Before any discussion of whether or not fans accept or evn appreciate cheating in sports, a definition of cheating must first be established. Some have argued that cheating has become a part of the game, that whatever a player can get away with is fine. Others point to different levels of cheating, putting the aforementioned acts on a lower level than such forms of cheating as steroids, betting on sports, or fixing a game. For this arguement, lets admit that both exist, and exam each level seperately.
The first level of cheating is a commonly accepted part of sports for today's fan. Fans realize how much players must put forth to win, and realize to that their favorite athletes will try to get away with as much as they can. Also, fans know that some players are going to get away with more than others, i.e. Lebron James may not be called for a foul that his teammate (insert no-name player here) did five minutes ago. Yet fans are not storming the field for these actions, because they realize that this form of cheating is not cheating at all, but rather trying to get as much out of the game as possible.
Now, the second level of cheating carries a much bigger stigma. Players accussed of using steriods, not even those found guilty of steriods, carry the accusation for the rest of their careers. Not many Americans believe a man like Barry Bonds when he says he didn't ever use steroids. Yet, while fans every where else in the country have shown countless forms of anger towards Bonds, he is still loved in his hometown of San Francisco. Does that mean the fans are willing to turn a blind eye if their favorite player cheats?
This second form mentioned above is actually cheating. Trying to use something that was never intended for use in this game to illegally improve one's play compromises the integrity of the league and every player in the league. Who hit that last home run, the baseball player or the steroids? Don't cheat, don't bring steroids into sports.
I'm not the only one that cares, am I?
Thursday, March 1, 2007
Thursday, February 15, 2007
Why we (don't) watch
Several times in class, we have talked about the necessity of having a superstar in a sport. These stars drive their particular sport, supposedly thrilling fans into turning on their televisions each time they play. Why, then, are the all-star games in major sports (excluding baseball) watched as much as Sunady afternoon bowling? Shouldn’t a game that brings all the stars together, instead of the normal one or two, be a highly anticipated event?
The reason that nobody really watches the games is that even if there are superstars, the games are inconsequential and often don’t include the game’s biggest stars, who instead choose to either let younger players get a chance (ideally) or take the weekend off as a midseason/postseason hiatus (realistically). Now though, even the young stars don’t want to play as was voiced when Bulls’ rookie forward Tyrus Thomas said he was participating in this weekend’s all-star events only for the money.
For some time now, people have associated all-star games more with skills challenges than with the actual games themselves. And why not? The slam-dunk challenge and the three-point challenge are often more exciting than the game itself, and more people can probably tell you who won the last home run derby than who won the game itself. Perhaps the best all-star skills challenges are in hockey, which include speed skating, shooting accuracy, and the hardest slap shot. But nobody watches hockey anyway, so these are basically irrelevant.
Football’s equivalent of an all-star game, the Pro Bowl, also brings up another good point: Stars don’t play because they don’t want to get hurt. Quarterback Drew Brees injured his non-throwing arm rather seriously during last weekend’s Pro Bowl, making this the second offseason in a row Brees will have to undergo rehabilitation. While participants in other all star games may “go easy” during the game, football is a sport that this is impossible, therefore making injuries that much more prevalent.
Baseball is the lone exception in the sport's world where the game may, MAY, be watched as much as the events leading up to it. Whether this is because stars normally do show up to play, or because the game-winning conference gets home field advantage for the World Series, is "un-clear" (unlike several particpants in prior all star games).
So how do these games become more relevant? While the answer isn't obvious, it should be plain to see that something needs to bring these games into the spotlight.
The reason that nobody really watches the games is that even if there are superstars, the games are inconsequential and often don’t include the game’s biggest stars, who instead choose to either let younger players get a chance (ideally) or take the weekend off as a midseason/postseason hiatus (realistically). Now though, even the young stars don’t want to play as was voiced when Bulls’ rookie forward Tyrus Thomas said he was participating in this weekend’s all-star events only for the money.
