"Except for one thing: I hate sports and the people who play them, care about them or care about the people who play them."

oh, and i expected my bad abilities at sports playing to become less important over time, as i progressed from elementary school, to middle school, to high school, then college, then real life, and the thing is, sports never go away or stop being important to other people in society. i could win a nobel prize, but still someone would want me to play kickball with them.

Hi.

I admit, there was a time in my life, mostly in my late teens, where I thought that being into sports was antithetical to being into creative and artistic pursuits. Then I realized this was a stupid way of looking at things.

xpost john i'm sorry and i hope it didn't leave a bruise.

See Edward Gibbon's descriptions of the Greens vs. the Blues chariot racing teams in Constaninople in Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. [several Roman umpire jokes to follow...]

Haha.

I kind of hated dodgeball. People were so merciless. Plus, I have such small hands that I was never able to palm the ball well enough to throw back hard enough. Luckily, whoever I had for gym class senior year let those of us who didn't want to play to sit on the sidelines.

You David James fan you. Er, wait.

those who hate sports are closet Olympians

so, want to play some kickball?
pingpong? does that count? i'd prefer it. or, um. floor hockey? that was fun. frisbee'd be okay too.

http://www.armchairempire.com/images/Reviews/Playstation2/winning-eleven-6/winning-eleven-6-1.jpg

I'd also like to state that the part about high school I miss most was PE and dodgeball. If you had beef with someone, even someone bigger or more athletic than you, you just beaned them in the back of the skull when on the same team. Ahh, evolution never properly protecting the medula oblongata.

does this make me a bad person?

Which is different from people discussing TV, film, or music how, again?

Aaron, now that does not make you a bad person because football kinda sucks and basketball is the greatest sport yet invented. nb unlike mr. perry i do not acknowledge the existence of sport fucking.

XPOST HAHA RIGHT ON CUE

"Except for one thing: I hate sports and the people who play them, care about them or care about the people who play them."

totally comes out of nowhere.

because they're higher brow, dumbass.

spencer, man, i just... fuck, man... don't know what to say. sometimes you have a talent for saying the doofiest things ever. i mean, it's kind of endearing, sorta.

because they're higher brow, dumbass. <

Oh, duh. Forgot the context of thread.

http://www.blogbugs.org/images/context.jpg

google NEVER fails i tells ya.

I'm good at sports, was world-class at some for a while, but it never kept me from pursuing more artsy stuff or befriending wimps. I guess that means I'm just good at everything, and some people are uncoordinated. Don't worry, I have OCD and brain shivers so it balances out.

anyway:

"d'ya hear that, l'il buddy? we're highbrow!!!"

It's sports, jackass!

-- oops (don'temailmenicelad...), September 23rd, 2005.

1. i've always just have had zero interest in them. 2.
reactions from people when you say you don't like sports. "You don't like SPORTS? WHY?". 3. they did rape my mom and kill my dad.

So, if "Sports Rockism" is demanding to understand the game/competition, what does that make hate of sports due to its "low brow" nature? Anti Sports Rockism Rockism?

It is not the same as "enjoying a musician, author, or artist in full command of their talents." Not even close. It tells no story and has no meaning.

Sure, you can compare it to "art for art's sake," let's say, where one could argue that the enjoyment is in the moment, the beauty of a well-oiled machine (the team) performing at a level of perfection very few can actually achieve. My answer is: so what? It's still putting a fucking object in a fucking goal. It's still pointless and it still sucks. The only thing being expressed is the desire to be the best at something completely meaningless.

Of course it does. Its real life, unscripted drama. Please watch When We Were Kings, then defend that statement.

Yes these people should be shot. I get this from football fans who just assumed that since I am male and live near Chicago I must have watched every Bears game since 1984.

i don't think spencer was being sarcastic, oops. he likes the strokes more than television, you know.

Nothing I said was directed at Spencer.

it's no different than enjoying a musician, author, or artist in full command of their talents.

