Topic: Discussion of Mark Kodya's Thesis

[Chris Ⓐ LeRoux]

Mark,

I have a few questions and comments about your thesis. I split the discussion of the thesis from the actual thesis so those that already read it do not have to scroll as much. For those that want to read it, here is a direct link: http://weightliftingexchange.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=46&Itemid=60

In Chapter 3, you mention that Bob Hoffman attacked Olympic coach Mark Berry from behind. You seem to mean a literal, physical attack. Is this really the case or was this a figurative expression for some kind of betrayal? You mention that this led to Mark Berry disappearing from the sport? Can you provide any more detail to this story?

In chapter 5, under the Commodification of Athletes, you state that allowing Antonio Krastev to compete for the United States would have increased the number of spots we received for the Olympic Games because of his ability to place high at the World Championships. You also mention that this would increase the desire of foreign athletes to represent the United States, which would presumably again increase our performance, and number of spots in the Olympics. You go on to state that USA Weightlifting's failure to pursue this possibility means that strength is not valued highly here.

First, I must point out that, unlike some countries, the USA does not allow numerous, easy exceptions to its citizenship requirements. Thus, Krastev was simply ineligible to represent the United States until completing the normal procedures for becoming a citizen (7 years) and there was nothing USA Weightlifting could do about it. Also, I don't see foreign lifters coming here as beneficial in terms of getting more Olympic slots as they would then take those spots according to your strategy. So, our spots would go to people who are American citizens only because they want to participate in the Olympic Games-not something that fits with our Founders' wishes or the original intent of the Olympic movement. I agree that commodification is happening, but personally abhor it. The Naim situation where you had persecution is certainly a worthy exception to what I feel should be the rule.

In Chapter 3, in the Tense 30's section, you state that "His [Bob Hoffman]athletes were already getting mileage reimbursement and other performance incentives of up to $15 for winning a meet when Hoffman began to recruit top caliber weightlifters to work in his factory and pointing out that, as employees, they could lift on his team (Fair, 1996, p. 8). This began the sport’s movement toward professionalism and pre-dated any attempts in his regard by the Soviet Union, a fact Hoffman later conveniently failed to mention. While Hoffman would later complain about the state sponsored professionalism of other weightlifters, it was he who had been among the first in the sport to move in that direction and he had not complained when he was reaping the benefits of doing so."

Then, in Chapter 4, in the section on Opposing Views of Amateurism, you point out that "the United States adhered to the classical Greek concept of amateurism whereas the Soviets viewed the continuum from amateur to professional as mirroring the advancement from novice to elite. U.S. adherence to this archaic view brought about a decrease in the prestige of U.S. weightlifting...Soviet professionalism continued undeterred, as their team was accompanied by coaches, trainers, doctors, interpreters, and various other officials for a full team of ten lifters (Schodl, 1992, p. 107). Meanwhile, American Tony Terlazzo - a former national and world champion - came out of retirement to take second place in the 148 lbs class at the 1947 World Championships, but was subsequently disqualified because he had opened a health studio and was now considered a professional (Kutzer, 1979, p. 107, 109-110; Schodl, 1992, p. 109).

It seems clear that you accept the Soviet perspective that the status of amateur or professionalism is one on a continuum. However, you do not seem, in my opinion, to fully recognize the radical difference between any minor corruption Hoffman might have introduced to the question of amateur status and the massive professional effort the Soviets put to systematic work. While Hoffman may have employed his people in a line of work loosely associated with the sport and offered some reasonable accommodation to their athletic needs, these jobs were not just fraudulent covers for professional status. It seems to me that, while true that America at this time enjoyed a romantic and unrealistic view of amateurism, it is unfair to say that Hoffman's complaints about the Soviet abuse of the amateur status were not legitimate.   

