Posts
With the first weekend of the Olympics wrapped up, I am left to wonder: why is beach volleyball part of the Olympics?
Two days into the Beijing Games, I've watched fencing, archery, rowing, gymnastics, swimming, water polo, basketball, soccer, indoor volleyball, cycling, diving, and...dare I admit it??..beach volleyball.
I used to not be a fan of volleyball. I found the game confusing and it did little to stimulate the sports fan in me. After I began working in the collegiate sports information field, where I was paid to witness all of the school's sports, I have grown to better understand the game and, to some degree, have become a fan.
I love to watch the exciting and long-lasting volleys that accompany indoor volleyball. I admire the athleticism of those who play the game. However, the beach version of the game does nothing for me as a sports fan and should not be a part of the Olympics.
I have watched beach volleyball before and have found it not to be very athletically entertaining. The volleys are VERY short lived and, with only two players per team, the game is usually about the serve and first or second volley.
I'm not really sure whether it's because there's only two players on a beach volleyball team or not, but the way the game is played is kind of a slap in the face to its indoor and much more entertaining counterpart.
On the surface (and that is probably all there is to this game), I think beach volleyball's attraction is the human body. The women are clad in bikinis and the camera angles show these women's physical attributes in all their glory with numerous and extensive close-up shots. If it weren't for these women's attractive bodies, what other reason could there be to watch?
There are other sports where the participants' physical attributes are accentuated (swimming, diving, gymnastics, etc.), but at least those are legitimate sports that have athletic value for its spectators.
As for men's beach volleyball, perhaps it's the same thing, though I doubt it because women spectators are not as visually driven as men spectators are. But, there are beach bunnies who love the sight of an attractive male in beach attire, so maybe, to some extent, that is the allure of men's beach volleyball as well.
Maybe you think this blogger's gone off his rocker, and maybe I have. All I can say is that when I'm flipping through the channels looking for my Olympic fix, I won't stop on beach volleyball because I find its athleticism entertaining.
Monday, August 11, 2008
Friday, July 25, 2008
They Got Next
The WNBA has finally arrived. Not really, but at least it's getting a few more seconds on SportsCenter.
It has taken a brawl at the end of Tuesday's Los Angeles Sparks-Detroit Shock game to bring wid(er)spread media and fan attention to the league. Sportscasters and league officials have reacted to the brawl with disgust and disdain....which is a step up from the usual disgust and disdain fans react with over the level of play on display.
Is it really that much of a surprise that professional athletes have gotten into a fight while embroiled in the thick of battle? Why the disgust? Is it because they're women and should behave like ladies instead of acting like their boorish male counterparts?
Nah! That would fly in the face of true equality...which is what the league is supposed to be all about. (Yeah, right!)
We don't expect the men to behave like gentlemen while on the court, so, in the interest of equality, why should the women be expected to behave like ladies? They're egocentric pro athletes, just like the men who comprise the NBA. Aggression and rough play is something they should be used to.
Look at women's pro boxing. There are no pretenses in that sport. Fans who watch it aren't expecting ladylike behavior from the combatants.
The way I see it, a WNBA brawl is long overdue. After over a decade of existence behind the guise of gender equality, why not embrace this incident and build off of it? Fighting is, to some extent, part of the allure of the NBA. Fans of the NBA have come to expect aggression and rough play on the court. In most arenas, the fans feed off of it.
So why should it be any different in the WNBA? It surely couldn't hurt given the league's infinitesimal fan base.
Sure, NBA players are fined and suspended for violence, but how painful is it for a multi-millionaire basketball player to fork out a $10,000 fine and miss a game or two for acting aggressively? If aggression was truly not wanted, then the messages sent for fighting, in any sport, would be much stiffer than they are now.
Another thing to consider in all of this is the coaching involved. Is anyone really surprised that a Bill Laimbeer and Rick Mahorn coached player is charged with starting the WNBA's worst fight?
Detroit's Plenette Pierson, deemed the instigator of the fight, was fined $1,500 and has been suspended for four games. Not to be outdone by most participants, former Bad Boy Mahorn was fined $1,000 and received a two-game suspension for pushing L.A. star Lisa Leslie to the floor during the fight. The rest of the players involved were slapped with $500 fines.