OTM. The last few times I've gone to a pro sports game I sorta tripped out on how of all the millions and millions of people playing this game throughout the world these are the very best, about how many levels of competition they had to excel at and make it through, and how they could make anyone else on the planet look foolish ---even the 12th man on an NBA roster could utterly destory anyone I've ever played with. This is why basketball is so cool to see in person, because their skills are more readily apparent than most other sports. Soccer would be similar, I imagine.

yup, that's me.

i dunno. i just don't like sports. i work out and i quite like watching athletics (no, not in a pervy way, you fuckers) but ... football/cricket/that one with the net/the other one with the thingy, you know/all of them just leave me totally cold. i don't get them. a bit like jazz, or bob dylan, or inserting sharp objects into the end of your cock: i appreciate some people love it, but it leaves me cold.

rabid sports fans ... it's the tribalism i hate. i'm not a fan of large groups of baying thugs in football colours, wandering through the city centre singing offensive songs; oh, and i find the bandwagon-nationalism that's trotted out whenever a national team wins something (you know, like a poxy bit of burned fucking wood) utterly offensive. but, you know, living in glasgow gives you a jaundiced view of all these things (especially the first).

Sports: how many plays in an hour?
Sports: how many combinations of plays, options of play are there?
end of comparison.
Sports: what is the goal?

Compared to everything else, sports is like watching paint dry.

My opinion is the only one I give a shit about. It's not open for debate.

then get the fuck off a message bored, dimwit.

balls (see what i did there?)

Ha! And why the hell would you??

I don't hate football - I don't really hate any sport in concept, but I hate it...some of the fans are just so damned LOUD.

Well, some do. Often they're forced to live up to the expectations of their parents, and fail or succeed. The Mannings come to mind, as do numerous boxers (Hector Camacho Jr. and Julio Cesar Chavez Jr, for instance), and definitely race car drivers.

Oh wait, now I get what my theatre professor meant.

if I'm a dick you're a doof, doofy.
-- hstencil (hstenc!...), August 20th, 2004.

(I always get a kick out of noticing odd words that only one or two ILX posters use. If you search for "doofy" on ILE most of the uses that come up are either hstencil or Nicole!)

ask bob dylan's son!

Damn, that's the only one I like.

Well, it happens in boxing as well. Mediocre fighters are pushed as being greats only to be exposed against b-level competition on a regular basis. And then there's hype jobs in stick and ball sports too: JD Drew, Brian Bosworth, so on. And once in F1 or CART or the IRL, its not like they do well. They typically run at the back of the pack, though they display their Panasonic sponsorship. AJ Foyt IV actually got banned from a couple forms of motorsport because he was considered too incompetent a driver.

All major motorsports are team sports in 2005. One car teams don't exist in F-1, and are completely noncompetitive in NASCAR, CART, and the IRL. There are team captains and there are scouts. In fact, there are entire farm systems. F-1 has F-3000 and CART (and below that, Indy Lights, Skip Barber, F-2 and F-3, and karting), NASCAR has the local tracks, modifieds, Truck and Busch series, etc. There are even team orders, which have been especially hated in F-1 in recent years, where a team will tell a faster car to stay in second while the slower car, who's driver is considered the front runner, keeps the lead. Boxing, however, is a total individual sport, with none (except perhaps the related sports of MMA and kickboxing) even being remotely close.

No.

And that reason is?

Not really. You're going to have to go through life feeling sorry for pretty much everyone in the world because honestly most people don't really appreciate literature, poetry, dance, theater, wine, comics... I don't know, pick something and there are whole enormous groups of people who have no need for it.

I simply don't care for sports at all. There's no particular trauma in my past, just never interested and still continue to not be interested.

What I find funny are people who get indignant and/or surprised by non-sports people. This comes up often in conversations with co-workers, distant relatives, anyone who's just trying to start up a conversation. It seems like the assumption is that that because I'm a guy then I'm naturally a sports fan and when I reply with a "sorry, I don't know what you're talking about" they literally skid to a halt.

It's just like any other interest... I don't need to go into sports threads and yell at people, but I do wonder what all the fuss is about.

they're almost as funny as people who get indignant and/or surprised by sports people.

no, wait. neither are really funny. being happy in doing and appreciating what you like should be enough.

I do not believe this is an easy question to answer fully.

So, if its just like any interest, why "hate" fans of sports and the concept of sports/athletic competition?

