Tech from My Father: The Memory-making Mind

My father was an early adopter of the VCR. He got one the year before I was born, and in my tech-savvy childhood I had the option to re-watch ad infinitum. By the time I was 6, my parents had amassed a hefty collection of tapes, even if with the naïveté of the over-enthusiastic beginners who can't tell between treasure and trash. At least, that's how I explain the decision to record a dozen episodes of the worst soap operas...

Growing up with this tool in the home instilled in me a mindset that I still greatly cherish: if you like it, create a tangible memory of it. Rely not on your mind, which is fickle, but let physical things help.

I live by that idea. I take hundreds of pictures a year; thousands on important trips. I have dozens of boxes stocked with papers, fabrics, tools, toys that take me back to a thought, an evening, a feeling that at some point meant something. Likewise, I record hundreds of hours' worth of TV broadcasts each year. There is the occasional show, concert, or current event, but most of it is sports, as my father also passed on to me his undying passion for competition fair and fierce (how ironic, then, that he identified himself as a socialist... but that's another story).

As the age of VHS waned, we took care to digitize our old tapes. So yesterday, browsing through now-old DVDs, with great delight I unearthed footage from the first Olympics that I remember watching on live TV: Seoul 1988. I was seven years old back then, but I have some very clear memories of it.

I pushed the disc into the player. Within minutes I was watching Griffith and Johnson fly to their (astounding, probably doped) 100m world records; Bordin win his first marathon for Italy; and news coverage of the diplomatic controversy surrounding the role of North Korea in hosting the Games.

I hadn't seen this stuff in 24 years. That, as they say, is priceless.

I don't mean that literally. If the proverbial mugger asked for a $10k ransom not to destroy my DVDs, I may not give in. But I always make sure that I can produce and preserve the best possible memories with the technology that's available to me. This means that I frequently upgrade my recording equipment to the best that the consumer market has to offer, even if it means a hefty short-term financial burden.

This is because I understand that AV technology keeps pace with our quality expectations. A grainy analog tape might have seemed like divine handiwork in 1980, but it is hardly acceptable now. We want crisp and colorful, and I personally won't settle for less. Relatedly, "crisp and colorful" is much more in line with the zeitgeist. It is okay for a recording of Rome 1960 to look like crap; perhaps it is even well. But the 2012 Olympics must, at the very least, be broadcast, enjoyed, and recorded in high definition. Let's not forget, after all, that in another 24 years high definition will look as ugly as VHS tapes look now! I will post more about this in a few days, as my all-new HD setup takes shape.

People usually experience this sort of attachment to family heirlooms. We do too, but sports has always been a key family event in my home, especially the Olympics, and so it easily pours over into that venue. To be fair, my obsession is not uncommon 'round these parts. Many Italian networks regularly broadcast reruns of old football matches, and channels like ESPN Classic are a manna. Last winter I almost freaked out as I rushed to the DVR to grab the Euro 1968 final that was starting in thirty seconds. My mother gave me a funny look.

This year is no exception. As London 2012 draws near, I look fondly at the 27 hours of footage from Beijing 2008, recorded onto 12 DVDs, each carefully labeled and inventoried. It is tedious, sometimes, to record live broadcasts all day long and edit them at night to keep the good bits. But I know that in another 24 years I will look back and thank my past self for doing it.

Just as today I still cherish the memory-making mindset. Thanks, dad.
.
.

Cavendish's amazing win

I have seen a lot of sprints "in my time," and as a kid I used to love the heated duels between Cipollini and Abdoujaparov. But I have never seen anything quite so impressive as today's stage win by Mark "Missile" Cavendish: see the video here.

With 100 meters left, the reigning world champion is still a good 10-20 meters behind. More shockingly, he does it himself, as he is trailing nobody: not Wiggins, not Boasson Hagen, not Porte, nobody. He slaloms his way like a skier around Paolini, Roche, and Sanchez, and then wins by a good two lengths. Absolutely stunning!

Cav's Tour hasn't been exceptional, due in part to a team low on fellow sprinters, but here he showed that he is a clear contender for the Paris sprint... and more importantly, for London.
.
.

two Tour de France photo galleries

The Boston Globe's "The Big Picture" rubric consistently delivers top-notch photojournalism documenting the world's most important and most colorful events. It doesn't get more colorful than the Tour, so these photos are a spectacle for the eyes.

