The 'class' element of the Olympics

mightberight said:
Considering your opening post was laced with bigotry, how can you not expect me to criticise you? Especially when you set it up as if the rest of the UK is barely over the bread line and can't afford to buy a bike or, join a gymnastics club, or ... wrestle?
Click to expand...

How did I? I posted the different sports, pointed out how many of them could be called elitist, talked a bit about the distinction between amateur and professional and the roots of the divide, pointed out that a disproportionately large number of GB's medalists are privately educated and asked for people's opinions.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/datablog/2012/aug/06/team-gb-medal-winners-background#school

Education of Team GB is a hot issue - at the beginning of August British Olympic Association chair Lord Moynihan said it was "wholly unacceptable" that half of Team GB's gold medallists in Beijing four years ago were privately educated. It's at an early stage but the odds appear to have improved: so far 32% of Team GB's medals are from privately educated athletes.
Click to expand...


However, some sports are more likely to be the product of a private school education than others - so far that includes rowing, equestrian and shooting. By contrast, all the athletics medals are state educated so far.

Reader Neil Whitfield has analysed these figures some more:

When dividing the number of medals won by the current number of children in private and state education, we can scale for population size. Calculating the ratio of scaled medals, we can see that a child is actually nearly 8 times more likely win a gold medal for Team GB at the Olympic Games if they come from private education
Click to expand...
 
R.Nilsson7 said:
Isn't the Olympics just basically an event for middle class people who don't really enjoy watching it that much but watch it because they're supposed to?
Click to expand...

Are some of you people consciously thinking abut the `"class" of the sportsmen and women you are watching, what possible relevance does it ahve to the conteest taking place?


Badunk said:
on these sports which are really on played and accessed by the more priveledged members of our society in the UK.
Click to expand...

You can substantiate that bitterness driven nonsense i hope, you can offer some examples based on personal experience perhaps?

Tell me, would you approve of such disparaging and blinkered language by someone you believed wealthy when referring to another group in society?


DomesticTadpole said:
I think a lot come out of private/public schools because they still have competitive sports, unlike a lot of infant/junior/senior schools where they don't want our little darlings to be upset if they lose. You learn life's lessons by losing sometimes.
Click to expand...

This seems to ahve become lost in the wider conversation but it is IMO a very apt point.
 
Nick 0208 Ldn said:
Are some of you people consciously thinking abut the `"class" of the sportsmen and women you are watching, what possible relevance does it ahve to the conteest taking place?




You can susbstantiate that bitterness driven nonsense i hope, you can offer some examples based on personal experience perhaps?

Tell me, would you approve of such disparaging and blinkered language by someone you believed wealthy when referring to another group in society?




This seems to ahve become lost in the wider conversation but it is IMO a very apt point.
Click to expand...
Just quoted the sports minister. Read what he says. Look at the statistics. Look at the sports and who plays them. What's there to disagree with?
 
Badunk said:
How did I? I posted the different sports, pointed out how many of them could be called elitist, talked a bit about the distinction between amateur and professional and the roots of the divide, pointed out that a disproportionately large number of GB's medalists are privately educated and asked for people's opinions.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/datablog/2012/aug/06/team-gb-medal-winners-background#school
Click to expand...

First off, you insulted the privately educated by calling them toffs - this clearly wasn't to be some kind of neutral debate, and it's as if their achievements are worth less. Secondly, you jumped to the conclusion that this means every sport is less accessible for state schools.

The actual fact of the matter that the majority of those you listed are extra-curricular sports that are very easy to join a club in. Tennis? Badminton? Hockey? All popular sports that can be enjoyed by anyone. I mean it's quite a random list you've concocted there. Weightlifting?? Football?? Even the 'water sports' have many clubs accessible to everyone. My cousins do sailing and they're by no means 'privileged'. Equestrians Carl Hester and Dujardin are by no means rich, the former especially.

Perhaps what needs to change is the state school remit on sports. Do more taster sessions involved with more obscure sports; I'm sure local clubs would be more than happy to muck in with that.

Even if they come from backgrounds with a bit of money, the dedication and hard work to become an athlete is universal. It's not a glamorous lifestyle, and for however many win medals in this Olympics there are far more who work just as hard but are not quite good enough, wherever they come from.

Besides, I'm sure it'd be tempting to squander Daddy's money or land a cushty position in his company rather than training for hours every day - but I don't think all these privately educated athletes have millionaire parents like you assume they do, anyway.
 
