HI-TECH SPORTS : TECHNOLOGICAL REVOLUTION IN SPORTS

“Those who fall in love with practice without science are like a sailor who can never be certain whither he is going.”
- Leonardo da Vinci

Zola Budd was born in South Africa. A quarter of a century ago, she was a teenage runner-breaking the women’s 5000 m record by 10 seconds, but the speciality was that she did it in bare foot ! At the prime of her fame, she was brought to Britain and sent to compete in 1986 Los Angeles Olympics through a hasty subjugation of citizenship. Her immediate rival was the American bionde, Mary Decker, challenging her at the women’s 3000 m. They came head-to-head and when there was three more laps to go, Decker staggered from her line and collided with Budd.

She fell from the track and was unable to continue but the real damage was for Budd who as inflicted by a spike wound from Decker’s shoe. Tears streamed from Budd’s face as she struggled to continue with the gripping pain in her tendons, fading badly at the end and finishing seventh. Sadly it was too disappointing amidst the boos and catcalls from the American crowd. However, what would have been Zola Budd’s Future if she were wearing any kind of running shoe? This is not exaggeration, surely on the other side is the Kenyan Athlet Tegla Loroupe who was unable to afford her first pair of shoes until winning a cross-country race in 1986. Apart from this context atleast, the triumph of technology is total and inevitable in the emerging field of sports.


Sports Today


The myth about the ancient athlets of Greece says they competed naked across the turf of Olympian playgrounds. Though there is a lot of scholarly discontent over this, modern sports has come a long way since the true representations of these splendid physiques. What we have today is a ‘wrought-sports’ shapened by two major forces: overt professionalisation and commercial advertisement. Both has made it tremendously transcending-a warehouse of technological marvels and the brooding ground of multi-billionaire business. The revolution really took off in the 19th century. Greater wealth brought by the industrialisation when coupled with a passion for fresh market lead to a torrent of sporting gears for fresh market lead to a torrent of sporting gears. It may be surprising to see that lace-up croquet shoes with rubber soles and canvas uppers went on sale in the 1860s. Thanks to the discovery of vulcanisation, the process of curing rubber by the addition of sulphur. It was feet that lead the way to the performance enhancing gadgets-studded football boots, spiked running shoes and heel-less cycling shoes. Next came the protective wear, principally applying to sports where there is a serious chance for physical injury. Cricketers were the better pampered with leg-guards and donning gloves. All these began, albeit slowly in 1940’s spanning to 1970s but better falling to the first generation of enhancements.


Today, time and action in track and field are better than the immediate past which even went down towards the redefining of sports. In the “brave new world” that evolved victory became more important than performance making sports more dramatic and statistically superior, year on year. Technology has improved almost everything in sports, from training to recovery and diet to clothing. There can hardly be a muscle group that is not targeted by a sports machinery that is designed to enhance bone density and ligament tensions. There are even machines that can replicate human opposition:- “bowling apparatus” for cricketers and ball-launching assemblies for baseball players. However, among all these second generation improvements, the basic principles remain the same deployed vexatiously under the traditional umbrella of sports, science. Biomechanics has turned out to be a specialist area with the advent of ‘motion analysis’ tools that is assisted by sophisticated computer programs. More alarming is the fact that technology-driven sports revolution is only just beginning. Gene doping and genetic engineering are on the way, raising-competition into unimaginable realms. Sadly, we are pouring scorn to the lines “play up ! play up ! and play the game!”


Science in the Game

During the first test of the Australia and England Ashes series in 1979-1980, Australia’s fast bowler Dennis Lillee came to the wicket carrying a “brand-new” shining bat. When he drove the ball from England Paceman Ian Botham, everybody heard an odd sound-a big clang ! It was a blow sure enough to warrant a four but Lillee could run only three runs. Australia’s captain Greg Chappell was sitting in the pavilion and blaming the bat for the short fall, he sent a new bat to Lillee for replacement. England captain Mike Brearly was complaining to the umpires that Lillee’s pinging bat was damaging the ball. Lillee, however refused to obey even his captain’s instructions and the game had to stop for a good 10 minutes while, leading to the examination of Lillee’s bat. It was an invention of himself, forged out of Aluminium ! Lillee was ordered to complete his innings with a conventional wooden bat. Shortly after this, metal bats were outlawed through an amendment in the laws of cricket. Rather than amusement, this raises a question: who should be playing the game, science or conventional laws?


