the top eight not much more than a nice hope. Achieving that on Sunday was already a huge victory. Coming fifth today was almost like a gold medal for us. As their idol Justin Bieber himself tweeted to the team, "Stand Up Canada"!
 |
| Members of team Canada, Elsabeth Black (L-R), Dominique Pegg, Kristina Vaculik, Brittany Rogers and Victoria Moors stand together during the women's gymnastics team final in the North Greenwich Arena at the London 2012 Olympic Games July 31, 2012. Photograph by: Mark Blinch, Reuters |
Sunday, July 29, 2012
Olympic Gymnastics Restrictive Rule
I got my fill of gymnastics today and then some as I watched the women's qualifications at the Olympics. [As an aside, the Canadian coverage of the Games has been pretty amazing. At any given time I can be watching events on CTV, SportsNet, TSN or RDS or choosing from a multitude of feeds on the CTV iPad app. Plus there's NBC if I really wanted it, but that would be a last resort since they're not showing a lot of things live - especially the marquee events like gymnastics. I could have seen all five subsections today, and I knew all the key results by midday while cable-bound Americans still won't have seen them yet!]
While there were a few stumbles here and there, overall I was pretty impressed by the performances today. And Canada did particularly well, making the team finals for the first time. We also have one gymnast in the all-around and two in the vault final. As expected, the Americans lead the pack, but Russia, China and Romania are all strong contenders. Given the merciless "three up, three count" format of the team finals, nothing can be taken for granted.
And nobody found that out more than American Jordyn Weiber. The reigning world champion was expected to be vying for gold in the all around final at the Olympics. Finishing fourth overall today she certainly would have been too ... if two of her teammates hadn't placed second and third. Unfortunately the rule is only two athletes per country may advance to finals. It's not inconceivable that one of the other girls could have an injury before Thursday's final (real or - the cynic in me must allow for the possibility - exaggerated) allowing Jordyn to advance after all, but I hope that doesn't happen.
What really needs to happen is for the rule to be changed. I know you do want to allow gymnasts from a variety of countries the chance to participate, but it has never seemed right to me. In other events like swimming or cycling or track the score is everything. If the top five athletes happen to be from the same country, so be it. The finals should be a showcase of the best, regardless of where they're from. For someone to be penalised because her teammates are so good just isn't fair. Now that teams are smaller (the "Mag Seven" of 1996 is 2012's "Fab Five") and often include specialists who don't compete on all events (only three of the U.S. team did so, for example), the rule is less relevant or necessary than ever.
Of course it's too late to act now (though there is a fledgling petition underway, apparently); that would be patently unfair to the athletes who legitimately qualified today. But it's certainly time to begin lobbying in earnest for a change before the 2016 Olympics. Hopefully then we will see finals that truly do include the best of the best, no matter what their country of origin.
While there were a few stumbles here and there, overall I was pretty impressed by the performances today. And Canada did particularly well, making the team finals for the first time. We also have one gymnast in the all-around and two in the vault final. As expected, the Americans lead the pack, but Russia, China and Romania are all strong contenders. Given the merciless "three up, three count" format of the team finals, nothing can be taken for granted.
And nobody found that out more than American Jordyn Weiber. The reigning world champion was expected to be vying for gold in the all around final at the Olympics. Finishing fourth overall today she certainly would have been too ... if two of her teammates hadn't placed second and third. Unfortunately the rule is only two athletes per country may advance to finals. It's not inconceivable that one of the other girls could have an injury before Thursday's final (real or - the cynic in me must allow for the possibility - exaggerated) allowing Jordyn to advance after all, but I hope that doesn't happen.
What really needs to happen is for the rule to be changed. I know you do want to allow gymnasts from a variety of countries the chance to participate, but it has never seemed right to me. In other events like swimming or cycling or track the score is everything. If the top five athletes happen to be from the same country, so be it. The finals should be a showcase of the best, regardless of where they're from. For someone to be penalised because her teammates are so good just isn't fair. Now that teams are smaller (the "Mag Seven" of 1996 is 2012's "Fab Five") and often include specialists who don't compete on all events (only three of the U.S. team did so, for example), the rule is less relevant or necessary than ever.
Of course it's too late to act now (though there is a fledgling petition underway, apparently); that would be patently unfair to the athletes who legitimately qualified today. But it's certainly time to begin lobbying in earnest for a change before the 2016 Olympics. Hopefully then we will see finals that truly do include the best of the best, no matter what their country of origin.
