There was a great documentary about this on the BBC about Rugby recently. Dude has dementia at 42, can’t remember winning the World Cup, forgets his daughters names etc. Clips of players getting knocked out twice in the same game and still playing until the end. Absolutely disgusting really. Players aren’t protected at all. Even less so in the ones that don’t bring in millions of £££.
1 Like
This is an interesting claim. Do you think this applies to other areas, or just athletics? Do you think that we should view every child’s drawing as equivalent (or “just as meaningful”) as, say, the works of da Vinci? If so, does that mean we shouldn’t have museums, as they elevate some pieces of art over others?
Is every high school production of A Midsummer Night’s Dream equally worthy of praise and attention as a professional production? If so, should professional plays be outlawed because they might make the high school actors feel inferior?
What about investing? Are my 3% returns last year as “meaningful” of an achievement as Warren Buffet’s 20% year-over-year average?
How about software development? Is a first year CS major’s attempt at a basic CRUD application as “meaningful” as a fully functioning operating system? Is it bad that people would want to spend money on one of those, but not the other? What if that makes the CS major feel insecure and want to quit making software altogether?
1 Like
What is art?
What is invention?
How is the supreme display of athletic talent through motion any different than either of them?
Between this thread and the other one you started, you certainly do not come across as very masculine at all. NTTAWWT
2 Likes
You are making it sound like playing a sport is the equivalent of creating art. I dont see it that way. I simply am not convinced that Tom bradys achievements can in any way be compared to what Martin Scorsese did or why Tesla invented.
Why?
Imagine an alien came to earth and asked why certain people were highly respected in society. We would point to a famous director and show him how he created movies that brought audiences to tears. A musician who created beautiful music that touched the hearts of people. An inventor who created technology that made lives easier for people. And then we get to the athletes. We say how Michael Phelps is amazing becuase he swims fast. Or Tom Brady becuase he is great at throwing a football.
Are you actually convinced that athletes are in any way the equivalent of artists or inventors? Or are you just trying to play word games. Athletes are basically no different from race horses. They are not creators.
Are you just playing word games? Are you really saying that a move like Taxi Driver is the same thing as Tom Brady winning a super bowl?
And what is masculine exactly? How is obsessing over millionaires playing a sport masculine to you?
That’s a weird premise for an argument, but let’s go with it.
You’re telling me that aliens would have an easier time understanding why people stand in line for hours and pay money to look at this than why we have an appreciation for displays of physical strength, speed, and agility?
Edit to answer your other question: yes, I think that athletes are the “equivalent” to artists and inventors, in that they produce things that people value. Artists produce art, inventors produce inventions, and athletes produce displays of physical prowess that people enjoy watching. Explain to me how they’re different.
People pay good money to watch those, too.
Of course modern art is weird. But to your point of seeing examples of strength power and speed. I dont believe that’s why people like sports. The reason why is that the sport that shows off those qualities in their most pure form is my favorite sport, and it’s incredibly unpopular. That would track and field. People don’t like just seeing pure athletic talent. They like seeing sports which would be more considered a game. So I don’t agree with your claim. People aren’t truly interested in seeing pure athletic feats, they want to see something that is seen in games.
It’s probably both. People don’t watch scrabble tournaments either. Games are fun and engaging in a way that watching a dude run around in a circle (even if he’s really fast) isn’t. But a game where some of the most physically impressive people on earth run around really fast, throw things, jump, directions, and coordinate with one another? Thats pretty interesting
Ok. So it seems very different to me because the athletes are playing a game but it stretches the term creation to say they are creating something while playing that game. Someone running a local 5k and then writing a paper for English class obviously feel different in what they are doing.
Also, when we look at artistic creation and athletic games people watch. The artistic creation is not a temporary thing, it is forever. But the athletic game is very temporary in its meaning. Just one day later and it’s meaning begins to evaporate. It is only in the moment when the drama of the game is happening that people care. Even very big sports fans are not going to watch old games very often. But there are plenty of people who listen to music that was made decades ago. So I am just not convinced that it’s the same.
But what about baseballs popularity, or golf. Those game dont require an impressive amount of athleticism? What explains the popularity of those?
What about a different kind of live performance? A musical concert, a play, a ballet, etc? Are those people not creating something? Are those not artists because the creation is inherently ephemeral?
All things are temporary, my dude.
You ever hear of ESPN Classic?
I think you are right about the live performance. That is like an athlete I suppose. It is a performance. But it is somewhat different because it is a performance of the artistic creation. The athlete is not performing their creation. It is something else.
Yes all things are temporary but you can see things are different in how they are seen when they are older. Also, a very boring g and meaningless season game will get more viewer than an old Super Bowl game on espn classic.
As much as I rag on baseball, I don’t think this is true. How many people can throw a ball 100 miles per hour, or hit a ball thats moving that fast?
Hitting a baseball has long been considered the greatest athletic talent there is.
Golf has popularity because a vast number of people play golf late into their lives. How many corporate deals are sealed on a golf course?
2 Likes
Please define “artistic creation”.
1 Like
Right. But the athleticism is pretty minimal compared to other sports it seems. The athlete in baseball would probably not have much carry over to any general athleticism like a basketball player would.