Of course it is. Sports are unscripted drama. That's all you need to know. Occasionally they can segue into the realm of comedy or action, but when it gets right down to it, sports are drama. What separates them from films and creates a wider emotional response is the fact that its real. There is not guarantee of anything in a non-worked athletic competition, which makes the losses tougher and the wins more gratifying. And people gravitate towards teams or athletes for all sorts of reasons, far beyond even that of their markets. Some teams are the personification of their home (the Oakland Raiders, for instance). Some athletes bring in fans that are considered casual for their interests outside of sports, which they ultimately represent while in competition (see: Muhammad Ali's post Vietnam career). But what it ultimately comes down to is the drama of the game or competition or fight and the storylines that are built throughout all the great events (and there ARE stories, and you're blind if you can't see them through the stats).

I do think it's annoying that sports fans can't see why someone might not like sports and then at the same time turn around and tightly restrict what is categorized as a sport by saying that dancers aren't atheletes and race car driving isn't a sport.

I just don't care about them. I don't usually care about biographies. I still don't think you've answered the question fully. Unscripted drama? Not if you don't care about the game (nb - I love watching football for that and other reasons, but I don't think it's obvious to someone who doesn't care about sports). Why should someone care about drama and whether it's scripted or not. Reality television is unscripted drama, but does that make it better than ER or whatever?

Also, I don't think the Raiders are a good example of being the personification of their home. I think it's more a class and race (to a lesser extent) thing (especially because they have such fervent fans in No and SoCal).

I'm not talking about biographies. Backstories are important in great games, but the game itself is what makes it. Its like asking, "Why was Ayrton Senna a great race car driver?", and getting the answer, "because he won races." There's more than that.

>I still don't think you've answered the question fully. Unscripted drama? Not if you don't care about the game (nb - I love watching football for that and other reasons, but I don't think it's obvious to someone who doesn't care about sports).<

Then if you don't care about the game, you don't care about the sport. If you're watching it for commercials or because you think the athletes are attractive, there's no interest in the sport itself or the drama that's present. The 18th hole at The Masters or the 4th Quarter of the Super Bowl or the last lap of the Indy 500 are meaningless to you, and therefore the sport is as well.

>Why should someone care about drama and whether it's scripted or not.<

Because payoffs are typically bigger when they're not guaranteed? What part about that is difficult to understand? If you went to see a movie, and you had no idea what was going on, or what the ending would be, and had no point of reference to assume with good reason what would occur, don't you think you'd enjoy the ending (should the payoff be one that you liked) more?

>Reality television is unscripted drama, but does that make it better than ER or whatever?<

Not necessarily, but it certainly can for large segments of the population, regardless of class or intelligence, don't you agree?

>Also, I don't think the Raiders are a good example of being the personification of their home.<

Then you don't know anything about the Raiders or Al Davis. And naturally the Raiders have a fanbase outside Oakland: They're reputation and attitude speak to a broader segment of the population than, say, the Houston Texans or a Jacksonville Jaguars, who have no specific image.

Whether you care about the game or the biographies is besides the point. The point being that you should be able to comprehend why some other people, ie NOT YOU, could possibly care and find them engrossing.

Why should someone care about drama and whether it's scripted or not. Reality television is unscripted drama, but does that make it better than ER or whatever?

Because anything can happen! It's LIVE. There are real live people out there who inhabit the same planet you do, live in your city who are trying to perform under the very intense pressure and scrutiny.
Ever notice that in the most successful reality shows they have the "actors" engage in games--often physical ones---as much as possible? It's not equivalent to watching people go about their daily, mundane because in sports there's clearly defined goals, outcomes, winners, losers.
I feel like I'm explaining the concept of emotion to a robot.

I'm gonna disagree with you a bit here, Alan.

First, I'd add greco-roman wrestling, judo, and folk wrestling) the kind done in high schools) to this list. Kendo and fencing probably belong here, too.

More importantly though, even with superior physical attributes and game face etc, a LOT depends on coaching and training partners. Precisely because these are such one-on-one endeavors, with no real training equivalent except sparring, to keep yourself at the highest level you can be, you have to be constantly pushing yourself against opponents who will test your limits, and hear from people watching you what movements and strategies are working and what aren't. The corner man isn't just there for show, he's vitally important to a fighters' success. In that sense, there is a team effort going on in these martial-type sports.

But comeon latebloomer, this is the American way. If someone isn't a part of the majority you must browbeat them into submission and act like you're the oppressed minority. Pity the white males, christians, conservatives, and those poor old misunderstood sports fans.

