Sport has been trampled and re-shaped by bureaucracy, corporatisation and collectivism through the dealings of Sparc, the rugby union, player unions, academies and more. In the process, rugged individualism has often gone out the window. We used to have a lot of Jacko Gill types in New Zealand, led by an amazing dynasty of middle-distance runners. They were single-minded characters who found the high way by doing it their way and forever putting reputations on the line.
Not all of them became world-class athletes, because not everyone has the ability to do that. But in everything from country cricket to harrier clubs, there was an atmosphere of iron-willed can-do out of which many of our finest sportspeople emerged.
Gill is in this tradition. Even his coach Didier Poppe concedes his relationship with the 17-year-old is different to any with other young athletes, so strong is Gill's character and belief in his ability to design his own programmes. Poppe says that in the case of Gill, he is more an adviser than traditional coach.
Making it to the top in sport requires an unbelievable amount of dedication and hard work. Over the past couple of years I've encountered three standouts in this area - Gill and golfers Lydia Ko and Danny Lee. Another young golfer - Cecilia Cho - is probably in the same category. These youngsters and a handful of others not only have an obsessive desire to be the best but are able to put in quality practice over long hours. They love to go the extra mile and then some.
Yes, they have received institutional support that helps along the way. But such is their determination, they would find a way to the top anyway.
Speaking of private enterprise ... Here's a question around the New Zealand Rugby Union's so-called move to introduce so-called "part-privatisation". Is this a desperation move or a philosophical one?
In other words, does the NZRU want the genuine influences of private enterprise to rejuvenate the game or has it put out feelers for benevolent sugar daddies to prop up its control in difficult times?
The answer of course is the latter.
No surprise at all then to read that there have been no takers so far, given that any investor in a Super franchise would get stuff-all ownership rights. Christmas is hardly the time of year for such trades but it would be a major surprise if anyone stumps up for this sort of deal in the new year.
The bigger question is this: Will the NZRU - perhaps under a different leadership one day - accept the risks associated with true private ownership and allow new thinking to run the game?
There is more to private enterprise involvement than providing money. Private ownership of sports teams brings an added dimension of desperation and free thinking that comes when powerful people have their own money on the line.
Down the years, private money has not only fuelled the magic of sport but even broken down barriers such as racial bars, as occurred in heavyweight boxing and baseball. A big purse enabled Jack Johnson to become the first black man to challenge for boxing's ultimate prize and Jackie Robinson made similar history in baseball, with his Brooklyn Dodgers manager saying "he can make us all rich".
No one would criticise the NZRU for remaining cautious and New Zealand rugby has many pluses, but it lacks a dynamism that would only come with private ownership and the associated relinquishing of central control.
Even in better economic times, it is debatable whether there would be any buyers for expensive sports franchises isolated from major markets at the bottom of the world.
The World Cup might give rugby a fillip, but the rest of 2011 - in terms of public appeal and finances - suggested the game is in need of a major overhaul. The atmosphere around rugby has become increasingly drab.
What stands out about the NZRU's so-called privatisation model for now, however, is that even if there are takers, no substantial changes will take place. And you wouldn't bet on any occurring for a long time.
