- 01:01 PM
- 11/21/24
Serena sounds like an a-hole to me. Is she really suggesting that because she doesn't typically foot fault, when she does, it shouldn't be called?, or if she does it in an important final it shouldn't be called. Maybe tennis should have a penalty called acting like a spoiled bitch.
Arguing with an official in a disrespectful manner should be cause for disqualification. Loosing it completely and actually threatening an official with physical violence should be grounds for suspension for a year if not life.
posted by Atheist at 05:32 PM on August 27, 2012
I think it will turn out to be a positive move for Lance. Even if the allegations are true, this country will forgive a celebrity anything nowadays (Fatty Arbuckle weeps), so I would expect the pro-Lance backlash to overwhelm the USADA in about two weeks.
I agree.
I also think it is ridiculous to eliminate 7 Tour de France victories without a positive drug test. In a sport in which it seems pretty clear this is common practice, just how do you try to claim Lance Armstrong was not the best cyclist of all time? He won the Tour 7 times. Has anybody ever won this race who wasn't accused of doping? If so I would bet it was before there was adequate testing. Oh, thats right, there is no adequate testing. Cycling needs to move on.
Those French really must have hated the fact that an American won their precious race so many times.
posted by Atheist at 12:32 PM on August 24, 2012
I will accept that my scenarios were flawed as there is a world of difference between Peyton Manning and Michael Vick. So what if I am talking about RG3 and Andrew Luck. Comparing number 1 and number 2 picks. What made one guy number one and the other number 2. I have heard people say it was a race issue when I believed it was a skill set preference issue.
Whether or not I was able to articulate my point about making assumptions as to the motivation for fan preferences, the fact remains that it isn't something that should be quick to be labeled as racism and Bayless was and ass for implying it.
posted by Atheist at 06:16 PM on August 22, 2012
grum I think in all your scenarios your are correct based on your wording. My gripe with Bayless and others is making the assumption that if you are not rooting for RG3 or if you think someone else is preferable, racism is the reason.
I am not a Michael Vick fan and I am a Peyton Manning fan. Since I am white guy some might assume that is a favoritism based on racism. It's not, and I hate if someone tries to make that implication.
I don't like Michael Vick, but love watching him play and admire his abilities. He is a convicted dog fighter and animal abuser which speaks directly to his character as a human being. I like Peyton Manning and love watching him play and admire his abilities. He acts like a professional on and off the field and I have never heard a negative thing about him as a person. I prefer a pocket passer and feel that is better for a team I care about than a QB who relies on scrambling, running and making something happen when plays break down. In lieu of an explanation why should someone assume my motivation.
As for RG3, personally I am waiting to see how he pans out as a QB in the pros for all the same reasons. It is possible to choose Andrew Luck in the draft over RG3 for reasons that have nothing to do with race, although it seems some just refuse to accept it. The why is everything, the choice itself tells us nothing. Why do people want so badly to make the wrong assumptions?
On the other hand I find myself rooting for Gabby Douglas or Wayne Simmonds simply because they are black and breaking down barriers in their respective sports. I suppose on some level that has an element of race bias but to me it is just a natural instinct to want to see someone succeed against the odds and help make a positive change.
posted by Atheist at 05:23 PM on August 22, 2012
tahoemoj - I don't think that seed was planted by Bayless, although he may have reinforced it. I have noticed that in past discussions regarding the performance of quarterbacks, that it is hard to criticize the play of black quarterbacks without the insinuation by some that it is racially motivated criticism, even when it isn't.
Bayless is just another jerk who wants to make everything about something it is not. I firmly believe that the Redskin fans will embrace any QB who plays well and wins just as they did with Doug Williams. On the other hand, it isn't fair to the fans if they see another QB performing better, to imply they are racist.
I also don't believe that it makes someone a racist to want to see a person of their own ethnicity or of similar background and circumstances succeed. Is it racist for a young black woman to root for Gabby G, to win Olympic gold because she can identify with her ? For African Americans to vote for a black man to become president and feel proud about it? For Jews to have rooted for Sandy Koulfax? I ask the honest question, is it racist for 98% of black americans to vote for a candidate because of his color? Would it be acceptable if white voters did the same?
I don't think it is fair to blame or accuse people for their motivations. If a white football fan roots for Tim Tebow to beat out Mark Sanchez for the Jets job, is it because he hated USC and is a Florida alumni, or is it because he is white, or is it because he is a born again Christian and thinks Tebow is god's choice? The real problem is assigning a motive to people you know nothing about.
posted by Atheist at 02:59 PM on August 22, 2012
Skip Bayless is an idiot. Who ever gets the starting job will have to earn it. I also think it is interesting that Skip Bayless mentions how Jason Campbell and Donovan McNabb did not work out in Washington, implying that the Washington fans prefer to root for a white QB and pressured or influenced their departure, without mentioning that the last time Washington won a Superbowl it was with Doug Williams.
I believed in this years draft the best QB available was Andrew Luck, not RG3, although I heard some people felt it was a color based decision that made him the number one pick. I think there is some bias in the NFL but I feel it is more about playing style than it is about race. Typically the league favors a pocket passer over a QB who will run. RG3 was not of interest to St. Louis because they had Sam Bradford a more traditional and very capable pocket passer. Indy took Andrew Luck as his play style is more like that of what they were accustomed to and what has been traditionally more successful in the NFL. Denver could not wait to get rid of Tebow in favor of Manning which I think clearly demonstrates the tendency to go with a QB who can be protected better from injury by not running down field. Color has very little to do with it. Playing style does. It seems like a cop out to accuse teams or fans of making their choices based on color if they are really just favoring a playing style.
I find the playing styles of guys like Cam Newton, Michael Vick, and Tim Tebow very exciting to watch, but I am not convinced with all that is riding on keeping a starting QB healthy for a season, I would want to bet on a QB that is so venerable to the dangers of that style of play. Although that Cam Newton is like a superman and may change my mind.
posted by Atheist at 05:06 PM on August 21, 2012
I can't for the life of me understand why anybody would care about this. A bunch of over the hill, ultra-conservative, rich old farts want to keep their little good ole boys golf club in the dark ages, why would anybody even give a shit. Isn't it within in their rights to have a boys only club?
