But another aspect that I've also never been able to relate to is: how much of the race is already pre-determined before Ligety or Hirscher even step into the start house? To the extent that the highest echelon of sport is akin to a chess match, what is the contribution of: equipment; support team; strategy; finances; course conditions; random luck?
Just to pick one thing: how would things be different if all these guys were allowed to choose and set up their own equipment (within the rules) free of the constraints of sponsorship?
I have had this conversation a few times with my friend who used to be the head coach of the US Ski team. I think at the end of the day the best athletes and best skiers find a way to win which isn't to say that they don't at times struggle with their equipment. Bode didn't stay long with Rossi (and skied brilliantly on Fischer). Some have said that Head has really struggled to produce great slalom skis and perhaps this is contributing to the fact that none of their skiers are producing in slalom. Skiers need good skis and fast skis and boots have to be set up correctly. And just because a skier is with a solid company (like Atomic) it doesn't mean that they will automatically get their best skis. Their are many instances over the past 10 yeasr that have driven US skiers away from Atomic, who always favor the Austrian team and go out of their way to hinder the performance at times of ther non Austrian athletes. Darren Rahlves was really the last major US skier with an Atomic contract (and Bode won big on Atomic but didn't stay long for much of these reasons).
Not sure we can seperate the two. Part of ski racing is balancing the income from equipment contracts with finding the best performing skis.
Home
Login
Register