Betting on identity

Font Size

Print

Feedback

Email

Discuss

: How do we rank sports if we ever want to? Is such a ranking feasible in the first place? If it is, how do we prioritise our sporting investment post Beijing 2008? Should it be done based on what is attractive and pleases the eye or should it be done to ensure we win more medals on the Olympic stage in London 2012? Also, should we base our choice on conventional wisdom or should be move a tad away from the ordinary and look at sport with a difference? To put it bluntly, should we simply assume that synchronised swimming is visually more appealing compared to boxing and hence deserves to be focussed upon?

Without a shade of doubt the two disciplines that India should focus on post Beijing 2008 are boxing and wrestling. Not only is boxing an extremely telegenic or tele-friendly sport it is also a mass-spectator sport. All it requires is a ring, some tiered seating for spectators and some very basic equipment. Every Indian district and sub-urban town can afford to have the above with a semblance of government support. With a format that is short and intense, media support, which is of singular importance in this day and age should be forthcoming following our success at Beijing. And if that happens, chances are India will win many more medals come London 2012. Also, in terms of their attractive index, boxers have far more appeal across the world compared to synchronised swimmers. While half the world worships boxing legends like Muhammed Ali or a Sugar Ray Leonard, Olympic champions in synchronised swimming have faded into oblivion soon after the Games are over. While not equating professional boxing with its amateur counterpart, it must be acknowledged that for masses of Indians, it is far easier to associate with a boxing ring than with a sophisticated, musically programmed swimming spectacle.