I played in a tournament this week and got to the finals. Won the first set 6-0, lost the 2nd 7-6 (7-5), then lost the 3rd 7-6 (8-6). They then declared my opponent the winner! I won more games 18 to 14. I even won more points, nearly 58%. Yet I’m declared the loser because of some antiquated scoring system that breaks things into set. I’m obviously better, more points, more games. My friends, who agree this antiquated scoring system has to go, and myself are thinking of going to the trophy ceremony tomorrow and demonstrating. Maybe even breaking a few things. I’m been told this might be immature, is it? :rolleyes:
When I played a lot of tennis I always found that whoever won the last point won the match. Everything prior to that is just preamble.
You think you have it bad? I play at a clubhouse on top of a mountain, and my opponent won a golf cart in last year’s tournament that he can use to get to the field, but everyone else has to climb up 1000 feet to get to the court. So I win the first set 6-0 but then I lose the other ones 6-4, 6-4 because I am so tired. My opponent says that there is a level playing field and his wins are clearly evidence that he is a better tennis player.
I dislike thinly veiled analogy threads.
Thinly-veiled bad analogy threads are even worse.
Is purpose of a sport such as tennis to determine who can play most consistently over time when the same procedure is repeated over and over again several hundred times? Or perhaps it is entertainment? To create an ebb and flow of tension, to test the players’ character as they deal with the pressure when each intermediate section of the game reaches its climax, with much at stake as each separate section is winner-takes-all.
As for understanding the purpose of a democratic election, I leave that as an exercise for the OP.
Yes it is.
But considering your inability to provide an analogy that applies or even make sense I suggest that rioting is more up your alley.
So, go at it. Knock yourself out. Literally, grab a heavy object and strike yourself upside the head.
But just shy of fatally. We have to say that.
Oooh, now rant about match play in golf!
Make sure to shove your one large yellow fuzzy ball in the judge’s face and tell him what he can do with it.
Why is it a bad analogy?
with the exception of a few states, each state is winner take all.
Because it makes the erroneous assumption that the protests are only because of the loss, and not because of the feared aftereffect of the loss. I’m not seeing many protests complaining that the voting was rigged or that there should be a recount-they a mostly complaining about the vile promises he made that effect them and their friends and loved ones, and the appointments and Cabinet selections he is considering that point to the situation getting worse.
Analogy–>Fail.
Good grief, really?
A good analogy requires more than a single shared feature. A tennis ball and an armpit are both hairy. Does that make a tennis ball a good analogy for an armpit?
In a tennis match, winner-takes-all in a set is a good thing, because it increases tension and excitement in a sporting event. Is the purpose of a democratic election to create maximum tension and excitement, or something else?
Whether you think winner-takes-all in the states in a democratic election is a good or a bad thing has fuck all to do with tennis.
How does it make that erroneous assumption.
He made those promises and statements months ago. Why the protest now? Oh that’s right, because he won. They are protesting losing and making conservatives look like the sane rational guys. Good job with those fucking protests.
I didn’t say its a good analogy, just not a bad one.
A good analogy frequently ONLY requires a single shared feature if its the right shared feature.
Let say the protests were entirely about the electoral college versus the popular vote. Why wouldn’t this single shared feature not be a very good analogy?
Its this sort of echo chamber that loses elections
That is such an obvious load of crap it falls into the “Not Even Wrong” category.
I’m lost…is tennis being pitted…or have we jumped to bowling?
What “echo chamber”? I make no judgment here about the merits of the electoral college. But please explain to me precisely what insights into the US democratic process are to be gained from the rules of a tennis match? Is it because of the riots outside Wimbledon when Djokovic beat Murray in 5 sets, even though Murray scored more points overall; and the ensuing nuanced debate over the right of each point in the match to be equally represented, and the discussion over whether each set should carry equal weight when some sets last longer than others? Or is this idiotic analogy just bollocks?
So why are they rioting now? Because he won. IOW they are rioting because they lost.
Perhaps they thought the democratic process would give them the win and it didn’t, so now they riot. You don’t get to riot because you don’t like the results of a democratic election.
Well, this is a pretty good analogy for those people who are crying foul because we use an electoral college system rather than a straight popular vote.
Noone cries foul because the rules of tennis give the match to the player that wins the most sets. Just like the rules of our democracy give the white house to the candidate that wins the most electoral votes.
Disingenuous little shit-I directly quoted the line I said was such an obvious load of crap it falls into the “Not Even Wrong” category:
, and you pretend I was commenting on something else.