Posted by aogTuesday, 24 August 2004 at 09:52 TrackBack Ping URL

Spectacle or sport?

Over at The Brothers Judd they’re whining about the Olympics. I certainly agree that most of events could be dropped and improve the games. I’ve always liked a three tier classification that I read somewhere decades ago. This labels sports as class 1, 2 or 3.

Class one sports are those that involve direct competition with objective rules. I.e., the actions of one competitor directly impact those of another. A good example is tennis where how one hits the ball depends very strongly on how the opponent just hit the ball¹.

Class two sports are those that involve indirect competition with objective rules. There is competition but it’s independent. Many track and field events are class two. For instance, shot put. There’s nothing (legally) one can do to affect a competitors performance. However, there is some argument about whether heat races count as class one or two, since manuevering among one’s competitors in fact a key component of competition (completley unlike shot put).

Class three sports are those that depend on someone’s opinion. Synchronized swimming and most gymnastics are class three sports.

The simple solution to improving the Olympics is to simply remove all class three sports. I’m not one of the purists who think eliminating all class two sports would be good, though. Of course, as noted in the original article many of the class three sports involve well presented flesh which adds to the general popularity of the games. How many people tune in for ice skating events just to ogle the competitors? Perhaps the better solution would be to admit that the Olympics are about spectacle and not sports and remove all of the class one and two sports, moving them to some other venue. That’s style, baby.

¹ Note that curling is a class one sport because placement and interaction with the competitor’s pucks is an essential part of the sport.