The Meaning/Value of Sports:
"And the winner is........". The task here is probably beyond anyone's grasp. I doubt one could get everyone to agree what constitutes a sport, let alone what it all means. Competition hardly makes something a sport. Is politics a sport? If something is competitive but not athletic is it a sport? Football, track, gymnastics, basketball, hockey, etc. are certainly athletic and by any definition are sports. Golf, pool, bowling, etc. are certainly skills but hardly athletic. Walking is athletic, at least for an older person, but even they wouldn't call it a sport---albeit there are walking contests to see how fast one can walk from point A to point B, so sometimes maybe walking could be considered a sport. I tend to view a sport as something which is considerably athletic, requiring vigorous physical conditioning plus skill. Plus skill? Now where does that leave track and field running events? Coaching runners involves primarily recruiting and motivation. Kids show up for crosscountry and after the first practice race you pretty much know who the better runners are. Only 5 runners count in the scoring so most may as well go home right then and there. For the most part you don't develop running skills. Rather, you have running skills and at best can develop some strength and endurance to maximize these skills. So there is a lot of training involved. But all the training in the world can't make someone without innate running ability a good runner. Duh---that's true I guess for most sports.
Whatever constitutes a sport is supposed to build character. I guess some sports tend to produce more 'characters' than others, like basketball and football especially. But defining character is more difficult than defining sports. I think people tend to justify any participation in most anything as a means of developing character. Religion is supposed to develop the 'best' character but anyone remotely exposed to religious 'extremists', 'purists' or 'fundamentalists' is not likely to find much admirable character in such behavior---IF the anyone is not one of them. Many inner city leaders want to find ways to keep kids, for example, playing basketball as much as possible in order to keep them from gang banging. Gang banging leads to a lot of kids killing kids (and adults). But wait a minute---this doesn't really, in almost all cases, provide them any ticket to a better life and escape from the ghetto. It simply protects the rest of us from them and they from each other---for the time being. War 'enthusiasts' justify recruitment by insisting that being a soldier builds character, some people even believe every young person should serve time in the military. Really? Hitler did that and what a wonderful gang of perfected characters that generated. The truth is that everything one does in life affects your character, for good or bad, and like almost everything else, the end results depend on a multitude of factors, all variable from person to person.
Everything about this issue of character gets muddled. Whose character is affected in the most positive way, those runners who often win or place, or those runners who never win or place in a meet? Probably hard to make any blanket statement here. Let's not overplay character development related to being a winner or loser. Look, if winning is so good for the character of the winner, then in reality you have one winner and many losers. But then one could argue, 'it is better to have tried and failed, then to never have tried at all'. Maybe, but sometimes trying and failing teaches some people not to try any more. In life, at any level, for any task at hand, there are more losers than winners, almost by definition. Frankly, if one wanders amongst these losers, one doesn't come away impressed by the character of the losers---not that many losers don't have admirable character in spite of losing. Probably most people do tend to 'love a winner' and that explains why we try so hard to be a winner. As a kid no one could have been less socially visible than myself, an impish nothingburger living out of town as a hillbilly in the hills. Only when I accidently, and not by any self motivation, went out for track and crosscountry, and found I could beat most others, did other peers in the school realize I existed. Must of been my newly developed character from participating in sports which made me more endearing to others. That's silly.
Of course sports can be a valuable learning experience and have a positive or negative impact on your character. Participating in almost anything has that potential including being a member of a neighborhood gang, a soldier at war, being in some kind of career, teaching, playing sports, being a hermit, being members of varied social groups, etc. Life builds character (bad and good), and let's not get silly and pretend that sports is special in this respect. Sports was good for me because it enabled me to build confidence (because I could win) and it brought me in contact with diversity---the kind of people with whom I would otherwise have had little contact. Sports is good, if you are good at it, because it teaches you that hard work can bring results in a short period of time. Working hard at school work might take decades to bring good results. Some activities are especially good SOMETIMES at developing bad character and that includes sports, soldiering, administrative titles, politics, faith based religious extremism, sexual obsessions, etc. Some survive these activities intact or even with better character but they are the exceptions. Success is probably not something some people handle well in terms of good character development. I like to watch football, but nothing is more boring and disingenuous than the player interviews after the game. It's like singing the national anthem at appointed times, you mouth the words, and for most people it is just a required ritual. And for those for whom it is not a ritual, it probably is a bad thing, a sign of blind patriotism, some sort of 'my country, right or wrong'. These player interviews are simply staged, programmed, rote, boring nonsense. It tells you almost nothing about their character. Tikki Barber comes to mind as a good example. Terrell Owens gets a lot of press because he just says what is on his mind---which doesn't by itself make him self centered. When a person is willing to be honest and open about their feelings it gives others a chance, if they choose, to figure out why the person did what they did or said what they said---or, of course, to hate or love them. People really are interesting puzzles, and most people likable if one can understand from whence they are coming. I learned that from a lifetime of teaching---you can't 'judge a book from it's cover'. And we all know that often what people say is not what they mean. I know others often believe they understand what they think I say, but am not sure they realize that what they understand is not what I meant. Human communication is really complicated.
