
Neither the Will nor the Cash: Why India Wins So Few Olympic Medals  - nikunjk
http://m.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/08/neither-the-will-nor-the-cash-why-india-wins-so-few-olympic-medals/260693/
======
cinbun8
It comes down to whether you can make a living in India if you get into
sports. The economics around it are strong enough to force out anyone
considering sports. Cricket is the only sport in India that can get you top
dollar whether you make it big or small. The compensation provided to a person
playing hockey or table-tennis is meager in comparison.

Those that are talented and have the will + passion for the sport shine as
long as they have enough funds. Then there are those [1] that have to sell
their bow to make ends meet despite securing a silver medal at the south asian
championships. It was heart breaking reading that.

[1] - [http://www.thehindu.com/news/states/other-
states/article3278...](http://www.thehindu.com/news/states/other-
states/article3278302.ece)

~~~
ebr4him
You nailed it!

I'm an Indian.

------
michaelt
I heard a discussion of this on Radio 4's excellent More Or Less podcast
<http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006qshd>

They pointed out Korea tend to do well in per capita medal counts as Taekwondo
is a popular sport there - and there are gold, silver and two bronze medals in
four weight categories for two genders - a total of 32 medals available. On
the other hand cricket, one of the most popular sports in India, has zero
olympic medals.

~~~
w1ntermute
That can only be a small part of the story. If you look at the current medal
count, South Korea has 16 while India has just 2. But none of those 16 Korean
medals are from taekwondo. There are 3 judo medals, but that is technically a
Japanese sport, not Korean.

~~~
hazov
Korea was once a part of the Japanese empire and according to older members of
the Korean community in São Paulo* the Japanese governor outlawed Korean
martial arts and promoted Kendo and Judo at schools. Korean Kendo is known a
Kumdo.

Koreans are also crazy about archery, shooting and badminton, sports in which
they generally go well.

*I used to live in "Bom Retiro" neighborhood in São Paulo which is a center of the Korean community here, they said me that exactly.

~~~
w1ntermute
Korea was only a Japanese colony for 35 years (1910-1945). After the Japanese
occupation ended, the Koreans did their best to reject everything Japanese, so
I don't think you can base your conclusion on that.

I don't deny that the Koreans do well in other sports, just that it's not like
they have a cultural advantage or something. For example, their dominance in
archery at the 2008 games was partially due to their building an exact replica
of the Beijing archery range in Korea 2 years earlier and using it to
practice. Many other competitors had never practiced on that archery range
until they arrived at the Olympics, and it threw them off.

~~~
hazov
Don't know, a Korean friend said Kumdo is one of the most popular sports in
Korea, he lived there for a couple of years, don't know about judo but I would
not be surprised if it was that popular as well.

I'm not Korean and only said what members of the Brazilian-Korean community,
in which I have a some friends, said to me.

------
kamaal
There are some things in this article that are true and some false. And as an
Indian I can tell you that are many things that people don't understand.

India is huge country. Huge, I mean so huge that it will be difficult to truly
explain the diversity we have here. It will be easy for a German to explain
what Germany is, Or French to explain what France is and so on. But it will be
very difficult for an Indian to explain what India is in totality basically
because there are thousands of cultures, ways of lives, languages, people of
ethnic origin, color, language, religion and so on and so forth. In fact any
form of classification that you can come up to we have diverse categories in
that.

This is not true for China. Or Korea or Thailand. Because they are a single
ethnic group. People who talk of deficiencies or things not being a part of
Indian culture do not understand Indian culture.

In India you will see large metropolitan cities acting as hubs for employment,
living and opportunities. Go to villages you see poverty you also see
prosperity(Depending on where you go). You will see most advanced technologies
to old stone age agriculture methods. At one end you will see farmers in the
area of Punjab being the richest of the lot and you will also see farmers
committing suicide due to debt and poverty.

You will see people eating stomach full to people barely affording a meal a
day.

Amidst all this we have a thriving industry in every domain of business you
can imagine. We have the best colleges and universities and we also have a
huge problem of illiteracy.

We write software, we have a nuclear weapons program, despite being the worlds
most peaceful nation we have one of the largest armies in the world. We have a
space program. Yet at the same time we struggle to feed our self.

Our society still has the stains of socialism and communism from the old days.
We still have massive corruption and inefficiency in government layers.

Amidst all this parents feels their kids are better off studying and getting
good jobs to make a living than doing something like sports which don't offer
much incentive to make a comfortable living. There are instances of gold medal
winners pawn broking their medals to afford a day's meal.

Also there are not many facilities and training options if you want to be a
serious athlete. At the same time we don't believe China kind of policies
either.

