Recalling the 2020 Tokyo Olympics

One earlier FB post looked into the typical reaction to receiving the gold medal.  The recipient immediately bites into it, ostensibly to seek affirmation that the medal is indeed made of the precious metal.

No such luck, and but we cannot say that it has been so  over all those years.  Though we can surmise that the medals are most probably made of the same stuff as they were years ago.  Just realized there may be written standards set even on the metal composition and weight of Olympic medals.

Anyway as it stands, this is what we can expect from the Tokyo 2020 Olympics medals that are being handed out to exultant winners. From some rough estimates made by me.

The three medals, gold, silver, and bronze weigh from 450grams to maybe 556grams, or about half a kilo on average, with gold weighing the most.  The gold medal is essentially made of silver with maybe 6 grams of gold, good enough to be used for plating.  The silver medal true to its name is made up of pure silver.  And bronze of brass and zinc, so not much intrinsic value.  Based on this and the prevailing prices of precious metals, a gold medal might command a price of about 800 dollars, selling the gold and silver content in it, and silver maybe about a little above 400 dollars.  Never mind the bronze medal.

Getting any idea where this is going?

The revered and time-seasoned Olympic Games idolized by the world have always been about excellence in sport and symbolism.  Rank the best performers with their shown performances in competition and give them medals for their accomplishments, the ranking and composition of the medals clearly symbolism for us to revere and behold.  Nothing denoting the awarding of financial awards to winners.

How things have changed though the Games have steadfastly remained the same.  Immediately upon winning financial windfalls are factored in like these too could compete in another contest, this time in value and size. Winning athletes are expected to start following the money trails, in hot pursuit of their "just rewards".  The world would appear disappointed if the winners lose out in this other contest.

And we fear that the world is more concerned and interested in this other contest.

Equality At Any Cost

This collage of images of man and woman slowly unravels in a nutshell the distinct anatomical differences between the two genders, our current attitudes on gender equality notwithstanding.

The image on the left to a degree represents our politically correct perception that man and woman are essentially similar differing only in some superficial externalities and in manner of dress. Then the middle image shows two very attractive creatures with almost identical physical features making them look like twins. The last image however shows in stark contrast the obvious differences in the anatomy of the two figures.

Over the years we have been conditioned to think and believe that women are just like men, and as such should be able to do most everything a man has traditionally been consigned to do – construction work, athletics, firefighting, soldiery, and most everything else. Ardent feminists constantly hammer out this fact and insist equality should be applied most everywhere. Not surprisingly, we now have women soldiers in combat zones, women firefighters fighting conflagrations, and yes, women boxers and extreme sports combatants engaged in those brutal sports not seen since the departed era of the Roman gladiators. I saw recently a segment on TV delving positively into the viability of females in the navy serving on very cramped quarters in submarines. Why not?

So, all’s well with the world?

I do not know why but suddenly some people are starting to talk about sexual dimorphism. Don’t worry, it is simply the study of the differences in the anatomy and physiology of the two sexes.

I hope we can discuss this dispassionately in the interest of science.

Anyway, how many of us know about these facts that differentiate man and woman purely from the standpoint of anatomy and physiology.

A good doctor on the subject has taken the task of showing these differences. Now honestly how many of the facts did you know already?

Anyway, let me count the ways.

Muscle Mass
Men carry as much as 50% more muscle mass in their bodies than women. The latter carry more fat for the difference or instead. Obviously, differences in strength between the sexes occur.

Organs

“Men have bigger hearts, airways with large diameters, higher hematocrit, and increased lung volume.” Thus by nature, men have better endurance.

By the way, a Hematocrit is a blood test that measures the percentage of the volume of whole blood that is made up of red blood cells. This measurement depends on the number of red blood cells and the size of red blood cells.
The hematocrit is almost always ordered as part of a complete blood count.

Other Organs

“Female skin is thinner, and women are endowed with lower levels of blood clotting factors; they are more likely to cut and more likely to bleed. Female bones are less dense, thus more susceptible to fracture. Women’s ligaments and tendons are thinner, a crucial factor in surviving joint locks without injury. Less upper body musculature means less resistance to the head accelerations that cause brain injury.”

On The Other Hand

“Women have greater flexibility and a wider pelvis -- particularly advantageous in MMA. Female skin heals more rapidly and women recover more quickly from exertion and injury. Women have superior immune systems, protecting them from infection. Fascinatingly, women also have a greater density of neurons in many parts of their brain. This may give female fighters a precious advantage in enduring repeated brain injury.”

But who yearns for brain injury?

Professional Boxing: Violent Sport, Inexact Science

Trying to make sense of the judges scoring in the Manny Paquiao-Juan Manuel Marquez II duel last night.


Los Angeles Times Photo


In the split decision given in favor of Pacquiao, here is how the judges scored:

Tom Miller – 114-113 in favor of Pacquiao
Duane Ford – 115-112 in favor of Pacquiao
Jerry Roth – 115-12 in favor of Marquez

Being no expert on how scoring is made and since we do not have the round-by-round scoring of each judge, we can only surmise using the total scores on how each judge saw and scored the fight.

The easiest one to speculate is the 114-113 score. Accounting for the one official knock down on the third round which translates to one extra point, this judge had the fight even, most probably having each fighter winning a half of the 12-round fight. And Pacquiao winning because of the extra point for the knockdown.

The Ford score (115-112) appears to work this way. The likely combination is that Pacquiao won in 7 rounds (50 pts), and lost in 5 rounds (45 pts) for a total of 115, and for his part, Marquez won 5 rounds and lost 7 for a total of 113 – 1 = 112. In effect, Pacquiao winning only an extra 2 rounds from Marquez.

But the Roth score is more belabored and harder to fathom (115-112 in favor of Marquez). Possible scenario: Pacquiao won only 4 rounds (40 pts) and lost 8 rounds (72 pts) to arrive at 112. And for his part Marquez won 8 rounds (80 pts) and lost 4 rounds with a knockdown in one (35 pts) for a total of 115. Ergo, Marquez won twice the number of rounds (8) against Pacquiao's 4. Whichever way the actual the round-by-round scoring went for this judge, he definitely saw the fight as lopsided and decidedly in favor of Marquez.

Not surprisingly, the loser when asked after the fight said without hesitation that he did not lose anything, since anybody looking at the fight knows that he won.

And the victor of course answered that he knew fairly well that he had won, even granting that the opponent gave him quite a challenging fight.