Playing games with balls

[ChrisOH]

In on of the other topics some time back, it was mentioned how even a dog can chase after a ball. I decided to do a little Web browsing, and found that although there aren't any definitive answer, most scientists place a dog's intelligence level at anywhere from a 2-year-old to 5-year-old child. So, let's suffice it to say that a dog has about the mental capabilities of a preschool-age child.

Now, if we look at any Chuck E. Cheese restaurant, McDonald's PlayPlace, or other place that is designed for preschoolers, what are we likely to find? Most likely a large playpen full of balls for the children to romp around in or toss back and forth to each other. So, games and activities involving balls may very well be one of the first things a toddler or preschooler becomes involved in socially. It's not surprising, actually -- they're still learning coordination, and their minds haven't developed enough to focus on or enjoy more complex forms of recreation. My nieces and nephews played baseball, football, basketball, and hockey when they were in kindergarten. So, as a society, we idolize people who have become REALLY good at games kindergartners play.

As the human brain grows and develops, it should naturally desire more stimulation -- a hunger to read, to learn new facts and ideas, and experience new aspects of life. So why do so many people still focus their lives so much on playing ball games, or on watching them?

My hypothesis is that these people have never truly developed beyond the childish mindset when it comes to mental stimulation. Perhaps they are unable to move beyond that -- or maybe more likely, they just don't want to.

Sports is, at its core, just mindless entertainment. Now, I don't believe there's anything wrong with mindless entertainment every now and then -- it probably isn't healthy for the brain to be at full stimulation all the time, with no time to relax and recharge. But I also believe that sports should be acknowledged as mindless entertainment -- it doesn't belong on the front page of the newspaper, or as the lead story in a newscast. And certainly, it shouldn't be a reason for people to feel either inflated accomplishment or dejection over a game.

After all, it's just people playing with balls!

Thoughts, anyone?

[i_like_1981]

But I also believe that sports should be acknowledged as mindless entertainment -- it doesn't belong on the front page of the newspaper, or as the lead story in a newscast. And certainly, it shouldn't be a reason for people to feel either inflated accomplishment or dejection over a game.

This is exactly what I believe. Too many people fail to see sports for what they really are - trivial entertainment, just play games that should be played and enjoyed by those who like them WITHOUT the necessity of a billion-pound industry and unbelievable levels of media hype surrounding them. Sadly, sports seem to have become a modern religion of sorts, an overblown craze which the whole world revolves around, and my main problem is, we have people feeling like social rejects because they haven't been taken in by all the madness, therefore they are considered "weirdos" by their peers and rejected. You know the world is mad when somebody considers you pathetic for NOT wanting to spend your time living through the achievements of other men.

Best regards,
i_like_1981

[recovering_fan]

As the human brain grows and develops, it should naturally desire more stimulation -- a hunger to read, to learn new facts and ideas, and experience new aspects of life. So why do so many people still focus their lives so much on playing ball games, or on watching them?

My hypothesis is that these people have never truly developed beyond the childish mindset when it comes to mental stimulation. Perhaps they are unable to move beyond that -- or maybe more likely, they just don't want to.

I think it has to do with fear of failure, fear of the unknown, and a fear of not being in control.

Passively watching sports is a lame way to spend one's time. Another thing I hate about it is that it never changes. It deludes people into thinking that the world around them will never change, either. After all, just look at a particular sport; it's fundamental rules and objectives never alter. Change can be scary, and I suppose a lot of guys just want to live in a man cave where they don't have to deal with the instability of real life.

Now I'm going to bend the rules of the site, because I feel the need to illustrate a point. Here is a clip from Field of Dreams, which talks about one of the "finest aspects" of the game of baseball--that it's the same now as it was a hundred years ago. I am posting this, however, as a CRITICISM of spectator sports.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hU3a1PDtTYk

Don't live in the PAST, people!



--RF

[Pylar]

Sex, like sports, is a primal pleasure. Of course sex is much more enjoyable.