~~~
elssar
Erm, care to point out a few of the things in the article that are false? I
could find none. The article does not try to explain what India is, but why
India doesn't win as many medals in the Olympics as are expected from a nation
this big. And it's does a pretty decent job of that IMO.

~~~
vacri
"It has never won a medal at the winter games" is pretty misleading, given
that India is largely a 'summer' country - in fact, it's pretty much just
European countries, US and Canada that win medals at the winter Olympics. And
while India's been to most of the summer Olympics, it's only been to 8
winters.

If you look at the medals won, it's clear that it's a very eurocentric
competition. Apart from China (who go crazy for cold war reasons - the article
disingenuously uses cold war countries for comparison), all the high
performers are euro culture. Sure, Japan won 400 medals overall... but Germany
has 1500... and even _Finland_ has nearly as many summer medals as Japan.

Apart from China, who has invested _heavily_ as a matter of pride, non-euro
culture countries generally don't do well.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All-
time_Olympic_Games_medal_ta...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All-
time_Olympic_Games_medal_table)

Also, to be pedantic, the first sentence of the article is incorrect:
Bangladesh has won zero medals.

I don't think it's a bad essay, but these were a couple of points I noticed.

~~~
shasta
There are plenty of "summer countries" that win gold in the winter Olympics. I
recall one year Jamaica won gold with its bobsledding team.

~~~
vacri
Jamaica has won zero winter Olympics medals. Same with Brazil, Greece, Iran,
Israel, Mexico, the Phillipines, Portugal (I stopped looking around p - check
the link above) - all sizeable 'summer' countries with zero winter Olympics
medals.

You probably recall the film "Cool Runnings", in which the team did _not_ win;
the point was that they were plucky underdogs and did better than expected,
but they didn't place.

------
deskamess
No real interest in sports unless it is cricket. There are pockets where there
is a significant secondary interest in soccer (WB, Kerala come to mind) and
hockey but other than that it is cricket, cricket, cricket.

Where money is allocated to sports the bureaucrats insert themselves into the
pipeline. There was a story[1] where an olympic bound athlete [flag bearer]
wanted to pay for his physio guy to come along. Of the 142 member team there
are 61 non athletes. You would hope that 50 or so of them would be for the
needs of the athletes (like physio, etc). Somehow I doubt that...

So the article has the right tone... very little infrastructure and no
strategic effort in improving it.

[1][http://dawn.com/2012/07/20/indias-top-wrestler-upset-over-
la...](http://dawn.com/2012/07/20/indias-top-wrestler-upset-over-lack-of-
physio/)

------
yummyfajitas
When I lived in India, I certainly observed that no one there seemed to care
about athletics. It's just not in the culture.

I'd regularly go jogging. People would stop and stare - doubly so if I stopped
running and did pushups. In my entire time there, I saw perhaps 3-4 Indians
running, and considerably more foreigners. The Pune running club was comprised
primarily of people who spent time overseas and expats.

During a conversation with an auto driver, he told me that Indian's don't do
"poses" (i.e., yoga) - "that stuff is just for tourists". (I gather there is
some regional variation.)

So my guess that the reason India doesn't have a lot of medals is that people
just don't care to compete for them.

~~~
_debug_
IMHO, with a billion people, I believe that BOTH a) your generalization is
true, i.e., the majority is disinterested AND b) not relevant w.r.t. Olympic
medal-winning potential : it is enough for a small minority to be interested
in sport / fitness & glory to make the cut for the olympics. I believe that
the 80/20 rule applies, and is actually more of a 95/5 rule in most societies
and most achievements : 5% of the population account for the glory (, the rest
just wake the flag and feel proud, conveniently forgetting that one cannot be
proud of what one did not achieve _personally_ ).