Personally, I will be keeping a better eye on the WNBA (*sardonic grin*). If aggressive play is going to be embraced like it is in the NBA, I may change my opinion of the league and start watching. (Yeah, riiiiggght!)
It has taken a brawl at the end of Tuesday's Los Angeles Sparks-Detroit Shock game to bring wid(er)spread media and fan attention to the league. Sportscasters and league officials have reacted to the brawl with disgust and disdain....which is a step up from the usual disgust and disdain fans react with over the level of play on display.
Is it really that much of a surprise that professional athletes have gotten into a fight while embroiled in the thick of battle? Why the disgust? Is it because they're women and should behave like ladies instead of acting like their boorish male counterparts?
Nah! That would fly in the face of true equality...which is what the league is supposed to be all about. (Yeah, right!)
We don't expect the men to behave like gentlemen while on the court, so, in the interest of equality, why should the women be expected to behave like ladies? They're egocentric pro athletes, just like the men who comprise the NBA. Aggression and rough play is something they should be used to.
Look at women's pro boxing. There are no pretenses in that sport. Fans who watch it aren't expecting ladylike behavior from the combatants.
The way I see it, a WNBA brawl is long overdue. After over a decade of existence behind the guise of gender equality, why not embrace this incident and build off of it? Fighting is, to some extent, part of the allure of the NBA. Fans of the NBA have come to expect aggression and rough play on the court. In most arenas, the fans feed off of it.
So why should it be any different in the WNBA? It surely couldn't hurt given the league's infinitesimal fan base.
Sure, NBA players are fined and suspended for violence, but how painful is it for a multi-millionaire basketball player to fork out a $10,000 fine and miss a game or two for acting aggressively? If aggression was truly not wanted, then the messages sent for fighting, in any sport, would be much stiffer than they are now.
Another thing to consider in all of this is the coaching involved. Is anyone really surprised that a Bill Laimbeer and Rick Mahorn coached player is charged with starting the WNBA's worst fight?
Detroit's Plenette Pierson, deemed the instigator of the fight, was fined $1,500 and has been suspended for four games. Not to be outdone by most participants, former Bad Boy Mahorn was fined $1,000 and received a two-game suspension for pushing L.A. star Lisa Leslie to the floor during the fight. The rest of the players involved were slapped with $500 fines.
Personally, I will be keeping a better eye on the WNBA (*sardonic grin*). If aggressive play is going to be embraced like it is in the NBA, I may change my opinion of the league and start watching. (Yeah, riiiiggght!)
Thursday, July 17, 2008
Viva la Classic!
I love to reminisce.
Perhaps this is why I love ESPN Classic so much. I like ESPN with its constant SportsCenter airings, Pardon The Interruption with Tony Kornheiser and Mike Wilbon, Around The Horn, and Jim Rome Is Burning. While these shows are highly entertaining and informative, nothing quite compares with Classic's reairing of Game 7 of the 1984 NBA Finals or the 1983 Orange Bowl or Buster Douglas' upset win over Mike Tyson in 1990.
Shows like these work wonders for me, and apparently many others or ESPN would not keep programming like this on the air.
Like peanut butter and jelly sandwiches, Classic takes me back to the comfort of my youth and young adulthood. Reacting to a missed layup by Magic Johnson in 1984 takes me back to the first time I saw him miss that layup in Game 7 in Boston Garden, complete with what I was snacking on at the time (Doritos), who I was watching the game with (my buddies), and the feeling that maybe, just maybe, the Lakers will win that game this time around (not really, but it seems like it).
So, thank you, ESPN, for giving us Classic and providing us with memories of not only the games themselves, but of a a time when life was much simpler and less stressful.
Perhaps this is why I love ESPN Classic so much. I like ESPN with its constant SportsCenter airings, Pardon The Interruption with Tony Kornheiser and Mike Wilbon, Around The Horn, and Jim Rome Is Burning. While these shows are highly entertaining and informative, nothing quite compares with Classic's reairing of Game 7 of the 1984 NBA Finals or the 1983 Orange Bowl or Buster Douglas' upset win over Mike Tyson in 1990.
