Really busy week at school. Lots of reading. I know so much more about sports than once upon a time. I'm no longer as naive as I once was. My innocence as a fan has been taken.
Next time I'm at a Padres game, when a fan nearby yells something about how Moores is a cheap bastard and refuses to spend money to put out a playoff contender, I'll reply with, "That may appear to be the case, but simple economic and business logic would dictate that if Moores is operating the ballclub a particular way, and nobody is forcing him to, then there must be a financial advantage to his decision that may not reflect upon what we as fans may perceive to be important."
I won't be able to help it. I'm sorry.
Our professor this week is Rodney Fort who is an excellent professor with all kinds of sports cred. One thing that got me though was on the first day, he gave us his definition of "sports". Here are his criteria:
- Must actively involve large muscle motor muscles. (Golf is out)
- Must only involve simple machines. (NASCAR, seeyuh)
- Objective scoring system. (Figure skating, we hardly new you)
But think about those criteria a little bit and what gets left out. He leaves boxing out because the judges have a subjective portion in their scoring system. Any motorsport is out. Golf is out.
Now think about what's in. Boxing is out, but wrestling would be in. NASCAR is out, but log rolling is in. Golf is out, but if I decided to see how many pushups I could do in a minute, I'd be actively participating in his definition of "sport".
So, it's a little ridiculous. It's completely impractical as a definition. Any definition where you're able to say, "Boxing isn't a sport, but World's Strongest Man competitions are." ...Well, that's just a crazy definition.
He made mention of a student who, when asked to define "sports", replied, "Anything that's in Sports Illustrated." And then he scoffed a little at it.
To be honest, I think I like that definition better.