4 ms·

It's not clear to me that the inequality of post-injury physical abilities in the paralympics is substantially different from the the inequality of innate physi

by pinko 14y ago

It's not clear to me that the inequality of post-injury physical abilities in the paralympics is substantially different from the the inequality of innate physical abilities in the olympics. In both cases, a good portion of what competitors are measuring is "the playing field", where the playing field is their bodies. The rest is discipline, means to train, and psychology.

freehunter 14y ago
In this case, the level playing field between Olympic athletes is that they have all four limbs and normal (or above) coordination and muscle capabilities. In the paralympics, I would consider a level playing field to be one where all the athletes were injured or disabled in a similar fashion. If one athlete is able to automatically raise his/her heart rate while the rest cannot, this is not a level playing field. Although it is an inspiring story to see athletes at a disadvantage even considering their competition in the paralympics still out there training hard, focusing on their personal goal, and succeeding where their fate has previously told them they cannot.
- pinko 14y ago
  I think you're missing my point, which is that the performance range of people with "all four limbs and normal (or above) coordination and muscle capabilities" is at least as great as the performance range of people with diverse injuries. So although it may seem orderly to you in the abstract, it's pointless and arbitrary to organize the paralympics based on type of injury if you're simultaneously allowing a much greater range of abilities to compete in the olympics. If you really care that much about controlling for physical ability, you need to sort people based on some kind of meaningful sport-specific measure which more reliably segregates people's capabilities regardless of age, gender, injury, etc. But injury type (and for that matter gender and age) are extraordinarily poor proxies which in practice often prevent people from competing against their physical peers.

by pinko 14y ago

freehunter 14y ago

In this case, the level playing field between Olympic athletes is that they have all four limbs and normal (or above) coordination and muscle capabilities. In the paralympics, I would consider a level playing field to be one where all the athletes were injured or disabled in a similar fashion. If one athlete is able to automatically raise his/her heart rate while the rest cannot, this is not a level playing field. Although it is an inspiring story to see athletes at a disadvantage even considering their competition in the paralympics still out there training hard, focusing on their personal goal, and succeeding where their fate has previously told them they cannot.

pinko 14y ago
I think you're missing my point, which is that the performance range of people with "all four limbs and normal (or above) coordination and muscle capabilities" is at least as great as the performance range of people with diverse injuries. So although it may seem orderly to you in the abstract, it's pointless and arbitrary to organize the paralympics based on type of injury if you're simultaneously allowing a much greater range of abilities to compete in the olympics. If you really care that much about controlling for physical ability, you need to sort people based on some kind of meaningful sport-specific measure which more reliably segregates people's capabilities regardless of age, gender, injury, etc. But injury type (and for that matter gender and age) are extraordinarily poor proxies which in practice often prevent people from competing against their physical peers.