While I couldn't imagine wanting to be a member of a club like this, I didn't care that they had it, and wouldn't care if they wanted to keep it that way for 100 more years. It is not like they are opening up the doors to the general public. It is a private club for the exclusive use of it members and guests. Still seems pretty exclusive to me. Sure ladies come on over if you are a fortune 500 CEO or former Secretary of State, we can try to accommodate all six or seven of you.
The world isn't a better place because of this token act, and while there are now two female members, most of the old men who are members probably can't notice anyway.
posted by Atheist at 04:04 PM on August 21, 2012
I am not sure this is a case of being tried and convicted by public opinion. To me it is more a case of the Dolphins and VH1 not wanting to have their enterprises connected to Chad Johnson and his off field drama, which is within their rights as employers. He has a reputation for having a big mouth and being kind of a media whore. No team really wants the side show of Chad Johnson-Ochocinco-Johnson distracting them or focusing the media on this kind of crap. Even the publicity hungry reality TV network doesn't want to be associated with airing a show about two lovebirds planning their wedding while same two lovebirds are poster children for disfunctional relationship involving domestic violence.
Whether or not CJ is convicted in a court of law has little bearing on what his employers feel is in their best interest or how his alleged behavior reflects on their businesses and public image.
It's actually kind of refreshing that some companies are not willing to tolerate this crap from even a talented athlete although it would be interesting to see if the Dolphins might have been a little more tolerant, had Chad Johnson been putting up great numbers into the middle of a successful season. Probably easier to cut him loose now than had he actually become a productive part of their team.
posted by Atheist at 05:38 PM on August 13, 2012
Latest news Chad Johnson and his wife had a reality show that just got dropped from its network as a result of this incident.
posted by Atheist at 04:29 PM on August 13, 2012
If I were running a football team, I would never pick up a player that New England cuts loose. It seems Bill B. runs a tight ship and if he cuts loose a talented player like a Chad Johnson, or Randy Moss, or Albert Hainsworth there must be a real good reason. The teams that take these guys usually find out why the Patriots won't tolerate them.
posted by Atheist at 11:46 AM on August 13, 2012
yerfatma - We agree totally. No chance at all? The Lakers had a chance even without Howard once they got Nash. I think Howard gives the Lakers a better chance but even with Bynum they were going to be tough. I am not sure how the lineup above isn't considered the best starting line up in the league, even with me or you in there.
posted by Atheist at 01:18 PM on August 10, 2012
Jerry is confused. There is a difference between the whole glory and the glory hole. Jerry has his head up his ass, and I am not talking about his whole ass, I talking about his ass hole.
posted by Atheist at 05:25 PM on August 01, 2012
When it comes to China, never underestimate the power of a country with well over a billion people and a government that fully supports their athletes. They have a huge desire to win on the world stage. Especially if that means unseating the USA as the world leader in a particular sport.
Regardless of whether or not you agree with their system they, have produced some incredible musical, athletic, and acrobatic prodigies. I have never seen such young people devote so much time and effort to achieve a level of success at such an early age. US swimmers, basketball players, gymnasts, better watch out. I think the Chinese really want to win and until proven guilty, I am just going to say wow pretty impressive performance.
posted by Atheist at 12:33 PM on August 01, 2012
The people who should really get the ax are those who established a system of rules that allows an athlete to win by loosing. Athletes are supposed to game the system and use strategy to win the ultimate goal. Sometimes a pitcher intentionally looses a battle with a hitter to face a more favorable foe from a match up sense. It is a gamble but why wouldn't an athlete play within the rules to get the best chance at the ultimate success. Even in the Olympics it is common for athletes like swimmers and sprinters not to give their all in preliminary heats to save something, or prevent injury and ensure a better chance at success when it counts the most.
The whole thing is a rules and procedure issue. Shame on the organizers not the players.
posted by Atheist at 10:27 AM on August 01, 2012
I was not trying to diminish the effect that training, desire, or skill have on the world class athlete, but nobody becomes a world class athlete in sports that require the genetically based abilities like speed, size or strength, without the genetic predisposition. Yes everybody can work hard and get faster, stronger, more flexible etc. They can also make up for a lot of deficiencies through hard work and perfecting techniques and skills, but nobody becomes a world class sprinter without being born naturally faster than most other people.
Lebron James for one example has honed his basketball skills to a very high level but what makes him the super athlete he is, and why he one of the best players ever is the fact that he began with a set of genetic gifts like freakish size, agility, coordination etc. Show me someone with similar genetic gifts in their prime and I will show you another professional or world class athlete, regardless of their work ethic etc. I suppose some without the desire or mental fortitude might be able to squander their genetic gifts, but I contend that if you are born like a Lebron with coordination and agility in a 6'10" 270lb body, It would be difficult not to excel in a sport where those traits are desirable.
Every so often an athlete like a Danny Woodhead comes along who seemingly succeeds while lacking a lot of the genetic advantages common among his peers, through hard work and desire. That is the exception more than the rule.
I would also like to point one thing out, when we talk about a group of athletes like African American athletes, we can understand the cultural, social and economic reasons why we don't see black golfers or swimmers or hockey players in proportionate numbers to the population percentages. But if you look at the sports where there presence is disproportionately higher than their general population numbers, they tend to be the sports where genetic based athleticism has a greater importance to the sport. African Americans are not as disproportionately represented from a population percentage in baseball, as they are in basketball or football, or boxing or track. Why? It is the value of genetically based athleticism as it relates to the sport and that lends some credence to the argument of genetic predisposition.
All other factors considered, the real question posed is simple. Did the business of slavery create a situation in which more athletic and physically able people were selected, forcibly removed from their native locations and isolated in another land where then due to the horrible practices of segregation and prejudice, created an isolated gene pool that was somewhat more genetically predisposed for certain physical traits that are beneficial in athletics? I would say very likely. I also believe that as time goes by this is mitigated by freedom, acceptance, and the lines between races and ancestry will become blurred and possibly eliminated altogether.
posted by Atheist at 05:43 PM on July 27, 2012
In my opinion, anybody who denies genetics as the most significant single factor at the base core of athleticism is fooling themselves. I think it is a shame that the subject cannot be approached scientifically without the accusation of racism.
As for slavery, even if in just one generation there was large group of people who were thrown together based on a perceived ability to work hard and were selected because of physical attributes like size and strength, and those people happen to form families from within that original pool of stronger or larger individuals, it only stands to reason there would be a higher probability their offspring would exhibit some of the same attributes that may well translate into athletic ability.
