THE PENTATHLON
The pentathlon was a combined competition in five events, running,
jumping, throwing the diskos, throwing the javelin, and wrestling. This
is one of the few facts regarding the pentathlon which may be regarded
as absolutely certain. These five events are vouched for by three
epigrams, one of them assigned to Simonides, and by the repeated
testimony of Philostratos in his _Gymnastike_.[615] Nothing proves more
conclusively the utter unreliability of the statements on athletics made
by late scholiasts and lexicographers, than the mistakes which they
contrive to make on a matter so clearly established. The lexicon of
Phavorinus, following certain late scholia, substitutes boxing for
throwing the javelin; and Photius quotes certain writers as substituting
the pankration for the jump. Stranger still, such mistakes survive in
the present day; and our own standard Greek Lexicon by Liddell and Scott
contains, in the latest edition, the appalling statement that the five
exercises were the jump, the diskos, running, wrestling, boxing, the
last being afterwards exchanged for javelin throwing. After this we are
not surprised to find quoted the antiquated theory of Böckh, that “no
one received a prize unless he was winner in all five events,” a theory
that was disproved by Philip, years before the first edition of Liddell
and Scott was published. The introduction of boxing into the pentathlon
is due to the mischievous habit of using such inaccurate expressions as
“the Homeric pentathlon.”[616] In heroic days, as Pindar tells us, there
was no pentathlon, “but for each several feat there was a prize.”[617]
[Illustration: Fig. 107. Panathenaic amphora, in British Museum, B. 134.
Sixth century.]
Of these five events, three—the jump, the diskos, and the javelin—were
peculiar to the pentathlon, and formed its characteristic feature. These
three events were regarded as typical of the whole competition; on the
Panathenaic vases given as prizes for the competition one or more of
these three events, on two vases all three of them, are represented[618]
(Figs. 107, 108). The same events are among the commonest on other
vases, especially red-figured vases; but we are not justified in
connecting these with the pentathlon, or using them as evidence in
discussing the pentathlon. These scenes for the most part represent the
daily life of the gymnasium, and all that they prove is the important
part which these sports played in that life. They were the only three
events which required any form of apparatus; the exercises seem to have
been taught in classes, and were performed both in practice and in
competition to the accompaniment of the flute. If any of the three was
regarded as more representative than another, it was the jump, which
perhaps owed its importance partly to the extensive use of halteres in
the gymnasium. The halteres were the special symbol of the pentathlon,
and were frequently represented on statues of victorious
pentathletes.[619]
[Illustration: Fig. 108. Panathenaic amphora. Leyden. Sixth century.]
These three events, together with running and wrestling, were
representative of the whole physical training of the Greeks, and the
pentathlete was the typical product of that training. Inferior to the
specialised athletes in his special events he was superior to him in
general development, in that harmonious union of strength and activity
which produces perfect physical beauty; and this beauty of the
pentathlete won him the special commendation of thinkers such as
Aristotle, who condemned all exaggerated or one-sided development.[620]
A combined competition like the pentathlon is obviously later than any
of the individual events of which it is composed, and implies a
considerable development in athletics and physical education. Not that
we are to regard it with certain German writers as an elaborate scheme
based on abstract physiological principles evolved with much expenditure
of midnight oil out of the brain of some athletic student. The
pentathlon was the natural product of a number of exercises which had
been familiar for centuries. But before the idea could originate of
combining these exercises into a single competition to find the best
all-round athlete, these exercises must have become part of the national
education. The combination implies a certain amount of thought and
conscious reflexion. There is in it an artificiality of which we find no
trace in the Homeric sports. In view of this it is remarkable that,
according to Greek tradition, the pentathlon was introduced at Olympia
as early as the 18th Olympiad.