Shows like these work wonders for me, and apparently many others or ESPN would not keep programming like this on the air.
Like peanut butter and jelly sandwiches, Classic takes me back to the comfort of my youth and young adulthood. Reacting to a missed layup by Magic Johnson in 1984 takes me back to the first time I saw him miss that layup in Game 7 in Boston Garden, complete with what I was snacking on at the time (Doritos), who I was watching the game with (my buddies), and the feeling that maybe, just maybe, the Lakers will win that game this time around (not really, but it seems like it).
So, thank you, ESPN, for giving us Classic and providing us with memories of not only the games themselves, but of a a time when life was much simpler and less stressful.
Thursday, July 3, 2008
Don't Do It, Brett!
Dear Brett Favre,
I understand what it's like to be in your late 30s and see that you've lost a step or two. I also understand that in your late 30s, you want to prove that you're just as rugged and good as you were in your 20s. I also understand that mentally, you feel as sharp as you did 17 years ago...though your body is beginning to disagree with that assessment.
What I don't understand, however, is why you can't leave well enough alone. I mean, you called it quits in March because you were, "mentally tired." ESPN and the NFL Network made quite a big deal about your retirement. With all of the Brett Favre tribute programming that flooded the airwaves for several weeks, one could have assumed you had died.
Now, four months later, you're apparently ready to lace up the cleats and make a comeback. Funny thing, though...how can you make a comeback when, in actuality, you haven't even been gone yet? Is your mental tiredness all rested and ready to go now?
You told ESPN's Chris Mortensen in March that the only way it would be worth it for you to play another season was if you could win the Super Bowl. You said, "If I felt like coming back -- and [my wife] and I talked about this -- the only way for me to be successful would be to win a Super Bowl. To go to the Super Bowl and lose, would almost be worse than anything else. Anything less than a Super Bowl win would be unsuccessful."
I get it, Brett. After 17 seasons, three MVP awards, and two appearances in the Super Bowl, you understand the rigors and stress involved in "putting up or shutting up" in the NFL. Makes sense. Nobody faulted you for calling it quits in March. You should know better than to "come back", though.
Look at what Michael Jordan did. He came back twice, once from a premature retirement and once from a legitimate retirement. He came back the second time at 38, the same age you are now. In the two seasons he played in Washington, his stats were considerably lower than his career averages in every category, not to mention the damage his comeback did to his legacy.
Everyone remembers his career with fondness, but there will always be that mental asterisk in fans' minds that he played too long. When he retired in '98, his legacy would have been one that had him going out on top, an NBA champion. Instead, he traded that in for two seasons with the Wizards that etched memories in fans' minds of a slower, overweight Michael Jordan, who paled in comparison to the one who retired in '98.
Though you didn't go out on top, Brett, you did go out on a much higher note than anyone expected. You came close. You almost made it to the Super Bowl. I can understand how that might eat at you, coming oh-so-close and not making it. But listen...the odds of you making a run like that again with the Packers or any other team are pretty slim, even if they wanted you back. In case you haven't been reading the papers or watching SportsCenter, it sounds like the Packers are tired of your "I'm retired...but then again..." routine, as sports franchises tend to do when an aging superstar is reluctant to let go.
Do yourself and us a favor, Brett: stay retired. We all think highly of you and all that you accomplished during your career. The odds of you tarnishing that opinion are too great for you to risk a comeback.
I understand what it's like to be in your late 30s and see that you've lost a step or two. I also understand that in your late 30s, you want to prove that you're just as rugged and good as you were in your 20s. I also understand that mentally, you feel as sharp as you did 17 years ago...though your body is beginning to disagree with that assessment.
What I don't understand, however, is why you can't leave well enough alone. I mean, you called it quits in March because you were, "mentally tired." ESPN and the NFL Network made quite a big deal about your retirement. With all of the Brett Favre tribute programming that flooded the airwaves for several weeks, one could have assumed you had died.
Now, four months later, you're apparently ready to lace up the cleats and make a comeback. Funny thing, though...how can you make a comeback when, in actuality, you haven't even been gone yet? Is your mental tiredness all rested and ready to go now?
