Jump to content


Photo

Sport is not sport. It has not been sport for a few decades, imo.


  • Please log in to reply
31 replies to this topic

#21 merlin13

merlin13

    Guru

  • Atomican
  • 8,429 posts

Posted 07 April 2018 - 02:34 PM

:)

 

I only really watch the V.8s, about as honest as it gets most of the time accepting that the teams are always looking for a performance edge but that is pure competion.

 

The rest of televised sport - can't be bothered :)

 

Cheers

 

Only reason I even bother watching those is for the prangs 'n pile-ups...


Anything not nailed down is mine, and anything I can prise up is not nailed down...

#22 chrisg

chrisg

    Immortal

  • Super Hero
  • 34,970 posts
  • Location:Perth

Posted 07 April 2018 - 02:59 PM

;)

 

 Well, there is that but as a long term professional driver I love watching their skills, I could not do what they do, and I do know how to drive , very well apparently :)

 

Cheers


"Specialisation is for Insects" RAH

#23 mark84

mark84

    Champion

  • Hero
  • 5,737 posts

Posted 09 April 2018 - 06:10 PM

Not sure I completely understand the agument being put forward by OP etc, but my thoughts:

 

The pinnacle of a sport not being a sport, is F1.

As a fan it's tough to watch them regulate themselves. Certian teams have full-on veto powers on rules, and certain teams get paid millions just to rock up, because history. It's carzily unfair to newer or lower budget teams. Is why Ferrai is always on the podium, things are constantly stacked in their favour.

Liberty Media now that it has taken over is making big strides towards fairness to all teams and reigning in the crazy costs the well of teams/manufactures can pump in. But there's a long way to go (2021 at the earliest for true team parity)

 

NRL lost me a while ago, mainly because players are just commodities for the most part, no aleigence, they see money elsewhere, they follow it.

Rugby Union on the other hand is much more fascinating a game to watch. Actual strategy goes on. League is for the most part just played tackle to tackle, kind of a one trick pony imo.

 

Tennis is good too imo. Mano a mano.

Don't mind the hawkeye stuff. Humans can get it wrong or blink at the wrong moment.


Desktop: i7 6850K @ 4.3GHz | Titan X (Pascal) | 32GB RAM | 120GB + 500GB SSDs | 2x 5TB HDD in RAID1

Server: G3258 @4.6GHz | 120GB SSD | 2x 4TB RAID1 | 2x 6TB RAID1

Desktop build log | Firefox AtomicMPC Menu | The Truth About Graphics Power Requirements V2 | CPU bench league

www.atomicsimracing.net - The place for Atomicans who love motor sports and sim racing.


#24 Rybags

Rybags

    Immortal

  • Super Hero
  • 35,641 posts

Posted 09 April 2018 - 06:28 PM

I tossed Union a few years ago, IMO it's way worse than League.  Teams popping up in the Super 10/12/14/15/18 or whatever the hell it is now, for the sake of an area having a franchise despite having next to zero junior base or local talent.

It dilutes the quality of an already thinly spread resource.  And you see next to zero coverage on free TV.  Fuck paying to spectate a second-rate product when a better one is at least mostly free to watch.



#25 eveln

eveln

    Titan

  • Atomican
  • 16,846 posts
  • Location:Nth QLD

Posted 09 April 2018 - 07:26 PM

Not sure I completely understand the agument being put forward by OP etc, but my thoughts:

 

The pinnacle of a sport not being a sport, is F1.

As a fan it's tough to watch them regulate themselves. Certian teams have full-on veto powers on rules, and certain teams get paid millions just to rock up, because history. It's carzily unfair to newer or lower budget teams. Is why Ferrai is always on the podium, things are constantly stacked in their favour.

Liberty Media now that it has taken over is making big strides towards fairness to all teams and reigning in the crazy costs the well of teams/manufactures can pump in. But there's a long way to go (2021 at the earliest for true team parity)

 

NRL lost me a while ago, mainly because players are just commodities for the most part, no aleigence, they see money elsewhere, they follow it.

Rugby Union on the other hand is much more fascinating a game to watch. Actual strategy goes on. League is for the most part just played tackle to tackle, kind of a one trick pony imo.

