Showing posts with label Sports. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Sports. Show all posts

Tuesday, May 03, 2011

Sports and American Militiarism

Dave Zirin has written a wonderful article on sports and the militarization of American society:

The eruption of patriotic emotion at the park should surprise no one. Since 9/11, the sports arena has been an organizer of patriotism, a recruiter for the US armed forces, and at times a funhouse mirror, reflecting the principles of freedom in a manner so misshapen and distorted as to rise to the level of farce.


That's for damn sure--I hate, hate, hate the playing of "God Bless America" at baseball games. The rapid increase in connections between right-wing militarism and sports, and the massive peer pressure that goes along with it, is the single worst thing about going to a sporting event.

Tuesday, June 23, 2009

What makes Wimbledon “Wimbledon”

For most people, June is a time of laying in the sun, eating hotdogs at barbecues and hiking outdoors, but for avid tennis fans the latter part of the month involves not much more than waking up to the green lawns of the All England Club at Wimbledon, England, and sitting glued to the television for the remainder of the day.

The Championships, Wimbledon, is often hailed as the sport’s biggest stage, and the All England Club where it unfolds, the cathedral of tennis itself. There is so much exclusive to the tournament that makes it stand out in the sporting world. Here’s my attempt to capture it in words.

In the rough-and-tumble struggle of physical will and power, sport is often about finding beauty in little things: the finely orchestrated touchdown pass from a quarterback to his receiver, the wonderful execution of a three-pointer that drops through the rim of the basket, or that magnificent diving save by an artful goaltender.

No exalted powers of observation are needed to find beauty at the All England Club, however, from the very backdrop provided by the lush green lawns with their generous share of fountains and lakes to the magicians on the courts themselves, attired in pristine white as per unwavering Wimbledon traditions. The grass surface ensures that there is little slipping and sliding that would get your shoes dirty (as happens in the clay of Paris two weeks prior), or the thumping of hard courts that sends visible shock waves through the knees.

The slick and fast surface offered by the grass demands a higher level of shot-making skill and mental prowess, as opposed to the more physically demanding and brute nature of tennis on its slower counterparts. Not that power ever hurt anyone on a grass court (except that occasional, unfortunate ball boy!)

But what makes Wimbledon special is the unpredictability of the grass that pervades its grounds. As if to defy the British insistence on proper decorum – all-white ensembles, pin drop silences and genteel salutations - the uneven surface of the blades throws up the ball in fickle bounces, low and fast, demanding nothing short of the absolute best from players in terms of footwork and anticipation. A dense carpet of velvety green in the initial week, play is dominated by shorter points and faster exchanges.

On slower surfaces, game plans are often dictated by the ball, disintegrating as they do to long, painstaking rallies till the lesser player causes an error. On grass, however, the ball isn’t waiting around to be missed, so the better players tend to dictate points, take risks and play aggressive, offensive tennis in order to keep the play short. In other words, they construct the points in their heads and write the stories themselves. In the second week of the tournament, patches of dirt begin to peek through the well-worn grass, slightly slowing down play, and adding spatial unpredictability to the already capricious turf.

Little wonder then, that it has always taken the best players to reign supreme at Wimbledon; the Championships rarely reward one-time wonders that sail through two weeks on account of dream runs and good fortunes. Down under in Melbourne, this can happen as summer fatigue, and injuries and retirements after long hiatuses often see top players bid farewell in unforeseen losses. The French Open, for its part, throws up some unlikely winners on account of a drastically different playing style.

If the carefully-manicured lawns of Wimbledon are untameable, so is Mother Nature. A familiar sight during the Championships is the ominous premonition of impending rain looming over the English skies. As behooves the country-club nature of the sport, players don’t toil through rain and snow. Hell, they can barely focus over a catcall! Heavy tarpaulin sheets are hence summoned at the very hint of a drizzle and the fastidious courts are covered for the duration of bad weather. This year, however, the big story at tennis’s cathedral is the retractable roof over Center Court, which would render this age-old tradition obsolete. Painstaking as it often proves to be, the spectacle will be missed!