There's a serious point buried in there. There were around 10k school playing fields sold off between thatcher starting and 1997. Without facilities, state school sports were bound to suffer. In the last decade that's started to change with a number of initiatives to promote sport, but obviously the dominance of public schools is going to persist for a while until the state school kids can catch up.
 
It's partly the facilities, but also probably because private/public schools tend to have more of an emphasis on extra-curricular activities and provide more opportunities in the school week to fit them in the timetable.
 
Don't know how you can assume all these kids are from well-off families just because they've been privately educated. Yes, going to a private school does give you an advantage in terms of the facilities you can access, but the amount of work each of our medal-winning athletes have put into becoming the champions that they are being rendered secondary because of the school they went to is a ludicrous statement. Class is only an issue if you make it so.
 
Agent Red said:
It's partly the facilities, but also probably because private/public schools tend to have more of an emphasis on extra-curricular activities and provide more opportunities in the school week to fit them in the timetable.
Click to expand...

Yes, but not only that, they are being funded by the lottery. I agree that people who attended Oxford and Cambridge are likely medal winners in rowing. It stands to reason. But my point about the whole thread is that there is an over-representation of these types of people and that there is an historic reason for it (see my OP about the upper classes being beaten by 'professionals' and setting up their own organisations). Lots of these clubs were born out of this idea of segregation and keeping the proles out.
 
Also, I don't really understand why these stats are being used to bash the achievements of a lot of our athletes, simply because they're 'posh sports'.

The point of the Minister for Sport's comments and the debate around class in the Olympics was, to me, designed to highlight the failings of the state system to provide the same opportunities and hopefully instigate a change in this area as part of the 'legacy' commitment of the Olympics. I don't think it was aimed at saying that non-state schools shouldn't provide such opportunities, or that ex-pupils of their schools had had to work any less hard to achieve their gold medals.
 
I do believe there's one or two here who don't know a wum when they see one. Well done Badunk.

Although it could be said that as GB's success is mostly due to lottery money then it's the result of a tax on the poor and stupid.
 
TheHorse'sMouth said:
Don't know how you can assume all these kids are from well-off families just because they've been privately educated. Yes, going to a private school does give you an advantage in terms of the facilities you can access, but the amount of work each of our medal-winning athletes have put into becoming the champions that they are being rendered secondary because of the school they went to is a ludicrous statement. Class is only an issue if you make it so.
Click to expand...


Going off on tangents here, dude. I am not belittling anyone's achievements here (or at least not trying to). The medalists are the best (or 2nd best, or 3rd best) in the entire world. I didn't say they didn't work hard. They are champions. Personally, I think dressage is a load of wank, but there's no doubt that that girl is a fantastic horse rider/dancer. She beat everybody else at it.

Class is definitely an issue. I'm using statistics to support my view. I'm looking at who participates in lots of these sports and the historical reasons for this. Lots of people are throwing comments at me about what they assume I mean or what they think I mean. I'd like them to debate what I've stated, that's all.
 
Badunk said:
Yes, but not only that, they are being funded by the lottery. I agree that people who attended Oxford and Cambridge are likely medal winners in rowing. It stands to reason. But my point about the whole thread is that there is an over-representation of these types of people and that there is an historic reason for it (see my OP about the upper classes being beaten by 'professionals' and setting up their own organisations). Lots of these clubs were born out of this idea of segregation and keeping the proles out.
Click to expand...

Equally, a lot of sport was born out of working class culture. When many people moved to cities as part of increasing industrialisation, one of the key ways in which they replaced the old community activities of rural life was playing sport with their fellow workers and neighbours.

Unfortunately, sport at the top level has now become very expensive. Even for things like running, which are traditionally accessible. The system is still elitist in that it favours those that have money, because there is less of a need to acquire sponsorship etc. but I don't think that the attitudes of sport are elitist to the same extent that they may have been historically. I don't agree with the idea that just because someone's deemed posh, it means they haven't made sacrifices for their sport or achieved something admirable.
 
711 said:
I do believe there's one or two here who don't know a wum when they see one. Well done Badunk.

Although it could be said that as GB's success is mostly due to lottery money then it's the result of a tax on the poor and stupid.
Click to expand...

It's not a WUM. It was a story in the Guardian. I just thought it would be a good debate.


Your second sentence is a fair point, I feel. Perhaps not worded in the most PC terms, but I get what you're saying.
 