You also discuss the idea that Americans are hindered because we use "the excuse" of drug abuse in our sport. You state that the United States seems to believe in "a reliance on physiological means" to improve performance that is hindering our efforts and attribute the beginning of this trend to Hoffman's complaints about the Soviet corruption of the amateur ideal. I am not totally sure what you mean by the term physiological but it seems you mean to say pharmaceutical. But, to me, this is backwards. It is not America that is dependent on pharmaceuticals or excuses. America has had the strictest out-of competition drug testing program in the world for some time. Yet, we see the leading powers in weightlifting failing drug tests in international competition on a regular basis. It is them that absolutely refuse to institute drug testing programs similar to what we have here and them that offer the excuses of why they can't do it and why the drugs are not that big a deal.

I would have to say that I do agree that the United States lack of ability to incorporate weightlifting into our college sports programs has been a serious detriment.  In order to compete with the more systematic approaches of the dominant powers with their early talent identification,  sports schools, doping programs, and massive support structure for the Olympic sports, we must fully harness our collegiate athletic programs to aid our efforts in the Olympics.

Finally, I also agree that the shift from an industrial to an information and service economy is hurting the sport in our country tremendously. Kids today want to play video games, not sports. And, team sports-not individual sports where performance is measured ruthlessly. We are a country getting softer and fatter all the time. Physical education is becoming a complete joke, like public education in general, and really amounting to nothing more than childcare provided at taxpayer expense. Did you know that your mind is less active while watching television than when asleep?

So, will the rest of the world's weightlifting results decline in the future as the dominant weightlifting powers shift to a post-industrial society? I see some evidence to support the statement. Or, will the thesis be proven faulty? Will gene doping stop any potential decline? I am eager to hear your predictions and response.

Regards

[Mark Kodya]

Chris,
       I'll take these one by one posting the quote from you, then my response.

"In Chapter 3, you mention that Bob Hoffman attacked Olympic coach Mark Berry from behind. You seem to mean a literal, physical attack. Is this really the case or was this a figurative expression for some kind of betrayal? You mention that this led to Mark Berry disappearing from the sport? Can you provide any more detail to this story?"

Yes, it was, as I understand it a literal physical attack. While Hoffman was not the strongest man around he was a much bigger man than Berry and probably did not need to add the element of surprise. Without referencing my thesis, I believe the source attributed in this case was John Fair's book or his series of 3 articles in IGH on the early years of American weightlifting, but since then I have seen it mentioned elsewhere. For example, I do not recall if he specifically mentioned Berry but Jan D over on ironhistory has posted that Hoffman had somewhat of a track record of pounding people who had a tendency to piss him off.  For those who do not know, Jan worked at York for a quarter of a century or more and shared an office with Grimek. He has some very interesting insights on the York personalities.Anyway, as far as Berry, the 1936 Olympics was really the turning point - Milo Barbell and Philadelphia were replaced by York and York Barbell as the new mecca of lifting in this country. Along with Phillie, Mark Berry was now on the outside of the inner circle of power. Most of that had to do with business and legal issues, but it seems a beating from a man twice his size may have convinced Berry not to get involved in a power struggle for the sport.

"In chapter 5, under the Commodification of Athletes, you state that allowing Antonio Krastev to compete for the United States would have increased the number of spots we received for the Olympic Games because of his ability to place high at the World Championships. You also mention that this would increase the desire of foreign athletes to represent the United States, which would presumably again increase our performance, and number of spots in the Olympics. You go on to state that USA Weightlifting's failure to pursue this possibility means that strength is not valued highly here.
First, I must point out that, unlike some countries, the USA does not allow numerous, easy exceptions to its citizenship requirements. Thus, Krastev was simply ineligible to represent the United States until completing the normal procedures for becoming a citizen (7 years) and there was nothing USA Weightlifting could do about it. Also, I don't see foreign lifters coming here as beneficial in terms of getting more Olympic slots as they would then take those spots according to your strategy. So, our spots would go to people who are American citizens only because they want to participate in the Olympic Games-not something that fits with our Founders' wishes or the original intent of the Olympic movement. I agree that commodification is happening, but personally abhor it. The Naim situation where you had persecution is certainly a worthy exception to what I feel should be the rule."