Here is the first part, which covers the first 9 stages, and here is the second part, which covers the rest. Below are some of my favorites (click to enlarge).

Edit: here's another cool gallery by CNN.

.

.

The Woes of Wiggins' Wingman

Froome in the 41.5-km time trial of Besançon

Le Tour est finis. Even with three stages left, the competition is over. Today's a leisurely stroll across the countryside and it is impossible to place any attacks; tomorrow is a time-trial stage where the current leader is unbeatable; and Sunday is the final exhibition across the chateaux of the Loire and into Paris. Thus, Bradley Wiggins has already won this Tour de France.

That's not upsetting per se. I like Wiggo and this is the culmination of two years' hard work. What's upsetting is that he was not the best rider. Wiggins' teammate and fellow Briton Chris Froome was. Currently, Froome is second in the general classification, a mere two minutes behind Wiggins. He holds his own in time trials and is an excellent pacer, but he is a far better climber than Wiggins.

At least twice -- last week on the Grand Colombier and today on the Peyresourd -- Froome attacked and clearly distanced his own captain, only to be called back via radio by Team Sky's manager, or perhaps by Wiggins himself. That's not the official version, of course. The official version is that Froome "thought" that Wiggins was following and he had simply started off at a brisker pace than the captain would have wanted. But anyone with even a passing knowledge of pro road cycling knows that to be false. Simply put, Froome had it in him to attack, to go forth, and to win at least one, if not two stages. That is not to say that Wiggins would have been alone and desperate. He would have fought back, he would have chased, he would have battled, and perhaps he would have still won... but I would have wanted to see him earn it, not only against the other 196 riders, but against Froome as well.

Wiggins claims that Froome was simply trying to edge him on

This is an old dilemma. What happens when the wingman is better than the captain? The unwritten laws of competitive justice say that whoever is stronger should prevail, but the dynamics of today's road cycling teams are another story. A team has a captain, usually the most highly decorated rider or whoever has the better chance of winning the general classification in the race at hand. The rest of the team are hired and paid to work for the captain, to help him, and to let him trail them whenever necessary. (In competitive cycling, it is much less tiring to ride on someone's trail than to lead and be trailed: whoever rides ahead takes the brunt of air resistance and whoever's behind does more with less effort). Only when the captain doesn't need them can the support riders pursue personal glory, such as stage wins or climbing heroism. The Italians have a great word for these support riders. They call them "gregari," which literally means "men from the pack."

The woes of wingman Froome don't really show that teams sometimes "pick the wrong captain." It was hard to imagine such a high-level performance from a second-time Tour participant. Instead, the problem is that even when the error is acknowledged, there is nothing that can be done about it. While not as rich as other sportsmen, top pro cyclists get fairly hefty contracts from their teams, and as I explained above contracts are tied to jobs and objectives. Simply put, Froome wasn't hired to win, and some commentators find this idea of team obligations to be fundamentally at odds with the individual nature of cycling.

Perhaps the answer is that cycling is not really an individual sports after all. Former Giro winner Paolo Savoldelli claims that it is in fact a team effort, and that it is becoming more and more so with the passing of time. It's simple physics. It makes a world of difference, measurable in minutes and lactic acid, whether you face the race's key climb alone or on the trail of a teammate. If it's quantifiable, you can put a price on it, and so everyone does. I could claim once more that competitive justice calls for total fairness, or I could lament that money is the root of all evil, but I'll leave those battles for another Bastille Day.

For now I will just insist, as a disgruntled sports fan, that I wanted to see more and better. For the last few stages it has been Nibali vs. Evans vs. Wiggins-and-Froome. Was it really too much to ask to see Nibali vs. Evans vs. Wiggins vs. Froome?

I am 50% sure it would have ended differently and 100% sure it would have been more fun.

(PS: Contador always fixed his own messes. Alberto 2013 and haters gonna hate).

.

.

Tour de France update

In the last ten days I moved from Virginia to Indiana and then flew back to Italy; I also experienced several health problems. I still managed to watch the Wimbledon finals and keep up with Le Tour, but "real life" has a bad habit of interfering with my sports-watching! Damn you, real life. I don't expect to update this blog very much in the next week, either, as health problems continue, but surely by the time the Olympics roll around I'll be back in shape and live-blogging the crap out of London 2012!

