Most major and minor sports are ultimately very damaging to us, and useless.

Great Debates
1

I put forth that most of what we consider our major and minor sports are ultimately very damaging to the human organism. So, why do we do them?

Baseball, football, basketball, and hockey are all taken for granted as a risk for major bodily injury, including to the brain, the worst kind of damage of all. Boxing is particularly vile in the latter regard, and the “heading” maneuver that occasionally occurs in soccer is nearly as bad. There are many other examples.

Now, let’s take the events in both the winter and summer Olympics. Is there any need to throw a javelin or put a shot in your normal daily life? Even metaphoricallly? How about running real fast? A cougar will easily overtake the fastest human being in the world if it wants to. You wanna jump high? Go ahead, but this talent won’t do anyone much good in an earthquake.

In most cases, what we regard as “athletics” end up doing us much more harm than good. Why would we encourage our children to take part in such activities? Why would adults take place in such activities themselves?

Walking seems to be pretty good for us, as does Yoga and other low-impact exercises. Why do we continue to do, and place such crucial importance upon, activities that damage us severely in the long run, and are essentially useless for all practical purposes?

2

A ship in harbor is safe, but that is not what ships are built for.
- John A. Shedd

3

Well, competative walking isn’t really all that fun to watch, and people just won’t tune in for the All-State Yoga championships.

4

Let’s just sit in our rooms and wait to die then. I think Ayrton Senna and Dale Earnhardt
would probably do it all over again, knowing what fate had in store. When a premier
athlete gets into the “zone” they often report it as the most intense high they have ever
experienced. It’s part of the human psyche to seek out challenges like that, and more power
to them.

5

[QUOTE=Turek]
A ship in harbor is safe, but that is not what ships are built for.
- John A. Shedd
[/QUOTE]

If you have a ship transporting useful goods from one place to another, are you deliberately going to try to maneuver through reefs when you could take a safer (and saner) route that accomplishes the same goal?

6

[QUOTE=Nothing Special]
In most cases, what we regard as “athletics” end up doing us much more harm than good. Why would we encourage our children to take part in such activities? Why would adults take place in such activities themselves?

Walking seems to be pretty good for us, as does Yoga and other low-impact exercises. Why do we continue to do, and place such crucial importance upon, activities that damage us severely in the long run, and are essentially useless for all practical purposes?
[/QUOTE]

Because they’re fun to play and to watch? But then, that’s just a wild guess…

7

Yes. Its been proven that living will kill you.

Getting exercise is good for you. You get exercise when you participate in athletics. Therefore athletics are good for you.

Professional athletics are for those elite 1% that truly excel at a particular sport. They abuse their bodies for our amusement and are paid handsomely for it. How you can go from ‘professional sports are dangerous’ to ‘all athletics are dangerous and should be avoided’ is a huge leap in logic and doesn’t take into account the massive amount of gray area that recreational sports and moderate exercise cover - which is actually good for us and prolongs our lives.

8

[QUOTE=John Mace]
Because they’re fun to play and to watch? But then, that’s just a wild guess…
[/QUOTE]

Okay, but why is watching other people damage themselves so much fun? Why is damaging oneself so much fun (besides the money)?

9

[QUOTE=Nothing Special]
Okay, but why is watching other people damage themselves so much fun? Why is damaging oneself so much fun (besides the money)?
[/QUOTE]

Well, we mainly watch for the parts when they perform some amazing feat w/o damaging themselves. The damaging parts are just icing on the cake, so to speak.

And who said damaging onesself is fun? Athletes go to great lengths to make sure they don’t get damaged.

You clearly have some problem with sports and are just reaching for excuses to bash them. Sure, there’s a bit of blood-lust involved in sports watching, but that is a minor component. There are plenty of non-contact sports that are hugely popular and where injury is uncommon.

10

[QUOTE=spazattak]
How you can go from ‘professional sports are dangerous’ to ‘all athletics are dangerous and should be avoided’ is a huge leap in logic and doesn’t take into account the massive amount of gray area that recreational sports and moderate exercise cover - which is actually good for us and prolongs our lives.
[/QUOTE]

Already answered in my OP. “…recreational sports and moderate exercise” are fine.