Chris, I do not think USA Weightlifting carries a huge amount of clout in the bureaucracy of US Government, but I do believe that the United States Olympic Committee does carry a great deal of clout in that realm. Whether or not they choose to use it or use it wisely is another matter, but the clout is there. If USAW had pressured USOC and they in turn had pressured the federal government I do believe some loophole could have been found. It does not seem to me (I could be wrong) that Roberto Urrutia (?spelling) or Constantine Starikovich were in this country for 7 years before lifting for us internationally. Yes, initially foreigners would take the extra spots, but as I realize each day, we all get older. As their physical skills diminished, the hope would be that their presence had given the sport enough of a shot in the arm to inspire an entire crop of the next generation, who would be ready to be winners at the highest level since that would be the standard of the previous generation. As to the original intent of the Olympic movement, well, let me say this is a subject of some interest to me and I mean both the ancient and the modern Games, as well as the renditions of them which are now conveniently buried and forgotten. I have done several papers on various aspects of this and in a nutshell, I would just say things are not always as later represented.

I'll do the rest in a subsequent reply.

Mark

[Chris Ⓐ LeRoux]

Mark,

Thank you. Those are some very interesting details about Hoffman. I have read the Muscletown USA book, but do not recall any of those stories in relation to Bob Hoffman being a bully.

About the Olympic Committee having influence in changing our citizenship procedures, I personally would be highly skeptical. Such things are difficult for even Congress and/or the Executive branch to change as beauracracy has a power and a momentum of their own. Tony Urrutia actually did pay the full price of seven years driving a truck before he could compete, some of his very best years. Konstantine married a US citizen. I hope that the USAW will not go into the marriage brokerage business in order to recruit foreign stars.  :D Regardless, I truly don't see imported athletes stimulating homegrown weightlifters. I don't think Americans are going to get to excited about seeing imports succeed and I don't think it has had such an effect in Australia. I think it would have a demoralizing effect on homegrown lifters as I think it has in Australia. I think it also opens up a lot of questions of equity. Would these new citizens be required to live here? If not, would they be subject to the same drug testing as American athletes living here, etc, etc-all actual issues I have seen discussed at the Phoenix weightlifting forum (Australia).

Perhaps the true spirit of the Olympics was never about peaceful competition between nations, but to me that is what has been special and awesome about it. When athletes don't represent their nation and instead only play for themselves, the Olympics, in my opinion, loose all special status.

I look forward to hearing more of your thoughts. Thank you.

[Mark Kodya]

Part 2 of my reply to Chris:

"In Chapter 3, in the Tense 30's section, you state that "His [Bob Hoffman]athletes were already getting mileage reimbursement and other performance incentives of up to $15 for winning a meet when Hoffman began to recruit top caliber weightlifters to work in his factory and pointing out that, as employees, they could lift on his team (Fair, 1996, p. 8). This began the sport’s movement toward professionalism and pre-dated any attempts in his regard by the Soviet Union, a fact Hoffman later conveniently failed to mention. While Hoffman would later complain about the state sponsored professionalism of other weightlifters, it was he who had been among the first in the sport to move in that direction and he had not complained when he was reaping the benefits of doing so."

Then, in Chapter 4, in the section on Opposing Views of Amateurism, you point out that "the United States adhered to the classical Greek concept of amateurism whereas the Soviets viewed the continuum from amateur to professional as mirroring the advancement from novice to elite. U.S. adherence to this archaic view brought about a decrease in the prestige of U.S. weightlifting...Soviet professionalism continued undeterred, as their team was accompanied by coaches, trainers, doctors, interpreters, and various other officials for a full team of ten lifters (Schodl, 1992, p. 107). Meanwhile, American Tony Terlazzo - a former national and world champion - came out of retirement to take second place in the 148 lbs class at the 1947 World Championships, but was subsequently disqualified because he had opened a health studio and was now considered a professional (Kutzer, 1979, p. 107, 109-110; Schodl, 1992, p. 109).

