With the last discussion we had, I was just thinking about if spoil sports really are worse than cheaters. Cheaters can be dealt with, reprimanded, and not allowed to play. Spoil sports simply don't want to play, so they refuse to or they attempt to ruin it for everyone. But, at their core, the cheater actually wants to play the game, while the spoil sport merely wants to spoil the sport for everyone else. So, the cheater would actually be hurt by not being able to play the game. Most people cheat to get an advantage within the game, so they do have some love for the game itself. Though cheaters do not respect the game or the boundaries set forth by it, they do truly want to play, they just are willing to do more than others to win. Spoil sports just want to piss everyone off and kill the joy of the game. Of course, cheaters should not be congratulated for their actions, cheating should not be condoned in any manner. Both types of people are detriments to the game, and both should be dealt with. The problem is, how do you deal with a spoil sport? Telling him or her they can't play will not affect them. So, how should one deal with a spoil sport? Perhaps making them play is the most fitting punishment. The problem with that is that they ruin the game for everyone else. So why even bother? Nothing can really be done to dissuade them from ruining the game.
Well, thats about it from me.
I'm out,
Brett
Saturday, March 10, 2007
Sunday, February 25, 2007
Mascots and Symbols
First off, i would just like to say, where did the University of Illinois come from in the Big Ten race? Suddenly the Illini have won 6 of 7 and are in third place, behind Wisconsin and OSU, in the Big Ten. What happened? This team has been playing poorly all year, but they somehow manage to be in third place with only a game to play. Not only have they been playing poorly, they just lost one of the best shooters in the league to jail. Jamar Smith is from my hometown, I watched him play in high school. I always liked him, even when his team crushed ours time and again. When he went off to college, I figured he would do well at the U of I, with everything going for him. The Illini were coming off an appearance in the National Title game, Bruce Weber could do no wrong and the Illini were certainly Flyin' high. Then everything fell apart. Weber can't recruit suddenly, Dee Brown is gone, and the team has no identity. Suddenly, they loose the man who is supposed to be one of their best players for the season, and they start playing better? Obviously other factors effected this change, but how does that happen. Jamar had not been playing much before his DUI, and the team had not turned it around. How many other teams have been able to overcome one of their best players being on the bench to play better and, hopefully, finish higher up in the standings. Off the top of my head, I can't think of one. Perhaps the Los Angeles Dodgers after Kirk Gibson went down, but that was a different set of circumstances. I just hope the Illini can pull out a miracle and make a run during the Tournament.
Now, continuing with the Illini, Chief Illiniwek performed for the last time on Wednesday night when U of I played Michigan. I'm sure that many of you have no idea who Chief Illiniwek is. Literally, he is a student at the University who performs a traditional Indian war dance at halftime of every U of I football, basketball and women's volleyball game. Now, this student is, normally, of Native American descent and spends several weeks in the summer with the Sioux Indian tribe learning of their culture and the actualy dance before he is deemed "acceptable" and is allowed to don the traditional Indian war crest and ful regalia. The "costume" for the chief was donated to the University by the Sioux tribe many years ago. The chief has been around since 1926, but has been deemed "hostile and abusive" by the NCAA. Therefore, after more than 80 years, the Chief hung up his headdress for the last time on Wednesday night. I got chills watching him perform, and I know other people did.
My entire issue with the NCAA is that the Chief is not, in fact, a mascot. The Chief is a symbol of the fighting spirt of the Illini tribe, as evidenced by the University nickname. Florida State gets away with Chief Osceola because the Seminole tribe granted their permission for the Seminoles to continue using their name. The problem for Chief Illiniwek was that the Illini tribe was completely wiped out by the government in the 19th century. So, no living Illini can okay the use of Chief Illiniwek as a symbol. However, the chief is never seen outside of his performance at halftime. He does not attempt to pump up the crowd during the game like a mascot does. There is a huge difference between the chief and Willie the Wildcat.
