An unusual preference

I have a preference that I have noticed is unusual.

I like long films.  I've realised this over the last few years - I hardly ever think a film is too long, but I often think a film is too short.  Other people seem to often complain about films being too long, but I like long films.  I find that films under about two hours seem to finish before they've really got started.  I enjoy the depth of plot that can occur in a film of 2.5-3 hours.
I quickly made a list of 22 of my favourite films.  Even using the short versions of the Lord of the rings films, the average film length was 2 hours 22 minutes.  And that's including three anomalies at 92, 95 and 98 minutes.
I tried this with my list of contenders for greatest song ever - 23 songs, at an average length of 4 minutes 54 seconds.  Then I tried it with 27 of my favourite albums - average length of 50 minutes and 28 seconds.

A brief internet search suggests that the average film length is 2 hours (22 minutes short of my average), the average song length (in western culture) is 4 minutes (54 seconds short of my average), and the average album length is 43 minutes (7.28 minutes short of my average).
Further maths gives my average film length at 18% longer than average, my average song length at 22.5% longer than average, and my average album length at 17% longer than average.

I've noticed that I like long books too - I'm currently half-way through a ten-book series, each book having about 1000 pages.  The reason for this may be similar to the reason for the films - more length allows greater plot depth and complexity, greater character development, and I find that, as long as it's good, I don't get bored.  I'm not sure about the music though.  Probably similar reasons - I find that  short songs are over too soon - I don't have as much time to fully get into them.  Same with albums - over before they've begun.

It seems that most people like things to be a little shorter than I do.  I'm not sure why.

London 2012: The brutality of sport

This is the last post in this series on London 2012.  During the Olympics it struck me, as it has done before, how brutal sport is.

Take Liu Xiang in the 110m hurdles for example - 2004 Olympics: Gold; 2005 Worlds: Silver (missing Gold by 0.01s); 2007 Worlds: Gold.  A superb athlete, world record holder, and favourite for the Olympic Gold in 2008.  Then injury hit, and Xiang missed his home Games. London 2012 was his chance fore redemption. 7th July, first round, final heat, Liu Xiang preparing to go through to the semis.  He starts quickly, jumps for the first hurdle, and his damaged achilles means he doesn't get high enough, takes out the barrier, falls and fails to finish the race.  One of the best hurdlers in the world (arguably the very best) over the last 7 years, and he hasn't even got to an Olympic semi final in that time.  Not his fault, just the brutality of injury.

Or take Argentinian hockey player Luciana Aymar, 7-time world player of the year, easily the best player ever.  Olympic record?  Zero gold medals.  Not because she's not awesome, but because she plays for a team who have never been the best team.  Not her fault, just the brutality of being the best player in the world but not in the best team in the world

Or (and this is the most interesting one) how about gymnast Jordyn Wieber, or the Spanish men's football team, or archer Brady Ellison - all pre-Olympic favourites for gold having performed excellently in buildup events, but who all underperformed when it came to the Games.  Although this one is their fault, it's only their fault because they are not perfect.  They were the best for the last, say, 12 months, and just had their blip at the crucial time.  The brutality here is that the medals are often awarded based on a very small sample of performances - usually just one race, or one game.  And it doesn't matter how well you perform in warmup events, or even in the semifinals.  What matters is how you perform in the final, and if that's when you have an off-day, that's it.  No second chances, no excuses.

It is true that part of top-level sport is the requirement to perform under pressure on the big stage, but sometimes things just go wrong, and in most sports, where you only get one chance, that is brutal.

Sailing is, interestingly, a little different: ten races, with the overall best sailor being awarded the gold (a bit like the annual Formula 1 competition).  Equally interestingly, BMX racing uses a very similar model in the heats and semifinals, but reduces the final to one race.  Not only is this brutal, it seems unnecessarily brutal.

