View Article

« Back

Post Date: Monday, May 2, 2016

Croquet Should Be in the Olympics Now. Period.
First off, anyone that wants to debate the merit of croquet as a sport can turn around and walk right back out the door right now. Okay, now that we've cleared out the deadwood, let's roll. Mallethead doesn't see how you can count the one-year entry of croquet in the Olympics in 1900 (before switching to roque for the 1904 event) as a valid attempt to evaluate the sport before giving it the boot. Consider this excerpt from Wikipedia:* After the success of the 1896 Games, the Olympics entered a period of stagnation that threatened their survival. The Olympic Games held at the Paris Exposition in 1900 and the World's Fair at St. Louis in 1904 were side-shows. The Games at Paris did not have a stadium, however this was the first time women took part in the games. The St. Louis Games hosted 650 athletes, but 580 were from the United States. As the Croquet Association became more established in Great Britain throughout the last century, it seems like if the event could have stuck around until 1920 or so that Olympic history would have been quite different for croquet. In a just world, and based on the short shrift the sport received, the IOC would give croquet an exhibition for London 2012. It is the world capital for the sport -- why not take advantage of the opportunity? Not to mention that it would be a nice little nod to the history of the games. Nonsense you say? What about the question of popularity and "televisablity?" While the sport certainly has struggled to catch on, at least in America, virtually everyone has played croquet. So, most people actually are very familiar with the sport. They get the principle -- hit balls through wickets, go to the stake and win. With the advances in sports broadcasting, I think you can quickly get spectators up to speed on the sport -- especially golf croquet.** Compare that to curling which oddly captivated the world last winter, yet few have ever played the sport (to be honest, Mallethead has never even played shuffleboard -- bocce, yes). To be clear, the purpose here is not to denigrate any of the current sports. The idea is to simply compare to demonstrate that croquet does fit. And I think curling is a great example as it had a "tactical" element, that I know 90% of viewers could not comprehend. And that is, of course, one of the objections to croquet -- non-players can't comprehend what is happening. True, but as stated before, that didn't seem to factor in for curling, but to assuage that fear, I do think golf croquet is the starting point. At least from a spectator standpoint, it makes more sense. And what about this when making the case for croquet? Not only is it a sport that virtually everyone has played, it's also a sport that everyone can play. It's difficult to name many true sports that are more gender and age equal than croquet. Sure it's great to watch young people in their physical prime perform athletic marvels, but there is also something to be said for presenting a sp

Croquet Should Be in the Olympics Now. Period.

By: Mallethead
Article reprinted with permission from CroquetNetwork.com.

First off, anyone that wants to debate the merit of croquet as a sport can turn around and walk right back out the door right now.

Okay, now that we've cleared out the deadwood, let's roll. Mallethead doesn't see how you can count the one-year entry of croquet in the Olympics in 1900 (before switching to roque for the 1904 event) as a valid attempt to evaluate the sport before giving it the boot. Consider this excerpt from Wikipedia:*

After the success of the 1896 Games, the Olympics entered a period of stagnation that threatened their survival. The Olympic Games held at the Paris Exposition in 1900 and the World's Fair at St. Louis in 1904 were side-shows. The Games at Paris did not have a stadium, however this was the first time women took part in the games. The St. Louis Games hosted 650 athletes, but 580 were from the United States.

As the Croquet Association became more established in Great Britain throughout the last century, it seems like if the event could have stuck around until 1920 or so that Olympic history would have been quite different for croquet. In a just world, and based on the short shrift the sport received, the IOC would give croquet an exhibition for London 2012. It is the world capital for the sport -- why not take advantage of the opportunity? Not to mention that it would be a nice little nod to the history of the games.

Nonsense you say? What about the question of popularity and "televisablity?" While the sport certainly has struggled to catch on, at least in America, virtually everyone has played croquet. So, most people actually are very familiar with the sport. They get the principle -- hit balls through wickets, go to the stake and win. With the advances in sports broadcasting, I think you can quickly get spectators up to speed on the sport -- especially golf croquet.**

Compare that to curling which oddly captivated the world last winter, yet few have ever played the sport (to be honest, Mallethead has never even played shuffleboard -- bocce, yes). To be clear, the purpose here is not to denigrate any of the current sports. The idea is to simply compare to demonstrate that croquet does fit. And I think curling is a great example as it had a "tactical" element, that I know 90% of viewers could not comprehend.

