It was interesting to read Michael Mayo’s commentary on downsizing the Olympic Games (Sports, Aug. 4). He is worried that the size of the Games may have peaked and suggested some events that would be better left out.
Two thoughts come to mind. The size of the Games has indeed increased tremendously from the first modern Olympics in 1896. Unfortunately for Mr. Mayo, I think it will continue to do so. More and more sporting events are being included in the Games because more and more people are enjoying those sports. Economic growth has allowed us to spend more time in leisure activities, and an increasingly big chunk of that is being occupied by sports. Technological advance and more ideas will invent more sport; I will not be surprised if rollerblading or jet-skiing were to be included in the Games.
Some events will always be more popular than others. But even for the least popular (or convincing) event there are many participants and followers around the world. Indeed that is why they became a part of the Olympics in the first place. I think it is good that the ultimate arena for human capacity reflects the society in which we live.
I do agree, albeit only in part, with one of the reasons Mr. Mayo lists for downsizing– redundancy. Rowing, canoeing, kayaking and yachting are distinctive sports, each with different apparatus and equipment and venue, requiring different skills. If different people win these events, then it is hard to view them as redundant.
The best gauge for redundancy is the number of multiple medal winners. In my view, swimming is the king of redundancy. No other sport has more multiple medal winners. What is so different between 50-meter and 100-meter freestyle? Endurance? By similar logic we could have basketball games that last 20 minutes or 3 hours.
