WOMEN'S DECATHLON

By Dr
.Ji t
kaVi ndušková,CSc. ,DepartmentofAt hlet
ics,Facul
tyofPhysi
cal
Education and Sport, Charles University, Prague

The structure of women's combined events has given rise to frequent discussion and,
so far, frequent changes in this structure. From various types of pentathlon, progress
was eventually made to a heptathlon, which was established in 1981. Even back then
more fundamental changes in women's combined events were discussed, but a
conversion to a decathlon was not considered, as, at the time only, men did the pole
vault. A realistic chance for the introduction of the decathlon emerged when the pole
vault was included in the official Olympic programme (in 2000). In 1995, at a
congress in Valladolid, opinions were voiced calling for a change to upgrade the
heptathlon to a decathlon. Ilse Bechthold (1995) referred to a change in the social
climate, and broad knowledge of medicine, psychology, and sports training, and
vehemently supported the idea of introducing the women's decathlon. Helmar
Hommel (1995) also assessed development in women's combined events and
considered the introduction of the decathlon to be a logical result of this evolution. He
gave a list of pros and cons.

CONS

 higher physiological and mental strain

 young athletes tend to lose interest in combined events because the volume of
training is too high

 the introduction of the decathlon would lead to a major change in the structure
of performance

 decathletes would have to be much more versatile than current heptathletes

PROS

 interest would increase as the decathlon would contain a very interesting

discipline –the pole vault

 no significant change would take place as the only new discipline would be the
pole vault
  pressure would be placed on equipping stadiums with pole vaulting facilities,
which would have a favorable impact on development in the pole vault.

I agree with Geese (2000), that the performances showed by women and their
readiness to perform in the past were often underrated. He states that from the point
of view of medicine, there is no argument indicating a real threat of overburden
during the decathlon. He also lobbies for higher women's hurdles, which are too low
for today's athletes. He also suggests that the tenth discipline for the women's
combined event should be 1,000m run.

A frequent argument against the introduction of the women's decathlon is the

organizational aspect –the necessity to cope with a men's and women's competition.
In the effort to comply with these arguments, the IAAF Women's Committee
proposed the following structure of the women's decathlon:

 Day One: 100m, DT, PV, Javelin, 400m

 Day Two: 100mH, LJ, SP, HJ, 1500m,

but this met with a wave of opposition from advocates of the 'traditional decathlon'.

The IAAF set up a working team, which recommended the following schedule for
introducing the women's decathlon into the Olympic Games.

 2001 The IAAF Congress in Edmonton approved the inclusion of the

decathlon in the official programme of events

 2002 Decathlon events at local, national, and international level

 31 December 2003 announcement of the first world record

o a condition here is that the minimum points limit is reached:

 (8000 pts –women, 7500 pts –juniors)

 2005 Under-17s World Championship

 o Junior European Championship (under 23)

o European Cup

 2006 Junior World Championship

o European Championship

 2008 Olympic Games

o This recommendation will be discussed.

Austrian pole-vaulter Marion Obermayer is looking forward to the time her beloved
pole vault will be included in a combined event. Maren Freisen, a student from
Cologne, is not daunted by the decathlon either. She has already tried the long jump
on a non-competitive basis, and she is looking forward to the discus and even the
1,500 m. Her only concern is that because of her participation in the decathlon she
will not be able to focus on starting in the individual disciplines themselves.

It seems that at this general meeting a negative attitude to the women's decathlon
prevails. Our best decathletes have clearly said they are against it. But I believe their
arguments are weak, because if we were to follow them through to their
consequences, systematic training in many other disciplines would also fall by the
wayside (throws, middle- and long-distance running, etc.).

I do not agree with the tenet that the current form of the women's decathlon is
sufficient. The lack of a short sprint and a real middle-distance run is a huge
handicap. The disciplines which are not in the combined event have a limited
opportunity to be picked up for the special training for general combined-event
training.

The argument that the introduction of the women's decathlon would weaken
spectator interest in athletics is unfair because this interest is waning anyway, even
without the women's decathlon.
The statement that emancipation efforts are to be supported, but only within certain
limits, is also hardly a correct attitude to take.

I support the idea of introducing the women's decathlon for the following reasons:

 The structure of the decathlon is peerlessly harmonious: three sprints, three

jumps, three throws, and the 1,500m

 Decathlon training offers equal conditions for subsequent development in all

disciplines

 Decathlon training in junior categories can be diverse and emotionally

attractive

 Because we do not view decathlon training as preparation for ten individual

disciplines, the total volume of training is the same as for any other discipline

 Regarding the current trends, I do not think that the expansion of the
heptathlon to the decathlon would be reflected in a major increase in the
weight of combined-event athletes

Literature:

BECHTOLD, I. Development of women's events within the athletics programme and

the future of combined events. 10, NSA ,1995,č.
2,s.
7-8

HOMMEL, H. New horizons for the men and women's decathlon.10,NSA,1995,č

.2,
s.90-92

GEESE, R. Decathlon for women. 15, 2000,č.

2,s.37-40

WALKER, E. Letzte Bastion der Manner soll fallen. Leichtahletik,2002,č.

2.s.
4-5