I'll give you these. Kendo and Olympic Judo are pretty limited in scope next to MMA though, which is probably the most free of all man against man fights.

>More importantly though, even with superior physical attributes and game face etc, a LOT depends on coaching and training partners. Precisely because these are such one-on-one endeavors, with no real training equivalent except sparring, to keep yourself at the highest level you can be, you have to be constantly pushing yourself against opponents who will test your limits, and hear from people watching you what movements and strategies are working and what aren't. The corner man isn't just there for show, he's vitally important to a fighters' success. In that sense, there is a team effort going on in these martial-type sports.<

Oh, certainly that can be true. There's also the occasional Roy Jones who's corner basically says, "how ya doing champ? drink some water". Cutmen do have a super key role though in both MMA, kickboxing, and boxing (judo, greco roman, and fencing not so, perhaps making them more solitary, albiet more limited in scope of action).

I don't think having a discussion about the cultural value of athletic competition equates to "WATCH SPORTS OR YOU'RE JUST WRONG AS A PERSON".

Well, then you obviously haven't gone through life as someone who hates sports.

Oh, certainly. But it's still two players, each trying to whack the other one with a stick, or toss him to the ground, respectively. There's no falling back on teammates.

So merely discussing the value of sports and athletic competition is infringing on your right to not like sports for whatever reason? Is that what justifies "oppression", for lack of a better word? Who here is acting oppressed: the people wanting a rational discussion on the value of sports to the person (and for that matter, why anyone would *hate* sports) or the people who are saying, "we don't want rational discussion! we're oppressed for not liking sports!"

Right: the strategy and goal behind every action is to WIN that moment and to eventually win the most moments. Every moment of sports is about ending a moment in time. Hopefully victoriously. "I put the thing in the hoop! I got one step closer to putting the thing in the hoop! I won the whole season of hoop-putting!"

Is it really so hard to understand why people can't understand why anyone likes sports?

Comparing it to a reality show is apt enough, except for the lack of dialogue, which gives Reality TV the slight edge, in my opinion. Though, they both suck and, by the way, I've always hated reality tv, too.

But, comparing it to music, books, movies, etc. is really missing the point made up above. Any song (or whatever) is not simply about ending each note, as a game is about ending each play. Sure, a note must be played to appreciate the piece of music, but the fact that dozens of notes can fly by in a couple seconds shows that the enjoyment is not to be found in the passing of notes, but the appreciation of each note passed. For the same to be true of sports, they would have to be enjoyable to no end, no scoring and no winning. And they're not. Because sports are completely different than appreciation of an artist in peak form or even miserable form. You could say a note or piece of writing, etc. must be executed "well" (or at least to your particular tastes) in order to be enjoyed and really this is the same as "winning a moment," but you'd be wrong. It is not simply that art is "executed well" that makes it appreciable and it's not because the artist/writer is from your home town team, either. Appreciation of sports is more like watching a salesman make phone calls all day long, each call a win or lose proposition with one goal and limited options. And if you compared watching a salesman to listening to Mozart, people would get that you were using hyperbole.

My opinion is the only one I give a shit about. It's not open for debate.

then get the fuck off a message bored, dimwit.

Now see here, jackass: the original comment was in response to a nostalgiac metaphor about AA or AAA baseball and George Thoroughgood. Everyone felt compelled to say it was a beautiful analogy and well written. I felt compelled to share my opinion, because it's a message board, dimwit. That opinion was, basically, "Oh that's a fine and dandy justification for George Thoroughgood's place in music, but... I hate sports and everything connected with the subject. Therefore, I have no compassionate feelings about some washed-up douche former baseball player turned air conditioner repairman." That's how I feel and nobody is going to change my opinion with a persuasive argument. Swaying opinions is not necessarily what message boards are about, jackass. And it is not sociopathic or attention-seeking to simply express your seething disgust regarding a topic, as 100% of you are guilty of in your history of ILX... so commence to eating your own poop now. Thank you.

As for womping some tomato can then collecting a paycheck taking a beating from a real fighter - I'd more likely get KOd by the tomato can, given my present state of fitness, or more accurately lack thereof.

But each game isn't about ending each play, which is why you're wrong and entirely missing the point. Games are holistic. Forest for the trees.