Badunk you are well off the mark in a load of those

bar maybe Equestrian, Fencing, Sailing and Rowing
 
lynchie said:
There's a serious point buried in there. There were around 10k school playing fields sold off between thatcher starting and 1997. Without facilities, state school sports were bound to suffer. In the last decade that's started to change with a number of initiatives to promote sport, but obviously the dominance of public schools is going to persist for a while until the state school kids can catch up.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Good point.
 
Never mind that crap, Smithers-Jones has just won bronze in the Jousting! Pass the port.
 
I get so angry at OPs like the one Badunk posted, simply because it's so ridiculous and misguided.

Why is it that some working class people in this country are so immensely bitter of privately educated school children? Just as it isn't your fault if you go to the worst school in town, it very much isn't your fault if you go to the best school in town either.

I went to a private school because my working class parents worked very hard in their lives to earn money. They got into 'elitist' Oxford with not a penny between them because they worked hard at school and got in there on merit. They proceeded to get good jobs, earn big wages and sent me to a better school. What is wrong with this? As far as I'm concerned, there is far more discrimination in modern society against the 'posh' than against the working class.

There have been legitimate arguments in this thread about the problems with a lack of facilities and general sporting competition in state schools compared to with private schools. There is no doubt that there is a problem that lies there, but it is a disgrace how people try to use it to do down the people who have had access to the best facilities.

If you want to get into any sport, you can. Ironically, two of the seemingly most posh sports in the Olympics are actually most intrinsically linked with the working class. Two of the three members of the dressage team grew up in a working class environment(the gold today was won by a girl from Enfield) and the sailors, by and large, went to state schools. Often what is the case is that some sports seem elitist because you can't do them where you happen to live; sailing and horse-riding are much more common in rural areas. I would have no clue where to go to get into horse-riding and I'm one of the more privileged people on the Caf. It so happens I live in London and hence it's not that big here.

The great irony in all of this of course is that football is by far and away the most discriminatory sport. It is almost entirely made up of the working class, and shuns anyone who has gone to university or has done any sort of further education.

Discrimination goes two ways, and the Caf is often ludicrously biased one way. The abuse hurled at people for being 'posh and privileged' when in reality they just make up a huge proportion of the population of this country is nothing short of ridiculous.

One of the great things about the Olympics is that it will inspire so many kids to get into a wide variety of sports. And by and large, you can do them whatever your background. It's so sad that people believe that they are only for the rich, because it's just holding them back unnecessarily.
 
Due to my deprived background, I can't read Al's post. It's Thatcher's fault.
 
Here in Australia it is slightly different in that many of the sports that you mention are played pretty widely although the expensive private schools do produce many of our best players in some of these.

I'll just pick a few that I know about


Sports widely played by all

Basketball
Beach Volleyball
Boxing - mainly a working class sport here
Canoe Slalom
Canoe Sprint
Cycling - BMX
Cycling - Mountain Bike
Cycling - Road
Diving
Equestrian (but cost moves it up the socio-economic ladder)
Football
Rowing
Sailing
Shooting
Swimming (best youth swimmers often get poached by expensive schools on scholarships)
Taekwondo
Tennis
Trampoline
Volleyball
Water Polo - played by all but in Sydney at least you get a big advantage going to one of the three main expensive water polo playing schools as they play and train at school. To get a similar level of training my son has to travel up to 14hrs/700kms per week.

What we should be doing is demanding proper government funding for smaller sport (here in Australia at least). In the UK it will be better at the moment but funding will die in the arse now that the Olympics is over as it did here after 2000.
 
Alastair, I called dressage 'upper class bollocks' and said 'they're all cnuts' (or words to that effect, in the other thread). In this thread, I've attempted to argue a point of view based on factual evidence that, to me, is undisputable. Understandably, people saw what I said in the other thread and have tried to twist what I've actually said in this thread.

British society is still run along class lines. Yes, those lines are more blurred these days and, yes, it is possible for lads with working class backgrounds like yourself to go to private school. But it is clearly stated in my posts (backed up with evidence) that this is about how lots of Olympic events are the realm of priveleged people. I've shown that the distinction between amateur and professional has its roots in the distinction between those who have money (and viewed the sports as a 'hobby') and those who make money from them. Those with money (and power and priveledge) formed their own 'amateur' associations and excluded those who raced, fought and performed other feats for money. Whether you like it or not, this was a class issue. And whether you like it or not, I would argue that there is still a class divide and that this is born out by the statistics.


I take on board your point about football. But it's arguably becoming more middle class anyway, so you'll be alright in the long run. Only joking. White text! White text!
 
