Last week the Halberg Awards provided some interesting nominations and selections.
Some people think Scott Dixon was hard done by after a breakthrough year, and that Willis was lucky to be nominated after only finishing third in his final – both fair points I think.
The awards were obviously biased towards Olympians. I do not resent the people nominating and selecting the athletes, as they have a near impossible task, which basically comes down to personal-subjective relevance. If this were not true then we would not have seen at least three of the nominated people.
On the women’s side Vili won ahead of a Paralympics multi-gold medal Swimmer, the World Bowls Champion and a Triathlete. Sophie Pascoe should be gutted that her 3 golds and 1 silver was not enough to beat Vili’s 1 gold – perhaps if Pascoe had won 4 gold in the pool…?
And on the men’s side picking a winner was just as subjective: Winner Dixon was up against two Olympian gold medalists, the US Amateur Golf Champion, and Willis. Willis was never a contender, and his selection was similar to Pascoe’s in the women’s – that is to say nothing more than a public pat on the back.
If we are going to judge on “relevance” then what about Ryan Nelson? As captain of a premier league Soccer Football Team, surely he should be considered ahead of a bronze medal winner at the Olympics? It seems we are judging more on relevance to the “average” New Zealander than we are “world” relevance.
The fundamental problem is the desire to compare things that are incredibly difficult to compare simply for the sake of the Awards. What is better: Chicken and Cranberry or Meatlovers Pizza? An excellent performance in a “World” Sport (like Football or Golf), or to be the World Champion/Gold Medal Winner in one that very few people care about?
Tags: Athletics, Halberg Awards, Olympics, Scott Dixon, Swimming, Valerie Vili
