Odd Man Rush

Some of you may remember this conversation taking place with some conviction.

Many have undertaken to define Sport more thoroughly. At first, my enterprise was the same. I set forth by making a list of every Sport I though was a sport and every Sport I didn’t think was a sport. As I went along I realized I couldn’t really figure out why I was ruling certain sports out. That’s when I looked up Sport in good ol’ Webster’s, and realized that the word is flawed if it is used the way I use it. This is the definition: (1) physical activity engaged in for pleasure (2) a particular activity (as an athletic game) so engaged in.

As one may see this didn’t help for clearing things up. So I set out to find a better word and this is what I came up with: when I say sport I really mean contest.

Entry Word: contest
Function: noun
1 an earnest effort for superiority or victory over another
2 a competitive encounter between individuals or groups carried on for amusement, exercise, or in pursuit of a prize

3 a physical dispute between opposing individuals or groups

I am particularly concerned with definition numbers 2 and 3, because I think together they capture the definition of sport as I use it. When I made this distinction the lines between what is sport and what is not became clearer. So for me sport is no longer sport simply; it is now contest. So if sport is contest, then what is sport and what is not? It is easier to define theses parameters by taking the whole and trimming off the things that don’t qualify, thus building a set of qualifiers for what is a sport.

Does the “sport” require competition between individuals or groups?

This question trims off “sports” in which an individual competes against a course or some apparatus. Now some would argue that gymnasts and golfers do compete against each other, but they only compete against each other based on an individual performance against the course or apparatus. This also rules out events which are scored by judges based on presentation, such as figure skating, or freestyle skating or biking.

Does the “sport” require physical competition?

If one defines physical loosely then no sport is trimmed away by this qualifier, but as you might have guessed I define it strictly. A sport must have, as a friend of mine once said, hustle. I think that nicely defines the physicality of sport, but I will define further. Strength is the ability to exert force, and power is the ability to exert force quickly. Power is 90% of the physicality of sport, the other half is precision. Power is nothing without precision. Now think of these holistically in an individual and set a minimum, then you have what I think of as the physicality of sport. Moreover, concerning physical equipment, it is important for sport to have a certain ratio of individual physicality. I say that the majority of physical exertion needs to be done by the competitor over his/her equipment, thus NASCAR and horse racing are ruled out, while bicycle racing is not. So now we can also trim Poker, Billiards, Scrabble, and the spelling bee. I felt like I had to name everything I’ve seen on ESPN.

Now, these qualifiers are preliminary and meant to be conversational. Please add to me what I lack. Tell me what I haven’t considered.

 

    According to the latest news we could be seeing Video Review influencing MLB umpires’ decision making as early as this year’s Fall Classic. I figure now is the time to weigh in on this touchy topic.

    On allowing video review to influence or reverse an umpire’s call, I’ll quote Roy Munson (when asked what the Bible says about not forgiving people) to state my case, "It’s against it." That’s right I’m against it, and I’ll tell you why.

    Firstly, that’s right firstly; the slippery slope keeps me from taking the first step. I understand that, for now, the MLB wishes to limit replay to the scope of deciding whether or not a batted ball is a homerun when the initial call on the field is suspect. Maybe I’m a pessimist but I see grim days in our future. Sure today it’s, "is it a homer or not?" but tomorrow it’s a small laser emitter in the ball and an infrared projected strike zone. Now I say this with my tongue planted firmly in my cheek, but you have to ask yourself where it will end. I mean, take tennis for example: that sport is about half a step away from doing away with human calls all together. As of right now the sport has a challenge system, but the technology is so good it can make every In/Out call with perfection.

    B, this seems to me to be a lot like the institution of the DH. Since the game has become so offensively driven, double entendre intended, those that manage said game don’t want in falters in the Homerun smash-fest that it has become. The DH changed the strategy of the game. Some, including myself, would say it removed a healthy dose of the strategy of the game completely. I think the same of replay. Baseball has always been a game of close calls and finding something deep down that allows one to overcome the adversity of calls going the other way. Remove the chance of a call going the wrong way and I believe you take some of the drama of the game with it.

    Three, and most important to me, the institution of replay removes the innately human aspect of the game. Maybe this is close to me because I spent some time umpiring, but I think that baseball has always and should always be a sport officiated by humans. No other sport creates the same relationship between participant and officiator, and that is at the core of what makes the game great; from a pitcher establishing a Plate Umpire’s strike zone to the Second base Umpire being right on top of that gun down throw. A human should in my mind always be there to make the call, be it a good one or a bad one. Some times the calls will be close, and a good umpire will make few mistakes and learn from the ones he does make. A good baseball player will relish the chance to overcome the adversity of a call that didn’t go his way.

    All in all I think this road leads somewhere I don’t want to see this sport I love travel, but in the end I just write about it. 

RKW 

I listened to GAC on the way home from work today when Matt Mosley, whom I’m normally in full support of, said something I just couldn’t get behind. He and a guest were talking about Adam Jones and Mosley came out and said, "Look, as far as I’m concerned this guy is guilty until proven innocent." Wow. At first I thought it was just a little harsh, but as I thought about it more I decided that I dub Mosley Nottruefan. Look. When the Boys picked up T.O., I called Brian and said, "Did you see this Crap." He immediately said, "Yes I did. What are we gonna do now?" After our short back and forth on the issue we hung up the phones and I decided that if the Cowboys were willing to give him a chance I would have to be willing, as a truefan, to give him a chance as well. Fast forward a couple of seasons and Jerry has welcomed Adam to the Dallas Cowboys Wellness and Rehabilitation Center, and you know what? I was skeptical, but I either had to buy in or suspend my fan-hood. I’ve decided to buy in and I’ll tell ya, I think that means if Adam doesn’t want to be called Pac-Man any more, then I call him Adam. And if the team, MY team, is willing to give him a chance to get his stuff back together then I give him that chance as well. I give him his full shot, as if he was any other guy off the street. He starts messing up then we can cut the chain, but until then Matt Mosley, let’s be a truefan and give the guy a fair shot. Let’s try not to doom the poor kid before he even steps on the field.