No importance need be attached to the statement of Philostratus that the
pentathlon was invented by Jason. The Greeks always loved to trace their
institutions back to heroic times. As, however, the passage which
contains the statement is of considerable importance in discussing the
method of deciding the pentathlon, it will be useful to quote it in
full:—
“Before the time of Jason there were separate crowns for the jump, the
diskos, and the spear. At the time of the _Argo’s_ voyage Telamon was
the best at throwing the diskos, Lynceus with the javelin, the sons of
Boreas were best at running and jumping, and Peleus was second in these
events but was superior to all in wrestling. Accordingly, when they were
holding sports in Lemnos, Jason, they say, wishing to please Peleus
combined the five events, and thus Peleus secured the victory on the
whole.”[621]
The order of the events and the method of deciding the pentathlon have
given rise to a literature equally extensive and inconclusive.[622]
Almost every combination of events has been tried, and every conceivable
method has been devised. Many of the systems proposed are so utterly
unpractical that they have only to be stated to be rejected by any one
with a rudimentary knowledge of practical athletics. None can be
regarded as established. The evidence is too scanty and too
contradictory. It consists largely in extracts from scholiasts and
lexicographers, and we have seen in considering the constitution of the
pentathlon the untrustworthiness of this class of evidence. It is well,
therefore, to recognise from the outset that whatever solutions we may
accept are only provisional, and that it is therefore in the highest
degree unsafe to use such theories as evidence in the interpretation of
Pindar or other poets.
First, as to the order of events, it must be premised that we are not
certain that the order was fixed, and did not vary at different times
and places. Still, the conservatism of the Greeks in such matters
certainly makes it probable that there was a fixed order at Olympia, and
that this order was generally adopted elsewhere. At all events we shall
assume that this was so. The one fact which we know for certain about
the order is that wrestling came last. Bacchylides definitely describes
it as last, and the evidence of Bacchylides is confirmed by Herodotus
and Xenophon.[623] Describing the attack on Olympia by the Eleans in Ol.
104, when the Arcadians had usurped the presidency of the games,
Xenophon says: “They had already finished the horse-race and the events
of the pentathlon held in the dromos (τὰ δρομικὰ τοῦ πεντάθλου) and
those who had reached the wrestling were no longer in the dromos but
were wrestling between the dromos and the altar.” It is generally agreed
that τὰ δρομικά are the first four events, which were held in the
stadium, whereas according to the view set forth in a previous chapter
wrestling took place in the open space in front of the treasury
steps.[624] At all events, it is clear from Xenophon’s words that
wrestling came last, and common sense tells us that this was the only
possible position for it consistent with fairness. After several hard
bouts of wrestling no competitor could do himself justice in the other
events.
For the order of the first four events we have to fall back on the
uncertain and contradictory evidence of various passages in which the
events of the pentathlon are enumerated. Now in none of these passages
is the order of events of any importance to the writer; in the case of
an epigram it is obvious that the order is likely to be modified by
metrical considerations. Still, the probability remains that such
passages will in spite of metre and carelessness reflect more or less
the actual order.[625] Thus we find that in five passages wrestling
comes last, in two passages it comes first, and in both of these the
order of events is merely reversed, in one passage it comes second. The
epigram of Simonides gives the following order: Jump, foot-race, diskos,
javelin, wrestling. The epigram quoted by Eustathius gives the same
order except that the foot-race comes fourth instead of second. Now,
except in the epigram of Simonides, the three events peculiar to the
pentathlon are always grouped together. It is probable, therefore, that
they were grouped together in practice, and that the foot-race cannot
have occupied the second place. Why Simonides put it after the jump is
obvious, neither δρόμος nor ποδωκείν could possibly begin a hexameter.
The foot-race, therefore, came either first or fourth. Once more, if we
examine the lists we find the foot-race first in two lists, last in the
two reversed lists, while two scholia follow the epigram and place it
fourth. As the order in these scholia is identical with that of the
epigram, it is doubtful whether they have any independent authority. The
evidence, therefore, is slightly in favour of first place for the
foot-race, and this order receives some slight support from the passage
in Philostratus already quoted concerning the pentathlon of Peleus, and
the passage of Herodotus discussed below about Tisamenus and Hieronymus.