Friday, July 27, 2012
Let the Games Begin
A few hours ago in London, Queen Elizabeth declared the games of the 30th Olympiad officially open. And I was privileged enough to have a bird's eye view of the ceremonies from the comfort of my living room sofa. (That's unlike Americans who had to wait until prime time to view their edited version of the events. Yet another time I'm grateful to be Canadian!) Though I wasn't enamoured with every single segment, overall I felt it was nicely done and reflected the values and culture of the country fairly well.
The show opened with a video of the Thames, rushing onward from its source to London (if you looked closely enough - and knew the cultural reference - you could see the characters from "The Wind in the Willows" at one point). Then it had a segment of early, pastoral England: green fields and Maypoles, animals, rural agriculture etc. This was interspersed with children's choirs from the four countries that make up the U.K. singing traditional songs and hymns including "Jerusalem" and "Danny Boy". I think that was probably my favourite part of the whole ceremonies, actually; it just seemed so simple and sweet.
Then there was a quote from "The Tempest" read (very well) by Sir Kenneth Branagh and we moved into the industrial revolution where workers "forged" one of the Olympic rings. It was supposed to show the pandemonium of the time ... and it accomplished that quite well too. There was also a good segment lauding the National Health Care service (like our Medicare) and in particular the Great Ormond Street Hospital. J. K. Rowling read an excerpt from Peter Pan, and a host of Mary Poppins swept in to shoo nightmarish characters away from the children.
A couple of lighthearted segments had the Queen and James Bond (well, doubles thereof) parachuting in from a helicopter, and Mr. Bean playing along with the orchestra to the "Chariots of Fire" theme song ... all the while imagining himself as victor of the race.
Then there was a fairly long segment featuring popular music from the past forty or so years. The dancers, particularly the lead girl, were good, but I didn't recognise - or like - much of the music. In fact the Eurhythmics "Sweet Dreams" was about all I knew and even Dan, who's way more into music, didn't know a lot of it either.
Of course there was the lengthy parade of athletes, a few brief speeches, the raising of the flag, the lighting of the torch - cleverly made up of metal "petals" carried in with each country's entry (along with flags "planted" in the green hill, which I thought was a nice touch too) - and the athletes', coaches' and judges' oaths. Paul McCartney's "Hey Jude" and some fireworks capped the evening.
And that was that: a nice ceremony - perhaps not as spectacular as some but well done on a budget and with lots of volunteer heart and spirit. I was a little surprised there weren't more celebrity appearances, and I was sort of disappointed there wasn't a catchy theme song like our "Believe" but it was a fine opening for what I hope are two wonderful weeks of athletic prowess and good times.
The show opened with a video of the Thames, rushing onward from its source to London (if you looked closely enough - and knew the cultural reference - you could see the characters from "The Wind in the Willows" at one point). Then it had a segment of early, pastoral England: green fields and Maypoles, animals, rural agriculture etc. This was interspersed with children's choirs from the four countries that make up the U.K. singing traditional songs and hymns including "Jerusalem" and "Danny Boy". I think that was probably my favourite part of the whole ceremonies, actually; it just seemed so simple and sweet.
Then there was a quote from "The Tempest" read (very well) by Sir Kenneth Branagh and we moved into the industrial revolution where workers "forged" one of the Olympic rings. It was supposed to show the pandemonium of the time ... and it accomplished that quite well too. There was also a good segment lauding the National Health Care service (like our Medicare) and in particular the Great Ormond Street Hospital. J. K. Rowling read an excerpt from Peter Pan, and a host of Mary Poppins swept in to shoo nightmarish characters away from the children.
A couple of lighthearted segments had the Queen and James Bond (well, doubles thereof) parachuting in from a helicopter, and Mr. Bean playing along with the orchestra to the "Chariots of Fire" theme song ... all the while imagining himself as victor of the race.
Then there was a fairly long segment featuring popular music from the past forty or so years. The dancers, particularly the lead girl, were good, but I didn't recognise - or like - much of the music. In fact the Eurhythmics "Sweet Dreams" was about all I knew and even Dan, who's way more into music, didn't know a lot of it either.
Of course there was the lengthy parade of athletes, a few brief speeches, the raising of the flag, the lighting of the torch - cleverly made up of metal "petals" carried in with each country's entry (along with flags "planted" in the green hill, which I thought was a nice touch too) - and the athletes', coaches' and judges' oaths. Paul McCartney's "Hey Jude" and some fireworks capped the evening.
And that was that: a nice ceremony - perhaps not as spectacular as some but well done on a budget and with lots of volunteer heart and spirit. I was a little surprised there weren't more celebrity appearances, and I was sort of disappointed there wasn't a catchy theme song like our "Believe" but it was a fine opening for what I hope are two wonderful weeks of athletic prowess and good times.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)