The Ultimate Championship: a success

In several posts I voiced my reservations about the Ultimate Championship. As it turned out, those reservations were not justified. The championship was a real success. That said, several of my criticisms still stand. I still do not understand what dictated the choice of events. Why eliminate the men’s triple jump? Would it really have been so taxing for the programme to include the shot put?

But let us start at the beginning. The Ultimate Championship was advertised as an event that would bring the best athletes into the limelight. And to a certain extent, that is exactly what happened. The red carpet and the media day allowed fans to see their champions in a different light. Just look at the eminently photogenic E. Karalis posing in a burgundy (the trending colour of the year) coat. (Of course we also had to endure the ever present N. Lyles who, thanks to Lord Sebastian, monopolises the images even when he is not competing). Hoever, since there was no formal presentation of the participants, several of them remained simply invisible. As for the non-competing athletes, it is clear that the late date of the championship meant that the lists on the “road to Budapest” page kept changing due to injuries accumulated over the long season. But I understand that the logic of the “ultimate” makes it imperative that the event be held at the end of the season.

From a technical point of view I have several remarks. First, I do not see the logic of the relays. Since the competition is open to the best athletes, regardless of nationality (6 Ethiopian women in the 5000 m), why include events involving national teams? Although I love mixed relays, I would have preferred an Ultimate Championship without them. The four attempts in the horizontal jumps and the throws did not turn out to be the game-stopper I feared, but they still represent a major change of habits. I saw this with Tentoglou, who took his first three jumps with a huge margin just to play it safe. And when conditions are unhelpful, as with the slippery throwing circle in the hammer throw, the consequences can be disastrous. E. Hummel fell in his second attempt but, in his case, without consequences, whereas for Katzberg, who had produced a first 80+ throw just outside the authorised sector, his loss of equilibrium in the second attempt meant elimination. Staging both the semi-finals and the final of the 200 m on the same day (less than two hours apart) showed that this is not detrimental to performance. This could encourage adaptations to the programme of future championships. We did not have the chance to see a tie-break in the vertical jumps. To tell the truth, I strongly oppose the obsession with a single winner (which leads to the aberrant millisecond chase in sprint events). But to finish on a positive note, I must say that the three wild cards awarded were an undisputed success. All three, Tamberi, Ingebrigtsen and Kerr, went on to win their event. Much as I like to criticise Sir Sebastian, I must admit that in this case he nailed it.

M. Jefferson‑Wooden was the queen of the sprints. She beat J. Alfred and S. Richardson in the 100 m, 10.62 to 10.74 and 10.76. (P. Van der Vaeken was the first European in the event, beating A. Hunt). Jefferson went on to win the 200 m ahead of G. Thomas, 21.47 (third all‑time performance) to 21.77. S. Miller‑Uibo, coming back to high‑level competition after a series of injuries, was disqualified for a lane violation in the semis. (You have to look very carefully to see it). 

K. Bednarek imitated Jefferson, winning both the 100 m, beating O. Seville 9.85 to 9.90, and the 200 m, beating L. Tebogo with 19.52 (seventh all‑time performance) to 19.76. M. Paulino won the women’s 400 m easily in 49.07 ahead of H. Jaeger in 49.28 (both would run in the 48s one week later). The race saw the elimination in the semis of N. Bukowiecka and L. Manuel, while S. Eid Nasser, who qualified for the final, finished last. B. Kebinatsipi was manifestly unhappy with his time in the 400 m final, despite a national record of 43.39. R. Benjamin won his first “silver” (though there were no medals at this championship, only a trophy for the winner) before presenting himself an hour and a half later for the hurdles semis.

In the women’s 800 m, it was as if K. Hodgkinson was resigned to not fight A. Werro but to guarantee second place (which she did). Werro, Hodgkinson and Bol finished in that order in 1:55.88, 1:56.26 and 1:56.74 respectively. The men’s race was much more interesting. Entering the final stretch, M. Arop was leading and it was clear that E. Wanyonyi was running out of steam. But the final word belonged to D. Sedjati, who with a devastating sprint passed everybody, winning in 1:41.91. K. Kazimierska is having her best season. After a silver at the Europeans and winning the Diamond League final, she became the absolute champion of the 1500 m with 3:57.55 (and backed it up with a victory in the mile one week later). J. Kerr was invited on a wild card (after having set a world record in the mile with 3:42.66 in July). He put that to good use, winning the men’s 1500 m in 3:29.35 ahead of 20‑year‑old C. Myers in 3:29.68. (You can be sure that I will keep an eye on Myers in the years to come). J. Ingebrigtsen was another who profited from a wild card. When he unleashed his sprint at the end of the men’s 5000 m, nobody could catch him: he won in 12:59.24. The situation was totally different in the women’s race. L. Amebaw (an athlete I have been following for some time) took control at mid‑race and built an advantage of more than 50 m. It turned out to be impossible to reel her in, and she went on to win in 14:13.20, with J. Hull second in 14:18.42.

