Powered By Blogger

Wednesday, 10 July 2013

Jet ski!

Jet ski!

You crush Poseidon’s rolling foot-soldiers
Under your mighty waxen prow
And your whirling propeller scatters them
Like frightened pigeons! Hah!
Jet ski!

A vision of the future!
Green sailors look on in envy
As you laugh at dead wind
And leave the past behind at 70mph – whoosh!
Jet ski!

Clarkson would be proud
Of your mechanical thrust,
You lothario of the waves, you,
The greatest in the wuurld
Jet ski!

Is he a jet?
Is he a ski?
Does he care?
No! No! No! Look at him go!
Jet ski!

Monday, 8 July 2013

Re-mythologising St. Lucia

I'm in St. Lucia, in the Caribbean. This is its creation story. All true.

*

St Lucia has changed ownership from British to French and back seven times. When in the hands of the British, only roads going downhill were built, because the British wanted to be closer to the sea where they felt at home. Following a successful invasion by the French, only roads going uphill were laid, because the French wanted to carve some Alpine sensibility and purity of air into the Caribbean. Because of this, St Lucia does not have any flat roads whatsoever: all are either built steeply uphill by the French or steeply downhill by the English. Which is which, of course, depends on where you are going.

What with the minimal civilisation before the arrival of the two colonial powers, it has ended up that France and Britain have inadvertently become something akin to parents of St. Lucia, albeit acrimoniously separated parents. If you have any doubt which nation is the mother and which the father, consider the language of St. Lucia, and consider western custody ruling norms.

Of course, the instability during its formative years as a result of this back and forth between Britain and France has led to St Lucia being something of an emotionally unstable teenager, given to sudden outpourings of tears sandwiched by spells of a sunny and cheerful disposition. At times it feels like the emotional downpouring is the norm.


The divorce between Britain and France has cost both dearly financially, and neither offered much more than nominal financial support to their offspring. To support itself, the island has to sell the fruits of its loins to its more prosperous neighbours: bananas (St. Lucia is more St. Luke than St. Lucy). Flogging its bananas abroad is not enough to stay alive, so St Lucia has been forced into opening itself for “business” from rich overseas folk. They come all over St. Lucia and eat his bananas and treat him like a dirty slut. St. Lucia dresses up real nice for these folk, and ensures that they don’t see the locals except in service positions.

Friday, 28 June 2013

The familiar pang of an un-felt goodbye

We’ve all experienced it: that moment when you realise that the last time you will ever see a person has been and gone without alerting you of its passing. A disservice and an injustice done to a moment of great significance. Goodbyes are important because it is one of the few chances we get to be sincere and heartfelt towards another person without being embarrassing. They offer, to get all American-teen for a second, “closure”, and allow for a re-categorisation of someone-I-know to someone-I-used-to-know, present to past imperfect. Even if a goodbye is no more than perfunctory it still draws a line under a relationship; sometimes it is nothing more than symbolic, but that is important, too.


One feels cheated, then, by these un-felt farewells, these frictionless goodbyes that have been coming thick and fast in recent weeks, because they represent the denial of closure, a closure that has to be cobbled together in retrospect in a most unsatisfying manner. It is as if the invisible strand that connects you to the people you know has snapped and has been dragging in the dirt for some time. The feeling is akin to that when you are talking to someone only to realise they stopped some metres back to tie a shoelace, or to looking down and discovering you are bleeding from an un-felt minor wound. There’s a sense of oh, blimey, how has that happened? I must pay more attention in the future.  

Wednesday, 19 June 2013

The ins and outs of competition sprinting: culture and technique

Since uni finished last month running has taken over my life to an even greater extent than it did previously. As well as that, I haven’t blogged in several months, so I’m going to write a bit about competition sprinting, the culture that surrounds it and what makes it so difficult.

*

The warm-up room at a major competition has a peculiar atmosphere. There’s never enough space, and the athletes whizz around the room like high-energy particles in a canister. A hundred or more fast, powerful, highly-trained and most importantly high-focused young men and women hop, sprint, skip and bound across the centre of the room in only a semi-organised mess. Fittingly, perhaps, the unspoken one-way rule goes most frequently unheard by the runners that warm up wearing over-ear headphones – Beats by Dre are endemic in the sprinting world – to block everyone out. The most interesting are the javelin throwers, who gracefully side-step/leap across the room, trailing arm carrying an imaginary javelin and the other held at shoulder height, flexing at the elbow with each stride. I realised with some excitement after a few moments observation that it looks like they are playing enormous imaginary violins while dancing across the warm up area. And there are always a few athletes at the side that perform arcane warm-up gyrations and contortions to no obvious end, loosening muscles that I didn’t even know existed. If the athlete in question is particularly talented, it’s hard not to ask yourself what they know that you don’t, but it’s best just to get on with it.