Athletics carried to the extreme of the “professional” (not to mention some amateurs) are generally quite damaging to the individual over time. So, why do we do them, and why do we like to watch people doing damage to themselves and to each other?

11

[QUOTE=Nothing Special]
Okay, but why is watching other people damage themselves so much fun? Why is damaging oneself so much fun (besides the money)?
[/QUOTE]
Some of the sports you mention (i.e. baseball) do not pose large risks of great bodily harm, especially brain damage. In none of the sports you mentioned do fans enjoy the prospect of athletes suffering great bodily harm.

I would like to see televised all-you-can-eat-buffet stuffing, but my local stations keep running NASCAR events.

12

[QUOTE=Nothing Special]
Already answered in my OP. “…recreational sports and moderate exercise” are fine.

Athletics carried to the extreme of the “professional” (not to mention some amateurs) are generally quite damaging to the individual over time. So, why do we do them, and why do we like to watch people doing damage to themselves and to each other?
[/QUOTE]
The only sport I can think of where the primary purpose is to “do damage” is boxing. Do you have any information or statistics to support your contention that athletics at the professional level “are generally quite damaging to the individual over time”? I have no doubt that you think that’s true, but I don’t think it is.

13

[QUOTE=Nothing Special]
Already answered in my OP. “…recreational sports and moderate exercise” are fine.

Athletics carried to the extreme of the “professional” (not to mention some amateurs) are generally quite damaging to the individual over time. So, why do we do them, and why do we like to watch people doing damage to themselves and to each other?
[/QUOTE]

What difference does it make? Obviously, enough people enjoy participating in and/or observing sporting events to make leagues, both amateur and professional, viable. If you don’t care for sports, DON’T WATCH. Honestly, I’ve never gotten the attitude "I don’t like that so it’s bad/evil/should be banned/etc.."If one Sunday I chose to go to the Ravens game and you chose to go to the BMA, well, that’s why both exist, to each his own.

14

[QUOTE=John Mace]
Well, we mainly watch for the parts when they perform some amazing feat w/o damaging themselves. The damaging parts are just icing on the cake, so to speak.
[/QUOTE]

What about the “damaging parts” are “icing on the cake”? I just can’t see that.

[QUOTE=John Mace]
And who said damaging onesself is fun? Athletes go to great lengths to make sure they don’t get damaged.
[/QUOTE]

And they end up getting badly damaged, inevitably. Is it only the money, or is it something else, on both the part of the participant and the observer?

[QUOTE=John Mace]
You clearly have some problem with sports and are just reaching for excuses to bash them. Sure, there’s a bit of blood-lust involved in sports watching, but that is a minor component. There are plenty of non-contact sports that are hugely popular and where injury is uncommon.
[/QUOTE]

I have no problem with exercise. The need for exercise is an obvious given. Please name me some more of the “plenty of non-contact sports that are hugely popular and where injury is uncommon.” And if there are so many of those that are “hugely popular,” why don’t they garner enough dollars to become predominant?

And this “bit” of “blood-lust” which you regard as a “minor component” of people’s enjoyment of self-destruction, and others’ enjoyment of watching it, why would that be there at all?

15

[QUOTE=Nothing Special]
Already answered in my OP. “…recreational sports and moderate exercise” are fine.

Athletics carried to the extreme of the “professional” (not to mention some amateurs) are generally quite damaging to the individual over time. So, why do we do them, and why do we like to watch people doing damage to themselves and to each other?
[/QUOTE]

I accept there are a lot of injuries in boxing (and I think martial arts contests are far superior, especially because of less injury).
American Football used to strap players together, and also used to allow neck tackles. Even now, the armour used means the players take too many risks (in my opinion).
But soccer is not ‘quite damaging’.
Neither is cricket.
What injuries do you expect from tennis or volleyball?
Or golf?
Or track events?

Your premise is far too wide.

16

It seems to me that your question is more about why the athletes themselves are involved in athletics, since many sports do take a toll on the body. It is true that this is evidenced by a lot of older ex-athletes with hip replacments, etc (and this may even be people who never had a particular injury, but just due to the wear and tear). It’s a hard question to answer by people who are not professional athletes, but I think part of the answer is that they just love to do it. The love the mastery of the skills themselves, they love the competition, and the money & adulation aren’t bad, either. People do things are the time that are mildly dangerous because the activity itself is fun. Seems pretty simple to me.