The brutality of sport is that it doesn't matter how good you are, if you're not good (or fit, or on the right team), at the time when you are assessed.  You can win every race in four years but if you come fourth in the Olympic final, hardly anyone will know who you are.

London 2012: Greatest Olympians

During the Olympics one of the most interesting discussions was over who is the greatest ever Olympian.  Here are my thoughts on the question.

According to these discussions, Olympic greatness should be measured mainly by success in Olympic games, i.e. by gold medals or medals in general.  The Olympics are about competition and the aim is to win.  Therefore we should look for athletes who have won many medals.  Swimmer Michael Phelps has won 18 golds and 22 medals in total, so surely he is the greatest, right?  Wrong.

7 of those golds and 9 of his total medals were from team events (i.e. relays), which surely don't count to the same extent as individual medals.  If you look at individual medals, gymnast Larisa Latynina comes top.  Interestingly, both swimming and gymnastics are sports that allow athletes to compete in multiple events at one Olympic games.  In fact, of the top 20 all-time Olympic medallists, 14 are swimmers or gymnasts.  A female gymnast can compete in beam, floor, vault, uneven bars, all-around, and team events.  A swimmer like Michael Phelps can do 100m free, 200m free, 100m fly, 200m fly, 200m IM, 4x100m medley relay, 4x100m free relay etc.  Compare this to, say, a hockey player, who can only enter one event per Olympics.  Or a decathlete, who does ten events but can only win one medal.  Looking at Phelps' events, many are very similar (e.g. 100m free, 200m free, 4x100m free, 4x200m free) - like Usain Bolt running 100m, 200m and 4x100m - whereas a decathlete's events are much more varied.

Then there's the issue that some sports, like equestrian, can be competed at for many more years than others, like diving.  Horseriders can go on well into their fifties.  Divers peak at age 22.  A horserider will be able to compete at many more Olympic games than a diver.

There's also the fact that some sports, like rowing, require more physical recovery time than others, like swimming.  Others are barely physical at all, like archery.

Then what about the argument that it should not only be medals that are used to decide the greatest Olympian, but medals won over several Olympic games?  Is it valid to argue that winning 5 golds at five different games is more impressive than winning 5 golds at a single games?

There are so many variables - how long you can compete at the top for, how many events are enterable, whether medals are won as an individual or in a team, and so on.  It is not possible to say who the greatest ever Olympian is, even if we only consider  medals, without thinking about personal circumstances or contribution to the Olympic movement as a whole or sport-changing performances.

So who is the greatest Olympian of all time?  No-one knows.  And if they think they do, they're wrong.  It's not really even that easy to have a personal opinion about, if you think about how many variables there are that could contribute to greatness, let alone form a cohesive argument to propose the 'greatest'.

London 2012: Sport vs performance

Towards the end of the Olympics, Ben Dirs wrote this on the BBC website.
On the face of it, the article is about why only some sports are in the Olympics, but it's really about what makes a sport a sport.  The example of synchronised swimming was used, but references were also made to dressage and rhythmic gymnastics.  The following key point was made:
"I respect the participants of synchronised swimming and their indefatigability I salute. The French duet was throwing shapes to Tchaikovsky's Swan Lake, and that presumably takes some doing, especially when you're upside down, shin-deep in chlorinated water and trying to keep up with your mate next door.
But at what point does performance become sport? People have been dancing to Swan Lake for almost 150 years - they call it ballet. By extension, if you put a set of judges down in the orchestra pit at the Bolshoi, then ballet becomes sport."
A fair point.  Synchronised swimming is very similar to ballet, just in water.  Dressage and rhythmic gymnastics (and I would add diving and possibly artistic gymnastics and trampolining) are similar.  All these are scored by a panel of judges who make - and this is the crux  - qualitative decisions, which they then give quantitative scores.  A sport like hockey or handball is measured quantitatively, by counting goals.  These other sports are measured in a more qualitative way.  Judges look for how well competitors perform certain moves.  They look for something like straight legs, but judge it qualitatively rather than actually measuring the angle of bend at the knee.  Does this mean they are not sports?  Not necessarily.  But I think it does mean that if they are, then something like ballet could legitimately be considered a sport.  And if ballet, then surely other forms of dance could be judged in a similar way and be called sports.  Of course, dancing competitions do happen...but they are not considered sporting competitions.  Similarly, playing a musical instrument can be judged, even in a competitive way, but is not considered a sport.
But looking at it another way, what about chess?  Quantitatively measured, but a game, not a sport.  Why?  Because of the lack of physical exertion?  Well what about darts?  Darts is considered a sport but involves very little physical exertion.  While ballet is the opposite - not a sport, but physically very demanding.

