When watching sport I feel that in order to enjoy
>it you should have a realization of how hard people have to work to get good
>at that sport, and from there you can begin to appreciate that sport. Of
>course some of us will find sports that we just don't like to watch and that's
Yes, that is it. With knowledge comes a deeper appreciation.
To those who don't know, watching a guy kick the ball 40 meters precisely to the foot of his teammate who has beaten his mark and procedes to recieve the ball so softly it looks like he has a catchers glove on his foot, simply looks like a guy kicking a ball to a teammate.
Or, watching Bekele knock down 12 consecutive 61.5 quaters appears the same as the jogger they see running around the block every morning.
Last edited by Cyril on Thu Aug 05, 2004 9:23 am, edited 1 time in total.
when the field can't break par
>at the US Open, that's a 0-0 soccer game - still exciting, but it doesn't seem
>as if anyone is doing well.
i guess i tend to be biased against team sports a little. and as far as soccer and hockey go they are in my opinoin the most boring. i dont need high scoring, but soccer is extreme low scoring. basketball is decent enough. football is to slow moving for the team sport and the clock stops alot. baseball is decent but moves along to slow.
Color me shallow, but I'm one of those many for whom the lack of scoring in soccer is indeed a turnoff. And, actually, it goes beyond the lack of scoring; it's the lack--relatively speaking--at CHANCES for scoring. I have soccer-fan friends who say, "you love a 1-0 hockey game, what's wrong with a 1-0 soccer game?"
The basic answer is that in a 1-0 hockey game, you've had two goalies stand on their heads and make 30-odd saves apiece. There have been at least 25 shots that you just KNEW were going to go in, but didn't. And a preponderance of the play is at one end or the other, where a goal can happen at any time.
In soccer, by contrast, endless minutes can go on with the ball bouncing back and forth at midfield, so far away from either goal you couldn't put it in with a cannon. Yes, I understand how beautiful it is to watch the strategy develop, plays get set up, etc., etc., but that's just not my cup of tea in a sporting event.
"i guess i tend to be biased against team sports a little. and as far as soccer and hockey go they are in my opinoin the most boring. i dont need high scoring, but soccer is extreme low scoring."
Television is responsible for making some sports seem boring. Hockey, which is not exciting on TV because of puck size and how it is shot, is one of the fastest and most exciting (perhaps the most exciting for me) sports you can watch in person. As for soccer, i grew up in the American midwest, never played it, and, too, thought it was boring. Then I spent some time in Latin America where I learned about the game and learned to appreciate it.
It, like most other sports, is far more exciting in person than on television. Some of the most fast paced, exciting games I have ever seen ended in 0-0 ties. A 0-0 tie does not mean boring. Of course mostt soccer games on TV are mediocre (like football, basketball, track (the NCAA meet was a snore - especially for distance fans), and any other game you care to mention. In addition, soccer has given us some of our best middle distance and distance runners (e.g. Said Aouita) runners out of north Africa.
Last edited by coyote on Thu Aug 05, 2004 10:05 am, edited 1 time in total.
One of the most amazing and entertaining aspects of attending fotboll matches here in SE - and in all of EU - is the rock-solid fan passion we have for our teams. I appreciate being at a derby match in Göteborg between IFK-ÖIS, where 65,000 fans are screaming and chanting, rocking together and singing their team songs. The action off the field is as appealing and sometimes more entertaining and worth the ticket price than that which occurs on the field. I wish I could take the same enthusiasm and energy to an athletics event. Live athletics (T/F) is awesome, but, like tennis and golf, one must quiet down before the start. Try telling hooligans to quiet down at a hockey match, the Gaelic Games or a fotboll match - among others.
Last edited by EPelle on Thu Aug 05, 2004 10:21 am, edited 1 time in total.
>"i guess i tend to be biased against team sports a little. and as far as
>soccer and hockey go they are in my opinoin the most boring. i dont need high
>scoring, but soccer is extreme low scoring."