Part of my issue is with the Univesity of Illinois. They had so many oppurtunities to rectify this situation. They could have done something as simple as establishing a scholarship, to be awarded whenever needed, to a member of the Sioux tribe so the Chief would be authentic and would be looked upon as an embodiment of the spirit of Native Americans throughout the land. For a university that makes millions, how much would that honestly have cost them to award a four year scholarship to a Native American? The answer: less than the legal battle with the NCAA has cost them thus far.
The Chief was a symbol for the Univesity of Illinois. To me, he was the symbol for the University. I lived in Champaign, and everyone I talked to loved watching the Chief perform. That was almost ten years ago, so how reliable are the memories of an eight year old. I just remember sitting around the lunch table and talking about how incredibly cool the chief was, over some twinkies and chocolate milk. I am pro-chief, but i can see how the other side feels. Perhaps the chief is "hostile and abusive" but I do not feel so. I will miss the Chief. May he rest in peace.
Hail to the Chief,
Brett
Now, continuing with the Illini, Chief Illiniwek performed for the last time on Wednesday night when U of I played Michigan. I'm sure that many of you have no idea who Chief Illiniwek is. Literally, he is a student at the University who performs a traditional Indian war dance at halftime of every U of I football, basketball and women's volleyball game. Now, this student is, normally, of Native American descent and spends several weeks in the summer with the Sioux Indian tribe learning of their culture and the actualy dance before he is deemed "acceptable" and is allowed to don the traditional Indian war crest and ful regalia. The "costume" for the chief was donated to the University by the Sioux tribe many years ago. The chief has been around since 1926, but has been deemed "hostile and abusive" by the NCAA. Therefore, after more than 80 years, the Chief hung up his headdress for the last time on Wednesday night. I got chills watching him perform, and I know other people did.
My entire issue with the NCAA is that the Chief is not, in fact, a mascot. The Chief is a symbol of the fighting spirt of the Illini tribe, as evidenced by the University nickname. Florida State gets away with Chief Osceola because the Seminole tribe granted their permission for the Seminoles to continue using their name. The problem for Chief Illiniwek was that the Illini tribe was completely wiped out by the government in the 19th century. So, no living Illini can okay the use of Chief Illiniwek as a symbol. However, the chief is never seen outside of his performance at halftime. He does not attempt to pump up the crowd during the game like a mascot does. There is a huge difference between the chief and Willie the Wildcat.
Part of my issue is with the Univesity of Illinois. They had so many oppurtunities to rectify this situation. They could have done something as simple as establishing a scholarship, to be awarded whenever needed, to a member of the Sioux tribe so the Chief would be authentic and would be looked upon as an embodiment of the spirit of Native Americans throughout the land. For a university that makes millions, how much would that honestly have cost them to award a four year scholarship to a Native American? The answer: less than the legal battle with the NCAA has cost them thus far.
The Chief was a symbol for the Univesity of Illinois. To me, he was the symbol for the University. I lived in Champaign, and everyone I talked to loved watching the Chief perform. That was almost ten years ago, so how reliable are the memories of an eight year old. I just remember sitting around the lunch table and talking about how incredibly cool the chief was, over some twinkies and chocolate milk. I am pro-chief, but i can see how the other side feels. Perhaps the chief is "hostile and abusive" but I do not feel so. I will miss the Chief. May he rest in peace.
Hail to the Chief,
Brett
Monday, February 19, 2007
Drill Team
Our frequent debates about the validity of certain activities as sports has gotten me thinking. I am a member of the drill team and the color guard here at Northwestern. Should we be considered a sport? With all of the criteria that we need fulfilled, I'm sure that Daniel would say that we are a sport. But, as the only student who really knows what drill team is, I don't consider drill a sport at all.