Trying to assess the opposition in the warm-up area is a mug’s game, anyway. Bulging muscles, an intense stare and a dropped-hip swagger – the sprinter’s prowl, I call it – are by no means indications of speed. Nor is the rapid through-the-teeth exhalations produced by runners over the first half-dozen strides or so of a maximum effort push out. It sounds impressive, but when you realise it a) has no performance benefit, b) only distracts you from the fact that they are not moving particularly quickly, and c) makes them sound like a burst balloon, it is suddenly less intimidating. It’s incredibly satisfying to beat these types. The temptation is always there to turn your warm-up into a performance of machismo, but the real talents, the guys capable of medalling, don’t bother with this because their performances speak for themselves, so why should I? If I sound critical it’s because psychology is a crucial aspect as sprinting: it’s easy to feel daunted by shows of power, so it’s essential to be able identify them and to filter them out in order to boost self-confidence. It has reached the point that a warm up is the only time I feel bulletproof; I might not be able to beat everybody, but I will never feel intimidated, no matter how much macho posturing goes on.  

Sprinters take themselves very seriously. Go on twitter and find a few sprinters’ profiles: many of them add their event of choice onto their handle, and their bio will often describe them specifically as a sprinter. For the most part these guys and girls are amateurs – talented and dedicated, probably, but still amateurs. I can’t imagine any non-paid footballers identify first and foremost as centre-mids, or false-nines - ‘@AndrewMcIntyreNo9 Up and coming trequartista for the Lion & Stag Inn, onesie enthusiast #teamnike #believe #livethedream Location: in the hole’ – but it’s understandable. Runners that make the top 100 on the powerof10 rankings (www.powerof10.info – a fantastic website) would be able to earn a living if they were equally ranked in, say, football or rugby. It follows that they would want people to know that they are serious sportsmen, even if they there’s no money in it. For what it’s worth, by my estimations I would be plying my trade somewhere in League 2 if I were as good at football as I am at running.

*

A 100m sprint may last less than eleven seconds, but a serious amount of preparation and skill goes into a well-executed sprint. No one ever believes me when I say I am useless over any distance above 400m, and that from 5k and beyond, I am probably below average: we just don't have that kind of fitness. However, that is not to say sprinting does not require fitness; rather, it requires a very specific type of fitness. The event itself is over in a flash, but the warm-up lasts around forty minutes, sometimes longer, and it has to be executed with a high intensity and precision. To your averagely fit guy, this may well constitute a full work out, but sprinters have to be fit enough to work their way through a sequence of demanding exercises and short sprints while being able to go into the race with a minimum of fatigue.

Oh how I envy distance runners. Their event requires incredible levels of stamina and mental strength, but at least the basic movement is uncomplicated. They have time to think, time to relax, and time to fall into a rhythm. On the other hand, executing a sprint is complicated. Like, it’s a really tricky thing to do, with a knotty contradiction between staying relaxed – the key is keeping your face wobbly – while running at maximum effort. It takes an extraordinary amount of self-control to pull this off. Perhaps the hardest thing to learn is that 100m is actually quite a long way. Maximum output, even amongst elite sprinters, is less than ten seconds. It’s about four or five, and the key is distributing this effort across the distance for maximum effect. This means taking time to accelerate properly. The temptation to get up straight as soon as possible and go for it as hard as possible is strong, but it has to be resisted. The key to running 100m is moving through the phases efficiently, without rushing them.

The first phase is the sweep phases, which comprises the first 3-5 strides – the ‘sweep’ comes from the necessity of keeping your feet as close to the ground as possible in order to minimise leg-swing time. There’s a common misconception that Bolt is both a bad starter and poor technically. A complete myth. His sweep is precise and powerful, which is especially impressive given his stature. Dem hip flexors. Check it.

