11/17/24
February 06, 2010
The virtues of big-time college sports:: According to columnist David Brooks at the New York Times.
Very Brooksian: paraphrase someone else and sprinkle in a couple of anecdotes.
I'm going to quibble: first of all, the gap in the chronology leaves out the kind of ad hoc sporting events that you'll see re-enacted on Shrove Tuesday. Secondly, the Victorian model of amateur sport encompassed both team games and individual competition, as seen in the revived Olympic movement, and in the creation of more individualistic sports such as tennis. Thirdly, and more interestingly, the tensions between amateurism and professionalism were evident from the first codification of association football and rugby, and in the growth of cricket during the era of WG Grace, an ostensible "gentleman" who made more from the game than many "players".
Had Brooks devoted some time to that subject, his conclusions might have been less platitudinous, because the flipside of "bigness" and grand spectacle is the idea of proper compensation for those participating.
posted by etagloh at 02:36 PM on February 06, 2010
Secondly, the Victorian model of amateur sport encompassed both team games and individual competition, as seen in the revived Olympic movement, and in the creation of more individualistic sports such as tennis
I'd recommend reading David Winner's 'Those Feet: A Sensual History of English Football'. Apparently the Victorians invented and codified team sports to discourage masturbation.
There's a whole chapter on it.
posted by owlhouse at 06:18 PM on February 06, 2010
I don't understand why the Times still gives Brooks a podium. Except maybe that they figure he's the most likely to damage the GOP while still being considered inside that tent.
posted by billsaysthis at 08:54 PM on February 07, 2010
I don't necessarily agree with his conclusions. But I found his discussion of the "three major athletic traditions" throughout western history to be well worth the read.