If you include synchronised swimming, diving and gymnastics as sports, you have to be willing to include ballet and trombone playing.  If you include darts, you have to include chess.
A brief look at Wikipedia and the IOC website reveals that sport is generally recognised as activities which are based in physical athleticism or physical dexterity.  In therms of the Olympics, to be a potential Olympic sport, an activity must have an international federation and be practised around the world.  Interestingly, they IOC recognises five 'mind sports' - bridge, chess, draughts, go and xiangqi.
This is clearly a minefield of inconsistency.  It seems that the definition of a sport should either be much narrower or much wider than it currently is, but I don't know which!

London 2012: expectations and reactions

Before the Olympics, some people were very excited (myself included), but many people were quite underwhelmed.  ‘I'm not into sport’, ‘It’s not worth the financial cost’, ‘We’ll be rubbish anyway’ were phrases commonly heard.  This enraged me a little.  I always love the Olympics, since I first watched it in 1992.  Sport is both wonderful and brutal, and displays extremes of joy and despair.  The Olympics brings together 36 sports (currently), and has them all at the same time.  It brings together sporting superstars from almost every country of the world.  It unites people.  The Olympics is a massive deal, and having them in our own country so that, not only is the action on TV during daylight hours (Sydney 2000 was a nightmare!), but we can actually go and see events live, is amazing.  I had been counting down to London 2012 for seven years.

But the most infuriating thing is not that people were not excited about the Olympics.  The most infuriating thing was the hype that emerged when GB started doing well.  I loved that GB did well, I loved that we won medals.  I did not love the hype that emerged.  In the space of two weeks, the public seemed to go from apathetic to euphoric about the Olympics – which is great.  It is great that people became interested and supported our athletes.  What is not great is the delusion that accompanied this, and what I fear will happen now the Olympics are over.

According to most people, including the media (who are part of the problem), GB had an unexpectedly superb Olympics.  This is not true.  We were only superb in two sports: cycling and rowing.  In these events, we undoubtedly dominated.  Particularly in rowing, where we exceeded any expectations.  In cycling, although we dominated, none of the medals we won were unexpected.  Hoy, Pendelton, Kenny, Trott, Wiggins et el are the best cyclists in the world.  They’ve been winning things for years.  If anything, we actually underperformed in cycling, as we could reasonably have hoped for a medal in the women’s team sprint, the men’s road race, and at least one BMX race as well.  How about other sports?

In athletics, we won some medals, but again, none were unexpected.  Ennis, Farah and Rutherford were all world leaders going into the games.  Grabbarz is European Champion and in the form of his life.  Ohurogu always performs at the big meets.  But there could have been so much more.  Sayers, Idowu, Rooney, Greene, Yamuchi, Dobriskey, men’s 4x1 and 4x4 relays could all have medalled, but none of them did, and only Rooney and the 4x4 got close.

Swimming?  Only 3 medals and 2 medallists.  Nowhere near the (reasonable) target of 5-7 medals.

There were disappointments all over the games.  Sarah Stevenson in Taekwondo, Keri-Anne Payne in the swimming marathon, Daley and Waterfield in the 10m synchronised diving, arguably both football teams.  Volleyball, handball, basketball, water polo – no teams got out of the groups, few teams even won a match.

