Slate's Bizbox
sports nut: The stadium scene.

Why Too Many Olympic Sports Are Neither

By Jonathon Kahn
Posted Wednesday, July 12, 2000, at 11:30 PM ET
Illustration by Robert Neubecker

The modern Olympics has consisted of an eclectic and heady mix: archery and equestrian, track and field and swimming, wrestling and weightlifting. But where the Olympics' eclecticism was once a strength, today's version of diversity is its greatest flaw. While people often complain about the opening up of the Olympiad to professionals or the lavishing of vast inequities of attention, prestige, and money on different sports, the real problem is the inclusion of two (occasionally overlapping) categories: 1) Events, often high-profile, for which the Olympics is not that sport's premier competition. These are nothing more than gussied-up exhibitions. 2) Events that are called sports but really aren't. Call these the bogus or silly sports. The combination of the two does ruthless damage to the notion that the Olympics celebrates world-class contests of athletic excellence.

The "exhibition" sports are tennis, soccer, basketball, baseball—men's ice hockey during the winter games—and any other event that already has an established championship compared to which the Olympics pales in importance. For example, men's soccer teams are largely restricted to players 23 years old and under. Do you think Brazil and Italy care how their 23-and-unders do in Sydney? The local club qualifier, never mind the World Cup, is more important. By mid-September, tennis will have just finished the U.S. Open, so Olympic men's tennis—to avoid overtaxing the players—will be a best-of-three-set affair until the finals. What is the point of Olympic basketball when there is more legend surrounding U.S. practices (a Charles Barkley elbow aside—though this too proves my point) than any of the games? This year's baseball competition represents a new low: Seventy-two-year-old U.S. celebrity manager Tommy Lasorda is supposedly issuing invitations to erstwhile major-leaguers, and names like Chili Davis and Tim (Rock) Raines have been bandied about. What these events have in common is that they generate enormous revenue. I imagine the International Olympic Committee would argue that the Olympics cannot afford the games without them. Perhaps. But as the games become increasingly associated with these sports—and NBC will almost certainly devote disproportionate time to them—the notion that the Olympics represents a venue of superlative athletic achievement suffers.

Equally ridiculous are the bogus events. Everyone's favorite is synchronized swimming, which requires make-up and hair gel. New this year is "trampoline" gymnastics, which joins "rhythmic" gymnastics (featuring colored ribbons) as the two events most suited to the backyard lawn. Add to these traditional events such as equestrian, sailing, and shooting. On the border are newfangled "extreme" sports such as mountain biking, the three different versions of kayaking, and (during the winter) snowboarding, moguls, and aerials. Too many of these events are subjective, with abstract ideals that make them resemble dog shows more than head-to-head competitions. Besides, ESPN's X Games serves as the premier stage for many of them. It is a short, slippery slope to skateboarding.

Not all of the newly introduced games are problematic. Judo, for instance, was added in 1964, and the official Web site of the games, www.olympics.com, tells us that judo "is the only Olympic sport where submission holds allow choking an opponent or breaking an arm." Who knew? The triathlon is a brand new sport in 2000 and is much more in keeping with what gets us athletically going today than the pentathlon, which includes shooting, fencing, and horse show jumping—important skills for a medieval knight.

The best events are recognizably athletic games for which the Olympics represents the pinnacle of a four-year build-up. Most of them remain obscure between Olympiads. (Track and field outside of the United States is the obvious exception.) Their rarity makes for captivating viewing. What is great to see is men and women in sports of action and subtlety, doing things with bodies and balls that the NBA makes glossy posters out of—all the while under enormous pressure precisely because this is their one moment on the world stage. A lot to shoulder? Sure. But that's what makes the Olympics more than another simulacrum of modernity.

Related on MSN

To learn about synchronized diving—a variation on synchronized swimming—click here and go to "New Olympic Sport."

Print This ArticlePRINTDiscuss this in The FrayDISCUSSEmail to a FriendE-MAIL
Share on FacebookPost to MySpace!Share with MixxDigg ThisShare with RedditShare with del.icio.usShare with FurlShare with Ma.gnolia.comShare with SphereShare with Stumble Upon
Jonathon Kahn, a Nets fan since 1982, is working on his doctorate in the philosophy of religion at Columbia University.
Join the Fray: our reader discussion forum
What did you think of this article?
POST A MESSAGE | READ MESSAGES

Reader Response from The Fray:


"…The pentathlon, which includes shooting, fencing, and horse show jumping--important skills for a medieval knight."

Medieval knights with target pistols? Please. The Modern Pentathlon, when introduced at the turn of the century, sought to recreate the challenges of a battlefield messenger. Thus, it tests the athlete's ability to move over terrain on horseback or on foot, to swim rivers and to engage the enemy with pistol or sword. Like its classical forebear the Decathlon, also rooted in the military skills of its time, such sports remind us of the value of the "all-around" athlete. In an age where sport, like art, exists to glorify itself, we should preserve at least a little space for those who remind us why we originally valued speed, agility and determination. And perhaps we ordinary mortals can draw some comfort from an athlete who can combine imperfection in many fields into an inspiring whole.

But let's do get rid of ballroom dancing.

--JB

(To reply, click here.)


Yes, modern pentathlon is obscure, but so what? Lots of Olympic sports are obscure, including the ones we like to watch. Case in point: name three projected members of the US Women's Gymnastic team. It is hard to do, unless you are a true aficionado. But every four years, we will watch the show, see the swimmers and divers, runners and players and celebrates wins of our native country and out adopted ones. And some still tear up at the strains of our national anthem.

--Michael

(To reply, click here.)


Mom always said: Never start a letter with a detraction, so I won't. I heartily agree with Mr Kahn's first point. In order for the Olympics to be considered a serious sporting event it should only include sports that take Olympics as an event seriously. But on his second point, I strenuously disagree. I won't trot out the tried and true reasons of judging a sport by the effort, the hours of training, etc. But I will take issue with his assumption that the American view of a sport is the global view. Specifically, his reference to "colored ribbons". While I know that in America, only athletic gymnastics are considered a sport (beam, floor, bars and so on), in Russia, rhythmics are the only kind of gymnastics which are seriously regarded and paid attention to. The other kind is considered not nearly as interesting or worthy of coverage by the media. So who is to say then, which sport comes and which one goes?

--Julia Gorelik

(To reply, click here.)


Personally, I think that with the costs to host cities/countries becoming absurdly high, a retrenchment is necessary. I support what an old Canadian sports curmudgeon suggested many years ago. He said that all sports which use balls should be eliminated from the true Olympics. He further went on to suggest that all sports that require judging should be eliminated. Finally, anything that could not be measured (timed or scored) without the presence of a referee was similarly an inappropriate candidate for the Olympics. Using the aforementioned, we would be able to eliminate all the so-called spectacles and have an Olympic event that tests sport.

--Gilles Bourgeois

(To reply, click here.)

(7/13)

Washington Post
The Washington Post
OPINIONS
A Grand Tour
David Broder | While the stars align for Obama, McCain is looking like the odd-man-out on foreign policy.
Annette Heuser: A Honeymoon
PLUS » Achenblog: The New Capitalism Socialism