For some time now, people have associated all-star games more with skills challenges than with the actual games themselves. And why not? The slam-dunk challenge and the three-point challenge are often more exciting than the game itself, and more people can probably tell you who won the last home run derby than who won the game itself. Perhaps the best all-star skills challenges are in hockey, which include speed skating, shooting accuracy, and the hardest slap shot. But nobody watches hockey anyway, so these are basically irrelevant.
Football’s equivalent of an all-star game, the Pro Bowl, also brings up another good point: Stars don’t play because they don’t want to get hurt. Quarterback Drew Brees injured his non-throwing arm rather seriously during last weekend’s Pro Bowl, making this the second offseason in a row Brees will have to undergo rehabilitation. While participants in other all star games may “go easy” during the game, football is a sport that this is impossible, therefore making injuries that much more prevalent.
Baseball is the lone exception in the sport's world where the game may, MAY, be watched as much as the events leading up to it. Whether this is because stars normally do show up to play, or because the game-winning conference gets home field advantage for the World Series, is "un-clear" (unlike several particpants in prior all star games).
So how do these games become more relevant? While the answer isn't obvious, it should be plain to see that something needs to bring these games into the spotlight.
Thursday, February 8, 2007
Why people do (or don't) watch sports
Here at Northwestern University, the fan turnout for sporting events is abysmal. Why are there so few people coming out to the games? While people argue that the teams are terrible, and therefore aren't fun to watch, this claim isn't legitimate for the majority of sports. Also, isn't true that the teams that are doing bad need more support than the teams doing well? Crappy teams need love too, right?
When people say sports at Northwestern are bad, by sports they mean Football and Basketball. While this season that may be true, the vast majority of teams here are actually great. The girls lacrosse team has won the national championship two years in a row, softball was a runner up last year, women's tennis is currently 6th in the nation, and Wrestling boasts to #1 nationally ranked grapplers. And even the two major sports here aren't nearly as bad as the number of Northwestern students supporting their teams. The football team is one year removed from a bowl game, and the basketball team is only one game below .500.
Maybe Northwestern students are too busy to support their fellow classmates. Northwestern is tough school, right? Yet how can coming to a two hour tennis match or two hour wrestling dual really take away all the studying time people have? Maybe Northwestern students not the whole just don't like sports. Going to a sporting event, however, is about more than the game. It should be a time where friends can come together and enjoy each other's company just as much as the event.
Fellow athletes aren't helping the cause, though. While they may show up to the games, they routinely act "too cool" to join in to the other student section when they cheer. So Northwetern, listen up: Try to be more supportive of the teams here. It doesn't hurt to cheer a little every now and then.
When people say sports at Northwestern are bad, by sports they mean Football and Basketball. While this season that may be true, the vast majority of teams here are actually great. The girls lacrosse team has won the national championship two years in a row, softball was a runner up last year, women's tennis is currently 6th in the nation, and Wrestling boasts to #1 nationally ranked grapplers. And even the two major sports here aren't nearly as bad as the number of Northwestern students supporting their teams. The football team is one year removed from a bowl game, and the basketball team is only one game below .500.
Maybe Northwestern students are too busy to support their fellow classmates. Northwestern is tough school, right? Yet how can coming to a two hour tennis match or two hour wrestling dual really take away all the studying time people have? Maybe Northwestern students not the whole just don't like sports. Going to a sporting event, however, is about more than the game. It should be a time where friends can come together and enjoy each other's company just as much as the event.
Fellow athletes aren't helping the cause, though. While they may show up to the games, they routinely act "too cool" to join in to the other student section when they cheer. So Northwetern, listen up: Try to be more supportive of the teams here. It doesn't hurt to cheer a little every now and then.