As far as the fans are concerned, I think they like to see the mastery of the skill and the competition. I think most people would be perfectly happy never to see a serious injury on the playing field.

17

[QUOTE=glee]
I accept there are a lot of injuries in boxing (and I think martial arts contests are far superior, especially because of less injury).
[/QUOTE]

“Less injury“? Those guys are kicking and punching at each others’ bodies and heads! Who cares about less damage when some damage is a practical inevitability?

[QUOTE=glee]
American Football used to strap players together, and also used to allow neck tackles. Even now, the armour used means the players take too many risks (in my opinion).
[/QUOTE]

Yep. We no longer strap them together nor allow them to snap each others’ necks by neck tackling. That’s now a 15 yard penalty, usually. Plenty of guys who got no further than through the high school level hurt for life. They don’t have to get their necks broken, but there are planty of other injuries. Why would we do this to each other, and enjoy watching it?

[QUOTE=glee]
But soccer is not ‘quite damaging’.
[/QUOTE]

Heading. Knee injuries. To name only a few.

[QUOTE=glee]
Neither is cricket.
[/QUOTE]

Alright, I don’t know much about cricket except that it resembles baseball in some respects but definitely isn’t the same. I do know that it involves throwing a hard projectile in the general direction of another person, and requires that that person performs an entirely unnatural motion in order to slap that projectile out into the field. The batsman can get hit, and hurt in a variety of ways. Those who field the ball can get hit, and hurt, in a variety of ways. Then there’s knee injuries possible for everyone.

[QUOTE=glee]
What injuries do you expect from tennis or volleyball?
[/QUOTE]

Wrist injuries. Knee injuries. Both are inherently violent sports.

[QUOTE=glee]
Or golf?
[/QUOTE]

Back injuries are a big one.

[QUOTE=glee]
Or track events?
[/QUOTE]

Injuries of any kind imaginable.

[QUOTE=glee]
Your premise is far too wide.
[/QUOTE]

My premise is far too focussed.

18

[QUOTE=Captain Amazing]
Well, competative walking isn’t really all that fun to watch, and people just won’t tune in for the All-State Yoga championships.
[/QUOTE]

What is it that makes self-destruction so much fun to watch?

19

[QUOTE=Nothing Special]
What is it that makes self-destruction so much fun to watch?
[/QUOTE]
See, I don’t think it’s the self-destruction…I think sports are ultimately more fun to watch the more complex the skill required, the more complex the strategy required, and the level of competition. Football is popular, sure, and maybe people do like to see the hard hits. But a big part of that is the competitive nature of it, not the fact that it is dangerous. The various skills are often very difficult (ever try hitting a moving target with a 50-yard pass?), and therefore exciting to watch. There is also a lot of complexity in the play strategy, which makes it interesting from that standpoint.

Baseball is popular, too, and it is not a contact sport, and except for pitchers, most players don’t have that much wear and tear on their bodies. Again, people enjoy watching the skills performed, they like the strategy, and the competition. I remember once I saw a player (Robin Ventura, I think it was), break his leg in a most horrifying fashion. I could live without that, for sure, but I still love to watch baseball. I’ve watched zillions of games in my life, and only saw that happen once. It’s not like that’s what I’m hoping to see.

Race-walking is not that interesting because we watch people walk every day, and just watching someone do it a little faster than normal isn’t all that interesting. We like to watch people perform skills that we couldn’t do ourselves.

20

[QUOTE=John DiFool]
Let’s just sit in our rooms and wait to die then.
[/QUOTE]

I think that it is entirely possible to lead a fit, and fascinating, and useful life without “sit[ting] in our rooms and wait[ing] to die, then.” Why the desire to destroy ourselves?

[QUOTE=John DiFool]
I think Ayrton Senna and Dale Earnhardt would probably do it all over again, knowing what fate had in store. When a premier athlete gets into the “zone” they often report it as the most intense high they have ever experienced. It’s part of the human psyche to seek out challenges like that, and more power to them.
[/QUOTE]

Ayrton Senna and Dale Earnhardt are dead, violently, and as a result of their own actions. They are of no real use anymore.

So, is this all about some “high” that they experienced and that benefitted humanity in general and for all time? I don’t think so. There is no more “power to them.” They’re dead.