The hurdles did not reserve any surprises for us. Well, almost. In the final of the men’s high hurdles, C. Tinch looked the winner, but he crossed the line upright and J. Tharp, dipping strongly, stole the victory, 12.94 to 12.95. 

Third finisher B. Franklin was another under‑13 hurdler, with 12.99 in the semis. M. Russell was never challenged in the women’s 100 m hurdles, winning in 12.22 ahead of T. Amusan in 12.34 and N. Visser in 12.39. In the women’s 400 m semis, it became clear that the athlete to beat was neither E. Zapletalová nor A. Cockrell but J. Jones. And, in fact, the latter went on to win the final in 52.45, with Zapletalová second in 52.68 and Cockrell third in 53.09. The great S. Muhammad was again among the best, finishing fourth in 53.11. Two weeks after his world record, A. Dos Santos ran once more under 46 seconds in the 400 m hurdles. He won in 45.98, with R. Benjamin second in 46.40 and K. Warholm in 46.78. E. Agyekum, whom I had noticed at the Europeans, was fourth in 47.10. Barring injuries, I expect him to be the next sub‑47 hurdler (he is already 10th on the all‑time list).

M. Tentoglou won his first Ultimate Champion title in the long jump. It crowned an exceptional season that dispelled any doubt that could have arisen after the injury‑ridden 2025. It was not an easy victory. Over‑cautious, he jumped with 20+ cm of margin, and when on his last attempt he let himself go free, he fouled an 8.50–8.55 m jump. And a moment of pure suspense ensued as B. Saraboyukov responded to Tentoglou’s 8.35 m best with a jump that turned out to be 8.34 m. L. Iapichino and J. Sawyers repeated their European one‑two in the women’s long jump. This time they were separated by more than 10 cm, since they finished with 6.90 and 6.78 m. S. Sarr won her first major title in the women’s triple jump with 15.06 m, in a scenario akin to that of the men’s long jump, since D. Velazco was second just 2 cm from the winner.

I have already written that, to my eyes, G. Tamberi is the best high jumper ever. And he gave another proof of it in Budapest. With J. Harrison, they were the only two to have cleared 2.30 m, with Tamberi leading on count‑back. And then Harrison decided to play a losing game. After one miss, he went successively from 2.33 to 2.37 and 2.39 m (something presumptuous and borderline irrational, but something that pushed Tamberi towards higher heights). So Tamberi cleared 2.33 and 2.35 on his first attempt, indicating by gesture and words that “è basso”. Then he succeeded at 2.37 on his second and asked for a bar at 2.41 m. It has been almost 10 years since anybody has jumped over 2.40 (M. Barshim in 2018, and I refuse to count doping offender D. Lysenko). It was perhaps the best moment of the Ultimate Championship. Y. Mahuchikh won an uninteresting women’s event with 1.99 m, and I must say clearly that I was disappointed by all the participants in the women’s high jump. S. Morris has never won anything outdoors in the pole vault (she has two world indoor titles) despite being the physically stronger female pole vaulter (albeit with a so‑so technique). But at 34 years of age she managed to win her first major title, clearing 4.90 on her second attempt, while H. Moll (13 years her junior) needed three tries. While I admire the female pole vault champions, I feel that the discipline has slowed down and there is no sign of recovery in the near future. And the situation is the perfect opposite in the men’s discipline. What makes it even more interesting is that the absolute supremacy of M. Duplantis is now challenged by the emergence of M. Karalis. Just look at the results: Duplantis 6.20 m, Karalis 6.15 m and Guttormsen 5.95 m. (And, of course, Karalis, when he fouled at 6.20 m, decided to go higher at 6.25 m, forcing Duplantis to gamble on Karalis not succeeding. Men’s pole vault, which became interesting when Duplantis came of age, is now becoming breath‑taking).