Of course, this is all balanced by the wonderful surprising successes.  Copeland and Hosking, Jade Jones, the men’s gymnastics team, Karina Bryant, Luke Campbell and so on.  But there are fewer of these.  Even the equestrian success was not that surprising given the riders’ form over the last couple of years.

At any Olympics, there will be surprising wins and disappointing losses, but they don’t seem balanced to me.  GB did well, with our best medal tally ever, but we could (should?) have had more.  I am delighted with how well we did, but I am disappointed with the euphoria suggesting we surpassed our wildest dreams.  We did not.  We can be happy and celebrate our successes, but let’s not delude ourselves.  We only came third in the medal table because in the UK we count Gold medals first.  In any other system (total number of medals, total points based on gold=3, silver=2, bronze=1, number of top 8 finalists) we came 4^th behind USA, China and Russia – exactly where we hoped to come before the games.  We did not overachieve.

Some will say I should stop being so negative, and that any Olympic success is to be celebrated.  This is true, but that does not mean that a fourth or fifth place, or even a silver medal, cannot be a disappointment.  It depends on the expectation.  If GB had only one a single silver medal and nothing else, I’m pretty sure that, while celebrating that silver medal with the athlete, we would be disappointed that GB did not achieve more.  This is part of why some athletes apologised in their interviews.  If you, your coaches, your families and your fans expect you to do well, based on world ranking, previous success, form or whatever, and you don’t do well, that is disappointing.  There is such a thing as failing to live up to expectations.  This doesn’t mean we should have a go at someone who only comes fifth in a final, but we should allow them to be disappointed, we can be disappointed with them, and we should not tell them not to apologise if that’s what they feel they need to do.  As Zac Purchase said, “Even though it’s a silver medal, it still hurts when you come for gold.”

Our failure to be ambitious and the way we have been drawn into the hype that says everything was a roaring success and Team GB far surpassed expectations disappoints me.  Many athletes did well and we should celebrate their success.  Many others underperformed and, while we should stand by them and support them, we should also acknowledge the disappointment and remember that we could have had much more success than we did.

The other thing that disappoints me is what I fear might happen next.  Here’s a quote from an article in The Independent by Chris McGrath.

“Here is the bald truth suppressed at the heart of our present euphoria. In most cases you could stage exactly the same events as "world championships", last year or next, and hardly anyone would cross the road to watch. Very few, in fact, would bother to shift a thumb on the television remote. Jessica Ennis herself completed her Olympics warm-up before 300 paying customers.

Now clearly the Games mean more than a world championship to many of the participants themselves, albeit not in mainstream sports such as football or tennis. And that warrants respect. But only up to a point. Because it's blatantly dishonest to dismiss all these people as nobodies one day, and acclaim them as "icons" the next; to exalt, overnight, minority pastimes you have long considered dull or ludicrous.”

Have we just got caught in the media hype surrounding the Olympics?  Or do we actually care more about judo, canoe slalom and dressage than we did before?  Will we maintain our interest in these sports and these athletes?  How many people will watch next year’s athletics world championships, let alone the world championships of the lesser-known sports?  Are we as dishonest as Chris McGrath suggests?

London 2012: controversy

There were a few controversial moments during the Olympics, but two particularly got me thinking.

The first occurred in badminton.  The first round of the badminton competition was a round-robin group stage.  In the women’s doubles, in one group, the favourites unexpectedly lost one of their matches, meaning they finished second in the group.  This meant that teams in other groups would rather qualify second in their group rather than first, as second would see them avoid the favourites in the quarter finals.  Therefore four pairs of players attempted to lose their final group matches and thereby finish second in their group, not first.  The crowd booed the players, who were later disqualified from the competition for ‘not using one’s best efforts to win’.