I suspect you might find a similar proportion of everday Chinese equally
disinterested in "poses" (not sure, just speculation).

I believe that the core reason is our usual friend, corruption and red tape.
It's not just sports; in general, the meritocratic lose out because wherever
there is an opportunity in India, whatever be the form of opportunity. That
includes what is rightfully yours, such as welfare handouts, your passport,
etc; An Indian's everyday life consists of jumping through hoops to get basic
things done.

Disclaimer : am Indian.

~~~
yummyfajitas
There certainly is some 95/5 rule, or probably a 999/1 rule. But you need to
apply the 999/1 rule to the people actually interested in going for the gold.
I.e., in the US that might be 0.001 x 25% whereas in India it might be closer
to 0.001 x 5%.

My issue with theories like corruption/red tape/etc is that India is not
unique in this regard. India is pretty bad with corruption, but Jamaica is
too. Yet Jamaica tends to perform pretty well - running is popular there. You
can find plenty of corrupt and poor countries that outperform India,
particularly if you adjust for population.

China is a special case since the government basically forces people to shoot
for Olympic gold in marginal sports (e.g., discus, javelin) and trains them
from early ages to do so. They also use eugenics to breed top athletes (Yao
Ming is one famous result of this), and similar things.

~~~
w1ntermute
> China is a special case since the government basically forces people to
> shoot for Olympic gold in marginal sports

This is a common misconception. No one is "forced" to participate in the
Olympics in China. Poor parents send their children to Olympic trainers
because if their children do well, they'll get to go to college for free and
have a good, middle-class job.

------
bluedevil2k
I was working with many Indians a few years ago and they asked themselves the
same question. One had an interesting take I've not heard elsewhere - he
claimed that the large number of vegetarians in India results in poorer
athletic potential - the lack of meat and protein leading to less strength,
quickness, etc.

It was an interesting idea, but looking up some facts myself right now, that
claim could be tested by Pakistan's medal count. Same general genetic
background, same general infrastructure problems, but are not generally
vegetarians. However, Pakistan hasn't won a medal in 20 years, and only a few
medals ever.

~~~
nimrody
There have been several very successful vegetarian athletes. One name that
comes to mind is Dave Scott (The famous triathlete):
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dave_Scott_(triathlete)> ).

Quoting wikipedia:

"During the period in which he won all six of his Hawaiian triathlons Dave
Scott followed a strict vegetarian (vegan) diet."

~~~
bluedevil2k
Was Dave Scott a vegetarian his entire life, or simply converted to it when he
was a fully-grown adult? Most likely the latter.

Protein consumption as a growing child and teenager is directly proportional
to height - it's the sole reason the average white male has increased 6" over
the past 200 years. Genetics haven't changed, just our diet.

------
parfe
<http://cruelandunusualgeography.com/>

Provides per capita tracking of medals won. Currently New Zealand is in first
place with 3 golds and 4 bronzes. India has 1 silver and 1 bronze putting them
in 45th place.

~~~
Someone
Better, but per capita computation punishes larger countries because, in many
sports, the number of competitors a country can send is independent of
population.

For example, if China were to split in four, the four parts would almost
certainly win more medals in table tennis than China does now.

Similarly, 'US West' would play 'US East' in the basketball final, but the USA
will get at most one medal.

~~~
vacri
It doesn't really punish larger countries, because larger countries can send
much, much broader teams. Try and find a sport that _doesn't_ have the Chinese
or Americans competing in it. Then do the same for small-but-not-tiny
countries like New Zealand, Ireland or even Greece.

~~~
Someone
They send larger teams, but not in 1:1 proportion to their population:

    
    
      China      : 1347M people, 386 participants
      USA        :  314M people, 530 participants
      New Zealand:    4M people, 184 participants
      Ireland    :    5M people,  66 participants
      Greece     :   11M people, 105 participants
    

(sources: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population>,
[http://totallympics.com/forum.php?mod=viewthread&tid=231...](http://totallympics.com/forum.php?mod=viewthread&tid=2312))

So, the USA has 62 times the population, but only about 8 times the number of
competitors as Ireland. If it was a lottery, you would not expect them to win
62 times the number of medals.

So, yes, it does punish larger countries.

And, from that second link, 'HA' is the sport you asked for (I guess that is
handball; makes sense as that is easter European/Scandinavian dominated;
<http://www.london2012.com/handball/> confirms that)

~~~
vacri
I must admit, I'm very surprised at the number of NZ participants.