Drill team is all about precision movements. Everything is graded by Drill Instructors, generally E-7 or higher in a branch. It places stress on the muscles of the arm, back, shoulders and other body parts. Also, the drill team members are placed under extreme mental stress, since at any moment a Drill Instructor could come screaming down their throat for the slightest excessive or incorrect movement. Even during practice where the upperclassmen are in charge, all the drillers are placed under stress because they do not want to be yelled at. Keeping your elbows tight to your body, chin to the chest, and neck stiff takes more effort than one might think. Holding a ten pound rifle also contributes to the exhaustion of the right arm. Keeping the rifle under control while moving from order arms to port arms, or from right to left shoulder (Google it if you don't know) takes muscle, as do most of the other movements. Marching around for 5 minutes is the extent of the movement, but there are drill competitions that can be nation wide. With the movement and the muscle usage, I'm sure some people would consider drill a sport. But, I would bet money that no one who has ever been on a drill team would consider it a sport.
Drill team differs from sport because of it's goal. Drill is not meant as competition, or even for someone to achieve the personal best. Drill is meant to build up team unity. The military uses it for unit cohesiveness during Boot camp or OCS (once again Google will work). The commanders test their leadership, and the members test their discipline. The movements by themselves really have no point, except that they look and sound awesome when done correctly, in unison. But, drill does not share a common purpose with Sport. Sport is meant for enjoyment and excellence of oneself. Drill is not at all like that. Drill is forced down recruits throats from the minute the set foot in Boot Camp, or OCS. While Dr McMahon may disagree, Sport is never shoved upon someone.
Drill team is not a sport, and I'm sure the our Drill Team Commander, Master Sergeant and myself are all more than happy to debate it with you whenever you please.
Drill team is all about precision movements. Everything is graded by Drill Instructors, generally E-7 or higher in a branch. It places stress on the muscles of the arm, back, shoulders and other body parts. Also, the drill team members are placed under extreme mental stress, since at any moment a Drill Instructor could come screaming down their throat for the slightest excessive or incorrect movement. Even during practice where the upperclassmen are in charge, all the drillers are placed under stress because they do not want to be yelled at. Keeping your elbows tight to your body, chin to the chest, and neck stiff takes more effort than one might think. Holding a ten pound rifle also contributes to the exhaustion of the right arm. Keeping the rifle under control while moving from order arms to port arms, or from right to left shoulder (Google it if you don't know) takes muscle, as do most of the other movements. Marching around for 5 minutes is the extent of the movement, but there are drill competitions that can be nation wide. With the movement and the muscle usage, I'm sure some people would consider drill a sport. But, I would bet money that no one who has ever been on a drill team would consider it a sport.
Drill team differs from sport because of it's goal. Drill is not meant as competition, or even for someone to achieve the personal best. Drill is meant to build up team unity. The military uses it for unit cohesiveness during Boot camp or OCS (once again Google will work). The commanders test their leadership, and the members test their discipline. The movements by themselves really have no point, except that they look and sound awesome when done correctly, in unison. But, drill does not share a common purpose with Sport. Sport is meant for enjoyment and excellence of oneself. Drill is not at all like that. Drill is forced down recruits throats from the minute the set foot in Boot Camp, or OCS. While Dr McMahon may disagree, Sport is never shoved upon someone.
Drill team is not a sport, and I'm sure the our Drill Team Commander, Master Sergeant and myself are all more than happy to debate it with you whenever you please.
Sunday, February 11, 2007
Down Time
This is the worst time of year for Sport. What exactly is happening right now? Football is over, Baseball hasn't started, Soccer is in a lull. The only thin that is still going strong is Basketball. I don't know about the rest of you, but I can only watch so much basketball. Pro basketball only matter at the end of the year, and College basketball, it seems, is always the same group of teams playing. I am a fan of the Missouri Valley Conference, the mid-majors, and I would much rather watch Creighton play Missouri State in a competitive game than watch North Carolina beat up on Miami. The MVC actually has quality teams, and they are quite competitive. Why watch the number 1 team in the conference beat up on the last place team than see the 3rd and 4th place teams battle it out in a meaningful game. My real problem is with the TV coverage awarded to mid-majors. Even Gonzaga, a top ten team from last year, did not get much TV coverage.