I have two conflicting reactions to this.  The major reaction is that I agree with the disqualification.  In sport, one should always do ones best, and attempt to win.  Simple.  And this is how the vast majority of people seem to have reacted.

Some people have defended the players, pointing out that they didn’t actually break any rules.  Technically, they didn’t do anything they weren’t supposed to.  A fair point, but not the one I wish to make.

I want to point out that in many sports, competitors or teams perform at less than their best in the short term, for the sake of long term goals.  For example:

• A team that has already qualified from a group play a weakened team in their final game.
•  A runner qualifies in the top three of their heat, rather than straining to win it and expend energy that could be saved for the final.
• A tennis player, at 5-0 down in a set, doesn't try hard in the final game, in order to save energy for the next set.
• A snooker player concedes a frame rather than playing for the two snookers required to win it.

There are other examples but the point is minimising performance in the short term in order to maximise performance in the long term.  After all, it doesn’t matter if you lose a certain match, or set, or frame, if you eventually qualify and win in the final.  The ultimate goal is to win in the final, and before that, you just have to do enough to get there.

This is what the badminton players were doing.  They had already qualified from their group.  They were minimising short term performance to maximise their chances of winning the competition in the long run.  The key difference is that in the other examples, players or teams are not actually trying to lose, they are trying to win with minimum effort.  However, this difference only stands if you break a competition down into matches.  The tennis player and snooker player want to win their matches, they just want to do it as easily as possible.  They would never go so far as to lose a match.  But breaking a competition down into matches is only one way to do it.  We could break a tennis tournament down into individual points and not be surprised or alarmed if a player gave up on the odd point in order to conserve energy.  What got people so angry is that the badminton players were trying to lose a match, but that is a fairly arbitrary way of dividing a competition.

You can either say that a competitor should try their best at all times, or you can say that a competitor should do what they need to win the competition, saving themselves where necessary.  Saying “they should try to win every match, but within matches can play at less than their best at times” is no different from saying “they should try to win every tournament, but within tournaments can play at less than their best at times”.

The difference between what the badminton players did and what commonly happens in sport all the time does not equate to the far larger difference between peoples outrage at the badminton players and people’s not-batting-an-eyelid at what commonly happens in sport all the time.

Another problem that people had with the players’ attitude is that people had paid money to come and watch entertaining sport, not a ‘farce’ of this nature.  But we have to remember that this is the Olympics.  It’s the biggest sporting competition in the world.  Not the biggest performance in the world.  These players are here primarily to win, not to entertain.  (More on this in a later post)

I do think that the players should have been disqualified, but part of my brain keeps pointing out that what they did is not very different from what happens in many other sports, and the reasoning behind the outrage is based on an arbitrary assumption that matches should be played to win, while individual points or sets should not necessarily.

The second moment of controversy occurred in the men’s 800m.  Taoufik Makhloufi of Algeria had been entered into both the 800m and 1500m.  He ran the 1500m heats and qualified for the final.  The scheduling was ludicrous enough that the 800m semifinals were in the same session as the 1500m final, removing any chance of anyone actually attempting this common double.  Makhloufi, having qualified for the 1500m final decided not to enter the 800m – a sensible decision given the scheduling clash.  One assumes that he had originally entered the 800m to give himself a backup if he failed to make the 1500m final.  It is quite common for an athlete to enter an event before the meet and then pull out.  Jessica Ennis did it in the 100m hurdles.  However, the Algerian Olympic Association failed to withdraw Makhloufi from the 800m, meaning he had to compete in the heats.

Makhloufi decided to not try in his heat.  He ran only 200m and then dropped out, thereby not qualifying and leaving only the 1500m to concentrate on.

Makhloufi was later disqualified for ‘not providing a bona fide effort’ – disqualified from the 800m and the 1500m.  There are clear parallels with the badminton players here – minimising performance at one stage of the competition to maximise performance in a later stage.