Following the sweep phase is the drive phase, which lasts from about 5m to 35m. Sprinters are often told to stay low, but this advice is slightly disingenuous in that makes it sound it like staying low is an active process, which is not the case. A properly executed start mechanic will keep the body angle low until it rises of its own accord; done right and this will be between thirty and forty metres, depending on the maturity of the athlete. Less powerful athletes will have a shorter drive phase because less acceleration can be wrung from their muscles. This is really fucking difficult to do because a combination of adrenaline and the runners around you storming ahead throws you very easily into panic mode, which will scramble efforts to stay relaxed and in control. I’m not sure I’ve ever got this right, although fortunately the closest I’ve come also happened to be the Hampshire Countyfinal. I was way back at 60m, but I’d executed properly which allowed me to reach top speed and I clawed my way back. I set a massive PB of 10.80 and got a bronze medal against the odds.

The final phase is maintaining speed. Apparently, and I’m not 100% on this, but when you see an athlete pull away from the field it is usually that they are maintaining their speed properly while imperfect sprint mechanics of their rivals see them decelerate marginally. I’m not sure this holds for the likes of Bolt: he’s just faster. One good example is this race between Frenchman Christophe Lemaitre, Justin Gatlin and Kim Collins. Lemaitre is one of my idols since he is the only top-class sprinter who resembles myself – tall, skinny, my age and white. Anyway, while it looks like Lemaitre hauls Gatlin in through higher top-end speed, really it is Gatlin who imperfectly maintains technique: the pressure from Lemaitre coming through made him tighten up horribly, while Lemaitre remained relaxed right through to the finish. It was a similar story for Collins, who saw his big lead gained from an unreal start wiped out in moments because he too tightened up in the last 30. It goes to show that the assumption I often hear that the start is the most important thing is not true. It is important, yes, but more important than being in the lead at 40m is setting up your final 60m.

Friday, 12 April 2013

Tom Huddlestone: A Tribute

The five greatest loves of my life are as follows:

1) In Bruges 
2) Sprinting
3) the Tour de France
4) The Amber Spyglass 
5) Tom Huddlestone

I've gushed about the first four previously on this blog; now for number five.

Tom Huddlestone is a Spurs midfielder, usually played in a holding role, but sometimes is roped into playing centre half in desperate situations. He doesn't even start these days, with Andre Villas Boas preferring Sandro, Dembele, Parker and possibly Livermore and new-boy Tom Carroll, too, and has earned just four England caps, all of which came in insignificant matches. He deserves better, no doubt, but I have to concede it isn't too far off, either; as much as I love watching him play football, it's hard to deny that his ability is limited by his complete lack of pace. The man has the turning circle of a battleship.

He plays like a battleship, too. Huddlestone has the most outrageous, ridiculous passing range of any player I've ever seen play, ahead even of Xabi Alonso. He sits deeps and whacks bombs all over the place with almost unerring accuracy. Stats-wise, his passing accuracy is truly only average, however tiki taka is most definitely not Huddlestone's game. He plays dangerous balls at every opportunity, and his teammates, knowing how rarely he misses passes, are keen to make runs behind the defence. They don't always succeed, but they are very often dangerous. I loathe the phrase, but essentially he plays the 'quarterback role', which is a pretty good summation of his playing style.

Huddlestone is an absolute unit, and his unthreatening face belies his immense strength. Is there anyone in the Premier League that I'd want to fight less? Maybe Lee Cattermole, but I doubt it. Not ripped, just...big. Not fat, just...big. Huddlestone carries the essence of big-ness. He treats the ball like his plaything, toying with it, knocking it around like its the easiest thing in the world. Right foot? Left foot? Instep? Outside of the foot? Doesn't matter; all are effortless. He barely has to try and the ball zips across the turf or through the air, bending or dipping at his discretion.

Whenever a player executes a difficult skill, like a volley or some outstanding close-control, a football commentator on the telly is liable to say, 'Kids, watch and learn: that is textbook stuff'. Kids, watch a video of how Huddlestone strikes a football, because that is textbook stuff. In fact, this video, which is the best video on the internet, opens with almost that exact line. Did you watch that video yet? The goals, right? Amazing. Here's something more (or possibly less) amazing. Huddlestone has only scored fifteen goals, eight of them in the league. Frickin' all of 'em are from outside the box: four (City, Bolton, Sunderland, Arsenal (yussss)) are in that video; here are two against Fulham from the same match, both from outside the box; another one against Fulham here; here's another stonker against Dinamo Zagreb. All of them are like that! Ridiculous, no? Gerard has a reputation for scoring from outside the box; that man Gareth Bale is making a habit of it. But outside the box net-busters are the only sort of goal Huddlestone scores. A Huddlestone blooter is a rare gemstone on the footballing landscape.