>Sure, a note must be played to appreciate the piece of music, but the fact that dozens of notes can fly by in a couple seconds shows that the enjoyment is not to be found in the passing of notes, but the appreciation of each note passed. For the same to be true of sports, they would have to be enjoyable to no end, no scoring and no winning. And they're not.<

Of course they are. No one is pressing a button at random to make a point appear, then sitting in a chair until the next time he presses the button. Its what happens between the scoring and the winning and the losing that matters most. What happens before and after is only tertiary.

>You could say a note or piece of writing, etc. must be executed "well" (or at least to your particular tastes) in order to be enjoyed and really this is the same as "winning a moment," but you'd be wrong.<

Great games are like great songs. They have beginnings, middles, and ends. Its not a random assortment of plays or movements or shots, much as music shouldn't be looked at as a random assortment of sounds.

>It is not simply that art is "executed well" that makes it appreciable and it's not because the artist/writer is from your home town team, either.<

Which would be fine if all sports fans enjoyed only team sports or individual sports on the basis of athletes being from their hometown or on accomplishments. Which is, of course, unequivocally false.

>Appreciation of sports is more like watching a salesman make phone calls all day long, each call a win or lose proposition with one goal and limited options.<

There are no other options in sports than winning and losing?

>And it is not sociopathic or attention-seeking to simply express your seething disgust regarding a topic, as 100% of you are guilty of in your history of ILX... so commence to eating your own poop now.<

Its attention seeking to express disgust and demand nothing but adherence to your opinion, while alternately offering no rational discussion. Its the definition of trolling. Congrats.

If Butterbean can still find guys to beat, I'm sure you can do. And I'm entirely serious about that, no matter what shape you're in.

I did not demand adherence to my opinion, did I? Also, congrats to all of you for taking a highly exaggerated position intended somewhat humorously to new levels of outrage.

Uh, yeah maybe if the guy had actually asked for a discussion of sports rather than, you know, getting dragged into it based on an offhand opinion he expressed.

Merely winning isn't exciting or entertaining. John Ruiz wins many fights, yet he's utterly hated by almost the entire boxing establishment. Putting up points does not a legend alone make, nor does it make fans.

>I did not demand adherence to my opinion, did I? <

Unless you consider telling people to effectively eat shit and die if they disagree to not be demanding adherence, yeah, you pretty much did.

If you feel so oppressed that you can't even muster up getting into a discussion about the place of sports in culture and the being, then why the hell post on a message board over such a topic? Would it not be anticipated that someone might respond with a "why?"

And again, I ask: what the hell is oppressing about it?

Every punch he lands is a "winning" moment in a string of moments aimed at winning. If boxers could just beat the shit out of each other all the live long day and neither would fall down, spurt blood or win, nobody would watch it and it would be about as enjoyable as staring at the cogs of a machine.

Unless you consider telling people to effectively eat shit and die if they disagree to not be demanding adherence, yeah, you pretty much did.

Let me repeat (since you didn't acknowledge it):
Congrats to all of you for taking a highly exaggerated position intended somewhat humorously to new levels of outrage.

xpost

But there's more to boxing than just the win and method of. John Ruiz won by KO (the most exciting form of victory, right?) in a heavyweight title fight (big excitement there, right?) after dominating most of the fight. Must have been great, using your logic, as the only thing that matters is the finality.

Thing is, you couldn't find a man or woman alive that enjoyed that fight.

>Congrats to all of you for taking a highly exaggerated position intended somewhat humorously to new levels of outrage.<

Which makes my guess as to your actual purpose here OTM. Thanks for proving me right!

Perhaps you'd feel more at home here.

Who is?

Dumbass, all you're proving is that people don't like him. This is no different from rooting for the home team and booing the other team. It's still all about winning. Jesus.

But John Ruiz wins regularly, even in front of his home crowd, and yet gets booed. People don't like him because he wins and they like the other guy, they don't like him because they hate his fights. Using your logic, because Fres Oquendo/John Ruiz and Jose Luis Castillo/Diego Corrales ended in similar rounds under similar circumstances (referee calling a halt to the bout as a fighter takes punches on the ropes), they should be equals in terms of entertainment value. BUT THEY ARE NOT. One is considered to be one of the greatest fights ever by boxing journalists and analysts, and the other was being criticized, as it happened, by the impartial ringside announcers.

