The Hizzle of T-Fizzle

I would like to take some time to expand on a discussion I’ve seen over the past few years about the validity of curling as an Olympic sport.  Having now curled myself, I feel that I have a better basis for entering into such a discussion.

Thanks to AKA BDan’s comment on Lesson 2 for making me think of it, and also for proving that someone other than my brother actually comes through here on occasion :-).  BDan said “Sadly, bowling is not an Olympic sport.”  I’m not sure if he was genuinely lamenting that bowling is not an Olympic sport, or if he was offering the commentary that if we can call curling an Olympic sport, surely we can do the same for bowling.

So why does curling belong in the Olympics over say…golf or bowling?

Here’s a few reasons, loosely ordered upon how convincing they are.  It should always be kept in mind that curling is a WINTER Olympic event.

1. Physical strength/skill.  While you don’t have to have a Mr. Universe physique to curl, you still do need some strength.  The stones weigh 20kg and are by no means light.  The harder you can plow the head of a broom into the ice, the more impact your sweeping has.  You also need to be able to do this for over 3 hours without much of a break.  Attentive readers will note that strength is helpful, if not required, in most any other game from actual Olympic sports like skeet shooting and equestrian to golf and bowling.
2. Length of games.  Golf is too long for an individual event.  Most individual events last under an hour, especially in the Winter Olympics.  Bowling is a decent length of time.  At around 3 hours, curling fits in well with the time it takes to play other team events such as hockey.
3. Strategic.  There isn’t much strategy in bowling.  I’ve never come across a situation where choosing NOT to try to roll a strike would be advantageous.  Golf, there is some strategy on how you choose your shots, but again, there is never a time when choosing to bogey a hole that you could have birdied would make sense.  Of course, there isn’t much strategy to a lot of other Olympic events, but it does set itself apart from the sports over which pundits often debate whether they should actually be called “sports.”
4. Team sport.  There are precious few team sports in the Winter Olympics.  Are there really any other than hockey?

But the real reason, the most convincing one is that, given all these other features working its favor, the thing that puts it over the top is:  ICE

Every Winter Olympic sport is played on ice or snow.  As a result, this limits the Winter Olympics to a fairly small variety of events.  There’s basically 5 variations of skating, 10 variations of skiing, including skiing fast and shooting a gun, a few variations on snowboarding (itself a variation of skiing), 5 or 6 variations on sledding, and hockey (which could conceivably be lumped in with skating).

Curling, then, represents what could well be the only other ice/snow sport that requires physical ability, strategy and teamwork, and DOES NOT involve the already saturated skating/skiing/snowboarding/sledding angle.  It is a “winter sport,” yet it is completely different from any other winter sports.

While golf and bowling are, in my opinion, sports in their own rights, golf could never be a winter sport, and bowling, while it could be, does not include ice/snow and would represent a big departure from tradition.  But there is a lot more variation in the summer sports - you’ve got running, jumping, gymnastics, paddling, riding, shooting, fighting, swordfighting, softball, basketball, soccer.  There really isn’t all the much need for a niche event.  I imagine cricket would make it to the Olympics before golf or bowling.

Fact is, curling may well last as an Olympic sport simply because there’s no other contenders.

This entry was posted on Thursday, March 30th, 2006 at 1:17 pm and is filed under Curling. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.