Social and economic factors play a large part of which sports people have the opportunity to play and gravitate to, but genetics is even a more important at the purely physical level. Race is not as important in my opinion as the genetic traits that apply to physical work and sports. While sports success involves factors like training, skill or technique, determination and discipline, many sports are almost purely based in genetics and athleticism. You are either born with the genetic predisposition to be a world class sprinter or jumper or you are not. No amount of training will get you into that league. It can't be merely coincidence that such an overwhelming percentage of the fastest sprinters for example are black and are not from African countries but from countries where they descended from a pool of original ancestors that were selected in part for physical traits that are the basis for athletic success.
The Vikings were another group that through circumstance may have been descended from a more concentrated pool of physically gifted ancestors, due to culture and lifestyle that weeded out physically weaker individuals. It is not about race or color as much as it is about circumstances that created a different starting point genetically.
posted by Atheist at 02:19 PM on July 27, 2012
The Paterno family is claiming the NCAA is defaming coach Paterno with their punishment. WOW that Paterno family is sharp. News flash to Paterno family, that is exactly what the NCAA intended, and rightfully so. Although I would say coach Paterno managed to destroy and defame his own legacy starting with a very bad decision in 1998 and going forward from there.
posted by Atheist at 02:53 PM on July 23, 2012
IMO the NCAA did exactly the right thing. They sent a strong and clear message that the primary obligation of a school is to educate, protect and nurture young people. No matter how much money or how valuable to the school their football or other sports programs are, placing them above the primary obligation to young people will mean the death of the program.
NCAA had little choice, and if anything they were easy in the sense there is still a chance in the future for Penn State football to exist. In four years it will have a chance of returning. Although irrespective of NCAA sanctions it may be the lingering stigma that delivers the death blow.
I especially like the vacating of the wins. That punishes the programs legacy, and is the almost the only way you could do so retroactively. It wipes out any accomplishments accrued while the powers that be were trying to preserve their precious programs reputation, and sends a pretty clear message to any school in the future faced with the similar circumstance of choosing reputation or program over right.
posted by Atheist at 11:12 AM on July 23, 2012
I agree with dfleming, Orlando isn't going to get anybody equal to Howard, and the only team with something valuable to give that Orlando needs is LA. Bynum is a young and proven big man you can build a team around. While he may not be Howard, he is a substantial building block and Orlando has their backs against the wall as Howard is going anyway and they can wind up with little or nothing. If Bynum plays to his potential Orlando doesn't loose that much.
Frankly there are lots of folks here in Laker land who would be upset at that trade. While Howard is a marquee player, he is just coming off back surgery and it is not a certainty that he will be the same player he once was. Also Bynum is younger and has some areas of his game where he is actually better than Howard. The argument here is that Howard's experience may prove more valuable now for an immediate run at the title. With an aging Kobe and Nash, look for the Lakers to shoot their wad now for the best chance in the last years of Kobe and Nash. We will be rebuilding in a couple of years anyway. Bynum's exit may be regretted in the future but for now, Howard, Gasol, Kobe, and Nash on the floor seems like a very formidable team. Put Bynum in that line up instead of Howard and we don't loose that much although I do feel Howard is the better of the two now.
posted by Atheist at 02:14 PM on July 09, 2012
It seems here in LA the Dwight Howard rumors are beginning to pick up. If we trade Bynum for Howard. Kobe, Nash, Howard, Gasol could be tough to beat and create a little resistance for the numerous rings those Miami guys are counting on. Even if it doesn't happen, Bynum may be enough if his game keeps improving.
posted by Atheist at 02:07 PM on July 06, 2012
I meant that to read " I wouldn't be thinking ....
posted by Atheist at 12:02 PM on July 06, 2012
Never underestimate Kobe or the Lakers. They know what it takes and never are willing to settle for just being a contender. Smart move on their part and if I were OKC, I would be thinking that getting back to the finals is automatic. It won't be easy.
posted by Atheist at 11:21 AM on July 06, 2012
I am not a fan of Lebron the individual, but I have to give credit where credit is due. He played as well as anybody ever has in a playoff run. I do find it ironic that for all his complaints in Cleveland of not having help, he really didn't get all that much in this run. Bosch was hurt a lot, Wade was inconsistent, and had Lebron just played to his ability, like he did in this playoff run in his past ones in Cleveland, they would have won a title and he would have been the most celebrated player in the league and been adored by fans for bringing it to Cleveland. In the end he had to be the that guy who carries the team anyway. I always felt had Lebron just announced at the decision that he came to Cleveland to win them a title and would not go anywhere until he did, not only would he have won one anyway (as soon as his playoff performance stepped up) but even if he didn't he would have remained a fan favorite, not to mention just how much sweeter this would have been.
The guys like Battier and Chalmers were really the difference in the key moments more than the other big two. The Thunder appeared to have the better depth but evidently swallowing the bitter pill of defeat in the finals is the last lesson a lot of teams have to learn before they can get to the championship.
As much as I hated to see it happen, I can feel happy for a kid who managed to shake an incredible amount of pressure (albeit self inflicted in some ways) and get a monkey off his back. He is truly a remarkable athlete and deserves what he has finally earned.
posted by Atheist at 10:57 AM on June 22, 2012
Our tax dollars hard at work. Did anybody really care anyway? Congress can't seem to do their own jobs very well but they sure spent a lot of time going after Clemens because it appeared he did his job a little too well. Those legislators need to get their priorities straight.
I guess this means no * will accompany Clemens records and he will make the HOF. Good for him.
posted by Atheist at 06:50 PM on June 18, 2012
As for Cain's masterpiece, that's the best perfect game ever thrown.
It's tied with Koufax for the most strikeouts in a perfect game, but when you consider the offensive environment that Cain pitches in (4.18 R/G) compared to the environment Koufax pitched in (4.03 R/G), plus the team matchups (Astros 4.26 R/G, Cubs 3.87 R/G), Cain comes out ahead.
Plus, Cain scored a run in this game, becoming the only pitcher to do so in their perfect game
What a great performance for sure. I am however not sure as to the criteria that would make one perfect game, more perfect than another due to K's or opponent. A pitcher can only pitch to the team he is playing at the time, to say someone pitched one to a better team doesn't make another perfect game less perfect. Also I am not sure strikeouts really matter, in the sense that although they are impressive what is more perfect?