As I said, the issue for art, writing, etc. is matter of taste, not a matter of winning a moment. The point is not for the song to conclude and, indeed, we often are left wanting more and let it repeat all night long on the stereo. Music is like tantric sex as sports is to repeat orgasm. Sports is comparable to a salesman making phone calls. It will never be ballet.

How are you not understanding the concept? People root for the Baltimore Orioles, too.

How are you not understanding the concept? The scores don't matter if the game sucks, just as the ending of a film is meaningless if the acting is Plan 9 From Outer Space level.

But neither is sports! You're looking at it from an athlete's perspective (to win) and transcribing it to that of the observers, the fans. Which is, of course, ridiculous.

>The point is not for the song to conclude and, indeed, we often are left wanting more and let it repeat all night long on the stereo.<

But if a song has a poor ending, it will ruin the positive qualities that a song has in its beginning and middle. The same is true in reverse: The last minute of a song my be fantastic, but the first 2-3 may be nothing short of torture. The end does not alone make up for the first 2-3 minutes, just as the end result of a sporting competition doesn't make up for what actually occurred, nor truly illustrate what happened.

The game will only SUCK, if there is NO WINNING GOING ON!!!!

Game set match. I win.

The game will suck if its not entertaining. Which is how music or film or paintings or scuplture suck. Is that difficult to comprehend? I know that the entire premise of your argument is flawed, but still.

(btw, so ties in football, hockey, combat sports, et al, aren't entertaining or liked by anyone?)

Unlike this book:

http://images.amazon.com/images/G/covers/0/34/541/902/0345419022.m.gif
"Bottom line: it isn't about winning, it's about continuing to play. The book isn't that long and the message is a lot more complicated and valuable. The real message is about life choices and your sense of personal value and satisfaction. It is a real alternative to the short-term thinking of many teams and business plans. It offers a very different point of view and life strategy for people who do not identify with the “Exit Strategy” mentality as a long term philosophy. Highly recommended! "

Understand? This is why it could never be ballet. Even a slam dunk competition is STILL a competition.

But if no one wins, there were no winning moments. Why then did I enjoy Kid Diamond/Joel Casamayor from 2 months ago then? No one won. On the other hand, I have no particular feelings one way or the other for John Ruiz and Fres Oquendo, and someone won, and I hated it. So, what's the scoop?

(you do realize people watch sports for reasons other than tribalism, right?)

Every yard gained, every punch landed is a winning moment. A tie game still has the struggle for victory. A dull game is one with no winning moments.

A winning moment entails that someone wins. No one wins, they're just moments. In this case, what makes one moment more spectacular than another?

>A tie game still has the struggle for victory. A dull game is one with no winning moments.<

But with the tie game, there is no payoff. No victory. The dull game has victory, but nothing in the middle or beginning that provided excitement of any kind. So how does this tune back into the "winning is everything" claim above? If you admit that excitement can be had merely with what you term "winning moments", then it is not necessary to win in order to enjoy, is it?

Of course. Which brings us back to why people would enjoy sports in the first place. If no one watched the Super Bowl casually, 150 million people in the US wouldn't be watching it every year. Furthermore, if all that mattered was winning, then every Super Bowl would be considered as exciting as the last, because someone always wins in the Super Bowl (due to its unlimited sudden death overtimes).

Come to think of it, isn't it fully possible to have a dull game with plenty of winning moments? There are blowouts in the 40-50 point range every week in college football, and those games are hardly exciting. Yet they offer lots of "winning moments". What such moments can be judged to produce drama or excitement?

(this is a very effective job of trolling. at least I'm enjoying myself.)

My enjoyment of sports is derived more from abstractions and aesthetics than traditional fandom.

My favorite baseball team is the Red Sox, even though I can only stand two of their players and have zero history with the city of Boston. But I love Fenway and the Green Monster and as long as they exist I'll root for the Red Sox. Likewise, I care more about baseball's history than the present.

Extra long games become dull eventually when extra innings and timeouts cause delay of the final winning moment. What's the matter, then? Not "enjoying it" for it's own sake-- has the "strategy and aesthetic" gone out of the game, then? No, of course not: it's all about the winning moments and especially the ultimate winning moment. Otherwise there's no point. In the case of the long drawn-out game, there's not enough "meat" there to justify the waiting for the goal: winning/end of play. It is the reverse of the college game that is very high scoring and fast, yet dull. In either case, something has happened to disappoint the thrill of victory. It is all about winning moments, but there is only so much one can take of it because it is BOOOORING. There are few options and limited play.