[recovering_fan]

Sex, like sports, is a primal pleasure. Of course sex is much more enjoyable.

That sounds EXACTLY like something you'd hear from najib_daho or Antigone from BoxRec, alright.

Anyway...

My comments were about WATCHING sports.

Also...

When I said that sports kept us anchored to the past in unhealthy ways, I meant that watching sports made us nostalgic for better moments from our own pasts, at times when it would be healthier to admit that the past was gone and had no bearing on the present. None of my remarks had anything to do with "primal pleasures" as far as I can see.

--RF

[Indurrago]

You make a very good point recovering_fan. I noticed in other forms of entertainment they're constantly changing as technology gets better(i.e. movies, television, video/pc games, music, art) though they arguably don't get more entertaining but just change in form to entertain you in different ways.

[i_like_1981]

...though they arguably don't get more entertaining but just change in form to entertain you in different ways.

I don't get why the sports video game producers release new games every year. I mean seriously, what is the point? Every year in the UK new FIFA games come out, and the only thing that ever changes are the names of the players. The gameplay is the same every edition - digital men chasing a ball. It would make more sense if they just released one edition and allowed the purchasers to update the player names via the internet whenever there were significant team changes but no, every year entire new editions are released, because EA Sports know that people are stupid enough to pay time and time again for the same game in order to seem "in" when it comes to sports games. "Oh, I've got FIFA 11! It's basically the same as all the others before it, but heck, the names on the players' shirts are different, so it's worth £30!" Great.

Best regards,
i_like_1981

[miketv]

Great post, ChrisOH. People are childlike in their admiration of sports. Their fascination with an unchanging thing probably does have something to do with their development into adults who can't handle progress.

Now I'm going to bend the rules of the site, because I feel the need to illustrate a point. Here is a clip from Field of Dreams, which talks about one of the "finest aspects" of the game of baseball--that it's the same now as it was a hundred years ago. I am posting this, however, as a CRITICISM of spectator sports.

First off, R_F, I don't want to sound like an ass kisser, but your ability to transform that scene into a haunting speech just by posting it here: brilliant. I've been writing a sequel to my movie The High Five, & that was really inspiring. Look for the voice track in my sequel. (PM me if I should thank you in the credits...you earned it. If you'd rather remain anonymous, I'll probably just thank this site in general (assuming the owner doesn't mind.))
Second, which rule did you bend? Did I miss something in the rules about posting links, or is it something else?

I know that a lot of people are drawn to sports because of their quantifiable nature; scores, stats, records, betting systems....everything you need to know is right there in black & white. This is just a hypothesis, but wouldn't those people be drawn to academia if the numbers were publicly marketed broadcast? The performance of top college students could be tracked & updated, with I.Q. points, test scores, SAT scores, major & minor studies, historical trends in each student's education, colorful analysis of their potential benefit to mankind, etc.
Inevitably, this would of course lead to competition. I'm not a big fan of competition, but it does seem to be a force of nature that would exist with or without the involvement of mankind. Why not promote academia to overtake sports as the competition that dominates the globe's attention? Imagine the salaries brainiacs could be making. Imagine a society worshiping a person for winning a Nobel Prize instead of for throwing a ball.

[ChrisOH]

Great post, ChrisOH. People are childlike in their admiration of sports. Their fascination with an unchanging thing probably does have something to do with their development into adults who can't handle progress.

Thanks! Referring back to RF's post about the "Field of Dreams" excerpt, I think people do seek comfort in the nostalgic and familiar during times of crisis and uncertainty (e.g. family traditions, holidays, hobbies and interests of childhood, etc.)

Only problem is with sports, that's a false sense of comfort. Sports really aren't unchanging and steadfast, or sources upon which to ground yourself. Players and owners have no loyalty to teams or communities, and as we've seen, moral values of athletes often aren't anything to be admired. It's all an illusion we (as a society) have created.