If we look into the past history of the evolution of sports and sports-gear we can see that the same question remains unbaffled. From time immemorial, human beings have been manipulating the implements used in ball games. The Aztecs invented the rubber ball while the Australian aborigines had their own version called dumbung. Until about thousand years ago, the basic equipments for all the ball games remained the same, before the early precursors of golf, cricket, hockey and tennis. Discrete wear for specific sports came only by the time of Henry VIII. Strangely, the earliest reference to a cricket bat is from 1624, when a fielder trying to catch the ball being clout, to him died because the bat was made up of iron ! Similarly, by late 19th century, tennis rackets were made from Ash wood carefully steamed and bent into a round shape. The racket strings were fashioned from sheep’s gut which was replaced by cow’s gut after the Second World War, as they were found cheaper. There were not worldwide regulations governing the size and construction of tennis rackets upto 1979 and many technological innovations were experimented with several woods and alternatives.


Technology’s impact on modern tennis game was mainly used to extend the power of shots. Metal rackets were in widespread use by the 1970s which employed varieties of aluminium and steel. However top-range-players favoured a composite frame in which graphite was combined with a number of materials including ceramics, boron and Kevlar. The real advantage of the modern graphite racket was its greater stiffness, rather than lightness because it distorted little as it made contact with the ball. The latest technology includes the incorporation of piezoelectric crystals into rackets. They were incorporated into the frame which produce electricity under stress. The current generated by the ball hitting the strings is sent to the handle, amplified and returned to the ceramic composites in the fame. This causes the frame to stiffen and the result can be greater power and less vibration. At the same time, there are some first class players who still prefer traditional wooden rackets.

The kind of sports that had a long enduring alliance with technology was variably the golf. At first there were handcrafted clubs carved out of heavy hardwood heads of Holly or Apple trees. These leather-bound shafts continue upto the middle of 18th century right from the 15th and they replacing with metal heads. Though American Hickory had an intervening presence during the early 19th century, metal heads remained more common. This fascination prevailed upto the extent that steel shafts were legalised in 1920s. Unlike golf, however, the authorities controlling cricket, baseball and tennis resisted technological change resorting to hard-core conservationism in the case of table tennis. Cricket bats continued to look like hockey sticks until the emerging bowling techniques made it a parallelsided willow bat. Fiercely opposing any technological innovations, the specifications of a cricket bat are now clearly laid down (Law 6) which stipulates the wooden blade to be covered with a material no more than 1.56 mm thick. Fortunately, the ‘post-Lillee’ laws leave two areas flexible: the handle of the bat and its weight. The cane and rubber handle of the traditional bat was replaced by carbon fibre with polymer insert. The material composition is made to give more weight lower down the blade making batsmer to carry an increased one third weight than those used by the greatest hitters like Donald Bradman !


Ball of the Rings


In majority of the major games like football, cricket, golf and tennis, the physics of the ball plays a crucial part. Among the most thoroughly investigated, golf balls are most supreme and even the earliest balls were masterpieces of the technology of their days. The ‘guttie’ balls were a revolutionising attempt which wre made from the sap of Malaysian Sapodilla tree. Before this, there were the ‘Featheries’ made from three pieces of tough hide sewn together and then tightly stuffed with freshly boiled fowl feathers. After stitching up, the ball was hammered into shape while still wet, the expansion of the drying feathers making it very hard, later on. The modern ‘Hasket’ ball came over only hundred years ago, where there was a rubber-core, a solid one, bound with rubber thread. This was enclosed in a dimpled case of ‘balata’-a type of non-elastic latex. The Hasket balls had an advantage over the experimentally introduced pneumatic balls as they never exploded on hot days. From about 1700, cricket balls also followed the same technology with leather sewn around a rounded hard core made out of cork, remaining a standard, unchanged through the 19th century.

