In its not-so-infinite wisdom, the International Olympic Committee has removed the sport of wrestling from the list of participating sports at the 2020 Summer Olympic Games. This comes as a bit of a shock to wrestlers and fans around the world, especially considering this sport has been part of the modern Olympics since its inception in 1896 as well as the ancient games in Greece centuries ago.
The committee has said that their ultimate goal is to ensure that the games are "relevant" to the widest possible amount of viewers. Eliminating wrestling also eliminates the Olympic dream for hundreds of potential Olympic wrestlers, and this decision has been a big blow to thousands of athletes around the globe who participate in the sport in high school and perhaps college.
There are 11 sports that have been part of the Olympic Games of the modern era. In addition to wrestling, these include cycling, gymnastics, swimming, fencing, weightlifting, athletics (track and field), shooting, tennis and rowing and sailing. The latter two were canceled during the first modern Olympics due to weather but have appeared ever since then. Somehow, the IOC feels that a sport where one shoots at a piece of clay is more relevant than a sport that dates back thousands of years.
Could there be some better choices to eliminate? Well, let's take a look. We know that all Olympic athletes (at least those who don't cheat) work very hard for their medals. But do we really need to dump wrestling so that we can have Team Handball as a sport? Isn't that basically a playground game? Perhaps we should add dodge ball, four square and jump rope as competitive sports. Again, not to take away from other athletes, but is badminton a sport more worthy of Olympic competition than wrestling? Apparently the IOC believes that badminton is far more relevant, even though they had to throw out players from three different countries during the last Olympics for cheating.
Perhaps a better example to eliminate than either handball or badminton would be equestrian sports. While the horses are beautiful and it certainly isn't an easy competition, it's not a particularly accessible sport in general unlike basketball, soccer and volleyball. While swimming includes races, diving and water polo, synchronized swimming also is included in that category. Do we really want to live in a world where wrestling is less important to the Olympics than synchronized swimming or something like rhythmic gymnastics?
Wrestling is not the right sport to eliminate. While no matter what the IOC does, it will surely face criticism, and there needs to be a strong rationale before a sport is eliminated. It makes little sense to cut a popular sport with worldwide support and historical significance. Instead of eliminating the main core events, we should consider widening up the area and possibly adding some sports instead.
The committee has said that their ultimate goal is to ensure that the games are "relevant" to the widest possible amount of viewers. Eliminating wrestling also eliminates the Olympic dream for hundreds of potential Olympic wrestlers, and this decision has been a big blow to thousands of athletes around the globe who participate in the sport in high school and perhaps college.
There are 11 sports that have been part of the Olympic Games of the modern era. In addition to wrestling, these include cycling, gymnastics, swimming, fencing, weightlifting, athletics (track and field), shooting, tennis and rowing and sailing. The latter two were canceled during the first modern Olympics due to weather but have appeared ever since then. Somehow, the IOC feels that a sport where one shoots at a piece of clay is more relevant than a sport that dates back thousands of years.
Could there be some better choices to eliminate? Well, let's take a look. We know that all Olympic athletes (at least those who don't cheat) work very hard for their medals. But do we really need to dump wrestling so that we can have Team Handball as a sport? Isn't that basically a playground game? Perhaps we should add dodge ball, four square and jump rope as competitive sports. Again, not to take away from other athletes, but is badminton a sport more worthy of Olympic competition than wrestling? Apparently the IOC believes that badminton is far more relevant, even though they had to throw out players from three different countries during the last Olympics for cheating.
Perhaps a better example to eliminate than either handball or badminton would be equestrian sports. While the horses are beautiful and it certainly isn't an easy competition, it's not a particularly accessible sport in general unlike basketball, soccer and volleyball. While swimming includes races, diving and water polo, synchronized swimming also is included in that category. Do we really want to live in a world where wrestling is less important to the Olympics than synchronized swimming or something like rhythmic gymnastics?
Wrestling is not the right sport to eliminate. While no matter what the IOC does, it will surely face criticism, and there needs to be a strong rationale before a sport is eliminated. It makes little sense to cut a popular sport with worldwide support and historical significance. Instead of eliminating the main core events, we should consider widening up the area and possibly adding some sports instead.
About the Author:
Rod Bourgoine enjoys writing about mixed martial arts benefits. For more information about martial arts San Diego or to find San Diego boxing classes, please go to The Arena MMA site now.
0 comments:
Post a Comment