What is the true difference between the MVC and the Big Ten? Both teams got 4 teams into the tournament yesterday, and both had the same number of teams in the sweet sixteen. In head to head meetings this year, the MVC only lost 4 or 5 games, I'm not sure of the exact number, against the major conferences. That includes victories against Wisconsin, Iowa, LSU, Nebraska, Kansas, and others. The only true, statistical evidence that has been found is that the major conference teams are taller. Seven footers are heavily recruited by major conference teams, and almost never go into the mid majors. Exceptions exist, like Patrick O'Bryant from Bradley last year. With recent evidence from the tournament, with George Mason making the final four with Memphis in the elite eight, and Wichita State and Bradley tagging along to the sweet sixteen. A full quarter of the field came from outside of the six major conferences. Why not give them some more face time?
On the down side, sort of, the women's basketball team won a game, so we aren't in competition to own the longest winning streak in NCAA history. And the men's team won too. We had a good weekend for NU athletics. The men have an outside shot at the NIT, with a good showing at the Big Ten tournament and a marquee road victory. Maybe if we can win in Campaign, take down Indiana, and make the semifinals of the Big Ten we might be able to sneak into the tournament. I don't think that that is very likely to happen, but you never know.
Basketball just gets boring after a while. I can only watch the Bulls beat up on bad teams for so long before I get bored. But, pitchers and catchers report on Wednesday, and March Madness is not that far off.
Pining for baseball,
Brett
What is the true difference between the MVC and the Big Ten? Both teams got 4 teams into the tournament yesterday, and both had the same number of teams in the sweet sixteen. In head to head meetings this year, the MVC only lost 4 or 5 games, I'm not sure of the exact number, against the major conferences. That includes victories against Wisconsin, Iowa, LSU, Nebraska, Kansas, and others. The only true, statistical evidence that has been found is that the major conference teams are taller. Seven footers are heavily recruited by major conference teams, and almost never go into the mid majors. Exceptions exist, like Patrick O'Bryant from Bradley last year. With recent evidence from the tournament, with George Mason making the final four with Memphis in the elite eight, and Wichita State and Bradley tagging along to the sweet sixteen. A full quarter of the field came from outside of the six major conferences. Why not give them some more face time?
On the down side, sort of, the women's basketball team won a game, so we aren't in competition to own the longest winning streak in NCAA history. And the men's team won too. We had a good weekend for NU athletics. The men have an outside shot at the NIT, with a good showing at the Big Ten tournament and a marquee road victory. Maybe if we can win in Campaign, take down Indiana, and make the semifinals of the Big Ten we might be able to sneak into the tournament. I don't think that that is very likely to happen, but you never know.
Basketball just gets boring after a while. I can only watch the Bulls beat up on bad teams for so long before I get bored. But, pitchers and catchers report on Wednesday, and March Madness is not that far off.
Pining for baseball,
Brett
Sunday, February 4, 2007
Super Bowl
Well, the Bears lost. It really sucks right now, and I'm wondering if the Bears would have been better off missing the playoffs. I don't remember it hurting this much when they finished 6-10 and missed the playoffs entirely. Last year hurt more than that. But then, I know that the pain of this loss will wear off in a few days, and I can look back on how great of a season it truly was. The Bears are my football team, and I am damn proud of them.
I can at least take comfort in the fact that the Colts played a great game. They had the ball for almost 40 minutes, won the turnover battle, and beat up the Bears physcially. The poor tackling and poor pursuit was not pleasing, but the Bears played a decent game. If only Good Rex had shown up. I don't think it is ever fair to blame a loss on one single player, but Grossman earned more than his fair share of this one. He played fine in the first half, but when the Bears needed him to step up and make plays, he couldn't do it. Grossman is just not a Super Bowl winning quarterback yet. Maybe in the future he will be. Get him a few more weapons in the draft, and maybe the Bears could be back next year.
