International I Hate Sports Club

recovering_fan wrote:Think much farther back than The Great Gatsby. I'm thinking of the Regency era or even earlier, although it's unlikely that sports dominated culture in the Victorian era either, and team sports almost certainly did not.

Looking beyond the realm of team sports, it has always been the case throughout history that the physically strong and fit are held up as being heroes and treated as being superior. Back in the medieval era, the knights used to represent the highest point of masculinity. Yes, I know that there were the kings and nobles who were superior by blood regardless of physical strength but the fact is, for many centuries, society has admired the strong and held some level of contempt for the weak.

Back in the medieval era there were crowds of people gathered around watching jousting matches in which one or more men would be killed. People would flock to these games in droves. Not only that, they'd also flock to executions to watch prisoners being killed... I hope you're getting my point here. The herd mentality that is key to the sports-dominated culture has existed in people for many centuries - even millennia. The gladiatorial combat in Rome was a perfect example - thousands of people flocking to a huge arena built for the purpose of the masses being able to watch men fight each other to the death. And now, 2000 years later, the EXACT same mentality exists in violent sports like boxing and wrestling (yes, they're not killing each other, but it's still violence which draws crowds of thousands to it) - the more things change, the more things stay the same!

Best regards,
i_like_1981

How right you are sir. The masses, lacking of any personal goals or ambition flock to these events for thrills and an adrenaline rush that their own sad, desperate lives cannot provide.The herd mentality, and therefore mindless sporting events will be with us forever. Hopefully there will be enough people bright and individual enough to keep sanity in society and stay outside the sheeple herd.

i_like_1981 wrote:Looking beyond the realm of team sports, it has always been the case throughout history that the physically strong and fit are held up as being heroes and treated as being superior. Back in the medieval era, the knights used to represent the highest point of masculinity....

Alright, I guess you have a point about physical prowess and athletic ability. Still, in the medieval era there were other paths to respectability besides beating on people. Obviously knights really were heroes because they were expected to be able to participate in military campaigns, which used a lot more muscle in those days. But one could distinguish oneself as a doctor or lawyer, and I doubt people viciously ridiculed those who declined to "enter the lists". I would very much like to see some solid evidence from you that they really did ridicule non-jousters.

Back in the medieval era there were crowds of people gathered around watching jousting matches in which one or more men would be killed. People would flock to these games in droves. Not only that, they'd also flock to executions to watch prisoners being killed... I hope you're getting my point here. The herd mentality that is key to the sports-dominated culture has existed in people for many centuries - even millennia. The gladiatorial combat in Rome was a perfect example - thousands of people flocking to a huge arena built for the purpose of the masses being able to watch men fight each other to the death. And now, 2000 years later, the EXACT same mentality exists in violent sports like boxing and wrestling (yes, they're not killing each other, but it's still violence which draws crowds of thousands to it) - the more things change, the more things stay the same!

My point, which, after all, began this whole side discussion, was that no one frowned on you if you did not hang out at the Coliseum. And I was thinking of what life must have been like for the upper classes. Why did you decide to make this about the illiterate mob? You and I may not be elite in terms of income, but we can read, so surely it makes more sense to compare ourselves to historical populations who could also read?

--RF

Brigan wrote:

Fat Man wrote:I don't see Brigan criticizing the rude obnoxious behavior of moronic sports bores or the violent crimes committed by professional jocks!

Oh! NNNNNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!

We must NEVER criticize our precious football players or professional athletes! How dare we!!!

I'm not saying Good job to them Either. It's a Fact that Famous people tend to get away with anything related to crimes, Famous people Fat Man not just Sport stars, If someone rapes, Hell I'm not going to applaud them.

Brigan, some sports fans are willing to applaud someone who rapes. I recently read a comment at a football website from a fan who said that he didn't care if Ben Roethlisberger had committed rape or not. The only thing that mattered to him was how well he could play football. This is not the first time I've ever heard such a comment. Not by a long shot. I'm not saying that Roethlisberger is guilty of rape. Whether he committed rape or not is besides the point. I'm just pointing out the sorry attitude that way too many sports fans have about off-the-field conduct of the athletes they put on a pedestal. I've not heard of a single Hollywood actor who got away with committing rape or beating someone so badly that he was expected to die at one point. (And, no, I'm not making a negative stereotype about a whole group of men. I'm referring to the misconduct of individuals who aren't held accountable.) To borrow a line or two from George Orwell (with apologies), all celebrities are equal; but some (i.e., individual athletes in certain popular sports) are more equal than others. You say that all famous people tend to get away with anything related to crimes, and others will then chime in to say that therefore it doesn't matter since everyone does it. And some people wonder why those of us who support this website question the culture associated with certain sports.

Good morning Earl:

As I have said before. . . . .

There is no reasoning with Brigan.

If he had a brain, he'd have it bouncing up and down, trying to shoot hoops!!!

recovering_fan wrote:My point, which, after all, began this whole side discussion, was that no one frowned on you if you did not hang out at the Coliseum. And I was thinking of what life must have been like for the upper classes. Why did you decide to make this about the illiterate mob?