I still don't think it's highly punished, simply because 'best of 300M' is
likely to be better than 'best of 4M'. The US does have 2500 medals compared
to NZ's 90 - while not 60 times as many, it's still two orders of magnitude,
same as the population. Ireland and Greece are in the same 'order of
magnitude' boat with 23 and 108 medals respectively.

The 'try and find' thing was more a rhetorical statement meaning 'not many' :)

------
jezclaremurugan
Corruption and regional politics are major factors too. Suffice it to say
sports is not very meritocratic in India. A person has to be exceptionally
talented to jump through all the hoops. Quoting from
[http://www.indianexpress.com/news/corruption-in-sports-
leads...](http://www.indianexpress.com/news/corruption-in-sports-leads-arjuna-
awardees-to-annas-campaign/835202/) _Sunita Godara, a former marathon runner
and Arjuna Award winner, said, “We decided to join Anna Hazare as we have been
fighting against corruption at various levels in the sports bodies for the
past 20 years. There is favouritism in the selection process and corruption at
every level.”_

------
w1ntermute
This seems like a great opportunity for America - send some scouts to India to
find poor young children that show athletic talent, tell their parents (or
adopt them if they're orphans) that they can be American citizens if they let
them go to America for athletic training. Give them American citizenship by
the time they turn 16 (the age required for Olympic participation), and we'll
be able to easily raise our Olympic medal count. It's a win-win situation -
the US increases its medal count and the children get a vastly better life
than their parents.

~~~
eshvk
This seems like a good idea but there are a couple of issues though:

1\. I believe from anecdotal evidence most young children start serious
preparation so that by their teens, they would have to have a significant
portion of their technique mastered so that talent can start playing a
significant role. However, I am not sure how easy it is identify the kids pre-
teenage.

2\. Investment costs: Importing a group of people just for the sole purpose of
racking up medals (non withstanding the inherent creepiness of it) will be
tremendously expensive. How do you justify the expense if the children don't
want to do it eventually?

~~~
w1ntermute
> However, I am not sure how easy it is identify the kids pre-teenage.

I'm not sure how the Chinese do it, but this is exactly their approach.
Children with talent (or at least some signs of it) are taken at a very young
age (~5 y/o) and intensively trained.

> Importing a group of people just for the sole purpose of racking up medals
> (non withstanding the inherent creepiness of it) will be tremendously
> expensive. How do you justify the expense if the children don't want to do
> it eventually?

Will it be expensive? I made this suggestion based on the assumption that, as
with the IT industry, it's more cost efficient to bring in workers from abroad
than to depend on domestic talent. In any case, from what I can tell, the main
costs come from buying equipment and hiring coaches, not from the children.
All you have to do is pay for their food, shelter, schooling, and other basic
needs.

The children of course will not be forced to remain in the program if they do
not want to. Contrary to popular belief, this is the system used by China - no
one is kidnapped or coerced into participating, although that no doubt happens
in North Korea.

In any case, the US policy would be that at any point, they can quit and go
back home, if they so desire. Citizenship would be reserved for those who
stick with the program until they are of Olympic age (of course, there would
be weeding out as well, so the numbers would be relatively low). And even if
they end up going back at the age of 10, they would have greatly benefited
from just getting nutritious food during a crucial part of their childhood -
child malnutrition rates in India are almost 50%, even higher than those in
sub-Saharan Africa. Childhood malnutrition leads to lifelong physical and
mental infirmity, so the children would no doubt benefit.