It seems clear that you accept the Soviet perspective that the status of amateur or professionalism is one on a continuum. However, you do not seem, in my opinion, to fully recognize the radical difference between any minor corruption Hoffman might have introduced to the question of amateur status and the massive professional effort the Soviets put to systematic work. While Hoffman may have employed his people in a line of work loosely associated with the sport and offered some reasonable accommodation to their athletic needs, these jobs were not just fraudulent covers for professional status. It seems to me that, while true that America at this time enjoyed a romantic and unrealistic view of amateurism, it is unfair to say that Hoffman's complaints about the Soviet abuse of the amateur status were not legitimate."

Chris, as I have mentioned to you in some of the communication going back and forth between us, there are some things that are in the thesis that I no longer agree with or do not see the same way. To some extent, this is one of those where my perspective has changed somewhat (not totally though). Let me try to explain. The current crop of US weightlifters has far more financial incentive than the lifters from the York era ever did. And these incentives are not in the guise of work, they are actual financial incentives from sponsors, USOC, USAW, IOC, and IWF. Nobody in wl-ing is making what an NFL player does but it's more than Hoffman provided. Now that should equate to better performances. It doesn't, so the question must be asked why not. Let me explain my theory here with a parable from a psychology class: A bunch of neighborhood teens gathered everyday in the neighborhood field and played baseball. The closest house to the field was that of an old man who loved baseball. Everyday when the youths played he would sit on the porch and watch them, reliving his own youth and getting a great deal of enjoyment. He was quite wealthy and began to feel that he should do something for those who were bringing him so much joy so he called the teens over one day as they were playing and told them he was going to give them each $1 a day for playing. They protested that he didn't need to they were just having fun. But he insisted and finally they accepted. After awhile they came to resent that they were only getting a dollar - after all, a soda now costs $1.25 in most machines, so they decided to ask for more. It so happens the old man had lost a bunch of money in the stock market and his health had turned and he told them he was no longer able to continue paying them, but asked that they just go back to doing it because it was fun. They felt cheated and refused to play anymore. The point is the motivation switched from an intrinsic love of the game to the extrinsic motivation of what they got out of it and this affected their attitude toward the sport. I now think that with a few notable exceptions (Pete Kelley being one), the lifters of old who did not have the confusion of extrinsic motivation had more and deeper desire and this was part of the reason for their success. However, we must also remember to look at things as they were seen at the time and not as we see them now. Your comment "jobs were not just fraudulent covers for professional status" looks at it as we see it now. At the time, that is just what was alleged that the jobs were just a cover for professionals. I don't think that "Hoffman's complaints about the Soviet abuse of the amateur status were not legitimate", but I do think that they do not take into account that the difference was entirely a matter of degree. A whole lot of degree, but what is the difference between a hooker who charges $1000 and someone who wants $10 - in the eyes of the law, it is only a matter of degree at that point.


 
Next:
"You also discuss the idea that Americans are hindered because we use "the excuse" of drug abuse in our sport. You state that the United States seems to believe in "a reliance on physiological means" to improve performance that is hindering our efforts and attribute the beginning of this trend to Hoffman's complaints about the Soviet corruption of the amateur ideal. I am not totally sure what you mean by the term physiological but it seems you mean to say pharmaceutical. But, to me, this is backwards. It is not America that is dependent on pharmaceuticals or excuses. America has had the strictest out-of competition drug testing program in the world for some time. Yet, we see the leading powers in weightlifting failing drug tests in international competition on a regular basis. It is them that absolutely refuse to institute drug testing programs similar to what we have here and them that offer the excuses of why they can't do it and why the drugs are not that big a deal."

In a sense the second part of this section is exactly what I refer to in the first part. That sounds much harsher than I mean it so please accept my apology if that does not come across well. As I said in regards tto the money issue above, the lifters of earlier generations were intrinsically motivated. They felt a strong allegiance to Hoffman and a belief in their success. The programs they were using were far from scientifically based. But in the 1950s in the US generally, science became everything and we worshipped all that was scientific - to the point that the humanities are not mearly as highly regarded. Now, over the past few years we ass a nation are beginning to see that maybe science doesn't have all the answers. Weightlifting went through thesame metamorphosis. All of a sudden, training had to be scientific, nutrition became important, supplements. drugs, etc. And the simple belief structure at a very deep level was minimized in importance.  Tommy Kono was probably the person from that era who most embodied this. So anyway, by the time of Sputnik, we began to see the Soviets as having more of the answers, more military power, and better scientists thatn they actually did. Their success in sport and weightlifting fed into this. The answer "had" to be in their training and drugs. It couldn't have been that they had that same belief in their country and their abilities as Americans once had. By the way, one of America's greatest weightlifters had a similar perspective to what I have just said (mine was more wordy). I could go into more detail but I will stop here and await further discussion. Thanks for everything with the thesis.

