Turn on thread page Beta

I hate how much of a stranglehold sports have in this country watch

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RyanT)
    I find this a strange comparison. I was pointing out that the reason that there is such a large emotional investment by casual football fans, as evidenced by the painful, brainless shouting - was because of a lack of rich emotional sporting experiences. They have substituted living, for spectating. In order to feel they must employ dispropionate emotions to their experiences.

    Your reference to the production of video games demonstrates you have failed to grasp the elementary aspects of my reasoning - namely that the sport is experienced through spectating. When, for example - you play a video game, you are experiencing the scenario in question through a limited sensory input as a subsitution. It is true I do not contribute towards the development of video games - but the real analogue would been to say that I do not partake in the scenarios I play out in games. Because it is those scenarios I experience, poor as they may be. Gaming as spectating is an ephemeral experience where we trade in the richness and power of human experience in order to elicit a sense of empathy for a simulated world.




    That I do feel and live my sport. I cycle up hills in the cold, in the rain and with lactate washing throughout my legs all the while my lungs are veering towards bursting. I do experience a oneness with the human experience. My point is that the aspect of the human experience that football fans become deeply emotionally involved in are the very experiences they themselves do not live.

    I do admit that I do not experience my gaming. However this is an irrelevant point as games are specifically (or at least the ones I play) tailored around improbable events. Want to arrange a real zombie apocalypse? I'll turn up. However that does not change the essential fact that I think you are avoiding - football fans emotional invest in what they do not experience; other then as a shallow, shadow world beamed through pixels and fed to them through speakers.

    If they were out on football pitches with the wind blowing in their face, their heart racing and making tactical decisions then it wouldn't be so sad. But until they do - they live in a shadow world where they should be pitied.
    I wont disagree with your first statement. Gaming unlike football, relies largely upon interactivity hence invest some kind of input however what is to say that these football fans dont also partake in biweekly activities relating to their sport? What I seem to be seeing from this thread is a veiled swipe at the cultural mainstays of the working classes. There is little actual fact to back what are largely flimsy observations at football fans "lack of physical participation". Yes, the videogame scenarios are hardly the stuff of nonfiction but that is not to say the genres have not largely borrowed from their real world counterparts. I dont know many FPS fans who enjoy rifle ranges or fighting game fans who invest their time in a martial art. To criticize one for emotional investment in a past time strikes me as rather silly.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Revolution is my Name)
    Why should 50 people have to change their plans and have their afternoon ruined, solely in order to avoid slightly inconveniencing you?

    You're example is, for a start, completely silly, because of course serious injury is somewhat difference to noise and "anti-social" behaviour, but, in that case, people would complain, as it would be one person deciding for themselves to inconvenience everyone else, and indeed you'd probably be promptly kicked out by the landlord for pushing away his business. However, if 50 people were enjoying themselves in a pub doing some archery, then I personally would have no problem in accepting that, as that pub was the scene of things I didn't enjoy, then I should just go somewhere else.
    You're right, my example is silly. It's all I could think of at short notice.

    I think the point I'm trying to make (and have only just realised that I'm trying to make) is that if 50 people want to go into a pub to watch a football game, that's fine by me. I wouldn't want 50 people to have to change their plans because of me, a single person.

    But do they have to watch it so...loudly? With some other activities, you could do said activity in a pub with a lot of other people and without disturbing anyone else who might happen to want to go into the pub at the same time. But it seems that with football (or sports matches that involve 'louder' fans) there HAS to be disruptive behaviour. If the football fans sat there, spoke amongst themselves, perhaps cheered lightly when a goal was scored, then fine, but if they insist on being particularly loud, can't they do that at home? Isn't that the definition of anti-social behaviour, that by behaving in the way that they do, they stop other people from doing what they usually would do?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by llacerta)
    But do they have to watch it so...loudly? With some other activities, you could do said activity in a pub with a lot of other people and without disturbing anyone else who might happen to want to go into the pub at the same time. But it seems that with football (or sports matches that involve 'louder' fans) there HAS to be disruptive behaviour. If the football fans sat there, spoke amongst themselves, perhaps cheered lightly when a goal was scored, then fine, but if they insist on being particularly loud, can't they do that at home? Isn't that the definition of anti-social behaviour, that by behaving in the way that they do, they stop other people from doing what they usually would do?
    Cheering, shouting, banter - all this is part of socialising whilst watching rugby/football. I've never before heard anyone complain about it, because they tend to just go somewhere else when the football's on. They don't even have to just not go to the pub - there are plenty that don't show sports, so just go there.