There's no denying the creepiness to some people, although I don't see it that
way (America is a nation of immigrants who came for a better life, and that
would describe these kids perfectly). This would be a cost-efficient and
humane way to reassert US Olympic dominance over China, something that a lot
of people are concerned with.

~~~
vacri
_Will it be expensive?_

Sending a scouting network into a foreign country that largely doesn't speak
your language in order to watch a broad swathe of children isn't going to be
cheap.

Given that the US already leads the board in total medal tally, do they really
need to game the system that way? Besides, it makes an even further mockery of
the idea of 'amateur athletes' when you're essentially buying them from the
other side of the world.

 _Citizenship would be reserved for those who stick with the program until
they are of Olympic age (of course, there would be weeding out as well, so the
numbers would be relatively low)._

Lure a family to an entirely different culture with promises of wealth and
wellbeing, then if they aren't gloriously successful for whatever reason,
throw them away like trash, back into a culture they're now not used to,
particularly the kids? All so you can increment your medal tally to stem the
'yellow peril'? This is morally reprehensible.

~~~
w1ntermute
> Sending a scouting network into a foreign country that largely doesn't speak
> your language in order to watch a broad swathe of children isn't going to be
> cheap.

Translators come cheap in a country where English is relatively well spoken.

> Given that the US already leads the board in total medal tally, do they
> really need to game the system that way?

How long do you think that's going to last? China is going to beat us in both
total medal count and the number of gold medals within 2 or 3 Olympics (if not
this one), and then we'll have no hope at all.

> Besides, it makes an even further mockery of the idea of 'amateur athletes'
> when you're essentially buying them from the other side of the world.

Hey, fight fire with fire. What do you think the Chinese are doing? It's not
like these children are going to be mistreated. And I don't think giving them
proper food, shelter, education, and clothing can be equated with "buying"
them.

> Lure a family to an entirely different culture with promises of wealth and
> wellbeing, then if they aren't gloriously successful for whatever reason,
> throw them away like trash, back into a culture they're now not used to,
> particularly the kids? All so you can increment your medal tally to stem the
> 'yellow peril'? This is morally reprehensible.

OK, so set up some training centers in India instead. If they make it to the
age of 10 or so without being weeded out, bring them to America. Anyone who
comes to America and stays for at least 6 months can be guaranteed
citizenship, even if they don't win. How does that sound? These are just
details. My post was intended to lay out a general plan, not to invite
nitpicking over the details of every word.

And the "yellow peril" you talk about (racial connotations notwithstanding) is
a very real thing. China is going to dominate the world very soon. The best
way we can fight back is to rely on America's basics, one of which is
immigration.

~~~
vacri
_Translators come cheap in a country where English is relatively well spoken._

This one point is supposed to suggest that the rest of the comment would also
be cheap? However you carve it, it will be quite expensive, once you throw in
trained scouts, administration for scouts and moved families, foreign
bureaucracy, domestic bureaucracy...

 _China is going to beat us_

So? The spirit of the games is supposed to be participation, not grinding
other people's face in how awesome you are. Be the bigger person and say
'congratulations'.

 _It's not like these children are going to be mistreated._

Tossing them away like trash into a now-foreign culture because they don't run
fast enough for you is pretty heavy mistreatment.

 _The best way we can fight back is to rely on America's basics, one of which
is immigration._

"We'll let you in if you do our work for us" does indeed seem to be the modern
US opinion on immigration, yes. Or you can fight back by not spending
shitloads of money to chase shiny baubles.

But in the end, so what if the Chinese game the system by heavy investment?
Everyone knows they do it. When they take and keep the #1 spot, no-one is
thinking that they're simply superior physical specimens - that's old cold war
thinking at play. All you do by purchasing athletes from other countries is
dirty your own hands and making people think the same of you. Worse, even -
'the US had to import its talent to stay ahead of China's native talent'.

~~~
w1ntermute
> This one point is supposed to suggest that the rest of the comment would
> also be cheap? However you carve it, it will be quite expensive, once you
> throw in trained scouts, administration for scouts and moved families,
> foreign bureaucracy, domestic bureaucracy...

I'm not denying that there will be expenses. Obviously, some detailed
calculations would have to be done and a cost-benefit analysis performed.
However, my intuition tells me that it will be worth it when China starts to
dominate. Moreover, the cost of living is low in India, so it would be a lot
cheaper than training athletes in the US.