Thursday, February 1, 2007
Art and Sport
Before I begin, I want to issue this disclaimer: I am not attacking anyone in particular with what I am going to write. I respect all of you, so please realize I on't hate anyone, merely that I disagree with some ideas expressed in class. Having said that, here we go:
I am still here to argue that sports and art do not have enough in common to label two with the term, "comparably similar". While it is always possible to come up with extreme situations where anything is comparable to anything, art and sport simply do not have enough in common to state that they are alike.
As I said in class, while people may say a great play in sports is "a work of art", no one looks at a Picasso and exclaims, "Great Play!" The arguement against this claim was that sports can be described as beautiful, and art can described as beautiful, so art and sports are alike. However, that analogy can be used for anything in life; a newborn baby is beautiful, so is a newborn babe like sport? Are flowers, rainbows, and puppy dogs like sport? Merely stating that two facets in life can have one broad term attributed to both does not mean that they are similar.
Remember, though, that I am arguing here against art, not fine art. Art, for me, involves the stationary products that one would see in an exhibit: paintings, sculptures, etc. Claiming that looking at a piece of art is similar to watching a sporting event is just riddiculus. Tryng to argue that people have watched art being created and enjoyed it is again a blanket statement trying to tie two non-similar aspects of life together with a word like "enjoyed".
While I do in no way hate art, one must admit that sports only relation to art are the generic terms broadcasters use to spice up their show: The phrases, "that play was a work of art," and, "that play was beautiful" are synonomous. Art is simply not like sports.
I am still here to argue that sports and art do not have enough in common to label two with the term, "comparably similar". While it is always possible to come up with extreme situations where anything is comparable to anything, art and sport simply do not have enough in common to state that they are alike.
As I said in class, while people may say a great play in sports is "a work of art", no one looks at a Picasso and exclaims, "Great Play!" The arguement against this claim was that sports can be described as beautiful, and art can described as beautiful, so art and sports are alike. However, that analogy can be used for anything in life; a newborn baby is beautiful, so is a newborn babe like sport? Are flowers, rainbows, and puppy dogs like sport? Merely stating that two facets in life can have one broad term attributed to both does not mean that they are similar.
Remember, though, that I am arguing here against art, not fine art. Art, for me, involves the stationary products that one would see in an exhibit: paintings, sculptures, etc. Claiming that looking at a piece of art is similar to watching a sporting event is just riddiculus. Tryng to argue that people have watched art being created and enjoyed it is again a blanket statement trying to tie two non-similar aspects of life together with a word like "enjoyed".
While I do in no way hate art, one must admit that sports only relation to art are the generic terms broadcasters use to spice up their show: The phrases, "that play was a work of art," and, "that play was beautiful" are synonomous. Art is simply not like sports.
Thursday, January 18, 2007
Why Sledge?
No matter what the sport, "Sledging", or trash talk, has become a key part of the game. While a majority of athletes may not be known for their trash talk, the few that are are constantly in the public eye (i.e. Terrell Owens, Chad Johnson, any international soccer player). Yet why do athletes feel it is necessary to incorporate this kind of behavior into the game?
There are, as there always are, two sides to the argument. Trash-talkers say that, by using only words, they can take their opponent of their game. They say that they will use whatever they can to get an advantadge in today's game. And this can be affective, as was seen by Zinedine Zidana's "headbutt heard 'round the world". Another attribute crap-slangers may find is that by talking themselves up, they play better. This arguement, the "putting another person down to make myself feel better", while not publicly supported by the talkers themselves, cannot be ignored as yet another tactic for the athlete to elevate their level of play.
Those who choose not to sledge must have their reasons, too. Many say that by saying nothing at all to those who incessantly chatter, the chatterer themself is thrown off their game. Others, including this author, claim that the only thing a trash-talker accomplishes is to make them want to beat them that much more. Often times coaches will use the trash talk of another team to get their players motivated for next week's game.
So, should a player trash-talk? I feel that trash talk has no place in sports. Sledging is a tool athletes claim to use as a way to take control of a situation, but many are clearly looking for media face time. It shows in no way a mental aspect of the game, either, for anyone can call their opponent a monkey's uncle. Showing the cool reservation of letting a player's actions speak for them is both more effective than trash talk, and more beneficial to their teammates.