For the remaining events the lists appear to support the order of the
two epigrams—jump, diskos, javelin, though there is not much to show
whether the diskos or the javelin came first. Certain passages in
Bacchylides and Pindar have been quoted to prove that the diskos
preceded the javelin.[626] On the two Panathenaic vases reproduced
above, the javelin comes between the jump and the diskos. This is the
position assigned to it by Philostratus when he enumerates the events of
the pentathlon. Unfortunately the value of this passage is lessened by
the distinction which he introduces between light events and heavy
events. The heavy events, he says, are wrestling and throwing the
diskos; the light events, the javelin, the jump, and the foot-race. The
order is obviously reversed, but whether all three light events preceded
both heavy events or not cannot be decided from this passage. Such
distinctions give us no clue to the actual order, and all attempts to
discover the system on which the order of events depended are absolutely
futile. It is easy enough to argue that all the exercises were arranged
in an ascending scale, or that easy exercises alternated with difficult,
that similar exercises were grouped together, or that leg exercises
alternated with arm exercises, and if we were constructing an ideal
pentathlon such arguments might be of some use. As it is, we are not
concerned with an ideal pentathlon but with that of the Greeks, and
there is not a particle of evidence to prove that the Greeks arranged
their pentathlon on any abstract principle however plausible. All we can
do is to confine ourselves to the actual evidence, and the order which
this evidence renders _probable_ is foot-race, jump, diskos, javelin,
wrestling.
It is unnecessary to discuss in full the various systems that have been
suggested for deciding the pentathlon. These systems for the most part
fall into certain well-defined groups based on certain hypotheses, and
it will be sufficient briefly to examine these hypotheses.
The old hypothesis perpetuated by Liddell and Scott, that victory in all
five events[627] was necessary, may be briefly dismissed as not only
unpractical but contrary to the little evidence which we possess. On
such a system a victory in the pentathlon must have been an extremely
rare event; for it can seldom have happened that one competitor won all
five events. The idea seems to have arisen from the epigram of
Simonides, and from a misunderstanding of an important passage in
Herodotus (ix. 33), which is in reality a conclusive proof against it.
“Tisamenus,” says Herodotus, “came within a single contest or fall
(πάλαισμα) of victory, being matched against Hieronymus of Andros.”
Pausanias confirms the victory of Hieronymus (vi. 14), and says of
Tisamenus (iii. 11, 6), “In two events he was first, for he was superior
to Hieronymus in running and jumping, but he was defeated by him in
wrestling and so failed to win the victory.” The true interpretation of
the passage is obvious. “Tisamenus came within a single contest of
victory,” _i.e._ he won two events but lost the odd; or perhaps we may
go farther still and give to πάλαισμα its literal meaning, “a fall in
wrestling.” He came within a “single fall” of winning.
Each had won two events, each had scored two falls in wrestling, and the
whole contest depended on the last fall![628] just as we talk of winning
a golf match by a single putt, or winning a rubber by the odd trick.
Yet obvious as this interpretation is, Hermann and other more recent
German writers have asserted that, according to Herodotus, Tisamenus won
the first four events, and only missed the victory because he was
defeated in wrestling. It is more than doubtful whether the words of
Herodotus can bear the meaning “he missed victory by wrestling only”;
but apart from this, Hermann’s theory is absolutely contradicted by the
very circumstantial statements of Pausanias. If Tisamenus won all four
events, why should Pausanias expressly state that he won two? If victory
in all five events was necessary, how can Hieronymus have won the
pentathlon, seeing that on Hermann’s showing he only won one event? If
victory in five events was not necessary, is it not ridiculous to
suppose that a solitary victory in wrestling should have not only
cancelled the four victories of Tisamenus, but secured the prize for
Hieronymus?
The only inference which we are justified in drawing from the story of
Tisamenus is that victory in three out of the five events was
sufficient. This is expressly stated by a scholiast to Aristides, and is
implied in a highly metaphorical passage in Plutarch describing the
different points in which the letter A is superior to all the other
letters of the alphabet.[629] It has been further inferred that victory
in three events was not only sufficient but necessary. The writers who
have taken this view generally assume that with several competitors
competing against one another it would be unusual for any individual to
win three events, and various elaborate theories have been devised to
get over this difficulty. Of these theories by far the most reasonable
was that suggested by Professor Percy Gardner in the first volume of the
_Journal of Hellenic Studies_. He supposed that the pentathlon was
treated as a single event, and the competition was conducted as a
tournament, the competitors being arranged in pairs, and each pair
competing against each other in all five contests. The winner of each
pair, and therefore the final winner, must necessarily have won three
out of the five events. This plan has the conspicuous merit of fairness
and simplicity, but it is open to several serious objections. In
particular, the passage of Xenophon quoted above seems decisive against
it, for Xenophon’s words naturally mean that all the events in the
dromos took place before any of the wrestling. There are many practical
objections. The length of such a competition would have made it tedious
to spectators and competitors alike, and it must have degenerated into a
mere test of endurance, in which the elements of skill, activity, and
grace which made the pentathlon so popular would have been lost. I need
not dwell on the hopelessly unpractical modifications of this theory
proposed by Dr. Marquardt, nor on the ludicrously unfair systems
suggested by Fedde, and more recently by Legrand in Daremberg and
Saglio, the principle of which is the arrangement of all competitors in
groups of three. It will be sufficient to examine the two assumptions on
which these theories rest, viz. that in an open competition it would be
unusual for any competitor to win three events, and that victory in
three events was necessary. If these assumptions prove to be unfounded,
the _raison d’être_ of all these theories disappears at once; for they
have no merit whatsoever except that they satisfy these supposed
conditions.
