Off Their Rockers

Philippa “Phil” Raschker is the only athlete over 50 to make the final cut for top amateur athlete of the year—the Sullivan Award. Not only that, she’s done it twice: 2003 and again in 2007.

Three finalists for the earlier locker-room Oscar were superstars young enough to call her mom if not granny: Michael Phelps, Apolo Ono and LeBron James, for his pre-NBA exploits. It’s no surprise LeBron won and Phil didn’t—on the world Masters stage Phil wins everything, but not in the publicity department.

At recent count, LeBron’s got 7 million Googles to her 2,450, which puts their relative media value in perspective. As of this post, swimmer Phelps is a 1.2 million Google guy; Ono far back with 66,000 hits. Compared, even, to Ono, Phil has coped with a huge fame deficit, not to mention a perks and support-system deficit.

LeBron’s a zillion-dollar pro now, but there’s a big difference, say, between Phelps’ “amateur” status and Phil’s amateur status. Phelps can train and compete full-time, whereas Phil did both in her off hours. For instance, she spent three sleepless nights prior to the Sullivan ceremony 2003 catching up on her clients’ tax returns.

Along the way, Phil’s created a gold glut in the trophy case, 10 from the Italy meet in 2007, 58 world championships since 1988, setting records in sprints at various distances; hurdles; high, long, and long and triple jumps; pole vault, shot put, pentathlon. Here we’ve got the most decorated competitor in any sport in Masters memory; yet Raschker is sure bet to stump a Jeopardy panel.

She doesn’t need a press agent or a crowd handler. Sure, she gets the occasional mention in the New York Times, and lots of coverage in the Masters media, but to what can we attribute her lopsided overall lack of notoriety, the falling records hardly anybody notices?

Not Raschker’s sex; two other dominatrixes of track and field, Florence Joyner and Wilma Rudolph, would never stump a Jeopardy panel. On the Google count, Joyner leads Rudolph 425,000 to 271,000 (Rudolph would have more had she not run her races pre-computer) but both outgoogle Raschker by factors of 10 and 20.

What’s the difference here? Not racism or sexism, but ageism devalues Phil’s accomplishments — same story with all the other over-50 record breakers. Her latter-day dominance comes from training and genes, but since lots of other seniors train hard with far less success, credit the genes.As three-time Tour de France winner, cyclist Greg LeMond put it recently in Velo News:

“Your genetic potential does not change in your career. It’s there at 17-18–the only thing that changes when you race professionally&.is that you’re trying to figure out how to be at your peak.”

From what I can gather, Phil played sports in her youth, but didn’t get serious until her late 40s. What if she’d started an Olympic-level regime at 15? If, as LeMond suggests, the same right stuff that makes her great now was in her then, she’d be famous for winning everything in her girlhood. Why is having done it later any less impressive?

Phillippa “Phil” Raschker is the only athlete over 50 to make the final cut for top amateur athlete of the year–the Sullivan Award, and she’s done it twice: 2003 and again in 2007. Three finalists for the earlier locker-room Oscar were superstars young enough to call her mom if not granny: Michael Phelps, Apolo Ono, and LeBron James, for his pre-NBA exploits. It’s no surprise LeBron won and Phil didn’t–on the world master’s stage she wins everything, but not in the publicity department. At recent count, LeBron’s got 7 million googles to her 2,450, which puts their relative media value in perspective. As of this post, swimmer Phelps is a 1.2 million google guy; Ono far back with 66,000 hits–compared, even, to Ono, Phil has coped with a huge fame deficit, not to mention a perks and support-system deficit. LeBron’s a zillion-dollar pro now, but there’s a big difference, say, between Phelp’s “amateur” status and Phil’s amateur status.

Phelps can train and compete full-time, whereas Phil did both in her off hours–for instance, spending three sleepless nights prior to the Sullivan ceremony 2003 catching up on her clients’ tax returns.Along the way, Phil’s created a gold glut in the trophy case, ten from the Italy meet in 2007, 58 world championships since 1988, setting records in sprints at various distances; hurdles; high, long, and long and triple jumps; pole vault, shot put, pentathlon. Here we’ve got the most decorated competitor in any sport in Master’s memory, yet Raschker is sure bet to stump a Jeopardy panel. She doesn’t need a press agent or a crowd handler. Sure, she gets the occasional mention in the NY Times, and lots of coverage in the master’s media, but to what can we attribute her lopsided overall lack of notoriety, the falling records hardly anybody notices? Not Raschker’s sex; two other dominatrixes of track and field, Florence Joyner and Wilma Rudolph, would never stump a Jeopardy panel. On the google count, Joyner leads Rudolph 425,000 to 271,000 (Rudolph would have more had she not run her races pre-computer) but both outgoogle Raschker by factors of 10 and 20.What’s the difference here? Not racism or sexism, but ageism devalues Phil’s accomplishments–same story with all the other over-50 record breakers. Her latter-day dominance comes from training and genes, but since lots of other seniors train hard with far less success, credit the genes.As three-time Tour de France winner, cyclist Greg LeMond put it recently in Velo News:

“Your genetic potential does not change in your career. It’s there at 17-18—the only thing that changes when you race professionally….is that you’re trying to figure out how to be at your peak.”

From what I can gather, Phil played sports in her youth, but didn’t get serious until her late 40s. What if she’d started an Olympic-level regime at 15? If, as LeMond suggests, the same right stuff that makes her great now was in her then, she’d be famous for winning everything in her girlhood. Why is having done it later any less impressive?