There are, as there always are, two sides to the argument. Trash-talkers say that, by using only words, they can take their opponent of their game. They say that they will use whatever they can to get an advantadge in today's game. And this can be affective, as was seen by Zinedine Zidana's "headbutt heard 'round the world". Another attribute crap-slangers may find is that by talking themselves up, they play better. This arguement, the "putting another person down to make myself feel better", while not publicly supported by the talkers themselves, cannot be ignored as yet another tactic for the athlete to elevate their level of play.
Those who choose not to sledge must have their reasons, too. Many say that by saying nothing at all to those who incessantly chatter, the chatterer themself is thrown off their game. Others, including this author, claim that the only thing a trash-talker accomplishes is to make them want to beat them that much more. Often times coaches will use the trash talk of another team to get their players motivated for next week's game.
So, should a player trash-talk? I feel that trash talk has no place in sports. Sledging is a tool athletes claim to use as a way to take control of a situation, but many are clearly looking for media face time. It shows in no way a mental aspect of the game, either, for anyone can call their opponent a monkey's uncle. Showing the cool reservation of letting a player's actions speak for them is both more effective than trash talk, and more beneficial to their teammates.
Thursday, January 11, 2007
What makes sport a sport?
Turn on the TV nowadays, and one cannot help but find some form of poker on ESPN or some other sports program. But is poker really a sport? Shouldn't that be on a different channel?
Proponents of poker's "sportism" claim that the physical and mental strain required to endure a long tournament and deal with stressful situations are synominous to the strain endured in other sports. They say that the participants train just like any other sport, and no on e can argue that the great poker players don't receive the kind of money that any other sport has come to accept. The strategy involved with knowing whether or not to call a bluff mirrors the strategy used by coaches in other sports. The participants are entitled players, not members or entries, but are they really "athletes"?
A friend of mine describes a sport as, "something you can pull a hamstring doing,". No one expects a poker player to do any such thing, with most of the action occuring with each player remaining comfortably in their seat, or maybe standing briefly to stretch. Poker success also does not require any athletic ability, or what is generally accepted as athletic ability, as was proven by 2005 World Series of Poker (notice the sports tie to baseball) and grossly overweight Greg Raimer.
So, what makes sport a sport? Is it physical fitness and ability, or is talent and mental strain? Either way, it looks like Poker is here to stay.
Proponents of poker's "sportism" claim that the physical and mental strain required to endure a long tournament and deal with stressful situations are synominous to the strain endured in other sports. They say that the participants train just like any other sport, and no on e can argue that the great poker players don't receive the kind of money that any other sport has come to accept. The strategy involved with knowing whether or not to call a bluff mirrors the strategy used by coaches in other sports. The participants are entitled players, not members or entries, but are they really "athletes"?
A friend of mine describes a sport as, "something you can pull a hamstring doing,". No one expects a poker player to do any such thing, with most of the action occuring with each player remaining comfortably in their seat, or maybe standing briefly to stretch. Poker success also does not require any athletic ability, or what is generally accepted as athletic ability, as was proven by 2005 World Series of Poker (notice the sports tie to baseball) and grossly overweight Greg Raimer.
So, what makes sport a sport? Is it physical fitness and ability, or is talent and mental strain? Either way, it looks like Poker is here to stay.
Sunday, January 7, 2007
Philosophy of sport
What exactly does the phrase, "the philosophy of sport" mean? The two words are not usually associated, with sports concerning subject matter much less complicated than the world of philosophy. For me, the philosophy of sport refers to all the aspects of sports around the world that people have come to love, whether it be the hard work required to suceed when laying a sport, the dedication and the mental strain required to sucessfully coach a sport, and the unexplainable feelings of the commited fan to their team. The Philosophy of sport embodies the entire realm that is sports in our world today.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)