noone wrote:I am still steaming about the thread a week ago where track fans ridiculed certain other sports. On the off-chance that you guys have an open mind let me make a few comments about some of those sports:
Curling: Sure, sweeping looks strange to people who have never seen it before, just like some idiots laugh at race walking. But it is an important part of the sport: Good sweeping can add up to six feet to a shot, and it will keep a shot straight rather than allowing it to curl. The skip has to make a quick decision whether to sweep a shot ("Hurry!Hard") or to lay off. There are many other strategic elements to this exciting sport, but they are hard to explain to a novice.
Soccer: Some people make fun of soccer because games tend to be low-scoring. So to a true fan is an 11-5 baseball game more fun to watch than a 1-0 game? Does the fact that each team scores 40 or 50 "goals" in basketball make that sport exciting? Actually to me, the fact that goals are so easy and common makes each goal less significant and exciting.
Synchronized swimming: So-called because the athlete performs in time with music, therefore solo synchro is not an oxymoron. Like figure skating, freestyle skiing and ballroom dancing this activity is on the borderline between art and sport, but it does not deserve ridicule.
Downhill skiing: True, the athletes compete one after another rather than in a mass start. If that bothers you then you must think pole vaulting and javelin throwing are boring too. Skiing, like golf, is partly dependent on the weather and the course which is why upsets are relatively common (unlike track). I'm not sure if that makes the sport more or less exciting.
Now I'd like somebody to explain to me the attractions of skateboarding and WWF ...
Only a few weeks to go and you can get your fill of curling and downhill! woo-hoo!