 

Tennis is good too imo. Mano a mano.

Don't mind the hawkeye stuff. Humans can get it wrong or blink at the wrong moment.

Not so much an argument, but a comment on what's going down, imo of course. Not being at all in any way shape or form in to car racing ( but I do like vintage and the like cars ) I am not as aware of the privileged favouritism. All I knew is that it's an incredibly expensive sport. I'd think yacht racing would be similarly financially crippling too.

 

You just reinforce the ' cheat-like' behaviour that is already so prevalent in ball sports .


Edited by eveln, 09 April 2018 - 07:26 PM.

 Laugh to Live . Live to Laugh.

atomic has π


#26 Rybags

Rybags

    Immortal

  • Super Hero
  • 35,641 posts

Posted 13 April 2018 - 06:59 PM

Nine will no longer host the cricket after 2020.  Seven has won the rights with a $1.2 Billion bid.

 

I doubt the tampering scandal has anything to do with it, no doubt the bids were probably finalised some time before that.

What does seem to be a problem though is that the ODIs and T20 won't be on FTA.



#27 eveln

eveln

    Titan

  • Atomican
  • 16,846 posts
  • Location:Nth QLD

Posted 13 April 2018 - 08:46 PM

" What does seem to be a problem though is that the ODIs and T20 won't be on FTA. "

 

Which basically boldly says that the game ( most games ) is all about the money. I'd like to see a massive decline in seats on bums bums on seats right across all the sports arenas. Really put a dint in the monetary value of them all.

 

edit : lol I knew there was something not quite right with the crossed out bit


Edited by eveln, 13 April 2018 - 09:34 PM.

 Laugh to Live . Live to Laugh.

atomic has π


#28 Rybags

Rybags

    Immortal

  • Super Hero
  • 35,641 posts

Posted 13 April 2018 - 09:44 PM

They've already fucked the ODIs by getting rid of the tri-series format which worked so well for 30+ years.  If Pak vs WI doesn't get 35,000 in the stadium they deem it a fail which is ridiculous.

As it is, watching 5 games in a row of Aus vs Eng gets a bit boring.  At least with a third team it adds some variety even if they're only making up the numbers.



#29 scruffy1

scruffy1

    Champion

  • Hero
  • 5,602 posts
  • Location:near the beach

Posted 14 April 2018 - 12:25 AM

Nine will no longer host the cricket after 2020.  Seven has won the rights with a $1.2 Billion bid.

 

I doubt the tampering scandal has anything to do with it, no doubt the bids were probably finalised some time before that.

What does seem to be a problem though is that the ODIs and T20 won't be on FTA.

 

free to air is a dead man walking

 

within the next decade it will only be watched by desperate people who will tolerate advertising content exceeding 50% of air time, and will finally choke itself to death selling even more advertising spots thereaffter, to a completely disinterested non-targeted ausience


ummmmmmmmmmm............


#30 Cybes

Cybes

    Titan

  • Atomican
  • 18,291 posts
  • Location:Where I am

Posted 14 April 2018 - 01:06 AM

...it will only be watched by desperate people who will tolerate advertising content exceeding 50% of air time, and will finally choke itself to death selling even more advertising spots thereaffter, to a completely disinterested non-targeted ausience


Unfortunately, ads won't kill it: there are whole channels with nothing *but* ads, and they still have viewers!

"Reality does not care what you think." - Dr Richard Feynman
"There is no "I" in team." - "True.  I will not be found in any team."


#31 Dongslave

Dongslave

    Serf

  • Lurker
  • 1 posts

Posted 20 April 2018 - 10:56 PM

I feel you are citing the obvious here.  Sport has always been a business, one only needs to look at football around the world in its various incarnations to recognise that. 

 

The business of winning is what all sports are about.  There is not a competition out there that is not predicated on there being a winner and a loser, with the winner going on until such a point that they win the prize.  Whether that be a glorious trophy and a million dollars in prize money, or a voucher for the local butcher, it has always been a business. 

