The award for the most ridiculous, self-absorbed, overzealous all sports entertainment network in the world goes to...
ESPN, for the 10th year running.
They have once again proven that outside the 4 major sports, Tiger Woods, and the Williams sisters, you're really not much of an athlete. Unless you count token consideration of Cael Sanderson and -ahem- Sarah Hughes (don't even get me started on figure skating).
No offense to college athlete of the year Sue Bird (UConn BB) but a certain swimmer from Cal who set at least 6 AR and 1 WR over the short course season would have had my vote.
Anyone else? Natalie Coughlin, female college athlete of the year as awarded by the USMS discussion crew?
-RM
Parents
Former Member
I have my own personal rule of thumb for evaluating what I consider to be sports. I don't believe there is are any discrete categories, but rather a sliding scale continuum from "sport" to "hobby" (or psychatric disorder, depending on your point of view). To figure out where something falls on the sports scale, calculate a subjective kind of ratio. On the top you put cardio-vascular fitness and overall athleticism required to play the game. Baseball and football still score pretty high in this regard because even though they do not require the same kind of endurance that a marathon or 400 IM requires, the kind of raw ahtletic ability to make a catch like Torii Hunter's, or run a 4.3 40, leap 3 feet into the air and then catch a football throw 50 yards on a rope with a denfensive back draped all over you takes phenomenal athletic ability.
On the bottom side of the ratio put the amount of money you have to spend on gear to be able to play the game. Track and field scores very high because gear is minimal, and athletic ability is high. Bass fishing would be at the other end of the scale. As one of my favorite radio loudmouths, Jim Rome, would say, golf is a sport...barely. Swimming is very high, or pretty high, depending on whether you amortize the cost of running the pool/paying the open water lifeguards.
Please note that I did not say any activity is more valid or worthwhile than another. It's just my own rule of thumb for evaluating "sport" vs. ... psychiatric disorder.
Just my opinion. I could be, and frequently am, completely wrong. (Just ask my wife.)
Matt
I have my own personal rule of thumb for evaluating what I consider to be sports. I don't believe there is are any discrete categories, but rather a sliding scale continuum from "sport" to "hobby" (or psychatric disorder, depending on your point of view). To figure out where something falls on the sports scale, calculate a subjective kind of ratio. On the top you put cardio-vascular fitness and overall athleticism required to play the game. Baseball and football still score pretty high in this regard because even though they do not require the same kind of endurance that a marathon or 400 IM requires, the kind of raw ahtletic ability to make a catch like Torii Hunter's, or run a 4.3 40, leap 3 feet into the air and then catch a football throw 50 yards on a rope with a denfensive back draped all over you takes phenomenal athletic ability.
On the bottom side of the ratio put the amount of money you have to spend on gear to be able to play the game. Track and field scores very high because gear is minimal, and athletic ability is high. Bass fishing would be at the other end of the scale. As one of my favorite radio loudmouths, Jim Rome, would say, golf is a sport...barely. Swimming is very high, or pretty high, depending on whether you amortize the cost of running the pool/paying the open water lifeguards.
Please note that I did not say any activity is more valid or worthwhile than another. It's just my own rule of thumb for evaluating "sport" vs. ... psychiatric disorder.
Just my opinion. I could be, and frequently am, completely wrong. (Just ask my wife.)
Matt