Theoretically, there are several ways to look at it. One might say an absolutely perfect game and best possible pitching performance would be 27 outs on 27 strike outs with only 81 pitches thrown as it could be accomplished without fielders touching any balls (except the catcher). That is about as perfect as perfect can get from a certain type of pitching standpoint. At least for the heat throwing strike out pitcher. On the other side of the spectrum would be a pitcher that gets 27 batters out on 27 pitches, which certainly would be a more efficient way to be perfect although it requires more team help as every pitch requires fielding to complete the out.
In any case a perfect game is a perfect game and it has only happened 22 times now, no need to split hairs but I was curious as to other's opinions as to what they consider the more perfect game.
posted by Atheist at 01:40 PM on June 14, 2012
I don't think Gretzky had anything to do with it.
But we don't know that for sure.
posted by Atheist at 12:52 PM on June 12, 2012
As a LA Kings fan and So Cal resident this is just fantastic. I couldn't even bring myself to believe they could do it. They almost missed the playoffs after another crappy season. We have had great players and skaters but never seemed to be able to play the kind of physical relentless hockey that wins in the playoffs. Almost couldn't believe the team I was watching during this playoff run was the LA Kings. One of the most dominant playoff runs in team sports history. I almost thought after going up 3-0 in the finals that they would find a way to return to the Kings of old, but even on the occasions when they lost they looked tough and were playing very good hockey.
When you live in Los Angeles it's pretty hard to imagine a world where the Lakers are watching the NBA finals from home and the Kings are holding up the Stanley Cup. F'ing fantastic. Couldn't have scripted it any better.
posted by Atheist at 11:37 AM on June 12, 2012
It seems he has already used up the basic stock apology and will have to come up with something more convincing this time. With a blood alcohol level like that he should get some jail time but I am not sure what is worse, 3 years in jail or playing wide receiver on the Jaguar offense for then next 3 years. In either case he can look forward to large dudes chasing him around and pounding on him. Way to kick off your pro career.
posted by Atheist at 02:18 PM on June 05, 2012
I'm pretty sure it is a two way street. To borrow a line from our president, let's be perfectly clear about this. I think CTE is very troubling and should be a big concern for all sports. I think study is required and full disclosure to all athletes as to the risks involved so they can make informed decisions about whether or not they want to take those risks. I also believe that everything possible should be done to ensure the game is a safe as we can possibly make it. That is not hiding from the issue.
With all that is known at this point, I personally wouldn't hesitate playing NFL football today if I had the ability, after weighing the risks against the rewards. If my son wanted to play football and had the ability, I would allow it.
I would add that every team should ensure that any athlete that has had a concussion be cleared by a doctor to resume playing. If a qualified medical staff feels a player's career should end due to concussion (s) then he should be deemed medically ineligible to play and retired with his full benefits.
posted by Atheist at 12:32 PM on June 01, 2012
LLB - if what you are saying is the case, I would have to assume that as some point we would begin to see declining TV ratings, and stadium attendance for NFL and NCAA football, as well as other statistical evidence of declining participation. Even if that is a slow decline. Is anybody aware of any evidence at this point that the game is loosing popularity? Regardless of how slow a ship turns, there is evidence that it is turning if you look closely, and it doesn't take very long to realize you are on a different course.
posted by Atheist at 11:43 AM on June 01, 2012
This is why I just post the Facepalm images. It's simply not possible to have a proper debate with you.
If you are in fact an authority on what constitutes a proper debate, what can I say, although I was never aware it was proper debating etiquette to insult or belittle an opposing opinion with sarcastic or condescending comments or cartoons. I would understand if you felt you should ignore anything I posted. You may not agree with what I have to say, and I have no problem with you disagreeing, but I don't believe I deserve your subtle but transparent disrespectful insults.
posted by Atheist at 11:07 AM on June 01, 2012
bperk - my guess is that in places like Texas where high school football is revered, and culturally ingrained with the population, they will find the money for football. Even it if means parents, boosters etc shell it out of their own pockets. Players and parents will not have a problem signing waivers to keep programs alive. I think a lot of folks are underestimating the passion people have for football.
Also I just heard on the news that it is being reported Junior Seau had severe insomnia and was using a lot of Ambien to sleep. One of the reported side effects of Ambien is that some users may experience suicidal thoughts and tendencies. A warning is mentioned on all the advertising to discontinue use if this occurs. I am not discounting the possibility of CTE or any other cause but it does demonstrate the point about how premature it would be to blame football, when there are plenty of other possibilities.
posted by Atheist at 10:52 AM on June 01, 2012
rcade - CTE is a big deal and not just in football but many other sports also. My speculations regarding the death of Seau were only to point out that if we are going to speculate than why focus on just one possibility. Probably because it is the hot button topic but all I was trying to do is point out there are lots of possible reasons why someone might commit suicide, CTE is only one of many. I just wouldn't jump to that conclusion, especially in such a relatively rare event with so many other possible explanations. It may however be the currently most fashionable one, as PED were. I guess CTE is the new PED like issue surrounding pro sports.
posted by Atheist at 06:27 PM on May 31, 2012
Tron it should have been holds barred my mistake and yes no holds were barred. Thanks
This is bullshit. The rise in popularity of MMA directly coincided with it's regulation. The early violence surely cemented some of it's cult following early on but for the mass appeal it needed to look more like a sport than a bar room brawl and that meant more rules.
No argument here but what came first the chicken or the egg. The tournaments were becoming popular but in order to get more exposure which could lead to gain mass appeal, they needed television, they needed athletic commission sanctioning, thus the rules and weight divisions. So yes I suppose rules enabled it to gain the exposure which led to more popularity. I personally did not like it when it was a bunch of goons brawling and have grown to appreciate it as a sport more, but assigning credit for its gaining audience to the rules isn't totally accurate.
It's like porn, by making it more accessible through video, and the internet it has become much more mainstream and acceptable. The base attraction was always there but until it was easy to view, at home, by a larger audience it could not gain the same popularity. Tweeking the MMA rules to gain access to TV, and better live venues definitely helped it grow and get much more exposure, but I am not so sure the rules themselves made that much difference to the fan base. No doubt the skill level and athleticism of the participants have improved as a result of the money, exposure and acceptability, which in turn helps attract more and more fans.
posted by Atheist at 06:16 PM on May 31, 2012
The fact is that he has not given any reason for his retirement. Any statement to the contrary is speculation and supposition. That is all I pointed out. I read the article, the post with the link implied he did so due to the dangers of the game. So using the case of one player announcing retirement for unknown reasons, to suit a position is exactly what prompted my statements. You are making up suppositions to support an argument that doesn't exist. I am not arguing playing is not dangerous, or that players don't get leave due to injury.