Historians believe that the game of football is as old as human civilization. Chinese and South Americans kicked around something similar to a sphere, but it was not until the first rubber bladder appeared in 1862, the soccer game became a serious sport. Before that ‘football’ was largely an inflated animal bladder, often protected by an outer skin of leather. The first “balls” were not round, as bladders were not so, that which is still used in American Football and Rugby. However there were no regulations concerning the ball until 1872, being formulated by FA (Football Association) in England which was founded in 1863. Strangely through the many years it passed the soccer ball changed little. Apart from adding a layer of cloth between the bladder and leather casing everything remained the same. The modern alteration was the interlocking panels replacing the traditional 18-section exterior of stitched and tanned cowhide. the main problem was the leather balls absorbing water in damp conditions, becoming heavy and making “heading” a dangerous exercise.

In modern balls, movement in straightline is preferred to added distance. The number, size and optimum spacing of dimples along with the weight of the hardcore was found to affect distance travelled, whereas a three-layer ball with a polyurethane exterior created a low flying and slow spinning ball. When the physicists went on to work on the football, FIFA – the international body controlling the game, eagerly established a standard size, pressure, shape retention and bounce and weight characteristics for it. Coloured balls were permitted for the benefit of TV but it regulated the materials from which it could be made. The first synthetic (Polyurethane) ball was used in World Cup 1986. The maximum permitted weight gain through moisture absorption was fixed as 10% but the 2006 World Cup ball never gained more than 0.1% of its weight. The improved water resistance was achieved by replacing the traditional stitching of the panels with thermal bonding. The much evolved modern first-class foot ball also has surface interruptions to maximise the friction between itself and the boot. The number of panels also has been reduced, from 32 to 14.


The Winner’s Fabric


Sporting apparel first came to the field by taking the serious chance of protective wears. It remained as a rare area of significant technological innovation. The year-old exception was only Cricket, the batsman wearing ‘leg-guards’ even from the days of the 19th century. But, the technology remained the basic involving canvas, leather and horse-hair upto wood enforced cotton paddy. Wicket keepers often laced the inside of their gloves with meat to protect their hands. Footballers took to wearing shin-pads, especially the players of American foot ball. Helmets were worn by some since the 1890s and it became compulsory by 1930s, but nothing for the head of Cricketers, as the England batsman Derek Randal ironically put it, when it by a ball on its head, “No good hitting me there mate, Nothing to damage !”

The majority of man-made sports-wear appeared for the first time after World War II. Rayon and Nylon paved the way for acrylic (1950), Polyster (1953), Spandex (1959) and more recently Lyocell in 1992 which is claimed to be environment friendly. The first advantage of technologically produced fabrics is weight, especially when wet. Traditional natural fabrics like wool, cotton and even Nylon are hydrophilic in nature. On the other hand, Polyster which is the main ingredient of most of modern sports garments, is very much hydrophobic, i.e., it does not absorb water. According to sports physicians, wet fabrics are of serious implications. It can lead to hypothermia when the body is unable to generate sufficient warmth or can induce wasting of energy. Even Polyster has a clear disadvantage of building-up body temperature in hot conditions. Technology had several answers for this, the most popular are “breathing fabrics” sold under the name “Gore-Tex” and “PB2”. Simply speaking, they are impervious to rain but allows moisture (sweat) to pass through. Their effectiveness in shifting moisture from inside to out is measured as MVT (Moisture Vapour Transfer).

The latest technology in sports-fabric is however “PCM-fabric: which are made from “Phase Change Materials.” They usually incorporate highly hydrophobic fibres like ‘Ingeo’ or ‘Olefin’. Worn. next to the skin as “under armour”, they help keeping the body at constant temperature, cool in hot conditions and warm in cold climate. The material remains in the gel-state and when they attain a high temperature, they change the ‘phase’ by absorbing the heat. When the temperature around them falls, they release their stored heat and return to the gel state. Another virtue of modern man-made fabrics is that they can be quick-wicking, i.e., capable of soaking in sweat and removing it from the body. An athlete can feel more comfortable with a wicking garment and moreover with some anti-microbial element it can combat fungal infections too. It is not an exaggeration if somebody points out that technology of sports-clothing can enhance fair-play: A shirt made up of Spandex material can stretch up to 600% and when defender is blocked by grabing his shirt, there is greater chance of the referee seeing it, as the stretched shirt will be an undefendable evidence of the offence !