You told ESPN's Chris Mortensen in March that the only way it would be worth it for you to play another season was if you could win the Super Bowl. You said, "If I felt like coming back -- and [my wife] and I talked about this -- the only way for me to be successful would be to win a Super Bowl. To go to the Super Bowl and lose, would almost be worse than anything else. Anything less than a Super Bowl win would be unsuccessful."
I get it, Brett. After 17 seasons, three MVP awards, and two appearances in the Super Bowl, you understand the rigors and stress involved in "putting up or shutting up" in the NFL. Makes sense. Nobody faulted you for calling it quits in March. You should know better than to "come back", though.
Look at what Michael Jordan did. He came back twice, once from a premature retirement and once from a legitimate retirement. He came back the second time at 38, the same age you are now. In the two seasons he played in Washington, his stats were considerably lower than his career averages in every category, not to mention the damage his comeback did to his legacy.
Everyone remembers his career with fondness, but there will always be that mental asterisk in fans' minds that he played too long. When he retired in '98, his legacy would have been one that had him going out on top, an NBA champion. Instead, he traded that in for two seasons with the Wizards that etched memories in fans' minds of a slower, overweight Michael Jordan, who paled in comparison to the one who retired in '98.
Though you didn't go out on top, Brett, you did go out on a much higher note than anyone expected. You came close. You almost made it to the Super Bowl. I can understand how that might eat at you, coming oh-so-close and not making it. But listen...the odds of you making a run like that again with the Packers or any other team are pretty slim, even if they wanted you back. In case you haven't been reading the papers or watching SportsCenter, it sounds like the Packers are tired of your "I'm retired...but then again..." routine, as sports franchises tend to do when an aging superstar is reluctant to let go.
Do yourself and us a favor, Brett: stay retired. We all think highly of you and all that you accomplished during your career. The odds of you tarnishing that opinion are too great for you to risk a comeback.
Saturday, June 21, 2008
A Note To Tiger
I've got something to say to you, Tiger Woods: How could you?
While the rest of the sporting world is amazed at the feat you pulled off by winning the U.S. Open with a torn ACL and stress fractures in your leg last week, I am left to wonder what you were thinking. Doctors warned you not to risk further injury by playing, but you said you decided to play because playing is what you do.
That doesn't cut it with me, buddy. How about a little foresight here?
Prior to your arrival on the pro circuit in 1996, pro golf was what I turned on Saturday and Sunday afternoons when I was trying to catch a nap. Since then, pro golf has transformed from a lazy, sleepy spectator sport used to pass time into an exciting, dramatic event worth staying awake for.
You injected youth and enthusiasm into a game that was long past due for an overhaul. Your passion for the game has been contagious. Just look at the galleries that watch you play. Golf fans used to greet the winning golfer at the 18th green with what was little more than polite applause...the type you hear at a tennis match. But with you, galleries now explode with thunderous cheering, the kind you find at a football or basketball game.
I've become an involved golf fan because of you. Now you're trying to take that away from me.
I wish you the best on your upcoming surgery. I truly hope it won't be the end of your career. I hope it doesn't force you into becoming a lesser golfer. I hope to see you on the prowl again, but part of me is worried that among all the pro golfers on the tour, it will be your decision to ignore medical advice that will derail the Tiger Express and deprive us of watching you play.
As for the rest of you pro golfers, you all ought to be ashamed! Here was your chance to win a tournament that Tiger was playing in. He was hurting and on the ropes and not one of you could finish him off. Kudos to Rocco Mediate for taking The Tiger into extra innings, overtime, penalty kicks, or whatever you want to call it. But the rest of you ought to hang your heads in shame. Yeah, I'm talking especially to you, Phil, Ernie, Adam and Sergio.
Well, gentlemen, the field is ripe now. Tiger's out and won't be back until 2009. So win your tournaments and build your confidence. Just don't ruin the game while he's gone.
While the rest of the sporting world is amazed at the feat you pulled off by winning the U.S. Open with a torn ACL and stress fractures in your leg last week, I am left to wonder what you were thinking. Doctors warned you not to risk further injury by playing, but you said you decided to play because playing is what you do.
That doesn't cut it with me, buddy. How about a little foresight here?
