The Drawback of the Spectator
On the outside looking the world of sports seems glorious with the amass of fans following the every move of the demigods that grace the fields. Not all the spectators are solely interested on the players' actions, but the world that they belong to as well. Writer Max Taibbi in his article, Why Sports Are for Losers, sums up a major dilemma for sports fans in stating, "It’s hard to think of a better description of a
business in which each year, only one team out of 30 or 32 actually wins…". As cynical as the observation is, this is very truthful for sports fans.
The plight of the sports fan is to either ride off the high of winning the league championship or world tournament or writhe in agony to an extent at the thought of an early exit. The want to redo the past differently is inherent in sports while awaiting for the new season to arrive with an outcome that will favor a single team each year. That reason is what drives fans like Taibbi to scorn something that they initially enjoyed as they are not guaranteed a parade or happiness at the end of the season. Despite the subject of Fritz Huber's, Bad Call, being the commentators and athletes use of language in sports, the purpose behind both revolves around the consumer losing out.
By this I mean that the active fans of sports are losing out in the minds of both authors as Huber states, "These commentators have developed a verbal tic that compels them to remind the viewer, constantly, which sport is being discussed". Although this notion should not be as big of an issue if you are open to allowing more people into the community of sports. For many people that either consistently or even have slight knowledge of the sport will be left at a loss as the over simplistic style is not for them.
As both articles are bathed in negativity and displeasure towards the spectator because of the commitment that they give to the fandom, this is no different than anything else such as Taibbi pointed out with the comparison to Marie Claire that women buy into.The situations will not change for either side as the standards might change in language, but that will soon become old or the spectator will constantly lose out. That is what makes these so-called issues non-important because the topics are essentially about people who feel like they could write a better story or make better observation.
The articles to me feel like the people that sit in a comments section to ridicule an initial post or someone else's comment. Their ideas just seem like disconnects between what is essential to be worried about in reality than to be worried about their own personal interests. Simply hoping to fish for someone that will buy into their ideology. Although that is not to say that these topics cannot be discussed, but to focus on more significant matters that will keep the sports running such as treating players like people and not husks for our enjoyment. There is not a game without the best suited people to showcase the event.
The plight of the sports fan is to either ride off the high of winning the league championship or world tournament or writhe in agony to an extent at the thought of an early exit. The want to redo the past differently is inherent in sports while awaiting for the new season to arrive with an outcome that will favor a single team each year. That reason is what drives fans like Taibbi to scorn something that they initially enjoyed as they are not guaranteed a parade or happiness at the end of the season. Despite the subject of Fritz Huber's, Bad Call, being the commentators and athletes use of language in sports, the purpose behind both revolves around the consumer losing out.
By this I mean that the active fans of sports are losing out in the minds of both authors as Huber states, "These commentators have developed a verbal tic that compels them to remind the viewer, constantly, which sport is being discussed". Although this notion should not be as big of an issue if you are open to allowing more people into the community of sports. For many people that either consistently or even have slight knowledge of the sport will be left at a loss as the over simplistic style is not for them.
As both articles are bathed in negativity and displeasure towards the spectator because of the commitment that they give to the fandom, this is no different than anything else such as Taibbi pointed out with the comparison to Marie Claire that women buy into.The situations will not change for either side as the standards might change in language, but that will soon become old or the spectator will constantly lose out. That is what makes these so-called issues non-important because the topics are essentially about people who feel like they could write a better story or make better observation.
The articles to me feel like the people that sit in a comments section to ridicule an initial post or someone else's comment. Their ideas just seem like disconnects between what is essential to be worried about in reality than to be worried about their own personal interests. Simply hoping to fish for someone that will buy into their ideology. Although that is not to say that these topics cannot be discussed, but to focus on more significant matters that will keep the sports running such as treating players like people and not husks for our enjoyment. There is not a game without the best suited people to showcase the event.
Comments
Post a Comment