Read the article, the author admits he is speculating, they player only started games due to injuries to other players. The team brought in more players at that position to specifically upgrade that aspect of their team, and the author also admits he may have retired for his own personal reasons. Maybe the player himself knows more about his ability to compete than the speculators.
I won't speculate why this guy is quitting, why would you? I am for players choosing to play or not. If ten players leave the game due to fear of injury then take what you want from that. But please don't assign reasons for their decision to suit your constant desire to call me out or to accuse me of making up facts to suit my argument. If you are waiting for a mass exodus of players, I would recommend you don't hold your breath.
Think about taking a break from attacking my posts with condescending comments. Make an intelligent argument or position, disagree with me if you like but it is clear you enjoy finding issue with almost anything I post.
posted by Atheist at 05:51 PM on May 31, 2012
LBB when cage fighting first came on the scene guys like Royce Gracie and Tank Abbott and others were doing no holes barred bare knuckle tournaments that were billed as no holes barred contests by the promoters. Fighters did not compete in weight classes, fought tournament style with several fights in one night and it pitted any style against any style. This is what gained popularity and was the predecessor to the MMA we have now. Fans went crazy watching a 170 lb Joyce Gracie grab 260 lb Kimo by the hair, elbow him repeatedly to the head, and either choke him out or submit him. Many states refused to license the fights. It is certainly evolved from the tough man contests it started out as to the more rules oriented MMA you see today. It had to in order to get on mainstream TV and get athletic commission acceptance for places like Vegas and other top venues.
Originally I think the only rules were no eye gouging, biting or kicks to the groin. Whether or not you consider it no holes barred or not, there really isn't much doubt that it was way more violent and had a much higher perceived danger than the traditional Marques of Queensbury rules of boxing. Its introduction to the USA did coincide with the beginning of the decline of boxing's audience.
I personally am not saying the level of violence was the only reason. Boxing always favored certain body types. MMA does allow a fighter more options to take advantage of his particular genetic strengths, because it does not restrict them to boxing skills. I believe this is why MMA got so popular with the young white male demographic prized by advertisers. Boxing in America had become a predominately minority dominated sport. MMA brought back the prized demographic that boxing was loosing.
Again it is all about the money. MMA found a balance between enough rules to be acceptable and marketable while still satiating the appetite for violence and competition of its fans to maximize the money.
posted by Atheist at 04:08 PM on May 31, 2012
The Vikes' Asher Allen is walking away from the sport now
He is a marginal player at best who has suffered a few injuries, isn't expected to start and has a lot of new competition at his position. Nowhere in the article does he give any reason for his retirement so it is merely speculation that the injuries may be the cause. It certainly seems like a stretch to say he is leaving due to the dangers of the game unless he makes that clear. The article reads to me like a writer using the hot button topic of concussion to make an assumption that isn't verified by the player himself.
posted by Atheist at 03:42 PM on May 31, 2012
Boxing may have lost some audience due to competition and the fact that good fights are expensive on pay per view, but I agree with tahoemoj, it has nothing to do with safety. There really isn't to much in the way of interesting fights and MMA has lured away a big and desirable demographic . Now if Mayweather and Pacquiao can agree you will see a pretty sizable and probably record pay per view audience.
As a matter of fact one might argue that boxing lost a lot of audience because no holes barred cage fighting became available to viewers. Whether or not one is more dangerous than another is not the point. MMA which incorporates submission, boxing, Muy Thai, wrestling, jujitsu, kicking etc appears even more violent and more like real street combat which to me is why it is usurping boxing as the most popular combat sport. It actually has the advantage of appearing even more violent and dangerous, while in truth it may be safer with regard to head trauma.
posted by Atheist at 03:27 PM on May 31, 2012
rcade - all very valid points. No doubt attitudes about smoking have lessened its appeal. Smoking was just an example of how difficult it is to stop people from doing something they want to do even in the face of certain dire consequences, and they spend money to do it. I would also say social stigma and laws to restrict public smoking have had as much or more to do with reducing the number of smokers in the US as the well publicized health consequences.
I think it is clear that the size and speed of the modern player has increased but I have not seen any study that would indicate that translates toward a higher injury risk. I mean the defenders are bigger and faster, but so are the offensive players they are tackling. I remember reading that actually high school football was statistically more dangerous than pro football. It wasn't as much the size, skill and speed levels that were to blame but more the wider disparity in those levels amongst high school players versus the pros. I'm am not claiming that as fact but do remember reading it and it does make sense. I wonder if statistics are available to support a viable theory.
As for the life of running backs, are they actually wearing out faster or is there just so much new, younger, faster, stronger or merely fresher talent available? Also the way contracts, benefits, salary cap, and free agency are structured it may also be that the business of football in its current state, just gives teams more incentive to cut loose aging, more established and expensive players, a little sooner in favor of cheaper and possibly just as productive younger players?
I suppose that with all the dangers of playing football, for health and safety purposes, maybe the league should consider limiting the playing time or amount of years a player can participate in the NFL, for their own good. Although, I am pretty sure the NFLPA would have something to say about that. Again money changes everything, and tends to override sensible ideas even if they are in the players own health interest. Again this speaks to the issue of would a player accept forced retirement to protect his health from the possibility of issues in the future or would he opt for the certainty of more money and a few more years now and take his chances? I think most make that decision base on how they feel at the time and have little doubt what most would opt for.
posted by Atheist at 02:18 PM on May 31, 2012
The violence of the NFL is only appealing to most people when it's separated from the consequences.
As it should be and as it always is. You could say the same thing about anything that can possibly have dire consequences. Riding a motorcycle is never an appealing idea when you are staring at the consequences of an accident, nor is smoking or a million other activities. That is what our minds do when faced with risk, we compartmentalize and segregate the risks from the rewards. I think that is why some can climb a mountain or drive a race car. You can't do it effectively or enjoyably, if you allow yourself to dwell on the worse case scenario no matter how plausible. The participants do it as do the spectators.
posted by Atheist at 12:21 PM on May 31, 2012
LBB is correct when he boils it down to fan base. No audience, no NFL. However there is an audience and will continue to be. Just like fighting in hockey, boxing, MMA, Pro Football, Auto Racing etc. The danger and violence is a big part of the appeal. Human nature being what it is, I don't see the fan base disappearing. I think the best we can hope for is the technology and knowledge to mitigate the damage and make the activity as safe as possible.
