1v1 sports
Something that has interested me lately is this:
There are only a few sports that are 1-on-1, in direct symmetrical opposition, where each competitor is on the move at all times, always subtly changing the state of the match, and where they exchange efforts until one person wins. In these games, there is a strategic interplay, where the competitors seek to thwart one another in order to achieve their mutually-sought goal.
The most obvious example is fighting: boxing, martial arts, fencing, wrestling, and others (I would also include arm wrestling, though that lacks in terms of strategy compared to these others).
The less obvious category is racquet sports: tennis, racquetball, squash, badminton - and, yes, pickleball. I also include racquet-less games like tetherball and American handball.
Tennis is boxing. Every tennis player, sooner or later, compares himself to a boxer because tennis is non-contact pugilism. It’s violent, mano a mano, and the choice is brutally simple as it is in any ring. Kill or be killed. Beat or take your beat-down.
– Andre Agassi
I’m looking and still have yet to find anything else that comes close.
As a long-time tennis player - my grandpa learned from a magazine, taught my dad, who taught me when I was five years old - I love the idea that tennis and boxing are somehow in a category of their own.
The unifying factor is more than just the arbitrary definition above. The comparison comes from the mental side of these games. These are the true gladiatorial sports, where the player is on an island. On the face if it, it is a physical contest, but without the support of a team, the mental side of these games becomes extremely important - having the mental fortitude to come back from literal or figurative blows by the opponent.
I first encountered this idea when reading my favorite player, Andre Agassi’s, autobiography, Open, and I think he describes it best:
Only boxers can understand the loneliness of tennis players - and yet boxers have their corner men and managers. Even a boxer’s opponent provides a kind of companionship, someone [they] can grapple with and grunt at. In tennis you stand face-to-face with the enemy, trade blows with [them], but never touch [them] or talk to [them], or anyone else. The rules forbid a tennis player from even talking to [their] coach while on the court. People sometimes mention the track-and-field runner as a comparably lonely figure, but I have to laugh. At least the runner can feel and smell [their] opponents. They’re inches away. In tennis you’re on an island. Of all the games men and women play, tennis is the closest to solitary confinement.
Granted, tennis players are now allowed to talk a lot more. But the idea holds true - and it is no wonder that modern tennis players talk so much about mental health.
Doubles alley (side notes)
The 1-on-1 version of many sports can also be included, but I haven’t mentioned them because basketball was not invented to be one-on-one (the 1v1 phase of knockout basketball could also be included, though it is always short-lived). Dodgeball is probably the best example, because it is completely symmetrical and players can move and throw balls at any time, although teammates are usually yelling directions at you to help.
Sports like the pitcher-hitter interplay at the core of baseball - or a soccer penalty kick - would not count, because they are not symmetrical and therefore imbalanced toward one side or the other, requiring that the competitors take turns.
Some fights have only a single exchange - think a “high-noon”-style shootout. Since there is no interplay between the competitors, this would not be included.
Arm wrestling is close, but I’m not convinced there is significant strategy involved. Thumb wrestling might be a better candidate, although the person with the longer thumb has an advantage that might trump any strategy.
A team game in this vein - which I suppose could include a 1v1 version? - that probably meets the requirement, though it, like arm wrestling, lacks in terms of required strategic thinking - is tug-of-war.
Board games like chess and go meet many of the requirements but do not have the live, ever-changing elements of fighting or racquet sports. The faster the time-limit, however, the closer it gets. Blitz chess is probably a good example of how a board game can become much more physical and alive, and I was tempted to include it.
Billiards is also close but is closer to a board game in the sense that the balls do not move in between turns. It is worth mentioning that fighting sports are purer, in this sense, than racquet sports since racquet sports have a serve, and there are split-second opportunities to think where you do not have to fear interference by the opponent. Fighting sports offer no such respite.
I would love to hear your thoughts - let me know what I am missing!
