I mentioned in my last post that I’ve never been to an Olympic event, even though my mother, who couldn’t be less interested in sport if she tried, got to see the men’s 100m final in London 1948. (Harrison Dillard. He was, I think, the world record holder for the 110 hurdles at the time, but failed to win selection for his best event. So he entered the 100 and won gold. 4 years later he won the 110 hurdles and may well be the only man to do this career double). By my reckoning I’ve been to every European city that has hosted the Summer Games apart from Munich and one other, the city I’m planning to visit in September.
I’m sure that you’ve worked it out that this would be
Helsinki. I was in Tallinn in March and I did consider taking the ferry to
Helsinki. But I was only in Tallinn for a few days and it would have taken a
huge chunk out of the day and I had no idea how long it would have taken to get
into the centre of the city once the ferry docked. But I do want to visit
Finland. I’ve enjoyed the other Nordic countries I’ve visited – Denmark,
Sweden, Iceland and Norway. Oslo was, to be fair, a little bit bland, I felt, but
then the Viking ship museum was (and I believe still is) closed for
refurbishment and it was one of the things I most wanted to see.
So, what distinction does Helsinki hold amongst Olympic
cities? Well, this is a little contentious. I’m sure that it is the smallest
capital city (in terms of population) to host an Olympic Summer Games but I
have seen some sources saying that at the time of the 1920 Games Antwerp had a
smaller population than Helsinki had in 1952. Well, whatever the case, former
IOC president Juan Antonio Samaranch – a man admittedly given to hyperbole (if
the price was right, allegedly)- said that the 1952 Helsinki Games was the best
and the best moment was Emil Zatopek entering the stadium at the end of the
marathon with the crow all on its feet chanting Za-To-Pek! Yes, it’s on the
list for when I invent my time machine.
No comments:
Post a Comment