    During the day at the weekend, or mid-week, when there's a match on, the majority of people in a pub with a big screen are there to watch the rugby/football with their mates, with the people they always watch the match with. Surely in a democratic country we have to say that the majority has it?
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    I've just removed a significant number of posts from this thread. If this is to stay open, please keep the discussion sensible and on-topic, and don't insult other members.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Personally I don't get the infatuation with sport. I have never seen the appealof watching footbally matchs (I make an exception for if england gets to semi-final) and most of my friends can't get that (They can't believe it).
    Sport in general I do not watch, I don't think I have ever watched a sporting even from start to finish on TV with the exception of the rugby final england one (see can even remeber which one).

    The

    I enjoy sport in the sense of playing thoguh
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by llacerta)
    You're right, my example is silly. It's all I could think of at short notice.

    I think the point I'm trying to make (and have only just realised that I'm trying to make) is that if 50 people want to go into a pub to watch a football game, that's fine by me. I wouldn't want 50 people to have to change their plans because of me, a single person.

    But do they have to watch it so...loudly? With some other activities, you could do said activity in a pub with a lot of other people and without disturbing anyone else who might happen to want to go into the pub at the same time. But it seems that with football (or sports matches that involve 'louder' fans) there HAS to be disruptive behaviour. If the football fans sat there, spoke amongst themselves, perhaps cheered lightly when a goal was scored, then fine, but if they insist on being particularly loud, can't they do that at home? Isn't that the definition of anti-social behaviour, that by behaving in the way that they do, they stop other people from doing what they usually would do?
    Again, I think you completely misunderstand how passionate people are about sports: if someone can watch the football/ rugby team they support without making any sound or showing any emotion whatsoever, then I highly doubt they care enough about that team to be bothered about sitting through an 80/90 minute match.
    Also, I think you're wrong to confine it to football/ other "louder" fans; it's the same with fans of any sport, it's just that football matches are sufficiently short so that all the emotion is concentrated into a highly charged 90 minutes, and even then further into one or two goals/ other contentious moments, and so the "net emotion" is probably no higher.
    And yes, you're right, it does stop people doing what they usually do; however, are you really that aggrieved by not being able to eat in a particular place? The disruption to you or any other individual is pretty minimal in comparison to the benefit gained by being able to watch the football in a social atmosphere. I mean, by your definition, traffic is anti-social, because it, say, might stop children being allowed to walk alone to the park across the road; but that doesn't mean that road should be shut down and traffic banned purely so those two children can cross the road and play in the park, because the net loss of benefit for all the road users is a hell of a lot more than the net gain of benefit by the children.
    Spoiler:
    Show
    Sorry for the PM
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Revolution is my Name)
    Again, I think you completely misunderstand how passionate people are about sports: if someone can watch the football/ rugby team they support without making any sound or showing any emotion whatsoever, then I highly doubt they care enough about that team to be bothered about sitting through an 80/90 minute match.
    Also, I think you're wrong to confine it to football/ other "louder" fans; it's the same with fans of any sport, it's just that football matches are sufficiently short so that all the emotion is concentrated into a highly charged 90 minutes, and even then further into one or two goals/ other contentious moments, and so the "net emotion" is probably no higher.
    And yes, you're right, it does stop people doing what they usually do; however, are you really that aggrieved by not being able to eat in a particular place? The disruption to you or any other individual is pretty minimal in comparison to the benefit gained by being able to watch the football in a social atmosphere. I mean, by your definition, traffic is anti-social, because it, say, might stop children being allowed to walk alone to the park across the road; but that doesn't mean that road should be shut down and traffic banned purely so those two children can cross the road and play in the park, because the net loss of benefit for all the road users is a hell of a lot more than the net gain of benefit by the children.
    Spoiler:
    Show
    Sorry for the PM
    Darn it, I just replied to you via PM! Well, here's my reply anyway-

    Firstly, thanks for taking the time to reply! I love a good debate, especially with someone who isn't rash and who presents valid points against my own points.