The only thing I will say about the three throwing events included in the programme is that I considered the inclusion of the women’s javelin downright stupid. Well, it turned out not to be stupid at all. Z. Yan took control of the event with 68.05 m on her first attempt, but she injured herself and could not continue. And then H. Kitaguchi threw a humongous 68.92 m, clinching victory. (In case you were wondering, I am not changing my opinion on Kitaguchi: for me, she is not a great champion but is simply profiting from the ambient mediocrity of the event). M. Hummel, coached by K. Klaas, won the men’s hammer with 81.46 m (despite his spectacular fall in his second attempt). E. Katzberg, who was the number‑one favourite, finished the competition with two fouls – proof, if we ever needed one, that the current system for throws is a highly risky one. R. Pathirage took control of the men’s javelin with his third throw, and he could have won with that. But something was missing, and at his fourth attempt he unleashed an over‑90‑m throw, confirming his supremacy.

As I said at the beginning of the article the championship was a success. But why on Earth did they have to paint the field black? 

Field events at the Birmingham Europeans

M. Tentoglou is once more the king of the long jump. After a 2025 season plagued by injuries, he is back in great shape and proved this in Birmingham, winning his fourth continental title. The wind was a major perturbation for the jumpers, and I remember Tentoglou commenting that in his first jump, with a head wind, he was having trouble reaching the board. He qualified in third position, in an event that saw the exit of M. Furlani, who has not recovered from his injury, retiring after just one jump at 7.73 m. The final was a totally different affair (but not as far as the wind was concerned). Tentoglou opened with 8.27 m, but S. Ehammer riposted with 8.29 m (both jumps against a strong head wind). Then Tentoglou jumped 8.44 m on his fourth attempt, and that was that (he passed the remaining two, deeming that the opposite wind would preclude a good performance). The bronze medal went to B. Saraboyukov with 8.26 m on his last attempt.

The women’s event, both qualification and final, took place under a strong tail wind. M. Mihambo had the longest jump in the qualifiers with 7.10 m (+3.3 m/s wind), and A. de Sousa jumped 7.00 m under regular conditions. However, in the final, they both finished just outside the medals. L. Iapichino won with a single jump at 7.00 m, just 1 cm ahead of J. Sawyers, 2 cm ahead of H. Kpatcha, 4 cm ahead of de Sousa and 6 cm ahead of Mihambo. It was an incredibly interesting event, where the spectacle was won by Sawyers (a jumper I have been following over the years) and her blanket. Given the consistency of Sawyers (6.95, 6.96, 6.99, 6.92 and two marginal fouls over 7 m), she would have merited the gold medal. The women’s long jump was one more example of finalist replacement. A. Halberg Hossain was injured during the qualifiers and was replaced in the final by F. Fotopoulou, who profited to grab 8th place.

A. Díaz Hernández and P. Pichardo were the only ones over 17 m in the men’s triple jump qualifiers. In the final, the latter opened with 17.76 m, but Díaz riposted with 18.15 m, which places him fourth on the all-time best list, and backed this with a 17.78 m on his third attempt. And I must point out the 8th place of D. Tsiamis, who, at 44 years of age, reached a European final, in a discipline where he won bronze eight years ago.

The women’s triple jump saw two Italians dominate the qualifiers: E. Saraceni with 14.50 m and D. Derkach with 14.42 m. They were going to meet different lots in the final. Saraceni finished 12th with 13.48 m, while Derkach won with 14.60 m. But the real surprise came from a hitherto unknown athlete, S. Guisse. With 14.07 m, she jumped over 14 m for the first time in the qualifiers. And in the final (where all eight finishers jumped over 14 m, with the great I. Španović in 8th place), she showed her intentions with a 14.37 m on the third jump, that did not suffice for a medal, but a 14.46 m (+2.4 m/s wind) did suffice for silver. I will keep an eye open for her next year (despite her below-par performance in the Diamond League of Silesia). And I must say that I was impressed by the concentration of D. Derkach when she had already won the event and had one last jump. She was focused as if all depended on it, and only when it was over (she fouled it) did she allow herself to explode in joy.