Television is responsible for
>making some sports seem boring. Hockey, which is not exciting on TV because of
>puck size and how it is shot, is one of the fastest and most exciting (perhaps
>the most exciting for me) sports you can watch in person. As for soccer, i
>grew up in the American midwest, never played it, and, too, thought it was
>boring. Then I spent some time in Latin America where I learned about the game
>and learned to appreciate it.
It, like most other sports, is far more
>exciting in person than on television. Some of the most fast paced, exciting
>games I have ever seen ended in 0-0 ties. A 0-0 tie does not mean boring. Of
>course mostt soccer games on TV are mediocre (like football, basketball, track
>(the NCAA meet was a snore - especially for distance fans), and any other game
>you care to mention. In addition, soccer has given us some of our best middle
>distance and distance runners (e.g. Said Aouita) runners out of north Africa.
actually, didnt fox come out with that glowing puck thing where they kept the area around the puck bright on the tv screen and sometimes when hit hard it became a red streak.
of course, the last word on sports comes from george carlin. he said that all sports are variations on ping pong.
he gave some reason why hockey wasnt a sport. i forget now.
"Yes, I understand how beautiful it is to watch the strategy develop, plays get set up, etc., etc., but that's just not my cup of tea in a sporting event."
but you DO like watching men whirl around a 16 lb ball on the end of a chain or a guy who has to hop, then step, then jump - because you have a tremendous background in this sport that adds incalculably to your enjoyment. It's about what you BRING to the sport - hence the very existence of cricket!
During a drunken spring break week in Daytona Beach back in the 1970's, I was the champion shuffleboard player for all of Daytona Beach. Little did it matter that I had virtually no shuffleboard experience. People do not realize shuffleboard is a strategic sport that requires a nimbleness of eye, hand, motor coordination, and problem-solving skills not found in the other sports. My grandest hope is for shuffleboard to finally be adopted as an Olympic sport so that the world can see what an under-rated sport shuffleboard really is.
>> [ Note to Americans : World championships
>should consist of more than 1
Preferably more than a handful, too. I'm thinking of Rugby Union,
>Cricket and a few others.
You must have very strange hands. The rugby world cup consisted of 80 countries in qualifying with 20 advancing to the finals; not sure about cricket but I can come up with a mental count of 20. I had a letter published in the LA Times after hearing this years Superbowl winners proclaiming themselves World Champions; I asked which other countries were playing.
>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:
here's my quick rating system
(out of five stars) for various TV
sports in the US
Basketball PO *****
Football PO *****
Baseball WS **
Hockey S Cup
Tour De F. ****
Amazing Race ******
You must have very strange hands.
>The rugby world cup consisted of 80 countries in qualifying with 20 advancing
>to the finals; not sure about cricket but I can come up with a mental count of
>20. I had a letter published in the LA Times after hearing this years Superbowl
>winners proclaiming themselves World Champions; I asked which other countries
80 in qualifying? That many? Listen, we (Ireland) were supposedly ranked 3rd(!), but in reality there are gigantic gaps between the top few, (NZL, AUS, FRA, RSA, ENG) and the next few; and the gaps widen exponentially as you go down. Who is ranked 20th? How'd they fare against Fiji (10th)?
Japan and the USA are the respective nations in Soccer.
Netball has a world champs. A game played well by two countries, OZ and NZ, not so well by two more, Jamaica and South Africa and absolutely crap by the rest. NZ and Oz are the only teams ever in contention. NZ has it now.
You would cry if you saw the thousands of little girls out every Saturday morning in the winter playing this cousin of basketball outdoors. Not a professional avenue in sight. If only they were playing b-ball.
The court is bigger and the ball moves without dribbling and only two people can shoot and the ball has to be fed into a well defended circle for them to shoot. Lots of stoppages that lead to it not being that enjoyable to watch.