Prior to your arrival on the pro circuit in 1996, pro golf was what I turned on Saturday and Sunday afternoons when I was trying to catch a nap. Since then, pro golf has transformed from a lazy, sleepy spectator sport used to pass time into an exciting, dramatic event worth staying awake for.
You injected youth and enthusiasm into a game that was long past due for an overhaul. Your passion for the game has been contagious. Just look at the galleries that watch you play. Golf fans used to greet the winning golfer at the 18th green with what was little more than polite applause...the type you hear at a tennis match. But with you, galleries now explode with thunderous cheering, the kind you find at a football or basketball game.
I've become an involved golf fan because of you. Now you're trying to take that away from me.
I wish you the best on your upcoming surgery. I truly hope it won't be the end of your career. I hope it doesn't force you into becoming a lesser golfer. I hope to see you on the prowl again, but part of me is worried that among all the pro golfers on the tour, it will be your decision to ignore medical advice that will derail the Tiger Express and deprive us of watching you play.
As for the rest of you pro golfers, you all ought to be ashamed! Here was your chance to win a tournament that Tiger was playing in. He was hurting and on the ropes and not one of you could finish him off. Kudos to Rocco Mediate for taking The Tiger into extra innings, overtime, penalty kicks, or whatever you want to call it. But the rest of you ought to hang your heads in shame. Yeah, I'm talking especially to you, Phil, Ernie, Adam and Sergio.
Well, gentlemen, the field is ripe now. Tiger's out and won't be back until 2009. So win your tournaments and build your confidence. Just don't ruin the game while he's gone.
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
Crying a River
"Beat L.A.! Beat L.A.!," wore thin on my nerves during the 2008 NBA Finals.
While Bostonians broke out their decades-old chant and used it often during the three games played in the New Boston Garden, I recalled the Lakers crowds of the '80s, which were far superior to the ones that showed up during this year's Finals.
As annoying as Celtics fans can be, I've got to hand it to them...they out fanned the L.A. masses this time around with a barage of constant noise and support for their team. I had to wonder if the L.A. fans were even watching the game at points during the three games played at Staples Center.
The noise generated by Lakers home crowds paled in comparison to the Celtics throngs. After all, they had been waiting for 21 years for another shot at the NBA grand prize. Prior to Game 4, the ABC/ESPN commentators made note of how few of the 18,997 seats in Staples Center were filled with just minutes to go before tipoff, giving fuel to the notion that L.A. crowds passively arrive late and eagerly leave early from sporting events.
Maybe Lakers fans are jaded. NBA titles (or shots at them) have come to L.A. a lot more often than to the Celtics in the past 21 years. Since the Celtics last played in The Finals in 1987, L.A. has played for six NBA titles (1991, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2004, 2008) and have won three (2000, 2001, 2002).
That's not a good excuse for Lakers fans, though. I mean, this is the Lakers vs. the Celtics! What more can we ask for?
It wasn't this way in the '80s. The Lakers crowds at the Great Western Forum were raucus and noisy. Those crowds are what the Lakers masses of today should emulate.
As for the on-the-court business of this series, both teams are in positions that will likely favor them to return to the 2009 Finals. Both teams are packed with talent and it seems The Rivalry has caught on with the current Lakers and Celtics.
Until then, Lakers players and fans alike can only hope Andrew Bynum's knee heals nicely during the off season and that missing persons Pau Gasol and Lamar Odom are located after their untimely disappearances during this year's finals.
So enjoy it while you can, Celtics. The Rivalry has been reawakened and both teams have added purpose to return to the NBA Finals.
While Bostonians broke out their decades-old chant and used it often during the three games played in the New Boston Garden, I recalled the Lakers crowds of the '80s, which were far superior to the ones that showed up during this year's Finals.
As annoying as Celtics fans can be, I've got to hand it to them...they out fanned the L.A. masses this time around with a barage of constant noise and support for their team. I had to wonder if the L.A. fans were even watching the game at points during the three games played at Staples Center.
The noise generated by Lakers home crowds paled in comparison to the Celtics throngs. After all, they had been waiting for 21 years for another shot at the NBA grand prize. Prior to Game 4, the ABC/ESPN commentators made note of how few of the 18,997 seats in Staples Center were filled with just minutes to go before tipoff, giving fuel to the notion that L.A. crowds passively arrive late and eagerly leave early from sporting events.