With the current article, the four categories of games make sense. I just don't really see the need to categorize games. I am an extremely competitive person, and that comes back to haunt me every now and then. I like to win, and I don't hide that. Whether it's a video game or an actual football game, I enjoy winning. Agon makes the most sense to me, because I strive for excellence in everything. I love to prove that I am better than my opponent. It doesn't always work out that way, but I do have my moments. Those games without sports are near to my hear as well. I was once an avid chess player, and I always enjoyed beating down my friends, especially when they put up a good fight. Nothing beats the thrill of defeating a quality opponent in a fair fight. I still savor beating my friends at madden or Halo.
Games of chance have never really appealed to me. I like to have my destiny in my own hands, but I can see the appeal to other people. I like to participate in games where I can improve my own chances of phsycial prowess. Mimicry is entertaining, but not the best form for me. I was an actor, and I still enjoy plays. Our director would always give us a speech about "the magic" that comes along with a play. We always had to be careful not a destroy "the magic" when we were performing. Simple things like a moving curtain or a sneeze from the wings can ruin "the magic." With plays, the atmosphere is the most important thing. If a play can transcend the fact that it is merely a play, then it has succeeded.
Ilinx is a new concept, but is a great time for me. I remember spinning around with my older brother until we both fell down. Those are games at some of their purest levels, and we as humans should love that. The rush of blood to the stomach as we go over a roller coaster is awesome.
Well, thats about it from me. I am going to go cry myself to sleep because my Bears let me down.
Mourning with the rest of Chicago,
Brett
I can at least take comfort in the fact that the Colts played a great game. They had the ball for almost 40 minutes, won the turnover battle, and beat up the Bears physcially. The poor tackling and poor pursuit was not pleasing, but the Bears played a decent game. If only Good Rex had shown up. I don't think it is ever fair to blame a loss on one single player, but Grossman earned more than his fair share of this one. He played fine in the first half, but when the Bears needed him to step up and make plays, he couldn't do it. Grossman is just not a Super Bowl winning quarterback yet. Maybe in the future he will be. Get him a few more weapons in the draft, and maybe the Bears could be back next year.
With the current article, the four categories of games make sense. I just don't really see the need to categorize games. I am an extremely competitive person, and that comes back to haunt me every now and then. I like to win, and I don't hide that. Whether it's a video game or an actual football game, I enjoy winning. Agon makes the most sense to me, because I strive for excellence in everything. I love to prove that I am better than my opponent. It doesn't always work out that way, but I do have my moments. Those games without sports are near to my hear as well. I was once an avid chess player, and I always enjoyed beating down my friends, especially when they put up a good fight. Nothing beats the thrill of defeating a quality opponent in a fair fight. I still savor beating my friends at madden or Halo.
Games of chance have never really appealed to me. I like to have my destiny in my own hands, but I can see the appeal to other people. I like to participate in games where I can improve my own chances of phsycial prowess. Mimicry is entertaining, but not the best form for me. I was an actor, and I still enjoy plays. Our director would always give us a speech about "the magic" that comes along with a play. We always had to be careful not a destroy "the magic" when we were performing. Simple things like a moving curtain or a sneeze from the wings can ruin "the magic." With plays, the atmosphere is the most important thing. If a play can transcend the fact that it is merely a play, then it has succeeded.
Ilinx is a new concept, but is a great time for me. I remember spinning around with my older brother until we both fell down. Those are games at some of their purest levels, and we as humans should love that. The rush of blood to the stomach as we go over a roller coaster is awesome.
Well, thats about it from me. I am going to go cry myself to sleep because my Bears let me down.