In considering the first point we must remember that the pentathlete was
not a specialist in any one exercise, but an all-round athlete who
combined strength and activity. Among competitors of this sort it is not
unusual to find one or two men surpassing their fellows not in one event
but in several, especially if most of the events require much the same
qualities and physique. This was undoubtedly the case with the
pentathlon. It is obvious that the same man might often win the
foot-race and the long jump, or the diskos and the spear. Though less
obvious it is equally probable that the diskos and the long jump might
fall to the same man. It is not uncommon to find a hammer-thrower who is
also a good long-jumper. The reason is that weight-throwing and jumping
both require a harmonious well-timed effort of every part of the body.
The use of jumping weights increased the resemblance between the two
exercises; for the swing of the weights was not unlike the swing of the
diskos. The general development and complete control of the muscles
necessary for these events would give an equal advantage in wrestling,
especially with men of the same weight, for the heavy-weight wrestler
would be excluded by the very nature of the pentathlon. These
considerations make it probable that the five events would commonly be
divided between two or at most three competitors, and the few details
which we know of actual winners confirms this view. Phayllus of Croton
must have won the jump, the diskos, and the foot-race, for he won the
stade-race at Delphi. Hieronymus won the diskos, spear, and wrestling.
So apparently did Automedes of Phlius.[630] Diophon, the subject of
Simonides’ epigram, apparently won all five events. The only example to
the contrary is the mythical pentathlon of Peleus, in which none of the
heroes won more than one event.
The pentathlon of Peleus is fatal to the second assumption that victory
in three events was necessary. We must either reject the evidence of the
story, or abandon the assumption. And inasmuch as there is absolutely no
proof of the assumption, the latter is the only course. The principal
evidence on which the assumption is based has already been stated. The
utmost that we can infer is that victory in three events was sufficient,
and was by no means an unfamiliar result. We may further add the
statement of Pollux that the term used for victory in the pentathlon was
ἀποτριάξαι, “to win a treble,” a statement confirmed by a quite
unintelligible scholion on the Agamemnon. The word τριάσσειν is properly
a wrestling term, meaning “to win three falls,” “to win in wrestling,”
and so generally “to win a victory” or “conquer.” The cognate words
τριάκτηρ and ἀτρίακτος mean no more than “conqueror,” “unconquered.”
There is no evidence of the connexion of the word in early times with
the pentathlon; but the fact that wrestling was the last event in the
pentathlon is itself sufficient explanation of the late use of the word
ἀποτριίξαι to denote victory in the pentathlon, especially if, as was
frequently the case, the final victory was decided by the wrestling. It
is, of course, possible that the word contained some allusion to a
victory in three events, but this supposition is unproved and
unnecessary, and certainly does not warrant the assumption that victory
in three events was necessary.[631] Such being the case we may reject
all theories based upon this assumption. Above all, there is no longer
any necessity for dividing competitors into heats of two or three.
A common feature in the systems proposed is the gradual reduction of the
number of competitors at each stage of the competition, so that in the
final wrestling only two or three competitors were left. The only
evidence for the theory in this form is the rhetorical passage in
Plutarch already noticed—evidence as untrustworthy as it is possible to
conceive. There is, however, more evidence for a modified form of the
theory, viz. that only those who had qualified in the first four
competitions were allowed to compete in the wrestling. This appears to
me now the only possible conclusion from the words of Xenophon already
quoted:[632] “The events in the dromos were already finished, and _those
who had reached the wrestling_ were no longer in the dromos, etc.” Such
a system would give an advantage to the all-round athlete, and exclude
the specialised wrestler. But what constituted qualification? It
certainly was not confined to the winners in the first four events,
otherwise Peleus would have been excluded; nor does it seem to me
probable that only the two or three who had obtained the best averages
in the first four competitions were permitted to wrestle. Speculation is
useless; we must be content for the present to accept Xenophon’s words,
and hope that some inscription or papyrus may be discovered to enlighten
us.
