Flop Analyzation

high jump before 1968
Source: google search for “high jump before 1968”. Email me worstwriter (youknow) worstwriter (dotthing) com and I’ll remove it if I’m abusing copyright. I guess.

A confusing, profound and somewhat twisted story where the heart of the matter is lost. This story is the/a perfect metaphor for explaining the goings on of recent clown show. I’m worst-referring to the phenomenon that is The Donald. Indeed, dear worst-reader. The more and more I read about The Donald and his recent faux newz Q&A session (it was in no way a “debate”) the more curious I get. Not to mention the difficulty I’m having trying to explain it to Eurowastelanders, let alone trying to explain the American presidential primary system to them, as well.

Let’s begin with a story. Dick Fosbury won the 1968 gold medal in the high-jump. He did it by changing the jumping technique. His method is called the Fosbury Flop–and it is the way we see high-jumpers perform today. A jumper runs to the bar but instead of trying to leap or straddle over it, the athlete jumps over it backwards throwing his/her body into the air and thereby utilising a more conducive, gravity-centred motion to aide in achieving height. Since the introduction of the flop athletes have never been able to top records with the old method. And now the twist. Credit for athletes being able to achieve in this discipline always goes to the jumping technique. Yet there is one other element, without which, the flop would not be possible. When leaping or straddling the high-bar the athletes landed in a pile of sand where they could use their limbs to absorb the fall. The Fosbury-Flop, though, requires the athlete to land on his/her back–hence the word ‘flop’. When free falling from two meters, a pile of sand does not make for a very soft landing, not to mention the potential for injury.

Here we are, dear worst-reader. We are at a chicken and egg and which came first conundrum, or the like. While the Fosbury-Flop did provide track & field a more dramatic event–not only for the record setting potential but also for the elegant and poetic form of the technique–we have forgotten what is the true reason behind its success. Which brings me back to the word flop and–The Donald. Without the cushion or mat upon which the athlete lands, this technique would not be possible. Yet we don’t even consider the mat or a pile of sand, for that matter. All we think about is the athlete, what the females wear–not unlike The Donald’s hair–and, of course, the record setting jump.

Oh the American way! How brilliant is it to be an American? If only I could tell you. But why tell you? All one has to do is witness it. And then try to figure out: Is Donald Trump, in his quest to be the next president of the united mistakes of #americant, the change in jumping technique or the difference between landing on a soft mat or a not so soft pile of sand? (Un)fortunately, I’m not sure. But I will leave this post with one other worst-conspiratorial thought.

After reading up on the issue a bit I couldn’t help but imagine/see Donald Trump–who actually met with Bill Clinton just before his presidential run announcement in June–being given a Ross Perot welcome to the game by the former president. In fact, what I see/imagine goes even further, especially after thinking a bit more about The Donald’s seething, belligerent and full of contempt (towards republicans) performance at the Q&A session on August 6. Has he been picked to try and (finally) get a hold of what has become of the republican party–a party of dimwits, nutbags and snake oil sellers whose achievement post Ronald Reagan is #americant? Is there a (elite) political class in America that has had enough with what Limbaugh and faux (fake) newz have done? Boy! I hope so. For your sake, I hope The Donald puts all the bedwetters on that stage the other night in their place.

Go Trump! And. Good luck suckers. Oh!

Rant on. -t

Links that motivated this post:

Published by

tommi

Just another expat blogger.