Mourning with the rest of Chicago,
Brett
Monday, January 29, 2007
Females and Art
While pondering my post for this week, which i realize is a little late, I have decided to focus on two topics: Women's athletics and sports as art.
Women's Athletics:
After watching most of the Australian Open, I noticed a profound difference in the men's and women's sides of the bracket. The men were the more physically powerful; with faster serves, harder volleys, and faster footspeed. The women appeared to rely more upon the fundamentals of the game. But, the women were not as far behind physically as in other sports. For example, in basketball the men would be able to physically dominate their female counterparts. If you care to dispute that, examine the rules for the Co-ed leagues here at Northwestern. Men are not allowed to guard women within the three point arc, since they would be able to overpower the females in the paint. Back to tennis though; Roger Federer won, but he was not the most physically impressive of the men. Andy Roddick has a faster serve, Rafeal Nadal has a harder return, and others trump his game in different areas. But, if Roger Federer can defeat physically superior males in his own matches, why wouldn't a woman, like Serena Williams, be able to defeat an athletically superior man in a match? Just a thought.
Sports as Art:
I don't agree with this. When i think of art, sports are not what comes to mind. I think about 90 percent of the world does not conjure up an image of a sporting event when they think about art. Not to say that sports don't have their own beauty, but they certainly aren't art. A sport can be very beautiful to watch, or even to play. Art is something different, with it's own beauty. Art is beautiful because of it's existence, but sport is beautiful because of the actions which go into it. Sport is action and violence, but art is peaceful and calming, most of the time. Exceptions to both theses exist, so please don't burn me on either.
Like a fat kid in dodgeball, I'm out.
Brett
Women's Athletics:
After watching most of the Australian Open, I noticed a profound difference in the men's and women's sides of the bracket. The men were the more physically powerful; with faster serves, harder volleys, and faster footspeed. The women appeared to rely more upon the fundamentals of the game. But, the women were not as far behind physically as in other sports. For example, in basketball the men would be able to physically dominate their female counterparts. If you care to dispute that, examine the rules for the Co-ed leagues here at Northwestern. Men are not allowed to guard women within the three point arc, since they would be able to overpower the females in the paint. Back to tennis though; Roger Federer won, but he was not the most physically impressive of the men. Andy Roddick has a faster serve, Rafeal Nadal has a harder return, and others trump his game in different areas. But, if Roger Federer can defeat physically superior males in his own matches, why wouldn't a woman, like Serena Williams, be able to defeat an athletically superior man in a match? Just a thought.
Sports as Art:
I don't agree with this. When i think of art, sports are not what comes to mind. I think about 90 percent of the world does not conjure up an image of a sporting event when they think about art. Not to say that sports don't have their own beauty, but they certainly aren't art. A sport can be very beautiful to watch, or even to play. Art is something different, with it's own beauty. Art is beautiful because of it's existence, but sport is beautiful because of the actions which go into it. Sport is action and violence, but art is peaceful and calming, most of the time. Exceptions to both theses exist, so please don't burn me on either.
Like a fat kid in dodgeball, I'm out.
Brett
Saturday, January 20, 2007
Athletics
After reading Jacques Burzan's piece, I find that I agree with most of what he has to say. Baseball as an American game makes sense. The individualistic aspects of it make it more American than football, not less. America is a capitalistic society with every man acting for himself. No one requires help to drag him or herself up from the end of society. In baseball, much more emphasis is placed upon the individual's performance, and it is more obvious, than football.
I covered the second half of the Athletics article, from page 25 until the finish.
At the point where I started, Gumbrecht is discussing the philosophy of competition in the sporting world. He raises an excellent point by comparing athletic victory to Achilles' legendary display of respect for Hector after his victory over the Trojan hero. When teams shake hands and congratulate each other on a good game after a contest, isn't that much the same thing?
