That perennial dinner party favourite – “what is a sport?” – popped up over the barbie this weekend with some interesting twists based around the fact that although this is not an Olympic year, it is nonetheless a big year for the Olympics and the International Olympic Committee.
In addition to the IOC vote in October that will decide which of Rio, Madrid, Chicago or Tokyo will host the 2016 Games, there is also the small matter of which sports should be included. The IOC is due to vote “en bloc” on the 26 summer sports and can add a further two sports if it so chooses, from a candidate list of seven.
Separately, the IOC has discussed a number of objectives concerning the “refreshment” of its offer, which, summarised, mean it is trying to save money, keep the number of athletes down to 10,000, not trash the environment and make sure it includes something to excite the youngsters.
But why vote en bloc for the 26 sports already included, when some of them are quite obviously not sports? At least, not by my 3-point definition which goes like this:
First, a sport is something you can win empirically, without the aid of a judge and without there being any doubt. The opposition has to feel properly beaten. True to the original Olympic ideal of “Citius, Altius, Fortius” (faster, higher, stronger) this immediately culls elegant pastimes like gymnastics and diving, thus reducing the host city’s bills and also cutting the number of athletes to more manageable levels. A subset of this rule is that anything synchronised is not a sport not only because it is not winnable, but also because it is just wrong.
Most people respond with “what about boxing?” at this point, to which my answer is simple: fight until one boxer can fight no more. Then you know who won. Alternatively adopt fencing’s model where “hits” count for points but take away the subjective element by following fencing’s example of fitting electrodes that light up when a hit is made. Heaps of fun.
Secondly, a sport must result in human sweat. The Olympics does OK at this, though I see golf on the list of candidate sports, which while doubtless skillful, is not really exercise and therefore, not a sport. It’s also terminally dull, which goes against the IOC’s stated intent to liven up the Games and attract a younger crowd.
Third, machinery is out. Humans have to do the work. Under this definition, motor-sports are not sports. I appreciate this may not be my best career move, but within the boundaries of an Olympic conversation, I think it acceptable. But what about equestrian sports? Clearly the horse does the work here. Sorry horsey types; no Olympics for you. Again, this saves huge amounts of money and solves logistical issues regarding the difficulty of transporting animals across quarantine borders.
By following these simple rules, we all know what a sport is, we create an Olympic Games that is tightly defined, obviously winnable, much more affordable and which results in a more useable legacy.
By Scott Garrett on June 1st, 2009
Tags: Default
Find us on Google maps
Excellent post and a great subject for debate.
There is something about the traditional ethos of the Olympics which does question whether or not a sport is an Olympic-worthy sport – not so much whether it deserves to be a sport in its own right. A lot of people will question whether mental agility comes into play (eg motorsports) to qualify a sport as a true sport, although there’s no way that I would call chess or cards a sport. Question: Why do tennis and badminton feature in the Olympics but not squash or real tennis? Why archery and shooting but not darts (and I’m not suggesting for one moment it should be!)? It will be interesting to see which new sports are brought into play for 2016 (let’s hope darts isn’t one of them, although I can think of a few beer sponsors who would be pretty pleased).
Very well written.