> So? The spirit of the games is supposed to be participation, not grinding
> other people's face in how awesome you are. Be the bigger person and say
> 'congratulations'.

Oh please, those are just empty words you tell kids. No one really believes
that, least of all the American or Chinese teams.

> Tossing them away like trash into a now-foreign culture because they don't
> run fast enough for you is pretty heavy mistreatment.

First of all, I already gave you a solution to that problem. And no matter how
you look at it, these are children that would otherwise end up physically and
mentally deformed, and often illiterate. Any cultural issues pale in
comparison to those very real problems.

> "We'll let you in if you do our work for us" does indeed seem to be the
> modern US opinion on immigration, yes.

And there's nothing wrong with doing that. One of the reasons that the US
doesn't have the demographic timebomb faced by the rest of the developed world
is that we encourage large-scale immigration

> Or you can fight back by not spending shitloads of money to chase shiny
> baubles.

That would be entirely antithetical to the spirit of the modern Olympics, so
that's a non sequitur.

> But in the end, so what if the Chinese game the system by heavy investment?

Regardless of their methods, they _will_ be lauded. It would be remiss of us
not to do everything legal and ethical in our power to fight back.

> All you do by purchasing athletes from other countries is dirty your own
> hands and making people think the same of you.

Once again, we wouldn't be "purchasing" them. They wouldn't be slaves or
indentured servants. I don't understand how this would be a bad thing. These
children would be given a chance at a vastly better life. It's not like they
would be deprived of something because of our actions.

> Worse, even - 'the US had to import its talent to stay ahead of China's
> native talent'.

Except that is what the US is all about - we are a nation of immigrants. While
the rest of world might scoff at our short history and lack of ethnic
homogeneity, we take great pride in that fact.

~~~
vacri
_And no matter how you look at it, these are children that would otherwise end
up physically and mentally deformed_

You really need to keep your racism in check. I really don't know what else to
say if your view is this twisted.

~~~
w1ntermute
No, you really need to stop restorting to ad hominem responses and face the
cold, hard truth. It is a fact that nearly 50% of children in India suffer
from malnutrition. It is a fact that malnutrition is a condition that is
universally accepted within the scientific community to cause lifelong
physical and mental deformity. This has nothing to do with race. It could
happen in any country, to any ethnicity.

~~~
vacri
Taking umbrage at your statement that all Indians are mentally and physically
deformed is not an 'ad hominem' response. Seriously, think about the extension
of what you said - it would mean that every Indian national is physically or
mentally deformed. You've pegged it back to 50% with this comment, but even
then, is your mythical scouting network _really_ going to be looking at
malnourished children?

Then you compound it by wanting to be given a pat on the back because you're
willing to save a mere handful if they happen to perform well. It's like
saying that blacks in the US don't have to worry about poverty so much because
there's the NFL to save some of them.

Also, "It is a fact that -foo- is universally accepted within the scientific
community" is an 'appeal to authority' fallacy. Besides, malnutrition comes in
a range of degrees - it is _not_ synonymous with kwashiorkor or marasmus, not
among the scientists you claim as your authority. Hence, it _also_ refers to
the diet of obese Americans (and there's also mild undernutrition as well).
Given that the obesity rate in the US is climbing towards 30%, it's not so
much of a gain to go from a culture with 50% to a 30% malnutrition rate.

------
manojlds
While the article is true, it misses the point that the games and sports that
India does excel in, do not feature in the Olympics. Cricket, kabadi, kho kho,
chess etc.

I am really surprised that GB did not make an effort to have T20 Cricket in
Olympics, as that format is much more amenable to Olympics and arguably, more
popular with today's spectators.

Another point that is missed is the Indian diet. A large portion of the
population is vegetarian ( and not all kinds of meat are eaten ). And Indians
are foodies that like to eat spicy, oily food etc.

~~~
eshvk
> Another point that is missed is the Indian diet. A large portion of the
> population is vegetarian ( and not all kinds of meat are eaten ).