Women's sports versus men’s sports are his next topic. Not many other topics have been as hotly debated as this, especially among female athletes and male spectators. I admit that I have been part of those arguments. He does not include one of the major arguments, that most women's sports do not make as much money as their male counterparts. That may be true, and in most cases is, Gumbrecht talks about it in a purely athletic sense. Spectators know, in their hearts, that, while the Tennessee Volunteers with Pat Summit may be a great team, the would not stand a chance against Mike Kryskewski and the Duke Blue Devils. The physical limitations of the human body limit the appeal of female sports, since males have been able to become larger, faster, and stronger than their female counterparts.
Where Gumbrecht varies from his argument is in the cases of women's tennis and figure skating. He knows that Maria Sharapova would not be able to defeat Roger Federrer in a match, but he clings to the hope that one day a female champion may be able to complete that task. Billy Jean King managed to defeat a male champion, but not while he was in his prime. Somewhere down the road, I could see a tennis player, perhaps Sharapova but most likely a player more like Serena Williams. The problem is that will that female champion get her chance against the male? Does anyone really know if either would want that match to happen?
During his anecdote about Eiko Fujika, he shares a very different viewpoint, which I do not agree with. Standing in the batters box smiling after losing a game does make sense to me, as an amateur athlete. That man had just lost a game for his team on the highest level he was ever to reach. How could he stand there and smile about it? To me, that does not make sense. Not to that he should have stormed off in a huff and kicked dirt on the pitcher, but perhaps he should have appeared more upset than that upon losing a game for his team. Later, his view would have been normal, and in fact noble. But in that moment, why would he merely be happy to have been part of that moment. It makes no sense for him to be content after striking out.
His statement that rules make the sports comparable over time is not up for debate; it is a simple fact. If the game of soccer had been changed since that great Hungarian team had fallen to Germany, they would not be comparable to the Italian champions of this year's world cup. In order to give all athletes a level playing field, the rules must be constant. Soccer is played the same way in Los Angeles and Tokyo as it is in London and Moscow. That way, young men and women around the globe can get together and unite over some sort of activity which they all know and love. In Germany, where my classmates and I were in the minority and none of us really wanted to speak German, we still managed to bond with Germans, other than our hosts, over a game of soccer. Sports can break down barriers, and that is merely one case.
The transfiguration of athletes is apparent in our society. Athletes are constantly compares to the best of their sport. Basketball fans are constantly searching for the next Michael Jordan. Kobe Bryant, Dwayne Wade, Lebron James, Vince Carter; they have all been branded as "the next MJ." Michael Jordan has transcended the game of basketball and became larger than life. While a player could be able to perform as well as Jordan did, no player will ever have the same effect upon the sport as Jordan did.
At the same time, Gumbrecht also adores losers as much, if not more so than winners. Besides the Red Sox and the Hungarian soccer team, think about the Chicago Cubs. They haven't won a pennant since 1945 or a World Series title since 1908. Why then, do thousands of people pay outrageous prices to watch a bad team play at Wrigley Field? The mentality of the "lovable loser" permeates the sporting culture. Some fans even prefer to root for a lost cause than for a winning team. I don't understand it at all, but I am also not part of that circle. The teams I support have been good at been in alternating stretches. Though they may be bad one year, I know there is still hope for the next year. Do the Cubs really have that hope? Next year hasn't come in 98 years. I just don't understand it at all.
The alternate humiliation of the losers makes much more sense to me than the adoration of those same people. Why aren't the Cubs, or the St. Louis Blues, or the Oakland Raiders treated with the same disdain as Bayer Leverkusen? All of those franchises have a devoted fan base, and they continue to fill up their stadiums, even though their teams have been sub par for years. That is further into the depths of the human psyche than I would like to venture at this point, so I conclude my post, and my summary with that.
I covered the second half of the Athletics article, from page 25 until the finish.
At the point where I started, Gumbrecht is discussing the philosophy of competition in the sporting world. He raises an excellent point by comparing athletic victory to Achilles' legendary display of respect for Hector after his victory over the Trojan hero. When teams shake hands and congratulate each other on a good game after a contest, isn't that much the same thing?