As for the willingness of the participants, well we can't seem stop people from smoking, or using drugs activities that will almost certainly lead to serious health issues, and a premature death. No matter how much we ban it in places, shun it, or warn people, they tend to do what makes them happy. They even spend money to to it. People even participate in very dangerous physical activities and extreme sports for nothing more than the pleasure or adrenalin rush.
Considering the pleasure, potential rewards of fame, riches, women and securing the future of your family etc. the risk reward of pro football doesn't seem to me to be prohibitive enough for it to dissuade significant numbers to kill the sport. I do believe liability issues may change high school level football where revenue is difficult, but also believe eager participants will indemnify the schools by waiver and purchase their own insurance, or join Pop Warner type leagues. The colleges make way too much money to worry about the liability risks which frankly they have now without much total effect. IMO the supply of potential NFL players isn't going to dry up. Even a guy like Bart Scott who no longer needs the money isn't stopping until the league doesn't want him anymore.
posted by Atheist at 11:04 AM on May 31, 2012
Sounds good and makes him seem pretty altruistic, but I am going to guess that Bart Scott played football long before he even had a son, and is still playing so that he can continue to make a lot of money. I hate this kind of rhetoric. It reminds me of the time Mike Tyson justified biting off Hollyfield's ear and claimed he had to defend himself as Hollyfield was endangering his livelihood and trying to take food out of his children's mouths. Of course at the time he was worth a few hundred million dollars, but he needed to make sure his kids got fed.
I suppose if he feels football isn't worth the risk he can stop at anytime. My guess his kid won't have to play football anyway (unless he wants to) and there are other professions. I suggest Mr. Scott quit so he can be there for his son and help his son get an education so he will have choices. Playing football is not a way to ensure your son won't have to. If anything is sets up a pretty convincing role model for the boy to follow in dad's footsteps.
I think this (below) is the reason Bart Scott is playing football and yes his son will not have to.
The New York Jets signed free agent LB Bart Scott to a 6 year 48 million dollar contract on February 27, 2009. The deal included 22 million in guarantees. Scott received a $3.5 million dollar signing bonus and will receive a 10 million dollar option bonus in 2010.
On July 29, 2011 Scott agreed to reduce his 2011 base salary to $3,900,000 in retrun for a full guarantee on his 2012 salary.New base salaries are $3,900,000(2011), $4,200,000(2012), $6,900,000(2013) and $7,750,000(2014)
Prior to the start of the 2009 season, Scott renegotiated his contract to change his base salaries in 2009 and 2010 and restructure his option bonus due in 2010. The increase in salary reduced Scott's 2010 option bonus by 3 million dollars. Scott received 4 million dollars of the 2010 bonus in 2009 and converted the remaining 3 million dollars to a roster bonus due in 2010. and will earn base salaries of $7,500,000(2009), $3,600,000(2010), $4,900,000(2011), $5,600,000(2012), $6,900,000(2013), and $7,750,000(2014).
I know some dads who work several shitty jobs that are slowly killing them so their son's might have a chance to go to college. If there is any reason Bart Scott is still playing football, his sons financial future is probably no longer the reason.
posted by Atheist at 01:10 PM on May 30, 2012
Those pants warrant indefinite suspension or even possibly a lifetime ban.
posted by Atheist at 12:51 PM on May 25, 2012
I don't think there's any way you can make the case that the situation plus the visiting fan's actions constituted provocation to a degree where we can understand, let alone condone, an attack as being the action of an otherwise reasonable person who just got pushed too far. That would be the action of a sociopath. Let's call it what it is.
lbb - there is no argument here. I never condoned the behavior nor did I imply it was ever justifiable. I believe anybody who would verbally or physically abuses another over their choice of team is a criminal and should be dealt with accordingly. Never was I justifying the actions of idiots because they were provoked. I only said personally I would avoid that situation by not doing anything that can be construed as provocation.
I may go to a sporting event and root for a visiting team, even applaud when they do something good etc. I do however temper my enthusiasm when surrounded by home team fans who have been drinking and are acting overzealous. Not because I have to, or because it is my right to root for who I wish, but because I care what is in my own best interest and try to exercise common sense.
posted by Atheist at 01:55 PM on May 21, 2012
yerfatma, For the sake of argument you seem to be questioning a statement that was only a statement of my opinion. I merely stated that it may not be a good idea to deliberately insult or aggravate an already hostile crowd on their turf. I am not blaming the victim but there are cases where a victim contributed to their own circumstance by intentionally antagonizing others. If you want to go to a Philadelphia Flyers game and wear Rangers jersey, loudly scream how the Flyers suck, and trash talk the home town fans, you have every right. Does that mean it is a good idea? Don't you feel that is sort of asking for trouble?
I am only pointing out that I would never insult a stadium full of drinking fans by throwing back a ball, because there may be that one drunken idiot who will toss a beer on your head or even worse, stab you in a parking lot.
posted by Atheist at 11:03 AM on May 21, 2012
Of course not, but football seems to be under the gun so to speak much more lately than other dangerous activities. Not just football in general but NFL football in particular. Why?
To me the issue that is surrounding football isn't restricted to just football. Spectators have been killed during auto races as a direct result of the nature of the sport. Drivers have been killed in races that continued on the same day. If every driver that gets in a car is well aware of the risks and still chooses to participate why should football be any different. Its risky, you can be crippled or killed. It doesn't matter if you are playing high school ball or NFL ball, in the end people make choices. I am not using other dangerous activities to mitigate the discussion, the issue is the same. Should people be risking their lives and health to play a sport for fun or for money, or for the entertainment of others? My answer is, only if they want to.
As long as pro football is open about the dangers, does all they can to mitigate them, does everything possible to reduce the risk, and compensates the participants fairly, then I personally am OK with it.
posted by Atheist at 02:45 PM on May 18, 2012
If I were the Colorado police in the situation I would have told the guy who threw the ball back we were ejecting him for his own safety and protection from local fans, whom he clearly insulted by throwing the ball back. They could have refunded his ticket or given him another. If he didn't want it he should have given it away to a kid who did.