Makhloufi appealed and was reinstated into the 1500m due to medical evidence (presumably stating that he was injured for his 800m heat).  The next day he won the 1500m, clearly at full fitness.

The controversy here is multiple.  Firstly, should he have been disqualified from the 800m, when the scheduling made it clear that no-one would be able to pursue both events to the final?    Secondly, should he also have been disqualified from the 1500m, an event in which he had competed to normal standard?  Thirdly, should the scheduling not have been more intelligent, as the 800m/1500m is a very common double to attempt in athletics?  Fourthly, should Makhloufi have been reinstated on the basis of a clearly false injury claim?

Given my comments on the similar situation in the badminton, I think there is a strong case for saying that he should not have been disqualified.  The case here is even stronger than for the badminton players because (a) it wasn’t his fault he wasn’t withdrawn – it was the fault of the Algerian Olympic Association, and (b) it wasn’t possible to run in both events, so he had really been screwed over by the Olympic organisers in the first place.

London 2012: Highs and Lows

This is the first of a few posts containing thoughts on the London Olympics.  This post remembers some of my personal highs and lows of the games, in vaguely chronological order.

• First day of the games, before the opening ceremony: GB vs New Zealand in the women's football.  The tears in Kelly Smith's eyes showed what the Olympics meant to her and gave a little taster of what the next couple of weeks would hold.
• Team GB being destroyed in the men's road race because, basically, everyone was scared of them.  Mark Cavendish, the only cyclist in Beijing not to win a medal and the unsung hero of Team Sky's domination of Le Tour, didn't event get a chance.
• Lizzie Armitstead, having won silver in the road race, genuinely not sure in her interview about whether to be happy or gutted.  A great achievement, and so close to gold.  The bittersweetness of simultaneous success and failure.
• Luis Leon Sanchez in the men's time trial - a snapped chain in the first two seconds, then a puncture later on. One of the favourites seeing his chances removed by horrendous luck.  The brutality of sport.
• Chad Le Clos in the men's 200m butterfly, actually unable to believe he had won.
• Euan Burton's post-judo interview, taking no positives from the experience.  Completely gutting.
• The women's team sprint, Victoria Pendleton and Jess Varnish disqualified  for changing over too early.  An almost guaranteed gold down the drain.
• Katherine Grainger winning gold after three consecutive silvers.  Get in.
• Tearful triathlete Helen Jenkins (5th place) apologising in her interview for not medalling.
• Heather Stanning and Helen Glover absolutely destroying the field in women's pair, one of the most devastating performances of the games.
• Katherine Copeland's flabbergasted reaction to winning in lightweight double sculls.  
• Zac Purchase and Mark Hunter giving their all in the lightweight double sculls, coming second, and then apologising for not winning, moving John Inverdale to tears.
• Andy Murray winning on centre court.  Perfect.
• Louis Smith being edged out for gold in pommel horse - same overall score, separated only by execution marks.  So close.
• 39-year old Iorden Iovtchev competing in the rings final and clearly loving every second of it - the freedom of having no pressure to win and just being able to enjoy the experience.
• Beth Tweddle's dubiously-judged low difficulty score leading to a bronze medal which, while wonderful, could seem unsatisfactory in making up for being robbed in Beijing.
• Goldie Sayers having no chance in the javelin qualifying with her injury, and then fighting the tear in her post-throw interview.
• Mo Farah's triumph in the 10,000m, a year after a tactical error cost him the gold in the world championships.
• Felix Sanchez breaking down in tears on the podium after unexpectedly winning the 400m hurdles.
• Andrew Osagie qualifying for 800m final against the odds and celebrating like he'd won the gold.
• Sally Pearson delivering the goods in the 100m hurdles under some of the most enormous pressure.
• Liu Xiang crashing out due to injury in the heats of the 110m hurdles, after injury also kept him out of his home Olympics four years ago
• Merve Aydin of Turkey getting injured in the first lap of the 800m and then hobbling round the second lap a la Derek Redmond.
• The receptions from the crowd for Saudi Arabian female competitors.
• Jade Jones winning a Taekwondo gold and going absolutely mental with celebration.