    I guess I'm talking about all of this theoretically- I know that if this were actually to happen to me, I'd simply pop somewhere else for my lunch. But I find it interesting that certain acitivites are condoned despite interrupting other people, whilst other activities are frowned upon for doing the exact same thing.

    You're right in that if someone were to watch a football match and not make a peep throughout, it'd definitely seem as though they have no passion for what they're viewing. That's an extreme case, though- I have no problem with people making a reasonable amount of noise whatever they're doing, but whilst watching sports, fans tend to be particularly loud and it can be very disturbing.

    What you're saying is that the minority should have to go out of their way for the majority, and this is certainly the case in a lot of areas of life. We live in a democracy, after all. But I'm proposing more of a happy medium- in your example of the children and the traffic, a compromise would be for a crossing or traffic light system to be installed so that the children and those driving could utilise the road at the same time. I can't see any reason why such a compromise couldn't be reached in the case of the pub full of sports fans, whose needs are placed as being more important than those doing other things in the pub simply because there are more of them. Why isn't it possible for the sports fans to enjoy their sports slightly less raucously for the sake of others who want to be in the pub at the same time? With the children and traffic scenario, the people driving might have to wait a few extra seconds for the children to cross the road at the lights, but they are still able to drive on to their destination. In the same way, sports fans should be able to enjoy their past-time but be willing to not be quite as raucous so that others may enjoy the pub at the same time.

    Sorry for being so long-winded! I congratulate you if you manage to get through all of my blabbering.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by weirdwakkidolli)
    Cheering, shouting, banter - all this is part of socialising whilst watching rugby/football. I've never before heard anyone complain about it, because they tend to just go somewhere else when the football's on. They don't even have to just not go to the pub - there are plenty that don't show sports, so just go there.

    During the day at the weekend, or mid-week, when there's a match on, the majority of people in a pub with a big screen are there to watch the rugby/football with their mates, with the people they always watch the match with. Surely in a democratic country we have to say that the majority has it?
    Very valid points. I have heard a few people complain about it, but these are individuals who are naturally biased against sports, and either way there's always the solution of getting up and going somewhere else. I guess I'm just arguing against the principal of it, because in my head, something says that it's not quite right to have to change my own plans because of what a bunch of other people want to do (though in practice we all have to do this all the time).

    I'm trying to think of another example, and all I can think about is a thread I'd read just five minutes ago- the OP was complaining about a bunch of people in their lecture sitting behind them and talking whilst the lecturer was trying to teach. Because of this, the OP was missing some of what the lecturer was saying. There were many more people talking than the OP, so the majority was clearly in favour of those interrupting, but it obviously wasn't benefitting the OP in the same way that having to change your own plans as to which pub you lunch in does not benefit yourself, just because the majority to do something that disrupts you.

    A compromise can always be made, i.e. I'd just go somewhere else to eat. But it's the principal of it that I'm going on.

    Anyway, I'm probably becoming infuriating now so I'd better just bugger off.:p:
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sunpro)
    I really am not impressed.

    Earlier, I went into town to get a spot of lunch and do a bit of shopping. Anyway, suffice to say, when I went into Yate's it was full of people watching Six Nations. Finding a table was difficult enough, but then we had a load of neanderthal men screaming their heads off every couple of minutes. I nearly went a turned the widescreen off and went 'why can't we just have a nice civilised meal?'. Why is it that whenever there's a bloody match of football or rugby, cities become a no-go area? All I wanted was my usual lasagne, but I had to leave because I couldn't bare the atmosphere in there. I then had to contend with a pannini and caramel macchiato from Starbucks, which was full.