Mark

[Chris Ⓐ LeRoux]

Mark,

Great stuff. Thank you again for sharing. I have a couple more comments.  :D

I agree with you in relation to intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. It is an interesting topic so I'd like to explore it a little more.  First, you say "the current crop of US weightlifters has far more financial incentive than the lifters from the York era ever did."  And, then you say, "Now that should equate to better performances" and argue that since it doesn't it is evidence that intrinsic motivation is more effective.

While I agree in principle, I am not sure that the increased financial incentives have not increased performance. After all, the All-Time American records have improved since such funding began and so have the average result of the winners in all of the mens weight classes (except maybe 56 where there just aren't very many adult American men). So, one might say that performance has improved. Of course, this could equate to "normal" progress with time and may have nothing to do with the increased financial support. But, its tough to know. And, sure, I hear the counterargument, that they may lift more weight but they are placing far lower. Here is the impasse. I say uneven playing field, and others say excuse. But, we do see all of the international positives to support the contention of an uneven playing field.I didn't think your second paragraph was harsh. I agree with much that you say. Whether there is an uneven playing field in our sport or not does not change the fact that believing there is one could be a counterproductive "excuse." So, both sides can be right.  :D

[Mark Kodya]

Chris,
       I did not respond to the last of your original comments last night, so I will do that now and respond to today's comments later.

"Finally, I also agree that the shift from an industrial to an information and service economy is hurting the sport in our country tremendously. Kids today want to play video games, not sports. And, team sports-not individual sports where performance is measured ruthlessly. We are a country getting softer and fatter all the time. Physical education is becoming a complete joke, like public education in general, and really amounting to nothing more than childcare provided at taxpayer expense. Did you know that your mind is less active while watching television than when asleep?

So, will the rest of the world's weightlifting results decline in the future as the dominant weightlifting powers shift to a post-industrial society? I see some evidence to support the statement. Or, will the thesis be proven faulty? Will gene doping stop any potential decline? I am eager to hear your predictions and response"

Although I do not follow international weightlifting all that closely lately, it does seem that there has been a power shift toward what once were called third world nations. China is one that comes to mind that has really risen to a powerhouse team. So, yes I think the trend will continue. Incidentally Gerry Willis had a similar thesis but took more of a sociological perspective. So I am not the first or the only person to see this trend.

Mark

[Don Weideman]

Mark

Reading your work made this quote ring true;


Serious sport has nothing to do with fair play. It is bound up with hatred, jealousy, boastfulness, disregard of all rules and sadistic pleasure in witnessing violence. In other words, it is war minus the shooting.
George Orwell


I suspect Mr. Orwell would have some interesting comments on your
thesis. I'm enjoying the discussion you and Chris are having.

Thanks again for the education

[Mark Kodya]

Chris,
       I am glad that my comments were not taken as harsh. Thank you. As for your points regarding performance, there is another factor that complicates evaluating whether performances are up or down, but this one is admittedly not a USA only issue but rather one stemming from changes in the sport internationally and it is actually a cluster of issues rather than a single one. The components of this group as I see it are:

1. The weight classes have been changed twice so truly fair comparisons are difficult.

2. The record book has been retired each time the classes change.

3. The advent of women's weightlifting has decreased the number of mens spots available and splits the pool of potential coaches.

4. The increased number of nations in the world has increased the IOC member nations and participants in each sport, including wl-ing. Therefore, there is no chance for many nations to send a full team.

Just some food for thought.

Mark