>sports are not only about winning moments, but the thrill of strategy and aesthetics. it's intellectual and artistic pleasure as well as competitive.

This is all addressed above. The "thrill of strategy and aesthetics" are all about the winning moments and ultimate goal: winning. There is no strategy or aesthetics without the goal. People would not thrill to watch men run around and throw balls for no reason. In all other forms of entertainment and expression, there is a purpose and in sports the only purpose is "to win."

If a meaningful existence to you means kids, then I win yet again.

The idea that there's such a thing as "no reason" is art school bullshit talk. Just as Cage showed that there's no such thing as "no music" (even "silence" contains sound), so it would be easy to show that, when men are running around in the context of a public performance, there is no such thing as "no reason". Admire their flanks! Lust after them! Try to reconstruct the semantic language of the choreographer! Disentangle the pre-arranged from the random! Make remarks to your lover, sitting next to you, about possible threesomes involving you, him, and the most shapely of the athletes! Imagine "scoring"!

So what makes one winning moment different from another? If two games have 84 points scored, and one ends 43-41, and the other 72-9, why is the 43-41 likely more exciting?

>If both teams are scoring left and right, no one might as well be scoring at all. <

And yet scoring lots of points is considered to be such a huge part of the attraction to certain games that rules changes are initiated to cause it. See: NBA, Arena Football.

>Extra long games become dull eventually when extra innings and timeouts cause delay of the final winning moment. What's the matter, then? Not "enjoying it" for it's own sake-- has the "strategy and aesthetic" gone out of the game, then?<

Prove that long games "become dull eventually". I'm pretty sure you can't.

>No, of course not: it's all about the winning moments and especially the ultimate winning moment. Otherwise there's no point.<

But given that there is not necessarily any guarantee of a ultimate winning moment, then that would entail that any game or competition that ends without victor is a waste of time. So how then to people enjoy watching draws in the NFL or boxing? It would be antithetical to your argument. Either they do or they don't, and if they do, then you can't be right.

>In the case of the long drawn-out game, there's not enough "meat" there to justify the waiting for the goal: winning/end of play. It is the reverse of the college game that is very high scoring and fast, yet dull.<

But a longer game can also lengthen the build to the eventual victory, making the storyline of the game perhaps even greater, assuming its properly done. This is why Game 5 of the 2004 ALCS, while epic in length, is considered to be one of the better baseball games in modern history.

>In either case, something has happened to disappoint the thrill of victory. It is all about winning moments, but there is only so much one can take of it because it is BOOOORING. There are few options and limited play.<

What makes it boring? Wouldn't what made it boring be, GASP, what occurred during the game? The specifics, rather than the stats? The game itself rather than merely the winning? Your argument is fluid and makes no point. You've gone from stating that victory is the sole purpose and what makes one athletic competition subjectively different/better than another in the subjective mind of the viewer to admitting that what actually happens during the contest has some purpose in its entertainment value. Of course, you've never actually explained how people can enjoy a tie, never explained why events with the exact same ending in the same arena of play can be wildly different, or even bothered to come up with the least bit of proof as to sports fandom being purely the result of some modern day nationalism/tribalism.

>This is all addressed above. The "thrill of strategy and aesthetics" are all about the winning moments and ultimate goal: winning. There is no strategy or aesthetics without the goal.<

So personal charisma plays no part in people's fandom of sports? Why then do people associate an outlaw image with the Oakland Raiders and latch onto that in an emotional manner? The fact that Al Davis signed thugs and criminals doesn't have anything to do with winning. Again, your premise is wrong and so is the argument built on it.

It's silly to demand objectivist proofs for subjectvist claims. Proof that a long game has become dull is that I'm bored, surely? (It happens for me in the fifth minute of a football match, for instance.)

Of course. You may be bored, but this does not mean that this is the prevalent opinion regarding said game. Nor does it make long games boring purely by the fact that they are long, just as long songs are not boring merely because they're long, nor are epic plays not bad because they are epic. Again, the only way this could be true is if you assumed that all that mattered was winning, and that therefore, winning in as short an amount of time with the least resistance would be preferable (as a long game would be bad). I guess then that Jimmy Thunder's 6 second KO of Chauncy Welliver is a better fight than Castillo/Corrales, using this standard that's been posited by Guy.