Essentially, I love Tom Huddlestone as a footballer because he is a flawed genius. He has a tendency to slow the game down, which has its uses, but doesn't fit Spurs' thrusting pacey style of play. He is immensely, truly slow at running, and lumbers like an ent. I don't even care; I just love how he deals only in the spectacular, and even if I have to wait two years for his absolute best moments (he hasn't scored for two years; his hair reflects this), I will wait.

So, Tom, for the sake of the footballing world at large, and for the sake of crimes against hair-styles, hurry up and score a sodding goal.

Friday, 5 April 2013

Cloud Atlas: A Sort-Of Review

It's one of my favourite books, Cloud Atlas. Not as good as Ghostwritten, David Mitchell's other genre- and era-spanning novel, but still pretty special. And it's been made into a film, unbelievably. I say unbelievably because of the sheer enormity of the task of cramming six different storylines into one film, while maintaining coherency, pace, drama, and thematic connections. There's enough content in each individual storyline to make into a standalone film. It's a miracle that the Wachowskis and Tykwer pulled it off, frankly, and Cloud Atlas must go down as one of the most dizzyingly ambitious films ever made.

There are two big decisions that shape Cloud Atlas. The first is the repeated use of actors across the six plotlines: Tom Hanks, Halle Berry, Jim Broadbent, Doona Bae, James D'Arcy, Ben Whishaw, Hugh Grant, Hugo Weaving and so on all crop up time and time again. One of the effects of this is that it's very silly. Part of the fun is trying to spot when each actor re-appears in a new role. It takes you out of the action for a moment - a cardinal sin in the world of Hollywood narrative form, which depends on invisibility - but only for a moment. Tom Hanks' Irish greaser-cum-Miami-druglord-author is utterly ridiculous, Doona Bae plays a white American at one point and all of them (except Bae, obviously) undergo the prosthetic transition to Asianness, which is very weird, too. There have been calls of 'racism!' but that's a load of nonsense. Odd as it may be, as an approach to casting, I found it to be genius. The Wachowski's rationale behind reusing actors is to help tie themes of a united and continuous humanity together; one suspects it was also a budgetary concern. That's not why I like it so much. I like it precisely for its ridiculousness, I like that the Wachowskis and Tykwer took this enormous gamble knowing that many people would find it bizarre and off-putting, despite the $100m that they ploughed into it. A quick browse through this Wikipedia page indicates that while actors playing multiple roles is not uncommon, it is usually done for comedic effect, as in Kind Hearts and Coronets, or characters that are related and share a physical resemblance. In having most of its cast appear time and time again, even if it sometimes looks a bit shoehorned in, Cloud Atlas surely stands alone. It is this throwing caution to the wind and going all-out that I find admirable. Which brings me to the second big decision.

Instead of copying Mitchell's Russian doll plotline (it goes: Ewing (part 1), Frobisher (1), Rey (1), Cavendish (1), Sonmi (1), Zachry (1 and 2), Sonmi (2), Cavendish (2), Rey (2), Frobisher (2), Ewing (2)) they opted to cut between all six at regular intervals until they all collide in one flippin' stupendous climax. Thus, it becomes this spinning-plates balancing act, maintaining focus on one storyline while keeping the other five spinning. For three hours. It is completely barmy, and stunningly ambitious, and they nail it. Perhaps not the cleanest hammer-stroke; maybe the first one didn't catch it fully, but they got it in. And because they had to cram everything in, as with the actor situation, they just go for broke, making use of everything at their disposal to tie the segments together: match-cuts, cliffhangers, sound-bridges, thematic links, cliffhangers, plot parallels, the magnificent score, cliffhangers...It's like the end of Chicken Run (bear with me...) where the chickens' barmy flying machine somehow manages to fly despite nearly falling apart at the seams at every opportunity. It has just enough glue and good-will to succeed. That's what Cloud Atlas is like: a barmy contraption that should by all rights fail, but the power of the movies gives is just enough gung-ho spirit to get it over the barbed-wire fence. Andy and Lana Wachowski and Tom Tykwer's bravery is commendable.


Tuesday, 26 March 2013

Karma: A Story For The Internet Age

He was seconds from passing out from the pain, but Mike still had the presence of mind to pull out his phone and take a picture of his mangled right hand with his left, and upload it to Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and Reddit, alongside an appropriately pithy/depreciating comment.

“That’ll get me so much karma” he said, before slipping into shock-induced unconsciousness.

He was right, too: ‘Safety First, Kids [OC]’ was on the Front Page within hours. 3k karma, 100k views. Lucky git.