Five rings to rule them all.

I agree that we should keep the Olympics in the same location, or at least in a limited number of locations ("Movable Feat" by Christina Larson, July/August). Reducing the number of sites would make it more cost effective, so that it might actually be possible to turn a profit. Instead of building new Olympic complexes every two years in different locations, once the limited set of state-of-the-art facilities are built, they would just need to be maintained and possibly upgraded. Security would also be easier to manage.

Brett Goodell

Frederick, Md.

I enjoyed your article on the Olympics. As a lifetime sports fan, I sympathize with the argument (particularly your tennis analogy) that if the games were stationary, it would offer the chance for the planners to perfect them. A further argument that you didn't mention was the historical joy that might be present when generations of athletes were performing on the same fields, pools, and mats.

Who wouldn't shed a tear had Carly Patterson been vaulting on the very same vault as Mary Lou Retton, or Michael Phelps swimming in the same pool as Mark Spitz?

But I do think that the idea of a world community not only participating in but also hosting the games may trump the aforementioned arguments. I only wish we would work harder to bring the Olympics to places like Africa and South America.

William Geisler

Via email