(and of course sports and the entertainment within is subjective. this is not in doubt.)

Talk about beating it into the ground.

this is clearly not true if you think for just one moment about sport in terms of participation. competitive games are not simply defined by their rules, the rules exist to provide opportunities for individual and co-operative participation, the benefits of which can be wide-ranging.

i play 5-a-side football and have done for years (i was never good at sport at school but in adult life i've generally managed to find a regular game at my level, wherever i've lived).

these games aren't all about winning. they're just not. they're all about having fun - they're games. they're fundamentally about play. as the book says, it's about continuing to play - in this case, once a week - and regularly enjoying yourself with your friends... maybe you should try it?

Also this Alan:

Then you don't know anything about the Raiders or Al Davis

is borderline offensive, considering I lived in Oakland for many years and LA before that. The fact that they played in LA and Mr. Davis' long running feud with the City of Oakland, and my sense that Raider fandom is much more about class (e.g. there are plenty of Oakland residents who love the 49ers, and guess where most of them live) were what led me to question your "personification of a place" comment.

Well, that's exactly my point. Oakland is seen across most of the US as a very, very tough city. The Raiders are seen as a football team comprised of the problem children of the league; the toughest, nastiest people there are. Sure, there are people in Oakland who find themselves seeing more in common with the ethic of the compartively clean 49ers (as well as the Packers and Cowboys in large numbers, like the rest of the US), but the Raider ethos has come, for better or worse, to partially define the city.

John Cage showed this? Or he read it in a book by Alan Watts who read it in a book by Daisetz Suzuki who read it in the Diamond Sutra or some other thousand year old Buddhist text? Credit to the ancients, please.

I recently read an article that said, 'In our post-Cagean world...'. As if this man actually changed the physical laws of the universe, as opposed to hanging out with Chogyam Trungpa for a few months.

I am strangely argumentative today.

But sports are terrible at that! If there was a tv drama with an excitement-to-dullness ratio of the average football game, or motor race, or cricket match, it would be cancelled after one episode. They require that the viewer has an interest, tribal or otherwise, in what's going on. American Football and Basketball are ingeneral exceptions to this, baseball from everything I can see isn't.

And I'd guess that a significant percentage of the population doesn't actually give that much of a shit about sports but keeps up so they can make conversation at the office or whatever.

OTM, and also a part of why people hate sports: mandatory culture sucks.

A sentiment I can fully get behind, without hating sports per se. (For myself, watching the interactions between rabid Red Sox fan Tom and rabid Angels fan Craig at work as the season winds down, even though I'm not following baseball at all aside from what they mention is going on, is always entertaining.)

What's your second guess?

it's a bit like nickleback.

This is actually completely horseshit but whatever. I mean, I can't think of a single person in my universe who thinks this. Keep in mind that the majority of my universe is comprised of sports fanatics.

-- The Ghost Of Dex! (...) (webmail), September 23rd, 2005. (link)

Can I just point out that this is rather obviously not me? For starters, the name is spelled incorrectly and also I know who Pooty Tang is (hint: not a vagina).

Even that I wouldn't mind if it was mostly restricted to footage of the games. It's all the time spent lingeringly on Australian Football League players training, swimming in the ocean, appearing suited up at a Tribunal Hearing for accidentally striking another player during a game, speaking earnestly at a press conference before and after... And of course there are then special Sports News shows which replay all of this again in expanded detail... Why is this considered "news" precisely?

Marathons are idiotic because in the original legend, the runner died.

Which legend are you talking about then? I'm referring to Pheidippides who ran from the Battle Of Marathon to Athens to announce the Greek victory over the Persians. As the story goes, he dropped dead after delivering the message.

Which is correct, but the run from Marathon to Athens (a.k.a. the death run) was where the modern 42km marathon run derives from.

If memory serves though, I think that distance has varied over the years.

I believe the marathon distance became fixed at the London Olympics, when they set it up so that some royals could wave them off at the start at Windsor, I think, then some more see them finish at... White City stadium? The 26 miles and however many yards was thereafter fixed.