Ancient pentathlon revisited

Having exchanged correspondence with F. Zarnowski made me think about the ancient pentathlon, which had been a first occasion for an exchange of emails. 

It turns out that nobody knows how the winner of the pentathlon was determined and my old post on ancient pentathlon (motivated by my reading the excellent monograph of Zarnowski) addressed that question. I had proposed there a possible solution but having recently given more thought to the matter I am not quite satisfied with it. But let's start from the beginning.

The consensus is that the first three events of the pentathlon are discus throw, long jump, and javelin throw (with perhaps a permutation of discus and javelin), the remaining two being the stadium race and wrestling, in that order.

As I explain in my old post 

At the issue of the three events (to which everybody participates) there exist three possibilities. Either somebody has won all three events, in which case he is the winner of the pentathlon, or one athlete has won two events and some other one event, or, finally, three athletes have won one event each. In the second case the two winners proceed to the stadium race. If the one with two victories wins again he is the champion.... If the race results in a situation where the two athletes have two victories each they proceed naturally to the wrestling which gives the final winner. The difficulty is when after the three events we have three athletes with one victory each.

A panathenaic amphora depicting pentathletes

Notice that when somebody has won either three or two of the first three events there is a winner to the pentathlon. On the other hand the historians point out that there is a relative paucity of known pentathlon winners, which probably means that in many cases nobody emerged victorious from the event. One possibility would be for the event to be stopped after three events if the latter were won by three different athletes. But I find this rather absurd, since, with two remaining events, there is always the possibility for somebody to obtain three victories and carry the pentathlon.

So the athletes proceed to the stadium race after which one athlete has two victories, the remaining two just one. At this point Zarnowski and myself diverge. Zarnowski proposes that the second and third of this race run again and the winner of this classification race meets the initial winner for the wrestling competition. A variant of this could be that the second and third of the stadium race wrestle each other and the winner faces the winner of the stadium in one last bout. 

There is a difficulty with this scheme. The winner of the "repêchage" has won a "second-rate" victory. If he prevails over the winner of the stadium how can he be the pentathlon winner? On the other hand, if there is no possibility for him to obtain the pentathlon victory even if he beats the stadium winner in wrestling, then the whole repêchage idea is absurd: why should they exert themselves for nothing?

My initial proposal was that the stadium race served at eliminating one athlete and let the remaining two proceed to the final event which would determine the winner. One drawback of this proposal is that there is always a winner of the pentathlon, which, if we believe the historians, was not always the case (but, be aware that this is a deduction and not an established fact).  

After having given more thought to the question I think that there is another possible solution. The athlete who won the stadium must wrestle in turn both athletes who did not win. If he wins the first bout, he has three victories and he is declared winner of the pentathlon. If he loses the first, he wrestles the second contestant. If he loses the second match as well there is no winner of the pentathlon. Facing a fresh opponent after having having fought and lost the first match leaves a small probability for victory. So two successive losses should not be a rare occurrence (and this would explain the scarcity of victors).

Note that with this scheme the two athletes who lost the stadium race can never win the pentathlon. So, what is their motivation to beat the one who won the race in wrestling? For me, the incentive is clear. If they win in wrestling then there is no overall pentathlon winner and nobody has lost. In fact all three of them have two victories and they are in a kind of ex aequo. The honour is safe. Although the prime objective is to win, the second one is not to lose. 

I am aware that this is a complicated situation and perhaps to some reader my proposal will sound not quite satisfactory. Still, I find this last solution slightly more reasonable than the one I proposed in my old post. 

Ah, if only the ancient writers had taken the pain to explain the rules of the pentathlon.

The decline of interest in athletics

I stumbled upon an article on the AIPS (Association Internationale de la Presse Sportive) classification of the top european sportsmen of the year. The article appeared in several greek newspapers because this time there were two greek athletes in the top 20. Giannis Antetokounmpo, aka "greek freak", the NBA superstar, was occupying the 9th position in a list where L. Hamilton, the Formula 1 pilot, was number one for the third time in his career. 
The second greek athlete was S. Tsitsipas, the tennis player, who is currently the third best european player and who occupied the 20th position. Five track and field athletes were figuring in the list: S. Hassan 5th, K. Warholm 7th, D. Asher-Smith 12th, M. Lasitskene 14th and N. Kaul 19th. The choice of these five athletes is quite reasonable, although I would prefer to permute the positions of Lasitskene and Asher-Smith.  

