Lacie (my wife) and I stayed up late watching the ladies' figure skating final of the Olympics last night. We were suitably impressed by the skaters, (and by Scott Hamilton's Gus-Johnson-esque announcing, where he starts at a conversational volume level Then SmooTHly RAtcHeTS UP The VoLumE AS a SKAteR LANDS A JUMP!!) but it brought to mind the old question of just what makes a "sport"? Just recently there have been a slew of "sports" added to the Olympic "Games" that call into question the legitimacy of the Olympic motto, "swifter, higher, stronger."
Recently, I've heard many talking heads question the inclusion of many sports, primarily with the accusation that somehow the USOC (United States Olympic Committee) and NBC twisted a few arms to get sports included that would give Americans more shots at medals. The Olympics can claim a higher ideal, but we all know it's money that makes the world go round. Olympic officials of the past are notorious for "going for the gold" in a completely different manner than the athletes on display at the games.
So I thought it would be a useful exercise to examine a few of those recent inclusions (and some old standbys) and see if they pass the test. To that end, we must first create a legitimate test. What makes a "sport" different from a "game?" I have two primary criteria:
- A "sport" must benefit from athleticism; Note that I didn't say it "required" athleticism. Nobody would argue against sprinting being a sport. Heck, running races are about the oldest "sports" around. But truthfully anyone with two ambulatory appendages can run a race. It doesn't "require" great athleticism. But only a great athlete could hope to compete at a high level. Therefore, running races pass the test because participants obviously benefit from greater athleticism.
- A "sport" must have clearly defined goals and an objective measure of those goals; I don't mean "goals" as in three posts and a net. I mean a target to which an athlete must aspire. Take the running race example. The goal is clear: get from point A to point B as quickly as possible given the race limitations. And measuring those goals is pretty objective. Did athlete X reach the line before athlete Y? So again running races pass the test.
Is it a sport?
"Short Track" speed skating -- Yes
Short Track speed skating comes up in a lot of these discussions because it has "judges" often deciding outcomes. Hardly a race goes by without some kind of controversial disqualification. But at the basic level, you would have to admit that it's still a sport. Only top athletes can compete at a high level. It's a bit misleading to see so many
skaters bunched together. You may think that anyone can skate with them. You would be completely wrong. Believe me, those guys are going FAST, and it takes a lot of athleticism just to keep up with the top guys. And while the judges often screw things up, there truly is a simple, well-defined goal with an objective way to measure it. Who crossed the line first? Who completed the laps first? Nobody argues that boxing isn't a sport because there are crooked judges making bad decisions. The problem isn't with the "sport", but with the judges. Short Track speed skating just needs some rules clarifications. It's clearly a legitimate sport.Curling -- No
It hurts to say so, and I'm not even Canadian. But facts don't lie. Curling has a well-defined goal and is completely objective (get your team's stones closer to the center of the target than your opponent's). But it simply doesn't benefit from great athleticism. It doesn't take a great athlete to push the stone down the ice. It doesn't take incredible stamina or endurance to sweep some brooms once every two minutes or so. Skill? Absolutely? Practice? Yes. But it takes skill and practice to play the piano (and not a small amount of digital dexterity), and nobody would call that a sport. Heck, one of the members of the Canadian women's team is supposedly 5-months pregnant. Now seriously, if a 5-month pregnant woman can compete at the highest level of a game, how could it really be considered a sport? Curling is surprisingly interesting to watch, but it's hardly a sport. It isn't really worthy of the Olympics.
Figure Skating -- Yes*
An oldie but goodie, and the original source of the "is it a sport" arguments. I give figure skating a yes with an asterisk. The asterisk is due to the changes the sport made a few years ago. Anyone who has watched any figure skating would never doubt that it benefits from great athleticism. Just about anyone can learn to skate, but only a great athlete with training can do some of the moves those figure skaters make look easy. But then, that's never really been the issue. The issue has always been how a winner is determined. Way way way back in the day, figure skating was a matter of actually tracing figures on the ice with your skates (hence the name). That was actually fairly easy to judge. Did the skate stay on the line? But at some point, figure skating became a performance art and the winner was decided by completely arbitrary judging. That's when the controversy ensued. Figure skating was more a popularity contest than a real sport. It still required athleticism to get in the door, but once there it was more about politics than pirouettes. Having watched last night with my wife, I think the new scoring system works. Yes, it's pretty arcane and difficult to follow, but the concept of giving certain numbers of points for certain moves makes sense. And while I may not have been able to tell a big difference between the first American girl and the Canadian bronze medalist, I don't think anyone would say the results were not fair.
Ice Dancing -- No
This "sport" fails to deliver due to a completely unintelligible judging system. I have trouble with the normal figure skating scoring system, but at least I get the concept. How on earth do you objectively grade ice dancing? Are they "in time" with the music? How do you know if the judge has any sense of rhythm? What about the dodgy acoustics of large arenas? Do the costumes play a role? I don't doubt for a second that ice dancing benefits from great athleticism. Just to prance around on the ice for as long as they do requires terrific stamina. But if I have absolutely no idea who "won" after each performance, how can it be anything beyond performance art?
Snowboarding races -- Yes
Racing down a series of hills and icy turns on a snowboard demands athleticism if you want to compete at a high level. It easily passes the first test. Things get a little more interesting when you talk about objectives, because there tend to be too many crashes and too many disqualifications. But like with Short Track speed skating, just because a sport has a few rules quirks doesn't change the fact that it's a legitimate sport.
Snowboarding "Half-pipe" -- No
Look, Shaun White may be a great guy, and I would be the first to say he's a terrific athlete. But the halfpipe is just a snowy version of a slam-dunk contest. Not just anyone can dunk a basketball, and not just anyone can slide up and around the sides of those "pipes" and spin around. It takes athleticism, skill, and practice to do those tricks. But there's simply no good objective way to determine a winner. The dunk contest is the perfect example. Everyone knows Dee Brown was peeking from behind his arm. It was a lame trick, but it fooled enough "judges" to get the win. The same holds true for the half-pipe. It's just a show. And quite frankly, this is true of nearly all the "X-games" type events.
So there you have it. I call 3 "sports" and 3 "activities" from the 6 events covered. Anyone wish to argue? Think my criteria is lame? Want to explain ice dancing scoring? Feel free to add your comments below.
SAH