I was responding to this segment of one of your posts in this thread:

[quote-"recovering_fan"]Think much farther back than The Great Gatsby. I'm thinking of the Regency era or even earlier, although it's unlikely that sports dominated culture in the Victorian era either...[/quote]

I believe I was making a reference to cultures being strongly influenced or even dominated by competitive games. I wasn't making it a class issue, I was responding to your stated belief that sports (which I have expanded to mean all competitive physical games on an inflated scale) have not dominated culture for an extremely long period of time. The gladiatorial games in Rome back in the Colosseum were a perfect example of a culture dominated by popular games on an incredible public scale - common people flocked in their thousands to watch those games at a huge arena built for the purpose of their entertainment, which is very similar to the situation now with sports like football. Except back then, there was only one Colosseum - nowadays, just about all developed countries have major stadiums built for their top sports clubs. And I wouldn't say it was just the reserve of the poor and uneducated - after all, did the Roman emperors not come to watch the games and decide, with a thumb up or thumb down, the fate of the losing fighter? I hope you can understand what I'm getting at here.

Best regards,
i_like_1981

Don't forget about the Olympics in Ancient Greece either.

@i_like_1981,

I wrote:

recovering_fan wrote:That is a good question, because it hasn't always been this way. I bet if you thumbed through various old novels you would find guys who were into a variety of different hobbies.

You replied:

i_like_1981 wrote:Well, it's been this way for as long as I can remember, and certainly longer than I've been alive. I once watched a film adaptation of The Great Gatsby, which was originally written in the mid-1920s, and one line I could remember is when an older bloke gets up from a table to leave and says something like "You young people have got your sports to talk about..." - there was definitely a mention of sports in there somewhere.

So there were always sports, sure. My point was that the same peer-pressure surrounding sports that exists now did not exist back in the old days, especially in places where people could read. (I choose to ignore the behaviour of Roman plebeians because, being illiterate, they did not have as many ways of entertaining themselves, so it makes less sense to compare ourselves to them than it does to compare ourselves to the patricians. How the patricians behaved is more relevant.)

You see, in order for sports to "dominate" a culture, I would say that some kind of peer-pressure had to exist that isolated people who weren't into sports all that much. I don't think sports did dominate, in that sense, the way they do today. I think it was possible to engage in dancing as one's primary aerobic activity without incurring the contempt of other males. Do you disagree?

Well, yes, I agree with you on that one. In the old days, well before any of us were alive, intellectual prowess was praised far more than it is by most people today. Back in the medieval era it was considered an honour to be able to read and write and those "literate" people had an awful lot more opportunities offered to them. I'm sure that those who weren't fascinated with the popular games of the time were quite as excluded by their peers as many are today. But it's all so commercialised today. Sports and competitive games couldn't become anywhere near as widespread on a worldwide scale as they could today - we have the internet, TV, radio and newspapers which can broadcast the sports propaganda all across the world. Jousting and gladiator fights were really just restricted to those who were in the area. I agree with you that the sense of isolation that comes with not enjoying competitive sports probably wasn't so prevalent as it is today, but the herd mentality around these games, the thousands of people flocking to one place to watch others compete - it was all there thousands of years ago. Times and technology change. People don't.

Best regards,
i_like_1981

Well, good compromise answer, I guess.

(I'm a tad disappointed, though, as I was looking forward to scavenging for information in dozens of old novels to prove my point about there having been other options for young men, and now you've ruined it all by half-agreeing with me, alas. )

Maybe I can start a thread anyway, about happier times, portrayed in novels, where young, non-athletic boys grew up in a climate of full acceptance from those around them.

RF

Well, you can always go through those old novels, and search for the information you desire, about the good old days when masculinity was judged by more meaningful pursuits than just tossing a ball round and hitting other guys, and start a new topic about it. Believe me, we love good informative posts round here. I hope you'll accept my apology for ruining your craving for an argument. Problem with me is, I'm a bit too willing to meet people halfway on issues, especially when I consider that person to generally be on "my side". After all, we both support this website, do we not, recovering_fan? Us lot need to stick together, as this site is hardly the hub of activity on the internet. But it's always good to have a civil, intelligent argument on something.

Best regards,
i_like_1981

Hmmmmm... what happened to Brigan?

@i_like_1981,

Yes, I agree ... as I have a tendency to do.

(I only just saw your post.)

By the way, my comment about "wussy Democrats" meeting people halfway wasn't directed at you, 1981, but rather at Democrats in my own country.

greencom wrote:Hmmmmm... what happened to Brigan?

I think he'll be back. I hope at least. Law school can be time-consuming.

I don't think he tries to twist anyone's words, either. It's more that he's literal-minded, like most lawyers, and sees everything in black and white. That IS the perfect way to see things if you plan on practising law.

recovering_fan wrote:By the way, my comment about "wussy Democrats" meeting people halfway wasn't directed at you, 1981, but rather at Democrats in my own country.

Dont' worry about it. I don't really take sides politically. Suffice it to say, it's very easy to get cynical about ALL politicians nowadays. But I'm the sort of guy who, although he relishes disagreements and arguments with those he considers to be "opponents" on the internet, doesn't like seeing too much division between those he considers to be "comrades".

And as for Brigan... oh, I'm sure he'll be back. He stopped posting on here for six months but came back eventually. Heck, I've noticed members who've been gone for over a year returning all of a sudden and posting again. But when it starts to get close to two years... you can probably forget it then.

Best regards,
i_like_1981