Meanwhile, at La Grande Boucle, Bradley Wiggins is still very much in control of the yellow jersey. Not that there's been much actual competition. For the second year in a row, the Tour organizers planned a very non-threatening route with little altitude and relatively easy stages. Add to that there are over 100 km worth of time-trial stages, and Wiggins' victory is served. Neither Evans nor Nibali, who are currently Wiggins' top adversaries, are capable of topping the Brit in time trials. Wiggins, like Miguel Indurain a couple of decades ago, doesn't just do well in time trials: he wins them, hands down; and as long as the Tour is structured to favor that particular skill set, there will be no real competition.

That is not to say that Wiggins doesn't do well in climbs, for he's definitely hard to leave behind in the mountains. But that's because of two reasons: 1) There aren't any real climbs in this Tour, with only a handful of HC climbs, all placed early in their respective stages, and a mere two mountain arrivals, neither very challenging; 2) Wiggins can count on his Team Sky, which is made up of riders that would be captains in any other team, like Froome, Porte, and Boasson Hagen. So you can't really say that Wiggins is a fabulous stage racer. He's a fabulous stage racer in an easy Tour where he's counting on a killer team. These, after all, were the skills he had showcased at the Criterium du Dauphine last month and that we were waiting for him to confirm at the Tour now, so no surprises.

I insist on all these qualifiers is that in the last few years we hae seen stellar performances by riders who were all-around fabulous stage racers, such as Contador and Schleck. The 2009 and 2010 Tours were among the most exciting I have ever seen, and from this standpoint last year's and this year's have come nowhere close. If I were to be malignant, I would say that the Tour organizers are waiting for Contador's (unfair) punishment to expire and for him to return next year. If that is right, the 2013 Grande Boucle will be awesome. But we'll see.

.

.

Wimbledon quarterfinals and semifinals

LADIES' SINGLES: SEMIFINALS

Kerber (8) - Radwanska (3)

S. Williams (6) - Azarenka (2)

GENTLEMEN'S SINGLES: QUARTERFINALS

Djokovic (1) - Mayer (31)

Federer (3) - Youzhni (26)

Ferrer (7) - Murray (4)

Tsonga (5) - Kolschreiber (27)

On the ladies' side, whatever happens we will have a new final. I am hoping for Azarenka-Radwanska, because Vika seriously needs to win another Major and because I detest few sports figures like I detest Serena.

On the gents' side, save for Nadal's upsetting upset the big ones are still running and looking good. I've been especially pleased with Murray's game: less schizo, more in control, especially against Cilic (who was however pretty tired). Djoko-Federer will be an epic semi, and I'm predicting a Murray-Djokovic final... and as much as I love Nole, here's hoping that Murray finally breaks the spell and wins a fucking Major already. I'm pretty sure Centre Court might collapse if he does...
,
,

Euro 2012 final: Spain-Italy 4:0

SPAIN		4	:	0		ITALY
	Silva 14', Alba 41' Torres 84', Mata 89'

My match rating: -_-

My man of the match: Iniesta (S)

UEFA report ---|||--- Player ratings ---|||--- Photos ---|||--- Highlights

Well, fuck.

No, not really. Spain was the better team and they played like it. The score, unfortunately, is too severe to the losers and doesn't adequately represent the values on the pitch. If Italy had played their best and had not had to be down to ten men, Spain would have probably won it 2-0 or 3-1, and that would have been more representative. But c'est la vie. As I said many times before and I won't take back now, at the end of the day all that matters in football is the scoreline, and the rest is chatter.

Italy ought to find pride in the rest of their tournament. Somewhat like Lippi in 2006, Prandelli has designed an efficient football machine by bunching inexperienced youngsters around the three pillars Buffon, De Rossi, and Pirlo. And in the midst of a major legal scandal back at home, this ragtag team won a ticket to the final of football's most difficult international tournament, only to lose to the best team of... probably the last two or three decades; best of all time, according to some madmen, but we don't listen to madmen.

So, once more, Forza Azzurri!

Some more miscellaneous end-of-tourney reflections on Euro 2012 are forthcoming.
.
.