And that is, of course, one of the objections to croquet -- non-players can't comprehend what is happening. True, but as stated before, that didn't seem to factor in for curling, but to assuage that fear, I do think golf croquet is the starting point. At least from a spectator standpoint, it makes more sense.

And what about this when making the case for croquet? Not only is it a sport that virtually everyone has played, it's also a sport that everyone can play. It's difficult to name many true sports that are more gender and age equal than croquet. Sure it's great to watch young people in their physical prime perform athletic marvels, but there is also something to be said for presenting a sport that a television spectator can look at and say, "hey, I can do that."***

In fact, isn't that part of the implied mission of the games? Isn't there some sort of aim here to get people to be active? I know here in the U.S. (yes, Mallethead is American) health and weight are a legitimate national issue. We've got to do something to get these disgusting fat bodies off the couch before they crush the entire health care system.

To stretch that out a bit further, I think the gender equality of croquet opens up a series of questions. Let me put it this way. Coudn't you make a case that the IOC should be begging to get croquet into the Olympics for this reason alone? There is a lot of lip service paid to the idea of giving women opportunities in sport. Yet the world's most important organization for sport cannot recognize the unique opportunity that croquet offers. Jenny Clarke is real person and she was really on the New Zealand MacRobertson Shield team that came one match away from taking the World Championship. Interestingly enough, not even a whiff of interest from the overall sports media on that one.

To digress just a bit, I often wonder if the issue of gender equality isn't one of the main reasons that croquet has struggled to gain popularity. In general, people are naturally pre-disposed to games and sports if they can win. So, they gravitate toward sports that give them a natural advantage. It's human nature. Once you step on a croquet court (or even in backyard play), there's a definite subliminal understanding that there are no natural physical advantages to exploit. It's a naked feeling when you're just starting out. Somewhere deep in the mind of the male ego, you know that anyone can beat you -- an 80-year old, a 12-year old, a female.

Is sexism really dead? Are there men still around that can't accept the possibility of losing to a female? And is the somewhat "feminine" sounding name of the sport a subtle reminder that men cannot "own" this sport? Let me put it this way. I often refer to croquet as the most hated sport in the world. Could that passionate dislike be rooted in sexism? It's a thought, but ultimately, impossible to prove.

The IOC point would be that the Olympics has been the greatest proponent/driver of progress for women in sport. Indeed, that would be the case, but no matter what, segregating many of the events subtly underlines the point that women are not able to compete equally with men. How can the IOC ignore a physical sport of strategy and skill that could literally see a female world champion at any time?

Sidebar: Again, considering the national health crisis, Title IX in the U.S. should be re-worked to reward schools that establish gender-equal sports like croquet.

What about the cap the IOC has introduced on new sports? Croquet is a legacy Olympic sport, so in my opinion, it gets a pass. What about having only 30 national associations? Most of the big ones are in. Start it up and you'll see many more fall in line. At a minimum, grant entry for the World Games.

*Credible source? In today's society, why not?

**I would envision golf croquet coming in first with association being added later. One week of play for each event. Of course, 5,000 players in Denmark might make a case for their version which looks quite a bit like American nine-wicket.

***I seem to remember Tom Watson chasing some golf tournament title recently that seemed to capture everyone's attention. Because croquet does skew older demographically, there seems to be an assumption that it would be harder to "sell" the top players of the game. Besides the fact that croquet does indeed have a growing number of young stars, the baby boomer generation is a dominant demographic. Perhaps a sport that can see champions in their age range is a strength.

Article originally appeared on CroquetNetwork.com. Reprinted with permission. Additional Mallethead stories can be found here: http://croquetnetwork.squarespace.com/croquet-network-home/author/mallethead.