Spears and Poles


The athletic activity that clearly displays the complex relationship between training sports and technology is Javelin throw. Originally it was a shaft of Olive wood, being replaced by the Hickory or Scandinavian Birch, but metal tipped spear or the ‘real’ Javelin came only in 1896 Olympics. Though the weight was standardised as 800 g and length 2.6 m, a major revolution sweeped through when Richard Held introduced the hollow Javelin of Steel and Aluminium. Held was able to increase the surface area by 27% while keeping the weight same, enabling the Javelin to literally “fly” to record making distances. All these began in 1950, but when East Germany’s Uwe Hohn made a truly extraordinary performance of 104.80 m, beating the previous record by an astounding 5 m, IAAF (International Association of Athletics Federations) entered the spot: they moved the ‘centre of gravity’ of competing Javelins forward by 4 cm. It proved to have a double effect-shorter distances and nose-hitting, making distance measurement more easier.

The dramatic effect of technology is more evident in pole-vaulting when bendy bamboos were replaced by Aluminium in 1957. Now it is a highly flexible fibreglass pole, thanks to the minimal regulations imposed by IAAF on pole specifications. Physicists have realised that hollow poles are better than solid-ones and tapering poles are better than parallel ones. As the vault is achieved by releasing the stored strain energy in bent pole, there was enough scope for basic sports research as pioneered by University of Cambridge. The researchers say that in polevaulting, it is impossible to separate technique from apparatus.


War of the Drugs


1930s were remarked for the revolutionary changes in the field of biological research infringing into the realms of pure and applied aspects of biochemistry. The results were synthetic hormones, or steroids and powerfully stimulating Amphetamine tablets. Nazi scientists were alleged for experimenting with Testosterone on German athletes competing in the 1936 Berlin Olympics. This drug backed drive for medals and prestige continued through the Cold, War, ruining the health of countless athletes. Finally it costed the life of Amphetamine-using cyclist Tom Simpson on the slopes of Mont Ventoux, in 1968, instigating compulsory drug-testing in both summer and Winter Olympics. Drug scandals of the last 40 years would arouse a sense of disappointment in everyone that so many fine athletes like Ben Johnson, Maradona and others have turned positive in drug-testing. The ‘World Anti-Doping Agency’ (WADA was established in 1999 but it could do nothing over the prevalence of performance-enhancing “designer-drugs” manufactured by the illegal industries housing at USA and China. US Drug Enforcement Agency’s ‘Operation Raw Deal’, to trace-out their worm-holes also did no good.

Sports supplements fall under a wide range of headings such as Narcotic Analgesics (Heroin, Morphin, etc.), Stimulants (Cocaine, Ephedrine, etc.), Diuretics (Acetazolamide, Amiloride, etc.) and Anabolic Agents such as Steroids. Among hormones, the most widely used is Erythropoietin which can boost Red Blood Cell production and thereby allowing more oxygen to be carried around the body. This improves muscle endurance but there is increased risk of heart attack due to thickening of blood. Another is ‘Human Growth Hormone’ (HSH) which stimulate growth of muscle, cartilage, bone and tendons. No reliable test has been developed yet to test the presence of HGH. Moreover, there as “Masking Agents” which can disguise the presence of performance enhancing substances upon doping testing. Epitestosteron and Dextran are used for this.


And Beyond All That . . .

So, we have got two points as the event of this techno-analysis of sports concludes: First, technology has been changing sports, from the moment toe-hold groves were inserted in ancient Olympics to the potentially revolutionary “dee-three-oh” protective ski clothing secondly, sports itself is changing. This is not a novel phenomenon, but what piles up is the pace and scale of this change. Over the last 20 years, sports have evolved much more than that of an entertainment. It is now an industry, a major one, lie all commerce which is competitive by definition, in the post-Marxist world. Scientists, engineers, technicians, trainers and coaches are striving to give their athletes a slight edge, to sort out between success and penalties. True, over the last few decades major sports have shifted from grass to synthetic and back to grass again. But, whether it will be possible to maintain grass fields in the years of global warming? some like Boseball are sticking to traditions while many are making a synthetic shift. Whatever the future holds for us, as long as we human beings continue to exist, so will sports.