As if to add to the capriciousness, there’s Court No. 2, “the graveyard of champions,” which is known to ruthlessly dismiss top dogs in a hurry; it famously eliminated three-time champion Venus Williams to a relative unknown a few years ago, and yesterday, it saw the exit of American James Blake in the first round. Past casualties of the graveyard court include such greats as Pete Sampras, John McEnroe, Jimmy Connors, Martina Hingis, and Serena Williams. Many reasons have been given for this seeming mystery, like distractions from the restaurant on the upper deck and the lower bounce of the ball, but the most compelling one yet is that it simply favors the underdog.

Few sporting events display the kind of panache and flair that Wimbledon does. This is the only tournament that would prompt Roger Federer – classy though he is – to show up in a custom-made blazer with initials emblazoned, or a well-tailored waistcoat to suit his sartorial style.

And why wouldn’t he? From the sharply attired club officials – in Ralph Lauren, no less – to members of the royal family in the royal box, Wimbledon is all about class. Then there are the celebrities dotting the stands, who often have no clue what they’re watching except the people watching them, hall of famers with their scrutinizing expressions and ‘pearls’ of wisdom (I’m sorry, if you’re not sitting in the ESPN box, you obviously don’t know what you’re talking about, as opposed to Dick Enberg who does), press conferences with crisp British accents intoning not-so-crisp questions and of course, nothing screams sultry, sweltering, sweaty sport like the Duke and Duchess of Kent. The strawberries and cream and champagne add flair to the fare.

The Championships are steeped in irony. About a decade ago, Tim Henman carried the hopes and dreams of an entire nation on his shoulders to Center Court. However, Henman, the former great British hope to win the tournament, famously lost to Pete Sampras in all three of their meetings at Wimbledon. And you can hardly blame him. The supremacy of the American legend on grass was such that he won 55 out of 56 matches at the All England Club in eight straight years.

Henman is now over the hill in tennis years, but his hill still exists just outside the grandest stage of the tournament. “Henman hill” is what the Brits fondly call the little showcourt area they occupied for years to root for their compatriot and watch him on a big screen outside Center Court.

Now, that pressure has shifted to young Scot Andy Murray, currently the third best player in the world. The last British man to win Wimbledon was Fred Perry in 1936, so it's hard to admonish the English for their urgency in anointing their next big hope. Murray, though a stellar player in his own right, faces his own Pete Sampras.

Roger Federer has won 41 of his last 42 matches at Wimbledon in six consecutive years. However, last year also saw Federer’s worst and Murray’s best, and the Scot has gotten the better of the Swiss in four of their past five meetings; none of those meetings, however, carried the weight and pressure of the world’s most prestigious tournament.

Even so, the dream of seeing him lift the trophy gathers steam this season and “Murray mound” has quickly been elevated to the status of a mountain, reflecting not only the 22 year old’s ascendancy in the tennis world, but also the injury-ridden absence of Rafael Nadal, Federer’s closest challenger, and incidentally the man who took that one match from him last year.

Yet, if all goes well for Murray, he may well lay hands on the coveted trophy, but still deny the Brits their one big wish. Murray is widely reported to have insisted that he is Scottish, not English, and his dislike of the British soccer team is well known.

Despite recent retractments, when it eventually happens, he may well go down in history as the Scot that won Wimbledon. And the British crowds will be left to look within themselves for their man.

Tuesday, May 12, 2009

The Sporting Life

We haven't had any sports posts up in awhile, so here's a few random observations:

1. Obama is lobbying heavily for the 2016 Olympics to go to Chicago. I can see why, but it seems a pretty clear choice to give it to Rio de Janeiro. Trend has talked of this from time to time, but South America has never held the event, Rio can probably handle the chaos it causes, and the U.S. has already held it 4 times, twice within my memory. Nate Silver has some interesting if perhaps slightly silly political analysis to this issue.

