What sports should be in the Olympics?

Ben Strong writes:

The Olympic Games should be the pinnacle of the sport. This is in two ways. Winning an Olympic gold medal should be the absolute pinnacle of that sport, and in the spirit of its amateur traditions, sports that are professional behemoths shouldn’t really be involved.

That’s why the axe should swing firmly in the direction of the massive team and professional sports.

Football is the world’s largest team sport and the pinnacle is to win the World Cup, followed by the likes of the Champions League in the club game. In the men’s Olympic tournament, it’s basically acknowledged that there’s a problem by making a bizarre rule that players must be under the age of 23.

I totally agree. Would you rather win Wimbledon or get an Olympic medal in Tennis? It is Wimbledon. Same with golf, football etc. If winning an Olympic gold isn’t the most sought after achievement in the sport, then it shouldn’t be an Olympic sport.

The best thing about the majority of Olympic sports is their simplicity.

Who is the fastest runner in the world? Who is the highest, or the longest, jumper in the world? Who is able to lift the biggest weight? Who can throw a spear, or a rock the furthest? Who can climb this wall the fastest?

Simple, right?

So why do we have a massive number of swimming events, half of which are dedicated to ways for people to swim slower than they might another way?

Does athletics also include backwards running, or a skipping race, or the wrong armed shot put, or the underarm javelin?

The swimming is great, but it should simplify and only include various distances and team events, not prescribed strokes for each event.

The medley could be an outlier, where one athlete has to master four different swimming strokes.

That is a fair point also.