Should tennis be an Olympic sport?

Tennis should not be an Olympic sport

by Granville Swope

You heard it right, tennis should not be an Olympic sport. I love the sport of tennis and the Olympics, but I just don't think the two belong together. Call me a traditionalist but to this life-long tennis player, the Olympics is (was, should be) a celebration of the raw human athletic experience. What do I mean by "Raw?" It is the one and only competition for these highly specialized athletes where they have four years to train for their unique events. When the big day comes around and Olympic Gold is on the line, they have to put it all together for one brief yet timeless moment. It is the sole pinnacle of human athletic competition.

Unlike tennis, there is no other Olympic event around the corner. There is no other surface to try your luck on in a few months, or even the next year. For the Olympian, it is an all or nothing proposition. And so it should be. Olympians have one commitment, their training. They are paid nothing except room and board and perhaps a stipend for spending. The only opportunity for major bucks is a gold medal and the many commercial endorsements that MAY follow.

Conversely, tennis players compete weekly in international events and are paid big bucks for it, weekly. They have four major championships a year in addition to the annual Davis Cup competition, the premiere international event of the sport. And how do you remove the surface advantage in tennis? There are clay court specialist who don't stand a chance against the hard court power of Sampras (not to mention that Sampras will never win the French on clay). How do you fairly determine what surface to play Olympic Tennis on? How can tennis be Olympic if the surface of the court can pre-determine (or simply effect) the outcome of a match.

Simply put, the Olympics should remain focused on the basics of athleticism, strength, power, agility, finesse. No racquets, no snow boards, no technology, just the human performance on a level playing field. With the addition of the Winter Olympics some technologies are acceptable as the tools of the sport were inherent in the birth of the sport; skiiing, ice skating, bobsled etc. (the skate, the sled, the ski etc). An Olympic sport should be one in which everyone can compete; regardless of geographic location or financial status, or most importantly technology. Tennis is a technological sport.

We can approach this topic another way - where do you draw the line? Is Baseball an Olympic sport? Yes. Should baseball be an Olympic sport? No. Baseball is not played in every country, either is basketball for that matter. Mountain biking? (of course not, but yes, it is). Trampoline gymnastics? Give me a break!

Why are all these "fringe" sports (handball, mountain biking, creative gymnastics etc.) adopted into the Olympic schedule? TV. Put it another way, DOLLARS!. Big bucks. Major league moolah! The sponsors get their logo's on the tube 18-24 hours a day for two weeks. It would not surprise me to soon see so many "Olympic Sports" that the competition is extended to 3 weeks, or a month! Why not every year?!

This takes absolutely nothing away from tennis or the Olympics. They both represent the consummate level of performance in their appropriate venues, BUT, Olympic Tennis is inherently "non-Olympic."

Tennis fits in well with modern day Olympics

by Dan Jenkins

Tennis was first played at the Olympic Games in 1896. Our sport then fell from the Olympic venue after 1924 amid turmoil over where to draw the line between amateurism and professionalism, and it didn't return as a medal sport until 1988. Why did it return? It returned because the thin line between amateurism and professionalism had been methodically washed away by a new and progressive Olympic bureaucracy. Put another way, yes, tennis is inherently professional; but so now is nearly every major sport on the Olympic schedule. Let's be clear, tennis did not catch up to the Olympics, the Olympics caught up with tennis - and without question, tennis is "inherently Olympic."

From my viewpoint, the argument submitted cites three KEY reasons why tennis should not be included on the Olympic list: 1) players compete weekly in international events, including four Major championships a year, and are paid for it, 2) there is a surface advantage to some in the field, 3) it's not a sport in which everyone can compete geographically. In the end, if the Olympic definition of "sport" was, as my colleague points out, "just human performance on a level playing field," we'd be watching a lot of swimming folks - and that's about all we'd be watching.

Track - by definition the oldest and most "traditional" Olympic venue. The events covered under the umbrella of track (ie: long distance running) maintain year around, professional competitions that span every continent, much like todays professional tennis circuit. The wold's top 5000 and 10,000 meter runners do in fact have four yearly majors: World Indoor and Outdoor's, the World Cross Country Championships and their own country's championships. And yes, they're paid; not as much as tennis players, but then again money doesn't discriminate. You either get it or you don't. You're either professional or you're not. But let's remember, by the terms of definition #1 stated earlier, track should be taken off the Olympic list.

To say tennis players are in the unique situation of having "other" majors to look forward to yearly, while athletes of other Olympic entitled sports do not, is simply mis-information. Yes, the Olympics are extremely important to an athlete's career in most cases, but it's no longer the end all proposition for many. A plethora of traditional sports now parallel tennis in professionalism (sponsorship) and scheduling. Besides the example of track mentioned previously, the sport of soccer comes to mind. Every starting player on this year's U.S. Men's Team plays professionally. They play week in and week out and, I assure you, put World Cup qualifying and yearly club titles higher on their list than an "all or nothing" Olympic birth every four years. Similarly, biking hero Lance Armstrong does not train solely for his "one chance" at the Olympics. He's won two Tour De France titles in the meantime and races monthly in professional events around the globe. Not much different than our top tennis players. He's done the Wheaties box thing and he's paid extremely well - I guess that makes cycling, an Olympic sport since 1896, "non-Olympic" too.

As for the argument of surface advantage, let's review. The argument was: "How do you fairly determine what surface to play Olympic tennis on? How can tennis be Olympic if the surface of the court can pre-determine (or simply effect) the outcome of a match?" Now I ask back: How do you fairly determine what surface to run Olympic track on? There must be 30 different surfaces world wide. Continuing, how do you fairly determine what surface to play Olympic soccer on? There must be 10 to 15 different ways to grow a soccer field - fast, slow, thick, thin, dry, slick and on and on. So now what? Because playing fields are not uniform through-out the world we consider taking track and soccer off the Olympic venue? Are they also "inherently non-Olympic?" Of course not. You train hard and adapt the best you can on the given surface. It's part of the ball game folks and that's never going to change. Athletes know this. Olympic tennis players are not "special" because they play on four different surfaces year around.

If we're going with uniform surfaces to determine the definition of which sports are "Olympic", we have to address the athletes as well. Before you know it, we'll be asking the athlete who trains at 10,000 feet to come down and train at sea level because their blood cell count is too high and their stronger lung capacity won't "fairly determine" an outcome over a sea level trained athlete. Idea! let's socialize every sporting environment - will most sports then be "inherently Olympic?"

Finally, if the definition of sport in the Olympics was one in which everyone could compete geographically, we'd have to take out gymnastics, sailing, equestrian, triathlon, cycling, shooting, archery, kayaking, baseball, basketball, beach volleyball and the list goes to the moon. And forget the Winter Olympics all together. It's true, Fiji hasn't had a flurry of the white stuff in some time.

Do professional tennis players compete weekly in international events and get paid? Absolutely. Is there a surface advantage for certain players in the Olympic draw? You bet. Can everyone compete at tennis, geographically speaking? Of course not. Do most major sports on the Olympic venue parallel tennis in professionalism, sponsorship and scheduling? Fortunately or unfortunately, the answer is an emphatic YES. Without a doubt, tennis fits in well with the MODERN definition of "Olympic" and tennis is here to stay "Olympic."

Send us your thoughts on this subject.... woodytennis@yahoo.com