Could you clarify further what proportion of the population is vegetarian?
Surely, there are high protein vegetarian diets (say something concentrated in
Whey) that athletes could do?

> And Indians are foodies that like to eat spicy, oily food etc.

Not sure how this is relevant. Assuming that there is a inherent cultural bias
towards spicy food, it is not that difficult for a competitive athlete to go
on a stricter regime while working towards victory.

------
sunjain
I would attribute this to the following: 1\. As a society, and culturally
India historically has not given sufficient importance to physical fitness. So
while historically there was great importance given to spiritual and
philosophical pursuits(they had universities setup more then thousand years
back dedicated to philosophy - Nalanda), the physical/bodily aspect was not
only overlooked but considered almost an overhead/obstacle to ultimate goal in
life. Even Yoga's birth(in India) was related more to spiritual pursuit. Not
surprising to see origins of Chess in India(even though Chess is a sport, but
it is mental). And India does reasonably good in Chess even now.

2\. Even the food habits, historically, in India are geared more towards
supporting this bent towards mental/spiritual aspects than physical. Hence
prevalence of vegetrianism. Now vegetarianism can be one of the healthiest
lifestyle(there has been known triathletes who are pure vegetarians)...but
that requires a well balanced diet - which is not the case for majority in
India(for most in India, vegetarian diet has lot of grease and less
nutrition).

3\. There is a reason why Cricket is the most popular sport in India - it does
not require great physical fitness yet you can play it for hours. And cricket
does grab a lion share of sporting opportunities in India (and most
lucrative).

3\. Prevalent thinking still is that sports is waste of time, and you are
better of spending that time on studies...hence you will see abundance of
Indian American spelling bee champs even here in US, yet you will not see many
in athletics

4\. Combine that with lack of creativity and focus from Government in India in
identifying(and persisting) with a sport which can fetch medals (like Turkey
etc)

------
dsushant
Every Olympic medal winner is an expert at his/her sport. Given that attaining
expertise requires about 10 years of "deliberate practice" under the
supervision of a capable coach, the deficiencies in India's sports management
come under focus: 1\. The lack of native coaches is evident from the need to
depend on foreign coaches. This leads to obvious challenges for an aspiring
sportsperson. For instance, many potential sports persons may just not be
talent-spotted. 2\. The incentives to pursue a career in sports are weak: The
middle classes - who can think of funding their child's sports ambition -
usually give in to the fear of being excluded from a "regular" career, usually
based on education qualification.

------
hazov
Brazil and Mexico suffer from the same problem, they are middle income
countries with more than a 100 million people and yet they are not much better
than Kenya, and although not a country with much people Israelis are richer
than the majority of the world they do not go well in the Olympics either, so
money just do not buy a good Olympics performance like the article tried to
sell.

One thing that can explain is culture, Australia has a culture for
competition, for example Australian lifeguards compete in the Surf Life Saving
competition in aquatic sports, it's not a coincidence that Australia goes well
in aquatic sports in the Olympics, Swimming, Rowing and Sailing are
responsible for half their gold medals.

------
tathagata
India is a big country with a huge population. As with many other complex
phenomena, there is no one reason which can explain why India is not doing
well in sports. My guess is that the country is just going through a trough.
Wait for a few more generations and see.

In general, as economic forces level the playing field for most countries
around the world, the medals tally will start correlating well with the
population.

------
mailarchis
"Sport was never a priority for a majority of [Indian] parents and their
kids," this line says it all. India doesn't have a culture that encourages
sports. In a typical middle class family, the parents are actively involved in
education of their kids but when it comes to sports they will draw some ground
rules like 4 to 6 pm for playing, then studies and no play time during exams
and that's about it.

------
anuraj
India is an impoverished nation. More than 55% of people are severely
malnourished. To top it, the militant brahmanic Hindutva of North India
advocates vegetarianism - which equates to further lack of proteins. And the
caste system that looks down upon manual labor and subsequent sedentary
lifestyle for last 3000 years have made Indians a weak race. To top it
corruption and lack of self drive.

------
laktek
What India can do is persuade IOC to include cricket as an event (but still
with counterparts such as Australia, South Africa & Sri Lanka their chances
could be thin).

~~~
dsr_
They would have a better chance of doing that if a cricket match actually
lasted an hour, rather than days...