I can't help but think that if the LAPD had removed that drunken Giant fan that was trash talking at the Dodger home opener last year, while wearing a Giant jersey, the dude would not have been almost killed. Every fan should be able to freely root for any team they like, and anybody who would hurt them is a criminal, but if you go into a teams ball park and intentionally insult or rile up the home town fans, right or wrong, you may be risking your health. Personally if I am rooting against the home team while surrounded by thousands of their fans, I am doing it fairly quietly for my own safety. Who needs a beer on your head, or worse. Fans get drunk, rowdy, and sometimes violent. Why risk it.
posted by Atheist at 02:27 PM on May 18, 2012
While it's fashionable to blame concussions for Junior's early demise, and it's certainly possible brain trauma played a role, the adjustment to life after football came to my mind immediately.
Above was quoted directly from the article written by an incredibly insightful, intelligent, and educated ex football player. I hardly think I was bending over grasping at straws. While I have argued this issue here, and am clearly of a different opinion than some, I find it ironic that so many are quick to imply that football is too dangerous, but aren't condemning boxing, auto racing, motorcycle racing, mountain climbing, surfing, sailing etc... I also found a similar hypocrisy when suggesting that allowing hockey enforcers to beat the shit out of each other was an unnecessary part of the game and could be stopped. Not should be but could be, because in the end as long as those involved are fully informed and willing, that is what life is about.
I am all for knowledge and freedom. If the participants of any sport are fully aware of all the known risks and possibilities, and everything possible is done to investigate, study and mitigate those risks, which is a fluid and changing knowledge base, I believe in the freedom to participate, enjoy and profit. It goes beyond professional sports as many high risk sports are enjoyed by guys like myself who at fifty seven years of age has already had a hip replaced, shoulder surgery, nerve damage, spinal stenosis, herniated discs in the neck and lumbar spine, torn knee ligaments and artritis in several joints. I never made a penny playing football, martial arts, surfing, skiing, sailing, or training, but knowing all the risks I am perfectly satisfied with my choice to participate, and the rewards were and are worth the price I have paid. I would have felt extremely fortunate if I could have made money doing any of those sports I loved, let alone if I could have made millions.
posted by Atheist at 11:00 AM on May 18, 2012
The Seau comment was just an example, but speaking of him, because he committed suicide and it was very high profile, his face was all over the news. I am sure he was one of the most recognizable Chargers ever. How many other retired San Diego Chargers would be recognized walking down the street? It's a rhetorical question, point being very few football players are recognizable out of uniform to the general public. Yes Seau may have been pretty popular around San Diego, but I venture to guess in most places in the US, even he could have walked the streets without many people knowing who he was.
Imagine the average ex non-superstar NFL player. How many of those guys are recognized five years after they leave the game? Or even while they play the game for that matter?
posted by Atheist at 04:20 PM on May 17, 2012
Another issue that plagues ex football players more than some sports is recognition. Since football players wear helmets and face masks during play, unless they are superstars and have a lot of TV endorsements, or become commentators, they are not as recognizable by the general public. While their physical presence may remain due to their size, just how many people will recognize a Junior Seau in street clothing? He was a big star on the field but does the average person recognize his face away from the game? Where is the epidemic of baseball suicides?
Where is the epidemic of football suicides? There have been a couple and some were over personal problems. I have not seen any credible evidence that there is an epidemic, or that statistically there is a substantially higher rate. I am not playing down the danger of concussions but from a scientific standpoint it becomes difficult to attribute emotional problems, depression, and suicide to the playing of the game. There are millions of ex high school, college and pro players who live completely normal lives after they are done playing. Also if you consider the use of steroids in the league prior to recent crackdowns, it becomes even more difficult to isolate a single cause to physiological changes in players who may have used PEDs when it went widely unsupervised. If you have an ex player who commits suicide, you can jump to the conclusion that is was football that caused it, but there is other possibilities including those mentioned in the article or just plain coincidence.
I would never suggest not doing more research but as the article pointed, currently it is fashionable it seems to blame the game first.
posted by Atheist at 03:06 PM on May 17, 2012
Great article and it demonstrates clearly how difficult it is to attribute depression to injury while there are so many emotional feelings also involved in a players retirement. When an entire life and personal identity is built around a career that suddenly ends at such an early age, especially considering for most of these guys, their lives have revolved around football since childhood, it is very possible a player like Seau just could not adjust.
It is common in our society for men especially, to be identified with what they do for a living. One of the first questions men are typically asked when meeting new people is "what do you do". When you no longer have that answer you can take pride in, life can be very depressing for some. I once read that the most common trigger for suicide in men is #1 the loss of their job which they see as their identity, and #2 is divorce. Both instances of a feeling of rejection, loss of purpose and identity.
IMO this may be a bigger factor than any injury, the emotional feeling of being rejected because you are no longer useful, or able and therefore useless when you once had value. Football is very brutal in that sense, where you were once highly valued, you very quickly become old, slow, and expendable. Then you get to watch as the younger and stronger push you aside and take your place.
posted by Atheist at 11:48 AM on May 17, 2012
yerfatma - I was not aware I was seeing things in black and white. I realize mental health is not an exact science. I am not one of the people looking to blame the game of football for an ex players suicide. You are making an argument with me where none exists. I am questioning the rationale of trying to attribute something like suicide to a physical cause related to football when none can be clearly established. To use your example of poor judgement, since almost every human being is probably guilty of exercising poor judgement at one time or another, it is pretty hard to blame poor judgement on ones past football injuries. While I am not saying head injury can't effect your judgement, it seems pretty difficult to blame poor judgement on fact that someone played football rather than they just had poor judgement.
posted by Atheist at 05:04 PM on May 04, 2012
rcade - I can believe it and I never said I did not, nor did I ever say that it couldn't be a contributing factor. I was responding to those who seem to be jumping to the conclusion that his suicide was football related and football should be changed or stopped because some ex players have killed themselves. Jumping to the conclusion that he killed himself because he got hit in the head alot is just not substantiated at this time. I haven't seen any credible evidence that ex football players are more prone to committing suicide than anybody else within a comparable demographic.
Isn't just possible that Junior Seau was just another depressed person struggling with his personal demons and his untimely demise is only newsworthy because he happened to be a famous football player? Maybe OJ Simpson can blame repeated blows to the head for the reason he killed his ex wife. Lets ban the game and save lives.
posted by Atheist at 03:54 PM on May 04, 2012
yerfatma - how is responding to what others have said guiding the discussion? I made comments in response to what others said. Maybe you should be the moderator. Others seemed quick to blame football related head injury as a factor in Seau's suicide. I am just trying to point out that the two are not necessarily related. So you can ascribe a suicide to any cause you like but all you are doing is speculating and your assumption is not based on facts.