G. Tamberi sits in 17th position on the all-time high jumpers’ list. But, for me, he is number one. He would have gone much higher than his 2.39 m personal best had he not had the injury he sustained in 2016. But he fought back and returned to win Olympic and World titles. He did not arrive in Birmingham as the favourite for the event. In fact, his 2.23 m at the qualifiers was his best season performance. But when it came to the final, he showed his unique class. He jumped successively 2.18, 2.23, 2.27 and 2.30 m, trailing Doroshchuk on count-back, but when the bar was raised to 2.32 m, he was the only one to go over, winning his fourth European title. The women’s high jump was a low-key event. A. Topić had some back problems and bowed out at 1.87 m. I. Gerashchenko could not go higher than 1.92 m, and the medals went to jumpers who could master 1.95 m or higher. M. Vuković won her first major medal, a bronze, losing silver on count-back to M. Zodzik. Y. Mahuchikh, clearly not in top shape, still managed to win, clearing 1.97 m.

A height of 5.60 m was enough to gain access to the men’s pole vault final, but was too high for T. Collet, E. Sasma and M. Vloon, who were expected to play some role there. The Collet family was not totally frustrated, since the younger brother, Mathieu, did manage to qualify and went on to finish 4th, just behind another frenchman, the talented B. Thierry, who obtained bronze with 5.85 m. S. Guttormsen had a below-par competition, failed twice at 5.85 m, gambled unsuccessfully with his last jump at 5.95 m and had to content himself with 6th place. As for the first two, well, by now the scenario is familiar. Both Karalis and Duplantis jumped 6 m. And when Duplantis jumped 6.10 m and 6.15 m, Karalis tried to go higher, but 6.20 m turned out to be too high for him. (Not for long. In the Zürich Diamond League, Duplantis, Karalis and Guttormsen staged the highest pole vault competition ever, with 6.25, 6.20 and 6.00 m respectively, the first two making three attempts at a would-be world record 6.32 m). The women’s pole vault was not of the same calibre as the men’s. (In fact, this is a remark that applies to this event at a global, world, level). A. Moser won with 4.80 m, ahead of W. Heltelä (Murto) with 4.75 m. M. J. Bonin had a so-so competition but managed to pass over 4.70 m on her second attempt, snatching bronze from her team-mate M. Chevrier, who could not go higher than 4.60 m. And I must, once more, share my admiration for K. Stefanidi, who came with a season best of 4.40 m and improved it twice, finishing sixth with 4.60 m. One could imagine that, having won everything, she would retire, devoting herself to her newborn son. But it is clear that she loves jumping, and so she is back, giving us another proof of her immense talent.

L. Fabbri won the men’s shot put easily with 22.31 m. In fact, all his valid throws would have sufficed for victory, Z. Weir, who placed second, having thrown just 21.12 m. The women’s event was dominated by J. Schilder, who had four valid throws over 20 m, culminating at 20.73 m. J. van Klinken obtained silver with a 19.64 m personal best, while Y. Mabry (Ogunleye) had to content herself with bronze at 19.50 m. And I must salute the arrival in the big girls’ league of N. Ndubuisi, who was 8th with 18.21 m. Germany had three finalists among the first eight (but only one medal). 

The men’s discus throw was, for M. Alekna, a bis repetita (non) placent of the Olympics. He started by throwing a championships record 69.89 m, only to see K. Čeh surpass him first with 70.83 m and then 72.51 m (at just 10 cm from his personal best in Ramona, from April this year, one can only wonder what he can do if he returns to Throw Town in his present top shape). Van Klinken added discus gold to her shot silver with a first-attempt throw of 67.67 m. Only S. Craft could react to this, throwing 65.72 m for silver, with V. Kamga having to settle for bronze with 64.61 m. M. Robert-Michon was, at 47 years of age, making her eighth appearance at a European Championship. This time she finished 9th with a more than honourable 60.58 m. (Let’s point out that S. Elkasević (Perković), “listening to her body”, is taking a year off).

The men’s javelin throw (where T. Röhler was eliminated in the qualifiers) was a curious affair. J. Weber took command of the event with a throw of 83.71 m, and then his compatriot N. Thumm edged him by just 5 cm at the fifth attempt. One throw remained, and J. Weber (who has already performed a last-throw feat) unleashed a humongous 90.40 m, winning the competition with a championships record. And what was Thumm’s puerile riposte? He threw the javelin 5–6 metres and collapsed on the runway. I don’t understand: hasn’t anybody explained to him that an event is not over until everybody has thrown? Did he see himself already crowned European champion with a (let’s be fair, more than mediocre) 83 m performance? I have real trouble understanding such spoiled-brat behaviour. 

