I would submit that he’s not over-analyzing it at all. That gives him too much credit.
He is attempting to rationalize his own preferences in ways that, as RickJay notes, have become comical.
I never said sports or sports fans are stupid. Nor would I, nor has that ever been my intent in my posts. That interpretation is entirely your invention, and false.
In the post that started this side-thread, all I did was state that I didn’t like the fact that the artificial nature of the competition wasn’t well hidden in most sports. I still don’t think this is a particularly controversial statement.
Of course it’s silly. This isn’t General Questions.
I think this is as good an explanation as any, and suggested as much above. It probably explains the “fair weather fan” thing as well; if the real value is in following the characters over a long period of time, then some people might see it as a betrayal to not support a given player or team for some short-term loss.
My only exposure to pro sports is over the holiday season, so I only get incomplete snapshots. Probably as unsatisfying as reading a few paragraphs from a book.
Well, to be honest I don’t watch much competitive stuff at all, including Jeopardy (though I enjoy it to the extent that I can play along at home). So I really couldn’t say.
Best I can do is that the company I work for has a long-term rivalry with a competitor, and I certainly support “our team” above what’s probably strictly rational. Not sure how much of this is driven by pure self-interest, though.
One thing to remember is that sports fans don’t necessarily like ALL sports. I’m a fan of hockey and football, preferably hockey. Baseball I’m pretty meh on, unless the Pirates are playing. Basketball bores the shit out of me, and don’t even get me started on golf.
Look, I’m going to reccomend two books that might help you understand some of this a bit. The first is Ken Dryden’s The Game, considered to be one of the greatest sports books of all time. (It’s certainly the greatest hockey book) Dryden played goal for the Montreal Canadiens in the 70s – he’s a six time Stanley Cup champion, and a member of the Hockey Hall of Fame. He also has a law degree from Cornell University and served two years in Parliament as a Liberal. So I think this might be right up your alley. (I’d suggest getting the updated version – it has some added chapters, and some photos that the first edition doesn’t. And any other sports fans should read it as well – it’s a fantastic book)
The other would be Bobby Orr’s memoirs, Orr: My Story. Orr is another HOFer and one the greatest players of all time. Orr talks about how he started playing hockey as a kid, he career, retirement, etc.
Other than that, I might reccomend reading or watching interviews with players. Then you might see what motivates these guys.
As far as rivalries goes, why are the Olympics so different from the pros? One represents your country, the other represents your city. Sports plays a LOT in an area’s culture. Pittsburgh would be completely unrecognizable if we had never had sports here. (Good god, where would we be without the Steelers!) And sometimes, they’re all in good fun. My uncle’s from Philadelphia, and so he roots for the Eagles and the Flyers. The rest of us love bugging him about it, and he takes it in good humor.
Now if you’ll excuse me, I have a hockey game to watch. (LET’S GO PENS!!!)
I don’t understand the bashing Dr. Strangelove is getting. Unless I’m radically misreading his posts, he’s not criticizing sports fans or claiming that sports is objectively less rational or less entertaining than movies. He’s just trying to explain the why some people (himself, specifically) can relate to movies better than to sports. As someone else who likes movies but not sports, I think his ideas make sense and may play a role in my own subjective preferences, so claiming that his arguments are nonsense is incorrect.
Of course, if you don’t care why people’s preferences differ, and are satisfied with the bare observation that people like what they like, that’s fine. There are doubtless plenty of threads here that may be of more interest to you. But the repeated implication that no one could possibly be interested in exploring this phenomenon in good faith, especially if they haven’t already spent time researching the latest neuro-imaging studies, is itself comical self-rationalization and thread shitting.
Thanks. Geez, if I thought that only idiots liked sports, I’d have to think my entire family was a crowd of morons. I just wonder why I’m the odd one out. Saying they’re just like movies doesn’t explain why I like one and not the other. I think it’s interesting to look at the differences.
Thanks for the book suggestions; I’ll check them out.
Still, I can’t imagine that most sports fans are really exposed to this kind of backstory. Some of them are barely literate.
(yes, that was a joke)
By the way, thanks for making this distinction, as I think it helps clarify my position. Sometimes I muddled the two in my posts.
We might ask why Han shot Greedo in Star Wars. Per your terminology, we have:
Secondary:
- Harrison Ford was just doing his job as an actor
- Ford wants to make money
- Ford likes acting
Primary:
- Solo is an amoral bounty hunter
- Solo doesn’t want to be captured by the other bounty hunter
We can also ask by a particular athlete ran in a certain direction. Answers:
Secondary:
- That’s what he’s paid to do
- He wants to win an award of some kind
- He likes playing the game and running is a part of it
Primary:
- He’s more likely to catch the ball if he runs in that direction
- Catching the ball helps earn points
- Earning points helps win the game
In both cases, I don’t care a whit about the secondary motivations. If anything, they kinda ruin things for me, at least in the case of creative works. Knowing too much about actors reminds me that they’re actors instead of the characters they play. I don’t watch Star Wars because Harrison Ford is in it; I watch it because Han Solo is in it.
So the difference is in the primary motivations, and that’s a construct of the rules. But the set of “rules” in the case of movies is much larger than that in sports. It’s basically the complete set of realistic human behaviors. Sports have a small universe of rules; they’re only allowed to behave in very specific ways.
That said, the primary and secondary motivations get kinda mixed up in sports, because life events affect their performance. That’s not as true of actors, who tend to be better at isolating their characters from their real-life personas.
Dude, if you have such an easy time with fiction, why not watch a sports movie, like Miracle*, or Hoosiers or something? They’re based on true stories, too, which probably helps.
*Probably one of my all-time favorites.
I don’t really have anything against sports movies, though I think most would be improved without the inevitable “big game” scene. A postscript saying they won the big championship is fine by me.
You realize that the “big game” scene is often the climax of a sports movie right? If so, then you’re being willfully obtuse here.
Would you really end Die Hard after the roof explodes with a postscript saying, “John McClane killed Hans Gruber and he reunited with his wife Holly”?
I was being a little tongue-in-cheek there. Guinastasia suggested some movies where you get the human backstory. Since that’s the part I’m interested in, and not the sport itself, I’d see editing out the big game as an improvement. I realize that most viewers wouldn’t see it that way.
Lots of movies end before they clean up all the loose ends. In fact, lots of them leave it ambiguous whether our protagonists even “won” or not.
It does seem like I’m not totally alone in my opinion. Reminds me; I should watch Moneyball.
Very few movies do that. And even fewer mass market ones (as sports movies typically are meant to be). Honestly, I’m convinced you’re acting this dense on purpose.
I’m convinced you’re responding to what you think I wrote instead of what I wrote. I get why sports movies are the way they are. It’s just that in my personal opinion, they would be improved with some tweaks. And yes, I tend to like movies with ambiguity over typical blockbusters, though there are always exceptions. I’m not expecting anyone to serve my interests specifically, but if someone is suggesting particular movies, this information might lead to better suggestions.
My point was that maybe watching some of these movies might give you some perspective on why people feel the way they do about sports.