Badunk said:
Alastair, I called dressage 'upper class bollocks' and said 'they're all cnuts' (or words to that effect, in the other thread). In this thread, I've attempted to argue a point of view based on factual evidence that, to me, is undisputable. Understandably, people saw what I said in the other thread and have tried to twist what I've actually said in this thread.

British society is still run along class lines. Yes, those lines are more blurred these days and, yes, it is possible for lads with working class backgrounds like yourself to go to private school. But it is clearly stated in my posts (backed up with evidence) that this is about how lots of Olympic events are the realm of priveleged people. I've shown that the distinction between amateur and professional has its roots in the distinction between those who have money (and viewed the sports as a 'hobby') and those who make money from them. Those with money (and power and priveledge) formed their own 'amateur' associations and excluded those who raced, fought and performed other feats for money. Whether you like it or not, this was a class issue. And whether you like it or not, I would argue that there is still a class divide and that this is born out by the statistics.


I take on board your point about football. But it's arguably becoming more middle class anyway, so you'll be alright in the long run. Only joking. White text! White text!
Click to expand...


And I agree with you about how traditionally some sports were elitist. I just don't think it's really the case anymore.

Basically, I think every sport is moving towards the middle-class, because society in general is producing more and more middle-class people. More and more youngsters sit A-Levels, go to university, become 'professionals'. This impacts upon sport. It's making dressage more middle class, but is also doing the same to football just in the other direction.
 
None of those sports bar probably Equestrian is out of reach of the common man. People make sacrifices all the time for hardwork. Look at Michael Schumacher for example. Arguably the best driver ever in the progressively most expensive sport on earth and his parents were not rich. He raced on second hand tires and worn out karts. Michael Jordan's parents were not incredibly wealthy, neither was Tiger Woods.
 
mariachi-19 said:
None of those sports bar probably Equestrian is out of reach of the common man. People make sacrifices all the time for hardwork. Look at Michael Schumacher for example. Arguably the best driver ever in the progressively most expensive sport on earth and his parents were not rich. He raced on second hand tires and worn out karts. Michael Jordan's parents were not incredibly wealthy, neither was Tiger Woods.
Click to expand...

But even here in Oz where class lines are more blurred there is a much reduced chance of most kids succeeding in many sports. I'll use waterpolo, my son's sport, as an example who is 13. He Plays in the top U14 Competition in Sydney for One of the top 4 teams (and in the U16s and Men's div 4). They came 6th in last year's Nationals in Perth. When you look at the players who play for his team only 2 out of 13 players aren't at a private school and not just any old private school - fees are around $25k p.a plus thousands more for uniform and compulsory school stuff.

Of the Sydney based players in a recent residential talented athlete program about the same proportion were at government schools.

It just isn't a level playing field (well the pool is but .... ;) ) and doubly so since so little public money goes to the sport in which the national team are always on the edge of cracking the top 5 but never quite get there mainly due to a lack of funding at all levels.

We spend up to $20,000 on my son's sport in fuel, fees, pool entry and trips to state and national finals. This is way beyond the means of most and we are the poor cousins from the sticks in the team.
 
I think, more important than wealth, can be the opportunity to link up with the right coach or club at an important time in your burgeoning career. Some sports it would appear do better at brining this about than others.

So it comes down to such factors as: genuinely competitive sportive events, scouting, and information for children for children/parents/teachers. Speaking of the latter, the mental drive of aa father or mother, their encouragement, can also be pivotal.

As for state education system, perhaps it could be made more flexible. Between the time at which somebody enters secondary school and GCSEs there is sufficient time to identify whether a pupil ha a certain sporting specialism, before they have to make certain key decision the option of being moved to a school with a particular sporting strength could be offered. Teach it in conjunction with sport science, foreign languages and there would remain possibilities even if the talent of the individual didn't prove sufficient in the long run.
 
My son saw it for the first time recently and was pissing himself laughing. He was a bit surprised when I explained that it was an actual Olympic sport.
 
Nick 0208 Ldn said:
I think, more important than wealth, can be the opportunity to link up with the right coach or club at an important time in your burgeoning career. Some sports it would appear do better at brining this about than others.

So it comes down to such factors as: genuinely competitive sportive events, scouting, and information for children for children/parents/teachers. Speaking of the latter, the mental drive of aa father or mother, their encouragement, can also be pivotal.

