My girl thinks that I'm a sports freak and that I live for sports. That's not true. Although I'm undeniably interested in sports and indebted to them for what they've done for me, I'm awfully critical of many aspects of sports. I'm not talking about whether this uniform is horrible or that stadium is wretched. I'm talking about the impact sports have on society and the role they play therein.
For example, the glorification of the individual because of sports achievements is atrocious. We refer to sportsmen as heroes or warriors. The only heroes or warriors of which I'm familiar are on the battlefield or in graves as a result of battles.
I'm not wild about the overweening importance placed on sporting events. I've already taken pro football to task elsewhere. But the amount of media coverage that certain sporting events claim is ridiculous. Sure, sports play a part in civic pride, but do upcoming playoff games have to be the lead story on local newscasts? Does the quarterback's thumb injury have to be dissected as if it were Lincoln's condition after visiting Ford Theater? Should every single football game be analyzed as if it were another version of the Zapruder film?
The relatively recent arrival of respect in sports is disturbing on so many levels. Since when did sports become a measuring stick for manhood? This idea that not only winning a game but winning it in a way sufficient to impose one's will on the opponent and thereby garner his respect is specious at best? Whatever happened to simple competition? I gave up playing pick-up basketball not only because my ankles gave out but because I was disgusted by the rise of the respect element in the game, even at that level.
One huge turnoff in sports, especially at the pro level, is the self-promotion or self-aggrandizement of the individual over the team. When it comes to endorsement deals off the field, that's one thing. Joe Namath comes to mind. But the constant preening, prancing, ritualized dances that accompany actions on the field are puerile and troubling. Why does someone have to dance after they get into the end zone? Why must there be a dance routine during pregame introductions? The usual argument offered is that sportsmen are entertainers. Isn't it enough that each person on the starting lineup is introduced individually, sometimes with accompanying music that the player himself picked out?
Recently the NBA issued a rule that player introductions for starting lineups can last no more than a minute and a half due in no small part to the fact that the players were creating mini-plays that were lasting three and four minutes long. Given that already there are fireworks, video displays, dancing girls, dancing guys and team mascots together with music played at eardrum-busting levels, why would the players think that their little routines were going to add entertainment value? The NBA's new rule is a step in the right direction.
I can understand that players who grew up in difficult circumstances may need emotional support all along the way, but by the time the person has reached the professional level and all the benefits that entails, something should click in the person that it's time to grow up. If the person is still too immature to handle it, they organization needs to address the issue with the player.
There will be those who say that I am merely an old fuddy-duddy out of step with the times, and perhaps there's some truth to that. But I recall the great Walter Payton and the equally great Barry Sanders, both of whom provided more than enough entertainment for me, simply giving the ball to the referee after scoring touchdowns. No silly dance routines. No behavior to call even more attention to themselves after having scored. They acted, as was often said, as if they'd done it all before.
And that, boys and girls, is cooler than any silly dance routine will ever be.
(c) 2012 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles
No comments:
Post a Comment