~~~
laktek
Well, there's actually T20 Cricket which lasts in about 3 hours.

------
ck2
I wonder how much building their nuclear weapons cost.

------
flurie
How does a country that bans guns entirely give athletes access to them?

~~~
five18pm
Guns are not banned in India. It just takes more effort to get guns. You need
a license to own a firearm. One of the high courts declared that unless there
is something adverse against the candidate one cannot be denied license. This
effectively makes it a right to own a firearm.

~~~
bdunbar
_This effectively makes it a right to own a firearm._

Disagree. If the government _gives_ you something, it's not a right. It's just
something they can take away from you when convenient.

------
spitx
Despite the in-vogue arguments that come with sparse evidence to support that
a vegetarian diet can indeed match the athletic predisposition and performance
of a non-vegetarian one, I find it highly suspect that regions of the world (
including India ) which have had to rely exclusively on plant protein for
hundreds of generations would yield the same athleticism predisposition rates
as regions that haven't had such a constraint.

Consistently high preponderance in vegetarianism (in India) has to share some
of the blame for a lack luster interest in athleticism and athletic
activities.

There is simply no other very large land mass that has a cultural history of
very high (and almost exclusive) dependence on plant protein.

This does not even begin to tell the tale of the deleterious effects of a diet
entirely devoid of testosterone-laden red meat.

------
alpine
I also think it is a healthy sign that Indian democracy is working well in at
least some respects. Their great rival China is apparently kidnapping some
children who show signs of athletic potential and subjecting them to a life of
intense training for a chance at an Olympic medal to promote the greatness of
the mother country. India clearly hasn't chosen this route despite the
pressure there must be to match China in all fields.

~~~
maxwin
I smell jealousy here. Although it's a fact that China spent a great sum of
money and effort training their athletes and the children usually go though
excess training(well, like Russia, Korea etc) , i don't think the athletes are
being "kidnapped" or forced to become athletes. Many of the young athletes
came from very poor family and this is a way to improve their lives (including
their families and even the whole village). In fact, it's a privilege to be
chosen.

~~~
arn
I read this story today which makes it sound like, at least in this one case,
the truth may be closer to alpine's take.

[http://www.sfgate.com/sports/ostler/article/Missy-
Franklin-s...](http://www.sfgate.com/sports/ostler/article/Missy-Franklin-s-
sunny-outlook-on-life-3761900.php)

"Chinese 16-year-old Ye Shiwen astounded everyone with her finishing kick in
the 400 IM. London's Daily Mail newspaper sent a reporter to Ye's hometown to
interview her parents.

They told of their only child being selected at age 6 to be schooled in an
elite full-time swim program. At 11 she turned "pro" and entered what was
basically a work camp for kiddie phenoms, one of 20 selected from a pool of
20,000 candidates. Between ages 11 to 14, Ye was allowed one brief visit with
her parents each week and one brief phone call home, many of them very
tearful.

The parents talked of missing their daughter terribly, but Ye's mom said, "In
the West, you pay a coach to turn you into an athlete. But in China, the state
pays, so you have to sacrifice something in return.""

~~~
maxwin
Right. This is all true. I'm not supporting their system. But the parents are
not forced. They have a choice. They choose to sacrifice something in return
for a good economic life and future for themselves and their children. There
are tens of millions of chinese workers who left their village or town to work
at big cities. Many of them only see their children once or less per year. In
comparison, the chosen athletes life is so much better. Sure, china should
definitely improve their system but I don't think it's fair to demonize them
when it's simply not true.

~~~
kamaal
That's the only option those parents have.

If you are very poor and the party offers your kids education, food and a
career. I doubt if any parent wouldn't let go their kids.

Its basically like putting up your kid for adoption. People do that when they
have no way out. If they had absolutely any other option, trust me they would
keep their kids with them.

~~~
w1ntermute
Well, they don't have another choice, and so this is a good option. It's
better than what happens in India, with almost half the child population
suffering from malnutrition - it's even worse in India than in sub-Saharan
Africa, which is saying something.