As for state education system, perhaps it could be made more flexible. Between the time at which somebody enters secondary school and GCSEs there is sufficient time to identify whether a pupil ha a certain sporting specialism, before they have to make certain key decision the option of being moved to a school with a particular sporting strength could be offered. Teach it in conjunction with sport science, foreign languages and there would remain possibilities even if the talent of the individual didn't prove sufficient in the long run.
Click to expand...

We have sports High Schools here but they aren't of much use in my son's sport and his High School thrash the Sports High School at water polo. Elite private schools would however be much much better than we are having the whole starting 7 or more at a decent standard whereas we have only 2 good players and some good swimmers.

We may be offered a 50% scholarship at one of the elite schools but even so it is too expensive especially since we would have to move to somewhere with very expensive real estate. Plus my son would die if he had to wear a tie. Plus he thinks most of the kids at the school are utter cockends.
 
Red Dreams said:
tbf Wibbs, it is kinda fun to watch....like at a circus or summat. But an Olympics event? ??
Click to expand...

It is very skillful but it was funny because he obviously though that it was a you tube video or something like that.
 
alastair said:
I get so angry at OPs like the one Badunk posted, simply because it's so ridiculous and misguided.

Why is it that some working class people in this country are so immensely bitter of privately educated school children? Just as it isn't your fault if you go to the worst school in town, it very much isn't your fault if you go to the best school in town either.

I went to a private school because my working class parents worked very hard in their lives to earn money. They got into 'elitist' Oxford with not a penny between them because they worked hard at school and got in there on merit. They proceeded to get good jobs, earn big wages and sent me to a better school. What is wrong with this? As far as I'm concerned, there is far more discrimination in modern society against the 'posh' than against the working class.

There have been legitimate arguments in this thread about the problems with a lack of facilities and general sporting competition in state schools compared to with private schools. There is no doubt that there is a problem that lies there, but it is a disgrace how people try to use it to do down the people who have had access to the best facilities.

If you want to get into any sport, you can. Ironically, two of the seemingly most posh sports in the Olympics are actually most intrinsically linked with the working class. Two of the three members of the dressage team grew up in a working class environment(the gold today was won by a girl from Enfield) and the sailors, by and large, went to state schools. Often what is the case is that some sports seem elitist because you can't do them where you happen to live; sailing and horse-riding are much more common in rural areas. I would have no clue where to go to get into horse-riding and I'm one of the more privileged people on the Caf. It so happens I live in London and hence it's not that big here.

The great irony in all of this of course is that football is by far and away the most discriminatory sport. It is almost entirely made up of the working class, and shuns anyone who has gone to university or has done any sort of further education.

Discrimination goes two ways, and the Caf is often ludicrously biased one way. The abuse hurled at people for being 'posh and privileged' when in reality they just make up a huge proportion of the population of this country is nothing short of ridiculous.

One of the great things about the Olympics is that it will inspire so many kids to get into a wide variety of sports. And by and large, you can do them whatever your background. It's so sad that people believe that they are only for the rich, because it's just holding them back unnecessarily.
Click to expand...

When your parents sent you to private school otherwise known as pulling an Abbott they did three things simultaneously.

1. They took away your chance to succeed purely on your own merits.

2. They set you up to be more successful than someone who works just as hard and is just as smart as you who's parents couldn't send their kid to private school. That person is right to resent that.

3. They helped to perpetuate a system which disadvantages the majority in favour of the wealthy minority.
 
Micky 'who ate all the pies' Quinn has just been on Talksport promoting and and singing the praises of Dressage and Eventing. Oh that snooty elitist him! ;)



Don't Kill Bill said:
When your parents sent you to private school otherwise known as pulling an Abbott they did three things simultaneously.

1. They took away your chance to succeed purely on your own merits.

2. They set you up to be more successful than someone who works just as hard and is just as smart as you who's parents couldn't send their kid to private school. That person is right to resent that.

3. They helped to perpetuate a system which disadvantages the majority in favour of the wealthy minority.
Click to expand...

1. Of course they didn't, effort and determination is just as important as elsewhere. Furthermore i think such a statement takes away individual responsibility and seemingly excuses failure in the state system as a rule.

2. In part answered above. Are you saying that they shouldn't have done their best by their child? So it is right for someone to resent another over decisions either beyond their control or which they would have accepted just the same?

3. They sought the best education they could and made sacrifices to that end yet should feel guilty huh? Can everybody say likewise? Perhaps successive governments should be brought to book for creating the preent culture in the state system.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.