Much has been written by archaeologists about the bye (ἔφεδρος) in the
pentathlon. It is not a little curious that there is absolutely no
evidence for a bye in the pentathlon at all. We hear of a bye in
wrestling, in boxing, and in the pankration, but in no other
competitions. Of course, if all competitors competed in wrestling a bye
was unavoidable. But a bye necessarily introduces an element of luck,
especially in a long competition, and we may be sure that the Greeks
avoided it as far as possible. If only a certain number of competitors
were admitted to the wrestling, the necessity for a bye could be easily
avoided. German archaeologists, with a strange perverseness, seem to
delight in introducing compulsory byes at every turn.
So far, then, we have established the principle that _victory in three
events was sufficient_ but not necessary. If no competitor won three
events, or two won two events, how was the victory decided? The
pentathlon of Peleus supplies the answer. Each of the heroes won one
event. Peleus, besides winning the wrestling, was second in the other
four events. Only two explanations of the victory of Peleus are
possible. Either wrestling counted more than other events, an assumption
adopted by various writers, but contrary to the whole spirit of the
pentathlon, or _in case of a tie at least, account was taken of second
or third places_, _i.e._ the result was decided by marks. These two
principles, that the result was decided in the first place by victories
in the separate events, and in the case of a tie by some system of
marks, are sufficient to explain all possible cases, though the details
of their application are uncertain. Let us try to see how the
competition would work out on these lines.
The pentathlon began with the foot-race. The distance was a stade. The
race might be run in heats if necessary; but there is no evidence for
them in the pentathlon. The starting lines at Olympia could accommodate
twenty starters, and it does not seem probable that there were often so
many entries. The competitions in jumping, throwing the diskos and the
javelin, were conducted as in the present day, all competing against
all. The jump was a long jump; the diskos and the javelin were thrown
for distance, not at a mark. Wrestling was conducted on the tournament
principle. “Upright wrestling” only was allowed, and three falls were
required for victory. Only those who had qualified in the first four
events took part in the wrestling. If there were only two competitors,
one of them must have won three events. Suppose there were more, at
least five, A, B, C, D, E; there is no evidence that it was possible to
win the pentathlon without being first in at least one event, and,
therefore, what holds good of five will hold good of any smaller or
larger number. There are only four possible cases.
(1) A 3, B 2, or B 1, C 1.—A wins by the first principle.
(2) A 2, B 2, C 1.—The victory would depend on the result of the fifth
event which C won. If this event were wrestling, it would be reasonable
to suppose that other competitors would drop out, and A and B would be
matched together. If the event won by C was one of the earlier events,
the issue must have been decided by the performances of A and B in that
event, or perhaps by marks, _i.e._ by their performances in all the
events.
(3) A 2, B 1, C 1, D 1.—This is a very doubtful case: the victory might
be awarded to A as having won more firsts than any of the others, or it
might be decided by marks.
(4) A 1, B 1, C 1, D 1, E 1.—In this highly improbable case victory can
only have been decided by marks.
Complications may have been introduced by dead heats or ties: all such
cases would, no doubt, have been settled by the same common-sense
principles. This scheme, which I stated more fully in vol. xxiii. of the
_Journal of Hellenic Studies_, is not affected by the modification which
I have since adopted about admission to the wrestling. It is in entire
accordance with modern athletic experience, and there is no passage in
any ancient author which contradicts it.
Footnote 615:
Epigram of Simonides on Diophon—
Ἴσθμια καὶ Πυθοῖ Διοφῶν ὁ Φίλωνος ἐνίκα
ἅλμα, ποδωκείην, δίσκον, ἄκοντα, πάλην.
Epigram quoted by Eustathius, _Il._ Ψ 621, p. 1320—
ἅλμα ποδῶν δίσκου τε βολὴ καὶ ἄκοντος ἐρωὴ
καὶ δρόμος ἤδε πάλη· μία δ’ ἔπλετο πᾶσι τελευτή.
cp. Epigram of Lucilius, _Anth. Pal._ xi. 84; Philostratus, _Gym._ 3,
11, 31, 55; Artemidorus, _Oneir._ i. 55; and numerous scholia.
