Since London last hosted the Olympic Games in 1948, the number of competitors has more than doubled and the number of countries participating more than trebled. In disciplines with measurable performances, the Olympic Qualifying Standards nowadays would have won Gold Medals sixty years ago. Yet despite the dazzling advance in the level of achievement of Olympic sportsmen and sportswomen and the inexorable increase in the competitiveness of events, the International Olympic Committee still awards (with a few exceptions) only three medals: Gold, Silver and Bronze in each event.
The London 2012 Organising Committee is reportedly brainstorming as to how to follow the spectacular Beijing Olympics despite a budget that must be smaller in real if not in currency terms. Here is the answer:
Introduce an Olympic Fourth-Place Medal
It is not simply that the level of competitiveness has increased so greatly over the last sixty years; the awarding of only three medals has always been inadequate. Most finals in athletics, swimming and rowing, for instance, are contested between eight finalists; it seems natural that the top half of these, four, should be graced with the additional honour of a medal (getting into an Olympic Final should itself be more recognised for the achievement it is). Surely no more advocacy is needed, only practicalities remain to be resolved.
There is the question of who is responsible for the current paucity of provision of medals -the International Olympic Committee, I imagine, or has the London Committee the freedom to update medal-giving? Has the British Olympic Association any powers or leverage (pronounced to rhyme with beaveridge, not Beveridge)? Whoever you are, get off your conference seats and make some decisions, quick!
There remains, however, one significant area of controversy – of what should the medal be made? I have my own ideas, but asking friends and family has uncorked crates of creativity and lateral thinking hitherto bottled up, not all of which has been over-written in the soft-drive of short-term memory. We do have lots of choice – the periodic table lies open before (some of) us, and why not an alloy, or ceramic or plastic or other newly-fashioned material.
To start at this silly end, why not a medal in teflon, lurex, lycra, gortex or velcro -generous sponsorship would be forthcoming. More naturally, how about crystal or clay or coal, or coal’s more precious relative carbon fibre, or could we afford a semi-precious mineral such as jet or topaz or amber? Amber Medal is nicely alliterative and the material was anciently worked, like gold, silver and bronze.
Just a thought. Should we be choosing the BEST material for this medal however, wouldn’t the FOURTH-BEST be more appropriate?
Whether for best or fourth-best place, metals pure or alloyed must surely be favourites, however. Tungsten has been tipped, but too morbid a sound; must be mined by Auks in Moria. Aluminium? Too many syllables. Copper? Already used in Bronze, likewise Zinc, I think. Tin? Strong historic links with Britain, at least since it attracted the first Roman invasion, but has a “tinny”, “tin-can” sound. Britannia Metal, or Sheffield Plate? Patriotic choices, but too much of a mouthful.
There is another way of doing it of course, insert the lately more valuable PLATINUM at the top, for first place! It seems invidious so to demote Gold, Silver and Bronze to second, third and fourth and thus to seemingly devalue a century of previously awarded medals, but there is a precedent -the addition of A* as the top grade in English and Welsh GCSE and A-level school examination results, despite the doubt cast on the excellence of previous mere A grades. So adding in Platinum for first place might be a typically British solution – but might bring anathema rather than plaudits down on our heads from the watching world.
Personally I think the right choice is, rather obviously, PEWTER. This is, like bronze, a respected traditional alloy, one with a strong British pedigree and one which has been used for striking medals in two nations which wield particular influence in the World and whose support we would particularly need – France, the nation of Baron de Coubertin, founder of the Modern Olympics and America, still a colossus despite being nudged off the top rung by China. In France a pewter medal was struck to commemorate the Storming of the Bastille, in America in honour of President John F. Kennedy.
You may think that the Olympic Fourth-Place Pewter Medal might be a laughing stock, well so it might, but only for a short while – and do we not need some humour to lighten the emotions of the medal ceremony? In any case it is interesting that, of the three medals thus far awarded at the Games, the Silver is somewhat marginalized as the least popular of the three -perhaps because it carries with it the failure to win, while the Bronze carries with it the simple pleasure of being up there on the rostrum, without the canker of near-miss if-only regrets. It is this wholesome pleasure in simply being present that would be transferred to the Pewter Medal -or the Medal of whatever Substance might emerge from the more democratic and protracted ponderings that this article MUST arouse.
Finally, if the IOC, the London2012 or the BOC won’t budge, then the CITIZENS OF LONDON should award the medal themselves, inviting the nobly fourth-placed in each event separately, or in a GRAND FINALE out onto the streets to be honoured by the people! This could take place in Trafalgar Square, at Hyde Park Corner or could involve elevation in the London Eye and could even upstage the official medal ceremony.
Come on London: here is how you can rise to new heights as an unforgettable host for the Olympic Games! – and after all is not London Pewter not the very best!
No comments:
Post a Comment