Women's sports versus men’s sports are his next topic. Not many other topics have been as hotly debated as this, especially among female athletes and male spectators. I admit that I have been part of those arguments. He does not include one of the major arguments, that most women's sports do not make as much money as their male counterparts. That may be true, and in most cases is, Gumbrecht talks about it in a purely athletic sense. Spectators know, in their hearts, that, while the Tennessee Volunteers with Pat Summit may be a great team, the would not stand a chance against Mike Kryskewski and the Duke Blue Devils. The physical limitations of the human body limit the appeal of female sports, since males have been able to become larger, faster, and stronger than their female counterparts.
Where Gumbrecht varies from his argument is in the cases of women's tennis and figure skating. He knows that Maria Sharapova would not be able to defeat Roger Federrer in a match, but he clings to the hope that one day a female champion may be able to complete that task. Billy Jean King managed to defeat a male champion, but not while he was in his prime. Somewhere down the road, I could see a tennis player, perhaps Sharapova but most likely a player more like Serena Williams. The problem is that will that female champion get her chance against the male? Does anyone really know if either would want that match to happen?
During his anecdote about Eiko Fujika, he shares a very different viewpoint, which I do not agree with. Standing in the batters box smiling after losing a game does make sense to me, as an amateur athlete. That man had just lost a game for his team on the highest level he was ever to reach. How could he stand there and smile about it? To me, that does not make sense. Not to that he should have stormed off in a huff and kicked dirt on the pitcher, but perhaps he should have appeared more upset than that upon losing a game for his team. Later, his view would have been normal, and in fact noble. But in that moment, why would he merely be happy to have been part of that moment. It makes no sense for him to be content after striking out.
His statement that rules make the sports comparable over time is not up for debate; it is a simple fact. If the game of soccer had been changed since that great Hungarian team had fallen to Germany, they would not be comparable to the Italian champions of this year's world cup. In order to give all athletes a level playing field, the rules must be constant. Soccer is played the same way in Los Angeles and Tokyo as it is in London and Moscow. That way, young men and women around the globe can get together and unite over some sort of activity which they all know and love. In Germany, where my classmates and I were in the minority and none of us really wanted to speak German, we still managed to bond with Germans, other than our hosts, over a game of soccer. Sports can break down barriers, and that is merely one case.
The transfiguration of athletes is apparent in our society. Athletes are constantly compares to the best of their sport. Basketball fans are constantly searching for the next Michael Jordan. Kobe Bryant, Dwayne Wade, Lebron James, Vince Carter; they have all been branded as "the next MJ." Michael Jordan has transcended the game of basketball and became larger than life. While a player could be able to perform as well as Jordan did, no player will ever have the same effect upon the sport as Jordan did.
At the same time, Gumbrecht also adores losers as much, if not more so than winners. Besides the Red Sox and the Hungarian soccer team, think about the Chicago Cubs. They haven't won a pennant since 1945 or a World Series title since 1908. Why then, do thousands of people pay outrageous prices to watch a bad team play at Wrigley Field? The mentality of the "lovable loser" permeates the sporting culture. Some fans even prefer to root for a lost cause than for a winning team. I don't understand it at all, but I am also not part of that circle. The teams I support have been good at been in alternating stretches. Though they may be bad one year, I know there is still hope for the next year. Do the Cubs really have that hope? Next year hasn't come in 98 years. I just don't understand it at all.
The alternate humiliation of the losers makes much more sense to me than the adoration of those same people. Why aren't the Cubs, or the St. Louis Blues, or the Oakland Raiders treated with the same disdain as Bayer Leverkusen? All of those franchises have a devoted fan base, and they continue to fill up their stadiums, even though their teams have been sub par for years. That is further into the depths of the human psyche than I would like to venture at this point, so I conclude my post, and my summary with that.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)