2. That's a pretty meaningful $750 fine Major League Baseball gave to Chicago White Sox pitcher Bobby Jenks for throwing behind Ian Kinsler's head. I mean the man is only making $5.6 million this year.

3. Outside the Lines has a really fantastic story on Denver guard Chauncey Billups. It's great for several reasons, including giving major props to Oregon legend Terrell Brandon, who mentored Billups at the end of his career in Minnesota. The story also reminds me of two incontrovertible facts of the NBA: a) that Rick Pitino has no business coaching in the NBA and b) that Kevin McHale is one of the worst general managers in the history of the league. That McHale would stick with a clearly injured and finished Brandon over Billups is almost as bad as destroying your franchise by getting caught cheating to sign Joe Smith of all people.

4. Speaking of the NBA, I'm real sad to see the Portland Trail Blazers get knocked out of the playoffs in the first round, but it was still great to see them back after a long absence. Plus the Rockets are tough and hopefully they can knock out the Los Angeles Satan Worshippers, even without Yao.

5. Why oh why did I take David Ortiz in my fantasy baseball draft? Washed up and finished. Just like my fantasy team.

Thursday, February 12, 2009

Crisis of Masculinity Blogging: Special Thursday Edition

The need for men to compete in sports against other men or engage in strenuous physical activities with groups of other men has been a central tenet of various crises of masculinity through American history.

In the Progressive Era, boxing, football, hunting, and fishing became very popular activities among the middle and upper classes. There's a reason boxing became respectable, football becomes popular, and hunting laws are enacted at the same time: the support of Progressive masculinity worriers.

Hiking became a popular activity for many reasons in the 1950s and early 1960s, but men looking to escape the feminizing suburban home and demanning gray flannel suit job played a major role.

Our friends at The Art of Manliness buy into this idea whole hog. The post starts in a classic totalizing manner, stating "Men like to compete." Do they now? All men? If I don't like to compete, does that make me less of a man. Have I castrated myself because I'd prefer to read, or I don't know, do most anything else? I guess so.

The post goes on, linking to a 1933 magazine article suggesting 10 manly competitve feats such as the one-legged arm wrestling pictured above, and stating:

All of them pit you against another man in a pure mano-a-mano showdown. All of them call on different muscles and not only require brute strength, but good balance and a bit of skill as well. So next time you and your buddies are bantering about who is the strongest, don’t settle the dispute with a cliche impromptu wrestling match. Challenge your friends to back up their bluster, move the furniture, and let the real games begin.

First of all, who the hell just starts wrestling? Men who engage in a "cliche impromptu wrestling match" need to grow the hell up to begin with. Second, they need to examine very seriously why they feel the need to struggle on the floor with another person, unless you are engaging in some sort of consensual sex act.

Again, the assumption here is that real men like to compete with each other. Now, I can be a competitive guy in the rare times I engage in sports activity, though this is mostly directed at myself and my consistently crappy performance. But I certainly never defined myself as a man over it. And I most definitely do not believe that I need to prove myself whenever I am with other men. This idea of proving yourself plays a central role in masculinity worriers' arguments. What I want to know is who they think they need to prove themselves to? Themselves? Their friends? Women? The nation? All of the above? I go with all of the above. I think these kinds of activities, most certainly including arm wrestling, are about deep insecurities within the souls of some men. I think it has inherently little do with being a proper man. The social constructions of gender can mask people's own personal problems behind ideas of gender. I really believe that people who attach this sort of masculine test to any kind of sporting or competitive activity may lack self-esteem. They need to win, or at least to compete hard, to reaffirm that, in fact, life is worth living.

The sexual overtones of all of this are pretty obvious. It's hardly a coincidence that the most blatant homophobia often comes from those who engage in sporting activities that can simulate sex in interesting ways, as perhaps suggested by the "back wrestling" pictured here. There's a lot of self-denial and sexual repression going on in these competitions. They need to physically interact with someone of your sex is overwhelming for many people, but the social norms allowing for it are not there. So sex has to be simulated in some way.