The women’s javelin was, alas, as expected, a mediocre affair. E. Tzengko and A. Villagos managed to qualify, something that was denied to M. Andrejczyk, who could not do better than 55 m. The final was settled at the first throw, with S. Kolak winning with 62.43 m. Villagos could grab bronze with a 60.93 m throw, just behind J. Ulbricht (61.53 m). And please don’t ask me about Tzengko. I have a real difficulty understanding what is happening with Tzengko, who is undeniably talented but has not managed a single 60+ m throw in a year where she does not have a serious injury (she has reported a minor shoulder discomfort in May, but not something incapacitating). The first surprise in the men’s hammer throw was the elimination in the qualifiers of W. Nowicki. The second, perhaps bigger, was the 9th place of Y. Chaussinand, who had thrown a European-leading 82.44 m in June. B. Halász totally dominated the event, taking the lead from the first throw and culminating in a world-leading performance of 84.25 m at his fifth attempt. M. Hummel did not offer much in the form of resistance, but secured second place with his fifth throw at 81.30 m. It is interesting to remark that all eight finalists fouled their last, sixth, throw. S. Kosonen won her first title in the grown-ups category with a 76.28 m throw in the women’s hammer. A. Włodarczyk, the indisputably greatest hammer thrower ever, was present in Birmingham at 41 years of age, making the final, where she finished fourth, missing the medal by just half a metre.

Usually I devote a special article to the combined events. But this year I was somewhat disappointed by the decathlon, and so I decided to lump the combined together with the field events. The decathlon was won by L. Neugebauer. But for me that was a minor deception. All along the event he gave an impression of heaviness that was not present in previous years. And then came the scandal of the pole vault. When the bar was raised to 4.80 m, both Neugebauer and M. Gletty missed three times. Then they started pestering the judges, pretexting that the umbrellas next to the runway, agitated under the strong wind (true), had hindered their efforts (I am skeptical about this). In the end, the judges caved and allowed them a fourth try. Gletty missed, but Neugebauer passed and went on to jump 4.90 m (for an extra 61 points). 

That, and his 54.31 m discus throw, secured his victory over N. Kaul. The latter showed from the outset that he was in good shape, threw 48.88 m in the discus and jumped 4.90 m in the pole vault. However, his only throw in the javelin was “just” 73.54 m, and that was not enough to close the gap with Neugebauer. In the end, despite a 4:20.70 by Kaul in the 1500 m, Neugebauer carried the event 8611 to 8573 (the “extra” 60 points did make the difference). S. Skotheim was third with 8433. I was expecting him to play a major role in the event but that was not to be. The surprise came from J. Tesselaar, who, in the absence of S. Roosen (injured just before the championship), represented the Netherlands in the best way, finishing fourth with a personal best of 8378. If he manages to improve the technical events, he will be among the decathlon stars in the years to come.

The women’s heptathlon was much more interesting than the decathlon. K. O’Connor, on an ever-ascending trajectory, was the favourite and did not disappoint. On the contrary, she managed to excel in all events, winning with 6751 points. (And in a windy competition, she was lucky with a 1.3 m/s tail wind in the hurdles and exactly 2 m/s in the long jump, meaning that her record can be homologated). E. Oosterwegel returned to the places of honour, finishing second with 6713 points, just ahead of S. Dokter, 6664 points. A major disappointment was the 7th place of Adrianna Sulek-Schubert, who was among those vying for a medal and then foundered with a 36 m javelin throw. N. Vidts was also not up to her usual level, finishing in 11th place. And if one reads the classification carefully, one finds in last position K. Johnson-Thompson with 5790 points. At 33 years of age, she is definitely past her prime, but I would have understood her participation if she had given the impression of enjoying it. Unfortunately, her demeanour throughout the event suggested quite the opposite.

All in all it was a nice championship. I just hope that the famous "Ultimate Championship", the last invention of Sir Sebastian, will be at least of equal quality.