One book I read that was part of deconversion from sports fandom was "Cooperstown Confidential" by Zev Chafets. The author admits to being a baseball fan, but he talks about much of the hypocrisy surrounding baseball's Hall of Fame (in Cooperstown, New York), and how much of baseball's romanticized past is mostly crap. (For example, Ty Cobb, the [uvery first inductee in the Hall of Fame in 1936, was an open racist (even more rabidly than many in an era when institutionalized racism was much more accepted than today) and once bragged to teammates how he had murdered a man in the street and gotten away with it.) The book also talks about how making the Hall can turn a player's once-worthless memorabilia into a gold mine (again, selling us on an illusion).

Here's a brief review of the book:

http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/artic ... fidential/

Just a note: for those who have never been interested in sports, this may be a dull read. However, for someone who is on the fence about liking sports, it could be an eye-opener, as it was for me (just one of several things that made me question interest in and support of sports).

In response to RF's post, I'd say, remember the past and keep the good, but be willing to move forward.

[Fat Man]

Great post, ChrisOH. People are childlike in their admiration of sports. Their fascination with an unchanging thing probably does have something to do with their development into adults who can't handle progress.

Thanks! Referring back to RF's post about the "Field of Dreams" excerpt, I think people do seek comfort in the . . .

Well, this is my idea of a field of dreams!



And this . . .



And this . . .



And this . . .



And this . . .



And this . . .



And this . . .



Yeah, Amateur Astronomers meeting out in an open field somewhere.

That would be my field of dreams.

Astronomy is beautiful!

Sports is ugly and it smells bad!

Why do so many people love that which is so fucking ugly and smells bad, like sports, and yet, hate what is beautiful and emotionally up-lifting?

I'll never understand!

[ChrisOH]

love those images, Fat Man!

[Fat Man]

love those images, Fat Man!

Thank you!

[Indurrago]

...though they arguably don't get more entertaining but just change in form to entertain you in different ways.

I don't get why the sports video game producers release new games every year. I mean seriously, what is the point? Every year in the UK new FIFA games come out, and the only thing that ever changes are the names of the players. The gameplay is the same every edition - digital men chasing a ball. It would make more sense if they just released one edition and allowed the purchasers to update the player names via the internet whenever there were significant team changes but no, every year entire new editions are released, because EA Sports know that people are stupid enough to pay time and time again for the same game in order to seem "in" when it comes to sports games. "Oh, I've got FIFA 11! It's basically the same as all the others before it, but heck, the names on the players' shirts are different, so it's worth £30!" Great.

Best regards,
i_like_1981

Yeah you make a great point but somebody would argue that with other types of video games like first-person shooters, platformers, or role-playing games. Alot of games only have minor game-play differences between them within a genre but the I think the big difference that most sports games can't claim to have is an individual story that separates them from other games. I used to be big on turn-based rpgs and I soaked up the story, characters, settings, etc. I can compare it to reading books. I can read multiple book written by the same artist using as same the writing style as long as each book as its own individual tale but if successive sports video games were turned to books the differences(what I call "meat") would've be enough to pick another one and to actually read it. This is not to say I only play games for their stories or ones that have one though. Tetris Extreme is one example of a game I enjoyed playing hours on that had no story, adding a musical element with the gameplay was genius.

[i_like_1981]

I was thinking exactly the same thing, Indurrago. First-person shooter games may invariably just be multiple levels of shooting people but the fact is, they allow more room for original storylines, historical context and generally a wider range of gameplay overall. Football games like the yearly FIFA releases - it is just the same thing every year. You just can't get originality with these games. The only difference with each annual release is slightly improved graphics and new names on the backs of shirts. It'll only become original in my opinion when Virtual Reality becomes popularised and you will actually be able to enter the game yourself and play, but I don't see that happening for a while yet. But a lot of sports fans are suckers who will be enticed into buying practically the same game every year just to prove to themselves that they're up to date with the world of football. Just look at the sales figures.

Best regards,
i_like_1981