The article was giving the history of the previous awards, since 1958 when the european sportsman of the year award was introduced. I perused the list and I was shocked. From 1958 till 1978 12 track and field athletes were nominated sportsmen of the year (out of a total of 21). Among them we find V. Brumel (thrice 61-62-63) and I. Szewinska (twice 66 and 74). In the next 21 years the pattern is the same: 11 out of 21 winners come from athletics. Lord Sebastian figures twice (79 and 81) at the top of the list. And then with 00s the interest for athletics goes down the drain. In the 20 year period from 2000 to 2019 we have just half a nomination from the world of athletics: in 2005 Y. Isinbayeva shared the first place with R. Federer.

In fact the post-2000 period is dominated by Formula 1 and tennis. There are 10 (well, 9.5) winners from tennis and 8 from Formula 1. And one can already distinguish the shift of interest by looking at the 1979-1999 winners: there are 4 from tennis and 2 from Formula 1, although athletics is still well represented. 

Analysing the list of the best european sportsmen of the year was sobering. It is clear that athletics is no more the king of sports as we have always (quite justifiably) believed. People are more interested in disciplines like tennis (which I, personally, find boring) or Formula 1 racing (which I adored in the era of Prost-Senna duels and which I came to hate during the reign of Schumacher). Is this shift of interest a marketing effect? I cannot tell. But, in any case, athletics has a serious problem. (Re-)Capturing the interest of the people at large looks like a nigh impossible task.

Eleven wretched women, or how fake news almost killed women athletics

Fake news is not a 21st century invention. They have probably existed since the appearance of humanity. But as we'll see in what follows, fake news were used in order to sabotage women athletics.

The sabotage

Women events entered the Olympics in 1900. If de Coubertin had had a say in this, women would have been confined to "decorative" roles, like presenting a wreath of flowers to the winner. But the big circus that has been the 1900 Paris World's Fair enlivened with sports events really not worth the "olympic" moniker, had decided otherwise. Women did compete in sailing, golf, tennis and croquet(!). And de Coubertin grudgingly accepted the fait accompli. More "women" sports were added to the olympic program over the years. Alice Milliat with her Federation Sportive Feminine Internationale was instrumental in this. By creating the most successful Women’s Olympic Games (later Women’s Games) she pressured the International Olympic Committee into including women's track and field events in the 1928, Amsterdam, Olympics. And, of course, the misogynism struck again amputating the, initially agreed upon, program of 10 events to a mere handful: 100 m, 800 m , 4x100 m, high jump and discus throw.  

One day I will write a longer article on women and the Olympics, but for now let us concentrate on the fateful 800 m. 

The first world record, in 1922, was that of G. Lenoir, registered en route from a longer race: 2:30.4. In 1927 L. Radke, the future olympic winner, brought the record down to 2:23.8. Then in 1928, prior to the Olympics, I. Gentzel (the future bronze medalist) improved it to 2:20.4, with Radke reclaiming it a fortnight later with 2:19.6.

In Amsterdam, the 800 m for women was organised on August 1 and 2. Three heats were held on the first day with a total participation of 25. The first three of each heat were selected for the final to be held the next day. 

The opprobrious reports

Before going into the description of the pivotal event it is instructive (and a tad nauseating) to read the comments of the newspapers.

• Sportswriter W. Shirer detailed in the Chicago Tribune that five women collapsed after the race and that fifth-place-finisher Florence MacDonald needed to be “worked over” after “falling onto the grass unconscious” at the end of the race. His story also included details that silver medalist Hitomi of Japan required a fifteen-minute revival period after suffering from complete exhaustion.

• Pittsburgh Press and reporter for a press syndicate, K. Rockne, who was in Amsterdam, claimed that only six women finished the race and that five of these women collapsed. He stated, “It was not a very edifying spectacle to see a group of fine girls running themselves into a state of exhaustion". And he added, "If running the half mile for women is an athletic event then they ought to include a six-day dancing contest between couples. One is as ridiculous as the other".

• New York Times correspondent, W. Williams, reported the event similarly. He claimed that six of the women “fell headlong on the ground".

• John McGovern asserted that "most of us feel that the exhibition was pathetic and humiliating", as he recalled the stressed runners gasping on the track. "To see a lot of fine, young, brave girls sprawling about on the ground sobbing, convulsed, and covered with dirt, made us all feel that in 1926 we should have voted against this long race", he insisted.

But it was not only the americans. 

• The London Times called the 800-meter race for women “dangerous”.

• The London Daily Mail also decried the race, highlighting the exhaustion of the competitors and claiming that the race was too difficult for women.

Canadians followed suite.

• L. Marsh’s writing for the Toronto Star, mentions that Thompson and her teammate, Rosenfeld, collapsed at the finish.

