Modern pentathlon is a superannuated discipline that would have disappeared were it not a deCoubertenian heirloom (and the fact that its current promoter is none other than Juan Antonio Samaranch junior).
Why should I laugh? In a recent article of mine on modern pentathlon I wrote
"Well, if they asked my opinion I would say that the best choice is an obstacle course, but that would necessitate quite some original thinking on behalf of the Union Internationale du Pentathlon Moderne (UIPM) mandarins".
And, lo and behold, it was the obstacle course that was chosen as the discipline that will replace the equestrian event.
Why should I cry? I am afraid that with this program change the modern pentathlon may well survive the 2028 purge and keep its place in the olympic program. So my "good riddance" article was perhaps a bit premature.
But let us give a succinct background. Modern pentathlon has always been a niche discipline. Were it not for the protection it was receiving by generations of IOC VIPs it would have crept into oblivion a long time ago. But even so, the Tokyo equestrian scandal put the discipline back on the head-chopping block. For those who did not follow: a german coach hit a recalcitrant horse and in the general outcry that ensued the UIPM decided to remove the equestrian event from the pentathlon program.
A first remark concerns the slowness (or is it hesitancy?) of decision taking of the IOC. Despite the Tokyo debacle, the equestrian event will be present in Paris in 2024. And if some pentathletes are assigned difficult horses, like the one who created the problem in Tokyo, well, tough luck: a multi-year preparation going down the drain because of the absence of a courageous decision.
The IOC decided that they would re-consider the possibility of inclusion of the modern pentathlon in the Los Angeles program, once a replacement event was chosen. This will be most probably done sometimes during the next year but I am not very optimistic concerning the eviction of this unnatural discipline.
But let us go back to the obstacle course: I find the one proposed by the UIPM simply ridiculous. Following the IOC president's recommendations that the new discipline should
"... demonstrate a significant reduction in cost and complexity and improvements across the areas for safety, accessibility, universality, appeal for youth and general public"
the obstacle course is a watered-down event, with of roughly 100 m length and 10 obstacles.
The choice of obstacles is clearly inspired by the ninja warrior tv show, even including the tsunami wall at the end. But with such an easy course one would expect the best athletes to breeze through it with minimal time differences and a small, time-costing, mistake being disproportionally penalising. I am convinced that only a difficult course can offer a fair classification.
Were I to choose an obstacle course my choice would have been the CISM (Conseil International du Sport Militaire) military one, a 500 m long course with 20 obstacles. This is a course requiring a good combination of strength and speed. A ninja warrior event on the other hand is mainly a strength based event with speed and equilibrium playing a minor role. The UIPM course lies between the two in the sense that it requires both strength and speed but to my eyes it looks like a course for ninja toddlers.
I have already written my ideas on possible really modern pentathlons. But while preparing this article I started pondering the question why the UIPM was so fast-acting in announcing that they would not choose cycling as a replacement of the equestrian event. The conclusion I reached is that they did not wish to look as if they were trying to overshadow the triathlon. (Were they to enter into direct competition with the triathlon, the modern pentathlon would have been expelled then and there from the Games). But let's get back to the quest for an optimal and really modern discipline. First let us forget about fencing. It is quire respectable discipline but it is one where the result depends on the opponents and thus can never be universal. I have mixed feelings about target shooting. It could be preserved in a pentathlon only combined (biathlon-like) with the cross event but I would be equally happy with a well-balanced tetrathlon. So here is what I would like. First a real obstacle course, in the 400-500 m range with 16-20 obstacles, inspired from the military course ones, and why not (for the ninja fans), a warped wall at the end. Then a mountain-bike cross with obstacles. I have zero knowledge when it comes to biking but I am sure that what I propose already exists. An obstacle swimming course of circa 200 m length with 10 or so obstacles (perhaps even swam with fins) could be the third event. And finally a cross, a real one, over a rugged terrain over. The latter could even be disputed as a handicap race, following the Gundersen method. (In an article of mine I called the latter absurd and I keep thinking this as far as the decathlon is concerned. However in a discipline like the one that I am proposing now, and which is essentially locomotion-based, the Gundersen handicap is a possibility).
So, where do we stand with the burdensome legacy of our beloved baron? I am afraid that the IOC warning was just a token one and we'll see the pentathlon being disputed in Los Angeles and being happily celebrated ever after. My only consolation is that the new event may attract the public's interest and obstacle races may become a mainstream discipline. Time will tell.
No comments:
Post a Comment