 

Rule changes are made to sell the game.  When people got sick of the grappling in the NRL, rules were introduced to reduce the instances of grappling.  The UFC have had bans placed upon what is known as the '12-6 elbow' due to the fear instilled by fake martial art practitioners breaking bricks with the move.  Head kicks to a downed opponent have been banned due to the inability to sell a product containing them. 

Warnings for stalling in boxing, restrictions on field placement in cricket, engine specifications in racing, and the new rules in MLB designed to 'speed up the pace of the game' are all designed to sell the product to the advertisers over the masses.  This has always been the case. 

 

However the reality is that there is a ruleset at the base of it all.  This ruleset doesn't always make sense.  Basketball banned dunks to stop teams loading up on tall players.  Then they introduced the three point line to encourage shorter players.  Both seemed to be detrimental to the game at the time. The end result is a product with well defined rules that players have adapted to, resulting in a product that is far superior to the initial offering.  Seeing Steph Curry drain three point shots is a highlight of his games. 

 

Once the initial moaning subsides, and the obvious commentary of 'sport not being sport anymore' dies off, the spectacle will return and the changes will be forgotten as changes and will be simply considered to be the status quo. 

 

What is the purpose of your commentary? 



#32 eveln

eveln

    Titan

  • Atomican
  • 16,846 posts
  • Location:Nth QLD

Posted 21 April 2018 - 12:49 AM

I feel you are citing the obvious here.  Sport has always been a business, one only needs to look at football around the world in its various incarnations to recognise that. 

 

The business of winning is what all sports are about.  There is not a competition out there that is not predicated on there being a winner and a loser, with the winner going on until such a point that they win the prize.  Whether that be a glorious trophy and a million dollars in prize money, or a voucher for the local butcher, it has always been a business. 

 

Rule changes are made to sell the game.  When people got sick of the grappling in the NRL, rules were introduced to reduce the instances of grappling.  The UFC have had bans placed upon what is known as the '12-6 elbow' due to the fear instilled by fake martial art practitioners breaking bricks with the move.  Head kicks to a downed opponent have been banned due to the inability to sell a product containing them. 

Warnings for stalling in boxing, restrictions on field placement in cricket, engine specifications in racing, and the new rules in MLB designed to 'speed up the pace of the game' are all designed to sell the product to the advertisers over the masses.  This has always been the case. 

 

However the reality is that there is a ruleset at the base of it all.  This ruleset doesn't always make sense.  Basketball banned dunks to stop teams loading up on tall players.  Then they introduced the three point line to encourage shorter players.  Both seemed to be detrimental to the game at the time. The end result is a product with well defined rules that players have adapted to, resulting in a product that is far superior to the initial offering.  Seeing Steph Curry drain three point shots is a highlight of his games. 

 

Once the initial moaning subsides, and the obvious commentary of 'sport not being sport anymore' dies off, the spectacle will return and the changes will be forgotten as changes and will be simply considered to be the status quo. 

 

What is the purpose of your commentary? 

First things first : Hello and welcome :)

 

I am assuming your question is to me the poster of the OP .

 

" Obvious updates to the " game " will always occur with the strength of technology used to record it. With that in mind, it seems logical that rules and regulations would seem to be

stricter today than in times past. And so they must. Humans haven't suddenly become ' holier than thou ', and people like Mr Johns seem to have more thought for the enjoyment

( and money ) from the people who fill the stadium for their pleasure. I have to wonder why sloppy play is considered by Mr Johns to be more important to the game than the players

making the effort to improve their  " game " skill. Would it be more about new players being able to play without having to have a decent skill for the game, meaning the " game " goes

on and keeps the money rolling in for the sponsors and rest of the huge works and jerks that are seen as needed ? To keep the pay checks coming in ? And also, when the players are seriously injured there will always be someone

just capable of filling the slot ?"

 

The above is a quote from my OP. I think it states my commentary pretty well. It seems you don't have an issue with rules adapting to suit the pay scale so to speak. Does that mean you'd be willing to think of ball tampering as not cheating per say ?

Or players not adhering to the rules of the day so's the play looks to be more fluid ... so the play would look a bit like a dance maybe, rather than a sport ?


Edited by eveln, 21 April 2018 - 12:50 AM.

 Laugh to Live . Live to Laugh.

atomic has π





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users