• Montreal Daily Star took Marsh’s criticisms a step further, calling the race a “disgrace” and recommending that it “should be taken off any future program” because “it is obviously beyond women’s powers of endurance, and can only be injurious to them: women who raced longer than 200 m would age prematurely. 

And, surprisingly, the Finnish Olympic officials denounced the race as "unwomanly" and announced that "Finnish girls desired to leave track and field to men".

But the jackpot goes to John Tunis of the New York Evening Post. He reported, “Below us on the cinder path were 11 wretched women, 5 of whom dropped out before the finish, while 5 collapsed after reaching the tape”. And Tunis was not just any unknown wordsmith. According to Norman Cousins in Writing for Love or Money, Tunis was known for producing "fact-packed articles based upon research". Well, we have here the proof that he didn't.
In his article in Runners World R. Robinson debunks the lies and comments: 
"What bar was John Tunis drinking in while the race was being run? No wonder he went on to be a successful author of boys sports fiction". I have more to say on Tunis but I will reserve it for the article on women and the Olympics, when/if I write it some day.

Were those "journalists" living in a parallel universe? Had anyone really witnessed the race?

Sport historian M. Dyreson present a plausible explanation of the mindset of the reporters. During the 1920s, when women started participating massively in sport, the press portrayed the women athletes as “objects of desire”, focusing on their appearance rather than their performances. Being exhausted was deemed inappropriate for women. acceptable sports were those where women could remain beautiful—in male eyes—while competing.

The truth

The complete video of the race does exist (here). I watched it (many, many times) and what it shows has nothing to do with the slanderous descriptions above.

There were actually only 9 runners in the race. 

All of them were still in the race after one lap. 

Entering the final stretch only 8 are visible and, although I watched again and again the movie, I could find no trace of the 9th participant. This, and the fact that no time is given for her, points to a possible dropping out of the race.

Only one runner fell (most probably, B. Rosenfeld, silver medalist in the 100 m), and not from exhaustion, but instead because she was leaning forward trying to beat her competitor. 

The officials helped her to her feet and that was that. It is interesting to point out that in this last photo one can perceive in the infield Radke with her arm around Hitomi's shoulder, manifestly neither of the two needing any help, let alone a "revival".

The whole arrival looks pretty much like the finish of any other hard race. And it is important to point out that the first three broke the existing world record (Radtke won with 2:16.8). In fact the time of any of the first 7 athletes would have been a world record in 1927. So, it was perfectly natural for the participants of the race to be exhausted. It wouldn't have been shocking even if some of them lied down in the field in order to recover. But they didn't. They ran a world class race and walked away, some happy for their place and some less so. 

It is also interesting to point out that in the very same Olympics P. Nurmi, defeated by V. Ritola in the 5000 m, staggered to the infield, fell down, and lied there. Of course, nobody was shocked and no-one proposed that long races be omitted from the men's olympic program.

The consequences

The IAAF, met just days after the Amsterdam Games to discuss the "incident". Canada, led the fight for the termination of all women’s events, which was really curious given that the canadian women had just won two gold, one silver and one bronze medals, more than any other nation. Finland also demanded the abolition of all women’s events. The USA were in favour of the continuation of the women’s track and field but demanded the eradication of the 800-metre race. The majority of nations sided with this. So, the final decision was to do away with the 800 metres but to increase the number of women’s events from five to six: the 80 m hurdles and the javelin throw were thus added to the program.

The (below the belt) arguments for eliminating the 800-meter from women’s competition were based on shaky scientific reasoning: the 800-meter was too hard for women, and women’s reproductive capability would be impaired by such “terrible exhaustion". So, the event should be erased from the Olympic program. All parties continued to believe and promote mythology about women’s frailty.

Three years later, at the Olympic Congress of 1931, the new IOC President Count Henri Baillet-Latour called again for the abolition of women’s athletics. However the US representatives demanded the inclusion of women’s track and field for the Los Angeles Games and carried the vote. 

The program of 6 events remained unchanged till 1948 where the 200 m, the long jump and the shot put were added. It was not until 1960 that the 800 m did return to the olympic program. All in all, the events of 1928 managed to slow down the development of women's endurance running for more than three decades. A pure shame.

PS. While doing research for some future article I ran accross a reference to an article by A. DeFrantz where she tells the story of the 1904 men’s 800 m track event in Saint Louis. Two men truly collapsed on the track: one had to be carried to his training quarters and stimulants had to be administered to revive the other. And, of course, nobody suggested that men's 800 m should be eliminated form the olympic program.