Sunday, May 8, 2016
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
-
LEGO Americana Roadshow: Building Across America I just checked out this traveling exhibition from LEGO and was quite impressed. The scale ... -
Merry Christmas, everyone!
-
When we let politics trump science, people are needlessly put in harm's way. http://arstechnica.com/science/2017/01/self-censoring-fears...
No, the balls are different sizes and colors. And the uniforms. This makes them diverse.
ReplyDeleteLacrosse, rugby, America football, blood bowl.... All the same
ReplyDeleteWater polo too, while you're at it.
ReplyDeleteAnd put tennis, badminton, ping pong, and volleyball in net sports.
ReplyDeleteHandball and raquetball.
But there is always .... Tiddlywinks! There is, or at least was, an intercollegiate league.
ReplyDeleteWas there something more to this epiphany? They are all variations on the "village game"... Was there something in particular that struck you?
ReplyDelete#MindBlown
ReplyDeleteThis is why I like baseball. It's asymmetrical.
ReplyDeleteEdward Morbius I think a case might be made that tennis, ping pong, badminton and other "net" games are fundamentally different since the players never occupy the same space...they're always segregated. But I might be convinced.
ReplyDeleteShannon Roy Link?
ReplyDeleteCraig Froehle I'm saying that the net sports and court sports are two additional sets of game / sportsball clusters.
ReplyDeleteI've been trying to think of others.
Croquet and golf share elements, for example.
Cricket and baseball.
You could add Rugby to your initial set.
It's all just sportsing to me. Now, archery and riflery, those are different.
ReplyDeleteCraig Froehle The game played with minor variations world over between villages before organized sport: get [object] over/into [area]. Pig bladder back to your village. Goat kid over line in sand. Coconut through hoop. Opponent's head through stone ring. etc. etc. etc. etc.
ReplyDeleteBrian Holt Hawthorne Right, there are a number of sports clusters.
ReplyDeleteField-ball sports (or variants): soccer, rugby, American football, lacrosse, hockey (field or ice), basketball, water polo, polo, for that matter. The field varies in description, but it's got two ends and the ball scores moving through a goal of some description.
Bat sports: cricket and baseball.
Net sports. Tennis, badminton, volleyball, ping pong.
I'm not sure how to class golf and croquet, but those, frisbee golf, and some similar games. Possibly even pool and biliards.
Bowling, lawn bowling. Arguably shuffleboard and curling. Pretty arguably, on reflection.
Shooting: rifles, pistols, archery. Range weapons. Possibly also field events: shot put, javlin throwing, caber tossing.
Melee weapons: fencing.
Gymnastics and tumbling. Dance. Skating.
Speed sports: running, cycling, auto racing, swimming, speedscating, skiiing.
Strength sports: weightlifting, powerlifting, olympic weightlifting, World's Strongest Man, etc.
Boating and sailing.
Combat sports: boxing, wrestling, martial arts.
(I guess I'm an ontologist....)
I would class them this way:
ReplyDeleteTeam Sportsing: all your field-ball, bat, and net sports.
Displays of individual prowess: gymnastics, strength, melee, track and field events
Expertise with machines: shooting, boating, sailing, car racing, Obfuscated C contest
I love expertise with machines, whether participating or watching. Displays of individual prowess are kind of cool, but I can only take so much of them before getting bored. Team sportsing holds very little interest for me. Engaging in the occasional pickup game of softball, football ("soccer"), ultimate, or volleyball is enjoyable as an addition to social events. I have never understood the lure of watching other people do Team Sportsing, especially remotely on electronic display devices. Even less do I understand the mania for discussing the remote viewing of such sportsing. "Did you see the game last night? Our Team sportsed really hard and annihilated Their team!"
Basically, all Team Sportsing boils down to ritual symbolic warfare. Don't we have enough of the real thing already?
Piers Anthony had an interesting take on categorization of sports and contests in his book Split Infinity and the Apprentice Adept sequels.
ReplyDeleteBrian Holt Hawthorne I keep waiting for the 'Stile' movies to come out.
ReplyDeleteWhirlyball I forgot about that one.
ReplyDeleteBrian Holt Hawthorne There are at least three "angles" on watching (as compared to participating in) sport:
ReplyDelete1. Tribal. Should require no explanation. In-group beats out-group. Yay in-group! "We" are awesome!
2. Skill. I played cricket at high school. Watching others play it at a (much) higher level of skill is aesthetically satisfying. Etc.
3. Spectacle. Things that are dangerous and/or illegal in regular life make compelling watching for some. Boxing. Car racing. Etc.
Only 1. is really symbolic warfare. I only watch sports for 2. and know many people for whom 3. is the only motivation (e.g. people who pay to watch "the big fight")
Shannon Roy You seem to have thought or read a fair bit about this. Any references or recommended reading?
ReplyDeleteCraig Froehle All dusty offline tomes, sadly. I university-ed in the late 80s early 90s! But I will -- because you asked so nicely! -- take a look at my library tonight and see if I can find a book or three and post here with the details.
ReplyDeleteOK! I now smell of books. The best all-around treatment is probably Sports in Society: Issues and Controversies. I have the 3rd edition from 1985 -- apparently it's now in the 11th! So a bit of a standard text, it would appear. Of course, like all textbooks, the current version is ludicrously expensive, even for digital only.
ReplyDeleteBut you could pick up a dogeared older copy for pennies. Here's a link (stripped of any refer for your safety) to a 3rd ed just like mine! http://www.amazon.com/Sport-Society-Controversies-Jay-Coakley/dp/0801612349
Shannon Roy Thank you!
ReplyDelete