The highs and lows are perhaps summarised best by these two moments: Felix Sanchez breaking down with happiness as he receives his gold medal, and Goldie Sayers trying, and failing, to hold it together at the end of her interview.

The Hunger Games - part 5

This is the final part of my 5 part series on The Hunger Games.  Parts one, two, three and four are here.

I've now read the final book in the series, Mockingjay.  I haven't quite had time to process all my thoughts yet, but here's a sample.

The book was as readable and exciting as the previous two and finished the series well.  The plot was good, though a little off-page.  A lot of stuff happened off-page and was simply reported to Katniss by other characters or the narrator.  This was necessary to prevent the book becoming overlong, and a necessary problem caused by writing in first person (more on this below), but it disappointed me a bit.
Gale came into the story a bit more, though I still feel like I don't really know him.  His character wasn't developed much.  Katniss' character is still engaging - a complex mix of inspiring and annoying.  Very flawed and very interesting.
I was interested to hear a few weeks ago that Mockingjay will be split into two films, following in the footsteps of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows and Breaking Dawn (Twilight Saga).  At first I was suspicious of whether there would be enough content to fill two films.  I now think there is - the plot is dense and there is a lot of action which always takes more time on film.  The decision is probably still motivated primarily by money rather than a desire to adapt the books well, but at least the book is adaptable to two books and should make two decent films.
The fact that the series is written in first person caused a few problems.  I've read very little first person fiction so haven't come across this before.  The problem is that (obviously in hindsight) the reader only knows what the main character (Katniss in this case) knows.  There were a few times in the book where lots of things were explained to Katniss, it seems for the benefit of the reader.  When Katniss had been absent or unconscious, lots of exposition followed which seemed like a bit of a limited way of doing things.  I've never been much of a fan of first person fiction, and this series has confirmed my wariness.
However, overall, I enjoyed the series.  The story is good, though at times is seemed like the author didn't know exactly where she was going - it felt a bit lost and meandering.  While Katniss endless fretting her choice between Peeta and Gale became a bit tiresome, her character, as previously discussed, is brilliant.
The Hunger Games is certainly no Harry Potter, but it's also certainly no Twilight.  Easy to read, gripping plot, interesting characters and themes and some really touching moments.

Honour Spotlight: Tom Judge

Tom Judge is a special man.  He's an absolute nutcase a lot of the time.  I was pushing a trolley through Tesco the other day, and he came round the corner with his own trolley, and just charged me.  He is an expert at making fun of himself and making people laugh.  His sense of humour is infectious. No party is complete without Tom Judge.

He's also very hardcore.  Rumour has it that if he's bored, he'll run to the beach and back.  The beach is 13 miles away.  I first met Tom on the frisbee pitch when I was playing for Grey and he was playing for Hild Bede.  After marking him for about 2 points, I summarised him to my team as 'engine'.  The guy just ran.  He worked so hard for his team.

Recently, Tom has joined my setup team at church.  He is attentive, making sure he learns as much as he can as quickly as he can, and meticulous, never pausing until everything is done, and continually asking what else needs doing. His attitude is exemplary.

Finally, Tom is one of the best conversationalists I know.  He is a very interesting guy himself, but he always seems to direct conversations away from himself and towards others.  He takes a real interest in peoples lives and takes time to see how you're doing.  He is full of interesting questions to ask, and makes people feel comfortable in talking to him.  Tom makes you feel like you can safely be honest with him.  Whether the topic of conversation is silly or serious, Tom is key to it.  And when he says he'll pray for you, you know he will pray his heart out for you.

Tom is a few years older than me.  If I am as awesome as he is in a few years, I will have done very well indeed.