Three Words I’d Add to the Olympic Motto
‘Faster, Higher, Stronger — Together’ needs something more
Most of us would be familiar with the first three words of the Olympic motto — ‘Faster, Higher, Stronger’. The ‘Together’ was added in 2021 after a discussion between the members of the International Olympic Committee. They agreed to add the extra word, after an ‘en’ dash, to reflect inclusion in its widest sense.
“Solidarity fuels our mission to make the world a better place through sport. We can only go faster, we can only aim higher, we can only become stronger by standing together — in solidarity.”
— The words of IOC President Thomas Bach.
The Olympic Games is the world’s most inclusive sporting event with representatives from 204 (of the 206 National Olympic Committees eligible to enter teams) countries, competing in 32 sports, some with several distinct disciplines — for example, equestrian dressage, eventing, show jumping.
Added to the national teams are athletes entering under the title of Individual Neutral Athletes (ie those from Russia and Belarus. These countries not having been invited to the Olympics because of their political issues relating to Ukraine) and a Refugee Olympic Team essentially representing those victims of migrant crises, particularly in Europe.
I don’t think anyone could have an issue with the addition of that extra word to the games’ motto — there’s a case for saying it should have been there a long time ago.
This year, as in many previous Olympic years, there have been questions over the sports for which some 10,700 plus athletes are competing.
It’s easy to understand that the original motto has changed in its meaning to be interpreted as sports having scores that can be counted, measured or timed — most of which are refereed or umpired to ensure the rules are adhered to.
But what of those sports that depend wholly on judgements of their execution by onlookers?
For example all the gymnastic disciplines plus diving, artistic swimming, equestrian dressage, skateboarding, surfing and others.
Each of these sports depends completely on judgements by, admittedly expert, onlookers as to the quality of their execution — nothing timed, measured or counted.
I’m sure I don’t need to expand, too much, on the problems with pure judgement. Though take just diving as an example. A panel of judges look at various aspects of a dive into a pool from given heights. Different dives are allocated degrees of difficulty which are taken into account by the adjudicators.
The judges do not have the luxury of video recordings to look at, let alone slow-motion replays. So what if a judge is distracted in some way at a crucial moment? Or their view is somehow interrupted? How can they be vetted against bias one way or another — witting or unwitting? There is also an issue related to bribery or other external pressures (I’m not suggesting this does happen, just that it might).
I seem to remember a diver some few Olympics ago hitting his head on the diving board whilst executing his dive — a basic error at any level of the sport. Yet this athlete went on to be awarded a medal (it might even have been gold), based on a panel of judges’ marks — How?
This year we have — added to the more traditional sports — BMX cycling, skateboarding and something called ‘break’. I confess I had to look this one up as I’d never heard it before. It would appear to be some sort of gymnastic dancing, involving spinning, jumping, pirouetting and other athletic physical movements on a stage.
BMX racing, as the name suggests, depends on a cyclist pedalling fast enough to beat other competitors over a given distance and course — which is quite intimidating! Other BMX events are adjudicated purely on style and execution of named ‘tricks’.
Now, I’ll admit I have no idea what the criteria for judgement of any of these sports are. I’m willing to gamble that very few others are, either.
The important thing is that nothing in these events can be counted, measured or timed as criteria for success over and above any other competitor.
There is no doubting the skill, athleticism, grace and strength of each of these competitors — all are outstanding at what they do — but how can one be judged to be better than another without being able to measure their performances?
Many years ago it was a winter Olympic event that brought this to my attention.
It was a ski jumping event where one competitor landed his jump some metres further than another. Yet it was the other ‘jumper’ who was awarded the gold medal.
Apparently, the winner had displayed a better ‘jumping style’ than the athlete who placed second. In other words, the ‘jump-style’ marks added to the jump distance overtook the combined marks awarded to the longer jumper.
Surely the better ‘jump style’ is the one that results in the longer jump!
Here, then, is an example of the Olympic motto having no meaning — further (in this case) did not mean better, as perhaps, it should.
Some have claimed that these ‘judged’ sports are nothing more than ‘circus’. I wouldn’t go so far as to belittle them in this way — I wouldn’t belittle them at all, they are nothing short of spectacular in their execution, and the Olympics would be poorer for their removal.
What then could be done to avoid such criticism?
Simple — Don’t change the criteria for Olympic event inclusion, change the Olympic motto so that it includes these events. It’s been changed once, it can be changed again.
‘Faster, Higher, Stronger, Further, Graceful, Elegant, Stylish — Together’
A bit much, perhaps?
Does it really matter?