Sports is basically entertainment. Some sports---like boxing---may be very entertaining but ethically repulsive. The purpose of boxing is to knock someone out or bang on their head to a degree which almost always leads to progressively increased brain damage. No parent, considered a good parent, would ever encourage their son to pursue such a sport. And in a world in which violence is becoming more and more legitimate as a means to solve conflict or express anger about most anything, some sports highlight violence as entertainment. Even football, given the size, strength, and speed of many players, is becoming questionable as an acceptable sport. No one can sustain any real protection from a 350 lb player, mostly muscle, falling on top of you let alone smash into you at considerable speed. The number of players with more than minor injuries after every game is rising to double digits. I really don't think I would permit my son to play football these days. Well, maybe I would if I had ten kids, was poor, and hoping for one of the ten to end up good enough at something to support me in my old age. The affluent have pensions (but fewer and fewer) while the poor play the odds by the number of kids for support in old age.
How important is sports for those who follow sports? There is no simple or standard answer.
Some people are huge fans, excited about sports to the point of making themselves raving fools over it. The television cameras always seek out visual proof of these people. My dad watched sports a lot but never seemed overly wrought about any game and seldom, if ever, ranted on about the game when it was over. My brother would scream, yell, accuse, and actively encourage players to hurt each other---"kill him, kill him" . Officials to him were brainless biased nitwits. Some sport followers love to talk sports and the more challenging the talk, the happier they are. Others like to talk sports but back off if they can't win an argument or their predictions are proven wrong. That's what they hate, to be proven wrong. Others prefer not to discuss too much about sports since it just riles up everyone---much ado about nothing. It is not uncommon for friends to lose respect for each other over sport arguments. Hardly anyone is unbiased when it comes to evaluating teams or players. Sports Illustrated is a magazine almost entirely a compilation of opinions about the players in different sports. It really isn't much about sports but about some sort of character assessment by certain sport writers. A player is either worshipped, despised, or ignored.
I tend to follow only certain sports and tend root for a team based on certain players or the coach or the location. Years ago the composition of a team remained relatively stable and there was continuity. Today a good portion of the team is new every year. Most people seek, as they age, to put rooting for a team in better perspective. One aspect of professional sports I dislike the most is the private ownership---a cabal of wealthy, usually old men, left unregulated and free, teamed up with player unions---to rip off fans, cities, and all taxpayers. National sports and natural resources should never be left in the hands of capitalistic greedy pigs at the trough. This is absolutely undemocratic and an abuse of power.
There is not an awful lot of clear logic embedded in sport fan opinions. If anyone has ever listened briefly to sport talk shows this point is obvious. How many people, having taken a stand on a certain team or player, will ever change their mind? It can happen, like with Muhummad Ali (Cassious Clay), but this sort of thing is the exception. We all know, if a player is bad the player is bad, and if he/she is good he/she is good. And we all know who the good and bad ones are in sports. For sure. It's engraved in granite. The case is really closed---shut up or else.
Sports is probably not unlike most activities in life. Participation in, or being a fan of, sports is a good thing if done properly. So is eating, using recreational drugs (not nicotine or cocaine), sex, shopping, betting, working, competing at most things, etc. Life is full of addictions and of course the worse ones are the ones you don't have yourself. These other stupid bastards should be treated harshly for their addictions, their behavior criminalized, and if they don't stop---jail them. Thus we have workaholics, alcoholics, foodaholics, sexaholics, sportaholics, and the list goes on and on. MODERATION in the pursuit of pleasure, or monetary gain, or power seems to produce the best chances for contentment. There may be exceptions peculiar to certain environmental circumstances, in which situations moderation fails. When it takes extremism to achieve justice, society has failed---and chaotic upheaval the consequence.
So who was really better, Willie Mays or Mickey Mantle? There are so many variables involved that only a biased nitwit would think any objective answer possible. Besides, Duke Snider was the best. Some things just have an eternal truth to them.