    If it had been tennis or cricket, then I would not have minded as much because you don't normally get a horrible atmosphere associated with those two sports. I don't mind people getting excited about the nonsense that is rugby or football, but when it starts to impinge on my lunchtime plans, then I get fiercely annoyed.

    Does it annoy you how much a stranglehold sports have on this country>

    How dare you call rugby nonsense
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by GodspeedGehenna)
    I weep for humanity.
    cool
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sunpro)
    I really am not impressed.

    Earlier, I went into town to get a spot of lunch and do a bit of shopping. Anyway, suffice to say, when I went into Yate's it was full of people watching Six Nations. Finding a table was difficult enough, but then we had a load of neanderthal men screaming their heads off every couple of minutes. I nearly went a turned the widescreen off and went 'why can't we just have a nice civilised meal?'. Why is it that whenever there's a bloody match of football or rugby, cities become a no-go area? All I wanted was my usual lasagne, but I had to leave because I couldn't bare the atmosphere in there. I then had to contend with a pannini and caramel macchiato from Starbucks, which was full.

    If it had been tennis or cricket, then I would not have minded as much because you don't normally get a horrible atmosphere associated with those two sports. I don't mind people getting excited about the nonsense that is rugby or football, but when it starts to impinge on my lunchtime plans, then I get fiercely annoyed.

    Does it annoy you how much a stranglehold sports have on this country>
    The sports have enough of a stranglehold that you would have known that the rugby was on before going into the pub. Get a grip.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    So many people are saying sports like football and rugby are for unintelligent, idiotic thugs. What a load of crap.

    I've applied to some top universities to study physics. I got bloody good GCSE's (If I do say so myself) and I've never picked a fight in my life, certainly not without VERY good reason.

    But I'm a football fan, and on a massive scale. I go to loads of games, watch matches on TV (yes, in Yates sometimes!), and play myself twice every week, for a team.

    Is it all too much for you sophisticated bunch? Do your facts not match reality? Surely someone with intelligence can't like football? That's impossible!

    Grow up, don't segregate people because of what they like or do. And don't complain if your afternoon is 'spoilt' by people supporting their country's team. They probbaly thought you were spoiling theirs.

    /rant
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I hope some people in here are on the wind up because some of the things i've read are totally ludacris, particularly the thread starter...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    You poor thing. I guess being fat isnt easy afterall...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    No idea if this has been said before because I haven't read the full thread but if you want to eat without being subject to sports and it's fans then simply chose a place to eat that doesn't broadcast sport!
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sunpro)
    It's not as if English fans are even barely civilised. We were banned from Europe for 5 years weren't we; then we had Hillsborough. As far as I'm concerned, rugby and football are for the low-class.
    Liverpool fans do not represent all sport fans. As far as I'm concerned your're a whiney, stuck up troll.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DavidJones92)
    What a STUPID thing to say, colour or race doesn't have anything to do with how fast you run.

    Granted there are a lot of top athletes that are black but equally if not more there are white.

    IDIOT :mad:
    Actually it can be to do with race; proportion of fast/ slow twitch muscle, plus bone density etc can have a massive effect on natural ability. Obviously it wouldn't make a difference if they didn't train properly, but a lot of of people do actually have a natural advantage when it comes to sprinting
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Pretentious.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Sports are a good for the following reasons:

    - human beings like competition, and sports by definition are competitive.
    - human beings like entertainment.
    - human beings like physical recreation

    For these reasons, the world is sports-mad. Whilst everybody has different likes/dislikes, I never understand why people say they "hate" sports. lol. If one analyses it, people like to compete, and people like physical recreation.

    If there is any one social/colloquial norm that has no rational basis then it's fashion. Clothes only exist for modesty purposes, so why should we always get the latest styles? Even music is a colloquial norm, but it is art, so it serves a rational purpose.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    I hate the strangle hold that celebrity culture, people wanting to be famous, and soap operas have on this country.
    Doesn't mean I don't think anyone else should enjoy them because I don't.
 
 
 
Poll
How are you feeling in the run-up to Results Day 2018?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.