Maybe Lakers fans are jaded. NBA titles (or shots at them) have come to L.A. a lot more often than to the Celtics in the past 21 years. Since the Celtics last played in The Finals in 1987, L.A. has played for six NBA titles (1991, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2004, 2008) and have won three (2000, 2001, 2002).
That's not a good excuse for Lakers fans, though. I mean, this is the Lakers vs. the Celtics! What more can we ask for?
It wasn't this way in the '80s. The Lakers crowds at the Great Western Forum were raucus and noisy. Those crowds are what the Lakers masses of today should emulate.
As for the on-the-court business of this series, both teams are in positions that will likely favor them to return to the 2009 Finals. Both teams are packed with talent and it seems The Rivalry has caught on with the current Lakers and Celtics.
Until then, Lakers players and fans alike can only hope Andrew Bynum's knee heals nicely during the off season and that missing persons Pau Gasol and Lamar Odom are located after their untimely disappearances during this year's finals.
So enjoy it while you can, Celtics. The Rivalry has been reawakened and both teams have added purpose to return to the NBA Finals.
Tuesday, June 3, 2008
Lakers vs. Celtics XI
Notes from this storied rivalry:
This will be the 11th time these franchises have met for the NBA title and the first time in 21 years. The Celtics lead the championship series, 8-2, but the Lakers have won two of the last three meetings (1985 and 1987).
In the history of the NBA Finals, the Celtics and Lakers have combined to win 30 out of 61 championships. Of the 61 NBA Finals played, 38 have involved one or both of these teams.
The Celtics have won 16 titles while the Lakers have won 14. Of their 14 titles, nine have come since the Lakers relocated to Los Angeles in 1960.
Last time in NBA Finals: Lakers 2004, Celtics 1987
Last NBA title: Lakers 2002, Celtics 1984
Championships pre-1979: Celtics 13, Lakers 6
Championships post-1979: Lakers 8, Celtics 3
In 61 NBA Finals games played against each other, Boston has a 36-25 edge.
During their string of eight consecutive titles from 1958-66, the Celtics faced the Lakers five times. Following a one-year break from that incredible run, the Celtics returned to the NBA Finals in 1968 and 1969 and knocked off the Lakers both times to win back-to-back championships.
Age of current Lakers and Celtics when these two teams last met in NBA Finals:
Ray Allen: 11
Kevin Garnett: 10
Paul Pierce: 9
Kobe Bryant: 8
Lamar Odom: 7
Pau Gasol: 6
Rajon Rondo: 1
Jordan Farmar: 6 months
Andrew Bynum (injured): born 4 months later
Outcome of 2008 NBA Finals: Lakers in six
This will be the 11th time these franchises have met for the NBA title and the first time in 21 years. The Celtics lead the championship series, 8-2, but the Lakers have won two of the last three meetings (1985 and 1987).
In the history of the NBA Finals, the Celtics and Lakers have combined to win 30 out of 61 championships. Of the 61 NBA Finals played, 38 have involved one or both of these teams.
The Celtics have won 16 titles while the Lakers have won 14. Of their 14 titles, nine have come since the Lakers relocated to Los Angeles in 1960.
Last time in NBA Finals: Lakers 2004, Celtics 1987
Last NBA title: Lakers 2002, Celtics 1984
Championships pre-1979: Celtics 13, Lakers 6
Championships post-1979: Lakers 8, Celtics 3
In 61 NBA Finals games played against each other, Boston has a 36-25 edge.
During their string of eight consecutive titles from 1958-66, the Celtics faced the Lakers five times. Following a one-year break from that incredible run, the Celtics returned to the NBA Finals in 1968 and 1969 and knocked off the Lakers both times to win back-to-back championships.
Age of current Lakers and Celtics when these two teams last met in NBA Finals:
Ray Allen: 11
Kevin Garnett: 10
Paul Pierce: 9
Kobe Bryant: 8
Lamar Odom: 7
Pau Gasol: 6
Rajon Rondo: 1
Jordan Farmar: 6 months
Andrew Bynum (injured): born 4 months later
Outcome of 2008 NBA Finals: Lakers in six
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)