Last edited by The Fern on Fri Aug 06, 2004 4:00 am, edited 1 time in total.
but you DO like watching men whirl around a 16 lb ball on the end
>of a chain or a guy who has to hop, then step, then jump - because you have a
>tremendous background in this sport that adds incalculably to your enjoyment.
>It's about what you BRING to the sport - hence the very existence of cricket!
Precisely, well put. For example rugby fans think US football is crazy because of the countless interruptions and huddles ("why don't they lateral more pften?" they ask) while I as a North American can't understand why the rugby ball-carrier with open field in front of him suddenly kicks the ball and gives up possession. Why?
My favourite T&F sports to watch are decathlon and HJ, least favourite the walks (partly because I am not that familiar with the athletes, partly because there are not many lead changes).
best show on TV now - "24" but requires a great deal of
>investment, i.e., 24 hours.
I've seen it a few times and I do
>like that show.
I watched it last night. Local Buffalo sports talk show guys were having an argument a few weeks ago about whether or not it was a soap. I really couldn't understand how it could be but, having now seen it, I think it is too. I actually burst out laughing when the hero rolled that shot Chinese guy into the operating room and held a gun to the doctor's head to force him to stop operating on his girlfriend's dying ex-husband so he could save the life of the Chinese guy.
I saw the fall-out of two love triangles on that show last night. They were being played out with the threat of a nuclear bomb going off. Of course, one triangle is now been finished off thanks to that laugh out operating room scene. Soap.
>I saw the fall-out of two love triangles on that show last night. They were
>being played out with the threat of a nuclear bomb going off. Of course, one
>triangle is now been finished off thanks to that laugh out operating room
If ANYBODY is watching this show for the romance, boy are they desperate. No soap.
huh? The love stuff? That's just filler to get everybody moved around to beat the ticking clock. Namby-pamby Chloe blowing baddies away with the semi-automatic is classic 24. So was the live and let die motif. Jack is constantly deciding which inviolable rule to break next.
24 IS the best show on TV. One of the dumbest, too, but those things are not incompatible -- TV being a medium that requires the viewer to relinquish any pretense of intelligence.
Couple weeks ago on 24 they caught the only guy who could reveal the whereabouts of the villain who had caused the melt-down of a nuclear reactor, shot down Air Force One with the President in it and had hi-jacked a thermonuclear device in order to erase and American city before sunrise... they were about to extract info from their source by any means necessary when some civil rights attorney showed up with an order from a local judge protecting the guy's 5th and 8th Amendment rights. So, in the middle of an unprecedented national crisis all the spies sat around saying, Darn, this court order means we can't prevent some city from being nuked... oh, well! Then, of course, Hero Jack resigned and unofficially broke the guy's fingers to get the info but not exactly break the strictures of the Constitution.
Ladies and gentlemen,
I will attempt to veer this conversation back from whether Kiefer Sutherland will save the day.
I believe knowledge is what makes a sport. Who among us have not "converted" a non-track fan by explaining to them what to look for in a certain race or event. I for one thing american football is an fabulous spectator sport, not just for the exciting plays, but because I know the game well enough to understand when a game is still close, what makes a great play, and when a game is really in garbage time. What the coaches are thinking. When they make a gutsy call...etc...
Now, there are some elemental truths to track and field that don't require knowledge. These are the same truths that make a company sack race a great "spectator sport". First one done, wins. If it's close, you know it. No "education" required.
I for one, obviously by being on this forum, am a lifelong T & F fan. But track is simply not THAT exciting to watch that often. Too many unclose races. Too many field events that require the afformentioned knowledge to make exciting. Does a 28 foot LJ look that different from a 25 foot jump on tv to a novice? No.
Now, that being said. NASCAR? I've even tried to gleen the knowledge it takes to enjoy. Don't get it.
>It's a soap opera with action sub-plots-not the other way around.>>
Absolutely! They don't get any soapier than this one. (But it's still a great watch, trying to figure out what ludicrous sub-plot they'll throw at you next) (Is Sherry Palmer still alive to throw into the mix?)