The story of a player who killed himself over his own life problems gambling etc, is just an example of a case where friends knew the reasons behind the persons desire to kill themself. If his brain were to be taken for study and happened to show some evidence of CTE, it still wouldn't change the fact that he committed suicide over money and other personal problems.
posted by Atheist at 03:16 PM on May 04, 2012
here is a story of another players suicide
Even if signs of brain injury were present could you attribute the act of suicide to football?
posted by Atheist at 01:25 PM on May 04, 2012
LionIndex I agree and since suicide is basically an act born out of depression, and since so many people are affected by depression to various degrees, it makes any conclusive correlation between football and suicide almost impossible to prove. There are so many potential causes for depression and any one or combination of factors can contribute to a persons depression. Also most professionals would also say that typically there is a trigger that pushes a clinically depressed individual to make an attempt.
Nerfball we will never really know with out the words of the deceased. Even if brain changes are detected, it will not explain what triggered this act at this time. Especially since those close to him saw no signs or changes in him. Please understand that I was not trying to be insensitive with the selfish comment, but if you do something for yourself irrespective of the damage it does to those you love, who love you and others around you, it is by definition a selfish act not a selfless act. It's tragic and heartbreaking but Seau's suffering is over, the suffering this has inflicted on his family and others is not.
Here is a good link http://www.suicide.org/suicide-statistics.html
posted by Atheist at 01:02 PM on May 04, 2012
Please, I just posted a link and it was only to demonstrate a point about linking an ex players suicide to a football induced brain injury, especially since there isn't any evidence yet that Seau had a brain injury. I also thought the numbers seemed ridiculous on both sides. The copied post was on a website in response to someone's statement that the ex NFL players rate of suicide was 6 times higher than the per capita average.
As for the morality of suicide, I happen to agree with the right to die. Remember I am an Atheist, but speaking from personal experience. suicide is by nature a selfish act. I am not saying a person does not have the right to be selfish. It is their life and they should have the right to end it. It is however an act that is all about me so to speak. I want to die and end my suffering, to hell with my children, loved ones etc. Also many suicides have a vindictive aspect, as in "I'll show them, lets see how they feel when I am gone, they will regret that they treated me this way". Obviously this is not clear thinking and should be considered mental illness, but again the point is that leaping from a man's suicide to football should be abolished because he played and then committed suicide, is crazy.
justgary - you can defend a persons right to end their life with a gun. I agree but I also can defend a persons right to play football knowing that it can potentially kill them. Are we defending the same point? It has always been my contention that everything is in some way a risk reward proposition. I want to go to the beach, I take the risk of dying in my car to get there.
Every time something like this happens to an ex player. I understand the urge to blame football, and of course another 100 players will jump on the sue the NFL bandwagon. (I am not sure why every ex college and high school player is not looking to sue their former schools, probably has something to do with money). I think that most players in the league are well aware of the safety issues now surrounding the game, yet I don't see any (even those that are totally financially secure at this point) saying this game is too dangerous and I want out. Most play as long as they possibly can, because they want to and they love it.
posted by Atheist at 11:08 AM on May 04, 2012
I would like to say that suicide is one of the most selfish acts a person can do. Just ask any surviving family member. To be jumping to the conclusion that this is in some way related to football injuries is awfully premature. Many people commit suicide and depression happens to millions without suffering any head trauma. Also millions of people endure incredibly debilitating physical injuries and diseases without resorting to suicide. When someone blows a hole in themselves with a gun, it is a sign of mental illness, depression, or other factors. When the person who is affected happens to be a football player or boxer, that in and of itself is not enough to automatically assume their mental state was in some way related to their football career. That is just unfounded.
I found this on one website:
there are probably over 15,000 living former players (considering there are about 8,000 with vested pensions that requires a couple years play and adding in those who played say 3 years or less)
the US overall suicide rate is about 1.2%
among males it is 1.9%
so with 15K ex players times a 1.9% suicide rate, that means approx 285 players would need to commit suicide every year to match the general male population.
i know many could occur that are not as well documented as Juniors,but statistically for the rate of suicides among ex NFL players to be significantly higher (say 50%) than the general male population you would expect something on the order of 400 per year and as far as I know we are no where close to that number.
i know there is one site out there (gameover.org) that claims the nfl player suicide rate is 6 times the national average but gives no supporting data to back that claim up. In fact if you read their site they claim the rate for ACTIVE AND RETIRED players is 6 times the national average.
well 6 times the national average for males is 11.4%, considering that active and retired players combined has to be at least 15,000, that means a whopping 1710 players are taking their own lives every year or OVER 4 A DAY. that so me seems simply to be hogwash
to put this in even more perspective if 11.4% is real, there are approx 1350 active players at any given time, that means every year there would need to be 153 players offing them selves EVERY YEAR, for even them to meet the overall US avg there would need to be 16 active players every year killing themselves,,,or how about this, ther are approx 40 ex Buckeyes playing right now, at 11.4%, on average there would need to be betwen 4-5 ex Buckeyes killing them self EVERY year
seriously does that sound even remotely accurate, the site provides no links to any research of data that shows this supposed rate is true, it is just a unsubstantiated claim at this point.in fact the only substantiated studies i have seen shows that sports participation among teens leads to lower suicide rates. There are a bunch of people quoting from gameover.org site but again with nothing to substantiate or confirm that conclusion
i know this is high profile, along with a few others over the past year or so in connection with bounty gate, it just looks bad, and I am not doubting that it is at least possible that these concussion issues could lead to suicide
but until someone can show a definitive study showing increased suicides rates among NFL players, it is just a tragic story for his family to deal with and not much more
I dont know the answer to this for certain, but how many former players have killed themselves in say the last year, or maybe 2, a half dozen or so?
posted by Atheist at 06:40 PM on May 03, 2012
Very sad. I believe he was suspected of trying to hurt himself on another occasion by driving a car off a cliff or something. Great player and just very sad.
posted by Atheist at 02:56 PM on May 02, 2012
High School Builds $60 Million Stadium
and some people think the dangers of football, parental concerns, and insurance issues are going to cause it's death at the youth level. Seems like high school football is alive and well to me.