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
Monday, January 29, 2007
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.
Sunday, January 7, 2007
Philosophy of Sport.
After enjoying a rousing weekend of NFL football and NCAA basketball, the "philosophy" of sport still has become a bit clearer. Fan hang on every play as if their very lifes depending on that three pointer, or that next first down, or the blocked shot. Why does everyone care so much?
Most people have some experience with sports in their lifetime, be it in Pop Warner football, Pee Wee basketball, high school volleyball, or maybe some intramural softball. Watching the professional atheletes gives spectators a chance to relive those days; when nothing lifted you higher than the thrill of victory and nothing was lower than the agony of defeat. Living of emotional highs is part of life, and amost everyone enjoys it.
By that same notion, why do sports fans risk so much of their emotion on one event? Is the thrill of victory enough to balance out the bitterness and reproach that comes along with defeat? Evidently it must be so, since millions of fans across the globe tune in to watch their favorite sports. Phiolosophers need to take a long, hard look at this topic, and hopefully we can have some answers soon.
Peace,
Brett
Most people have some experience with sports in their lifetime, be it in Pop Warner football, Pee Wee basketball, high school volleyball, or maybe some intramural softball. Watching the professional atheletes gives spectators a chance to relive those days; when nothing lifted you higher than the thrill of victory and nothing was lower than the agony of defeat. Living of emotional highs is part of life, and amost everyone enjoys it.
By that same notion, why do sports fans risk so much of their emotion on one event? Is the thrill of victory enough to balance out the bitterness and reproach that comes along with defeat? Evidently it must be so, since millions of fans across the globe tune in to watch their favorite sports. Phiolosophers need to take a long, hard look at this topic, and hopefully we can have some answers soon.
Peace,
Brett
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)