Sport: War for Civilised Nations

The Ancient Greeks knew what sport was for.  The Olympic Games was a time when armies called a truce and sent their best warriors to Olympia to compete in the Olympic Games.  Away from the blood and dust of battle, the prowess of each nation's best warriors could be admired close up by those who probably financed the wars they were briefly excused from.

Each Olympic sport was a stylised battle tactic.  Who could run the fastest? Who could throw a javelin or disc the furthest? Who could wrestle his opponent to the ground, or race his chariot the fastest?  In The Games, the reputations of nations and their armies were enhanced or destroyed by the performance of their athletes.

Today, we have revived this ancient tradition.  An Olympic medal, preferably gold, is the ultimate desire of any athlete, and to amass the greatest number of such athletes is the greatest sporting desire of nations.  We have other platforms for athletic performance, but the re-emergence of Olympic glory eclipsed them all.

The Games, like the world that competes in them, are much, much bigger than the ancient Olympics.  What sports to include and what to leave out is a lobbyfest between nations, each trying to include what their athletes do best.  We now have the Winter Olympics too; beyond the organisational skills of the ancients, it introduces human power and speed over ice and snow; and the Paralympics, where disability shows its magnificence, humbling the able-bodied hoi polloi.  For each of these festivals of competition, dry committees must thrash out between them what sports deserve to be called Olympic/Paralympic, and which must be rejected.

So, how does this committee arrive at its decision?  I have no idea, but I know how I'd decide.

The Greeks of old chose sports that displayed the battle prowess of the athletes.  Each sport had a value in warfare. A nation whose warriors were trained in the Olympic sports would be fearsome opponents!  This leads me to believe that, if the modern Olympics are to be in the spirit of those of ancient Olympia, this criterion should apply to the sports chosen for Olympic competition.

Looking at the sports on display in the modern Olympics, I do sometimes wonder what their value could possibly be in warfare.  Pretty much everything in the main arena would be recongisable to an Olympian from ancient Greece. They would be amused, and probably impressed with the swimming and diving; their swimming pool was just for toning up. Gymnastics, horse skills, shooting, boxing and martial arts clearly have value to a warrior.  Even synchronised swimming provides strength, precision and endurance underwater, whatever arguments may be put as to whether it is sport or dance.  And then there are the team sports.

The power needed to cycle or row is obvious, the participants having amazing physical prowess and, where needed, teamwork.  Hockey players use arms, legs, hand-eye coordination and team skills, as do all the sports where the ball is hit or handled.  Indeed, the most pointless sport in the Olympics, to my mind, is football (soccer, to US citizens). I can think of no equivalent use of running around, kicking and passing a ball using only your feet, in a battle of war.  Maybe this was why Team GB was so reluctant to enter a team until forced to as a host nation;  they just didn't see the point.

In all probability, there isn't a football fan in the world who would agree with me; but I would ask this of anyone who can make the comparison: If you were facing an opposing army (let's make it unarmed combat), would you be more alarmed by facing an army of Premiership football players, or an army of top flight Rugby Union players?

Olympia, Greece.

Footnote: Chess isn't called a sport because it's played on a board; but it's one of very few competitive activities where luck plays absolutely no part. There's no dice throw, lane draw, wind speed or equipment to affect the game; it's just mind against mind; and the game is ritualised war. It's played in the Mind Sports Olympiad, but receives little notice from the world at large, though the tactical brilliance of a chess master could be all the advantage needed when sending an army to war.