Footnote 616:
_E.g._ of the games at the court of Alcinous. No argument can be based
on the accidental occurrence on vases of boxing together with some of
the events of the pentathlon, _e.g._ Fig. 150.
Footnote 617:
_Isthm._ i. 26.
Footnote 618:
Three events, _B.M._ B. 134. _Arch. Zeit._, 1881, ix.; diskos and
javelin, _B.M._ B. 142, _Mus. Greg._ xliii. 2 b; jump and javelin,
_Munich_, 656; diskos, _B.M._ B. 136, 602, etc.; javelin, _B.M._ 605,
etc.
Footnote 619:
_J.H.S._ xxiii. p. 60.
Footnote 620:
Aristot. _Rhet._ i. 5; cp. Plato, _Amatores_ 135 D, E.
Footnote 621:
Phil. _Gym._ 3.
Footnote 622:
To the works enumerated by me in _J.H.S._ xxiii. pp. 55 ff., I may add
K. E. Heinrich, _Über das Pentathlon d. Gr._, Würzburg, 1892; C. A. M.
Fennell in _Pindar: Isthm. and Nem. Odes_, 1883; Ph. E. Legrand in
Dar.-Sagl. _s.c._ “Quinquertium,” 1907.
Footnote 623:
Bacch. ix. 30-36 τελευταίας ἀμάρυγμα πάλας; Hdt. ix. 33; Xen.
_Hellen._ vii. 4. 29.
Footnote 624:
_Vide_ p. 120.
Footnote 625:
The following are the orders given in the various lists:—
1. Simonides jump, race, diskos, javelin,
wrestling.
2. Epigram quoted by jump, diskos, javelin, race,
Eustathius wrestling.
3. Schol. Pind. _Isthm._ i. 26
4. Schol. Soph. _El._ 631
5. Artemidorus, _Oneirocrit._ race, diskos, jump, javelin,
i. 55 wrestling.
6. Schol. Plato, _Amat._ 135 E race, diskos, jump, javelin,
wrestling.
(reversed)
7. Phil. _Gym._ 3 (reversed) race, jump, javelin, diskos,
wrestling.
8. Schol. Aristid. _Pan._ p. race, wrestling, diskos,
112 javelin, jump.
9. Epigram _Anth. Pal._ xi. 84 wrestling, race, diskos, jump,
javelin.
In 6 and 7 the order of the text is obviously reversed, and I have
therefore reversed again. No. 9 is of very little value and may be
disregarded.
Footnote 626:
Bacch. ix. 30-36; Pind. _Nem._ v. 72; _Isthm._ ii. 30. Little value
can be attached to these passages or to the vases.
Footnote 627:
The system adopted by Böckh, Hermann and Dissen.
Footnote 628:
This interpretation is, I am glad to find, adopted by Dr. Jüthner in
his recent edition of Philostratus.
Footnote 629:
Schol. Aristid. _Pan._ p. 112 οὐκ ὅτι πάντως οἱ πένταθλοι πάντα
νικῶσιν· ἀρκεῖ γὰρ αὑτοῖς γ’ τῶν έ πρὸς νίκην. Plut. _Symp._ ix. 2 διὸ
τοῖς τρισὶν ὥσπερ οἱ πένταθλοι περίεστι καὶ νικᾷ.
Footnote 630:
Bacchylides, _l.c._
Footnote 631:
For a fuller treatment of this point _vide_ _J.H.S._ xxiii. p. 63, and
Jüthner, _Philostratus_, p. 207. The passage quoted by me from
Philostratus on p. 65 n. 47, γυμνάζεταί τι τῶν τριῶν, appears to be
corrupt and cannot be used as evidence for speaking of τριαγμός as
applied to the three events of the pentathlon which secured victory,
or the three events peculiar to the pentathlon, and Jüthner seems to
me correct in his criticism that this use of the word is “mehr als
unsicher.”
Footnote 632:
In _J.H.S._ xxiii. p. 65 I was mistaken in rejecting this conclusion.
I cannot, however, accept as proved either Holwerda’s or Heinrich’s
application of it. Holwerda in particular, like many of the Germans,
attaches an altogether undue importance to wrestling, which was
certainly not the most important of the five events.