Maybe I've overstating things here, but I'm not so sure. Masculinity worriers have long been the most virulent homophobes. To give one of many examples, The Marquis of Queensbury rules governing boxing were established in the Progressive Era to make the sport clean enough that men could watch such a manly activity and learn from them without seeing savagery too unrestrained. The Marquis of Queensbury's son was Oscar Wilde's lover. It was the same Marquis of Queensbury who had Wilde thrown into prison for homosexuality, outraged that such immoral activity could exist. Meanwhile, he's throwing himself into rough physical activity in all-male environments right and left.

Tuesday, November 25, 2008

Worst Sports Announcers

Paul Campos mentions a few sports announcers he hates. But there are so many more.

I should say that some of my all time most despised people are mercifully gone. Steve Lyons for instance. And of course Dennis Miller. Then there was that Monday Night Football team for a couple of years that included an aging Frank Gifford, Joe Namath, and OJ Simpson. Wow, was that bad.

Anyhow, here is a short list of the most annoying sports announcers:

1. Tim McCarver. How exactly did McCarver become the default World Series color man. His constant references to Derek Jeter and inane comments about the game are annoying, but the fact that he is constantly wrong is a problem I would think someone might care about. I guess I'm wrong.

2. Tony Kornheiser. Does Kornheiser even care about the games he is calling on Monday Night Football? He clearly doesn't prepare. He constantly brings up trivial points that he finds interesting. He gets in the way of Ron Jaworski, which is a crime in itself. Last night, he had to bring up the idea that Green Bay should have kept Favre, even though Rodgers is having just as good a year. His argument was that Favre had led the Jets to a better record, as if Favre alone was responsible for the Jets improvement, or for the fact that the Packers gave up 51 points last night. Bleh.

3. Paul Maguire. In some ways, it is just too easy to pick on Maguire and his outstanding incompetence. Plus, he was demoted from the NFL Sunday night games to riding around on a moving cart in cold college stadiums on Saturdays. Nonetheless, his attempts at humor and, like McCarver, the fact that he is wrong on almost every point, make him as insufferable at ever.

4. Joe Buck. While Buck is a semi-competent play by play guy, I have three major problems with him. First, like his partner McCarver, he fellates Derek Jeter at every opportunity. Second, he is a legacy case. Actually earning his spot as a top announcer would have been nice. Third, his moralizing makes me sick. His "outrage" when Randy Moss fake-mooned the Green Bay crowd a few years ago was laughable. I love self-appointed moral guardians of our society. Joe Buck--the Bill Bennett of sports broadcasting.

5. Dan Dierdorf. Back in 1995, I was watching a Monday Night Football game when Dierdorf actually wished that he could be Jerry Rice for one day. That's some hard-hitting announcing right there. If that was a one-time thing, I could forgive it. But how you have such a lengthy career when you never provide one positive bit of information to the broadcast is beyond me.

6. Rick Sutcliffe. Sutcliffe is a disgusting human being. Enough said.

7. Joe Morgan. Like Maguire, Morgan is really easy to pick on. I used to have a soft spot for him. But in the last few years, not only has Morgan continued to provide vapid analysis that revolves around "experience" "guttiness" and other totally meaningless categories of analysis, but he has also come across as an arrogant jerk who is totally dismissive of any critique. Knowing that he is like that around ESPN headquarters too is pretty funny.

8. Billy Packer. Does Billy Packer actually enjoy watching college basketball? He shows about as much joy as a cardboard box. Why can't Bill Raftery be the #1 CBS announcer. Plus, Packer never met a bigtime program he didn't love. His contempt for mid-majors is constantly angering.


In fairness, announcers I really like include Ron Jaworski, Jack Ramsey, Bill Raftery, Steve Jones, Dave Campbell, and Dan Fouts. I really miss Keith Jackson. I also kind of like Bill Walton as a guilty pleasure, even though he is totally ridiculous. And Dick Vitale is in a category by himself. I don't like him much, but I can't really hate him either.