Brookes and the Revival of the Olympics (part 4 of "the real story of the Olympics")

When de Coubertin, in 1890, went to Much Wenlock to visit William Brookes, he did not know anything about the ancient Olympic Games. His interest lay in general education, physical education, and sport, an interest shared by Brookes. But once in Much Wenlock, the Baron unexpectedly encountered an Olympic revival movement. Returning to France, he wrote an enthusiastic article titled “Les Jeux Olympiques à Much Wenlock”. Referring to Brookes, he wrote: “si les jeux olympiques que la Grèce moderne n’a pas su ressusciter y revivent aujourd’hui, ce n’est pas à un Hellène qu’on en est redevable, mais bien au Dr W. P. Brookes” (“if the Olympic Games that Modern Greece has not yet been able to revive still survive there today, it is due, not to a Greek, but to Dr. W. P. Brookes”). At this point, one can appreciate that de Coubertin showed complete disregard for the efforts of Soutsos and Zappas in reviving the Olympic ideal (although the latter are alluded to, indirectly, in his article). Yet de Coubertin, being the perfidious character we know, soon began to selectively forget Brookes’s contribution, later claiming that he had founded the Olympic movement singlehandedly. But this is not an article on de Coubertin. So let us return to Brookes.

William Penny Brookes was a physician born in Much Wenlock, Shropshire, in 1809. In 1840 he founded the Wenlock Agricultural Reading Society, with a special interest in the working class, collecting books for workers, farmers, and laborers to read. In 1850 he created the “Olympian Class”, a sub-section of the Reading Society, to organize annual athletic games with cash prizes for the victors. He called the sub-section “Olympian” out of admiration for the ancient Greek Games, though his own featured modern and even medieval sports alongside athletics. The games were not called “Olympic” until the end of the decade, when Brookes became aware of Zappas’s efforts. Learning about the Zappas Olympiad, he wrote to the organizers and offered a £10 prize from the “Olympian Class of the Much Wenlock Agricultural Reading Society of England”. Ironically, the prize was for “Tilting at the Ring”, a medieval event absent from the Greek Olympiads. The prize ultimately went to the winner of the 1859 distance race, Petros Velissariou, whom Brookes made an honorary member of the newly renamed “Wenlock Olympian Society.” Influenced by the Athens program, he introduced the javelin throw to the Wenlock Games.

Tilting at the Ring

In 1860, only months after the first Zappas Olympiad, it was announced that five towns in Shropshire had agreed to hold annual regional games, the “Shropshire Olympics”. Four of these Games actually took place, and they were serious athletic meetings, featuring mostly track-and-field events. In 1865 Brookes and John Hulley (who had launched the Liverpool Olympics in 1862) formed the National Olympian Association. They proposed to hold annual national Olympic Games, “in rotation in the principal cities and towns of England”, and six were held between 1866 and 1883—the first in London. However, resistance to Brookes’s movement soon built up: the “upper-class” gentleman athletes refused to compete against plebeians. They therefore formed the Amateur Athletic Club (AAC) and organized the first “amateur” championships. Still, Brookes’s Olympian Games in London were a resounding success. The AAC boycotted the Games, and did the same the following year in Birmingham. From that point, alas, things began to deteriorate. The 1868 Games had to move from Manchester to Wellington (a small town in Shropshire), and no further Games were held until 1874, when the fourth edition took place in Much Wenlock. The British National Olympic movement was practically dead.

A much older Brookes during the  Wenlock Games (third from the right)

Brookes maintained contact with Greece. On the occasion of the fifth British National Olympic Games in 1877, he requested, through the Greek ambassador in London, that King George of Greece donate a cup to the winner of the pentathlon. The King agreed, and a silver cup “from the King of the Hellenes” was awarded to the victor (a local student, since the AAC again boycotted the Games). These contacts probably inspired Brookes, in 1880, to propose an International Olympian Festival in Athens. But the Greek Olympic Committee, dominated by the anti-athletic faction, refused to organize national Olympic Games—let alone international ones. Brookes therefore continued with his Wenlock Olympian Games, now only a shadow of their former glory. The best athletes no longer competed there, as the AAC (by then renamed the Amateur Athletic Association) organized meetings across England. In 1890, the Wenlock Games took place in May, and in October Brookes received the visit of de Coubertin. To impress the Baron, he staged a special autumn “Olympian” meeting, and succeeded so well that de Coubertin decided to appropriate his idea. But that is a story for the next post in this series.