In chess, there have at times been clear best players. In 1972, Bobby Fischer was the best chess player in the world–end of story. There could be no reasonable basis for doubting this. The same goes for Anatoli Karpov from 1975-1984–he was just obviously the best. The same goes for Kasparov to his retirement.
But today, in chess, there is no clear best player. Although Vishy Anand has been champion for a few years, given the ratings and tournament performances of the best players, it seems that he is only about equal with Vladimir Kramnik and Magnus Carlsen. Veselin Topalov and Levon Aronian may also by right up there with them. But even if Anand is the best, he’s not the best by much of a margin at all.
Many fields of competition, such as in sports or games, are like this, in that they go through phases where at times there is a best person/team and at times there is not. My question: do you prefer times when there’s someone-to-beat (the Bulls of the 90s, Kasparov of the 90s, etc) or do you prefer there to be no obviously best person/team?
What about fields where there’s less direct competition, like art. Do you like it when on artist is recognized as being the most amazing, as it seemed with T.S. Eliot and modernist poetry? (Edit: maybe some will dispute that Eliot was clearly the best modernist, but from what I understand of literary history, in the 1920s he was considered Mr. Modern Poetry.)
I prefer for their to be no clear best, but I prefer for my favored team to be the best
For sports that I don’t actively follow, it can be exciting to have a clear best. Tiger Woods made me a little excited about golf. At the very least I’d read about how he was doing. Now that the field is more equal, I couldn’t give two shits about golf.
I loved it when Tiger Woods was amazingly dominant, but I think that part of it was because he was a black man, completely usurping a traditionally whites-only sport. I’m as white as Tom Kite, but I still root for Tiger.
Then again, it’s exciting when a sport’s championship season is a kind-of free-for-all.
And if my team is the clear-cut best (which has never happened in my life, in any sport), I’d revel in it.
The only spectator sport I’ve ever cared about is North American football. When my hometown team is playing (Chargers), I care passionately about their winning and hope the opponents get leprosy.
In games that don’t directly or indirectly affect SD, I always root for the underdog if there is one, or the home team if the odds are even.
In all cases, I enjoy it most when both teams play well. So I guess that makes my vote “No clear best.”
I didn’t follow chess when Karpov was champ, and I thought Karpov was the best in the 90s ( I remember him from the “Karpov on Karpov” series on my Chess Master 5000 CD), but in the timeline you noted, I thought Tal was an arguable number one, and Karpov was always dogged by not beating the terribly demanding Fischer. But like I say, I look at it as a retrospective observer.
My opinion? It depends. I like a close playoff series in hockey or baseball, but I hate that there’s 876 heavyweight belts in boxing, and I think that helped to kill the sport in North America.
My years of chess activity coincided with Fischer’s dominance and later Kasparov’s. I was only mildly active during Karpov and basically quit chess before Kasparov did. I really followed everything Fischer and Kasparov did, guided by the feeling that they could do no wrong – for very long. I loved those years. I don’t even pay attention to chess these days. It may have to do with the lack of a dominant player, but it’s probably more than that.
The only other thing I care about is American football, and I want my favorite teams to win every game and dominate their leagues. But I back the teams come what may and have not had the pleasure of any long-term successes with them. If they were National Champions and Super Bowl Champions from now until I die, I would love it! It won’t happen, and I can live with that.
I like there to be a clear best player/team. They’re like a goal to strive for, let’s see if XX can beat them, let’s see if they can maintain their dominance. Too much parity is boring, different winner every week, all the teams are bunched together, it seems too much like chance determines the overall winner.
However, there’s no good reason to have teams so bad that they have no chance to compete, that’s not interesting either.
That’s it, without the smiley. If the Rams and Cardinals aren’t the best, then I don’t want anyone else to be dominant.
I’m more of a front-runner than a die-hard fan, so if there’s a likable player who looks like he’s going to be the best, then I’ll often care about him (or her). So, I’m rooting for Carlsen to win every tournament. If Carlsen turns out to just be another extremely good player (like Topalov) then I’ll probably stop following the adventures of Golden Boy.
The best sport situation is where there’s a front runner and another closing in fast. If they’re just ahead of the pack, then it’s boring. And if everyone is taking the lead every 5 seconds, that’s dull too. What you want is one horse/team/player to stand waaaay above the rest, but have one newcomer about to upset the paradigm.
Me, too. I fully expect The Kid to take the championship and keep it for a long time.
