- 11:22 PM
- 11/21/09
Elizabeth Lambert, the UNM soccer player who went on a bit of a foul rampage the other day, has spoken publicly. The NYT has the story, Salon has the commentary:
I definitely feel because I am a female it did bring about a lot more attention than if a male were to do it. It's more expected for men to go out there and be rough. The female, we're still looked at as, Oh, we kick the ball around and score a goal. But it's not. We train very hard to reach the highest level we can get to.
The nature of the media coverage, if not the extent of it, was certainly dictated by her sex. That's understandable -- after all, we aren't as accustomed to seeing violent outbursts from women. The bigger issue, though, is that we aren't as accustomed to seeing female athletes. Remember, the only reason for the uproar is that a compilation video of her belligerence was posted online -- not because the world was actually tuned in to the game. Ironically, it might be that when we start taking female athletes seriously -- as Lambert suggests -- we won't be as shocked when they act like poor sports.
posted by rumple at 12:54 PM on November 19
Wait, Tarkenton was a coward?
posted by rumple at 02:04 PM on November 15
NHL Suspension Flow Chart ("Dammit, Pronger!)
posted by rumple at 02:00 PM on November 15
Related: Phoenix-area teams suffering from economy. In which the housing market and local unemployment are implicated - though this is surely a problem most places. But 5885 people for an NHL game is not so good. I do respect the Coyotes team a ton though for playing so hard and effectively this season. I'd like to think it doesn't have something to do with losing Gretzky and hiring a professional coach - but it most likely does. It's a rare superstar player who becomes an effective coach (Jacques Lemaire, maybe) -- they've never had to think as hard about the game as the average player and maybe it is incomprehensible to them how to go beyond opening the gate and saying "be talented out there!".
posted by rumple at 12:13 PM on November 10
A night in the life of a Phoenix Coyotes ticket holder.
Still, at every stoppage in play his eyes keep sweeping the vast landscape of empty seats and he's gripped by a cocktail of unpleasant emotions. He feels embarrassed because he knows that there is a huge predatory faction among NHL fans who thrive on criticizing his city, and for them this sort of turnout is like ambrosia. At the same time, his shame is accompanied by a stewing anger because he's here supporting his team, and yet against all logic he and the others who are here to see the game are the ones getting the lion's share of the blame for the team's financial struggles.
It's not incredibly well written (faux third-person!) but it does seem heartfelt.
posted by rumple at 12:06 PM on November 10
THX -- I thought the weakest part of the rebuttal as this: Re multi-champions in the same division: It can be aggravating and confusing, but there's a collective wisdom in boxing that knows the true champion as opposed to title-holders). The rankings of Ring Magazine and Dan Rafael (ESPN.com) reflect the consensus. More important, there have always been so-called "paper champions" and fans have always decided which fighters they wanted to see, champions or not.
I think that completely under-recognizes the effect on the public of having multiple champions - it reduces the narrative of each fight and produces dozens of "champions" - more than the average fan can keep track of or care about. The notion that "collective wisdom" knows and so this is a non-issue is fairyland stuff. Hardcore fans will know, but the average, casual fan (and I might be one myself) really needs to have a simple story to follow. Who won the Stanley Cup? Easy. Who is the third ranked WBA cruiserweight and why should I care if they challenge a champion I've never heard of? And to say "true champion" vs "title-holder" -- when the title is "champion" you better believe that's confusing, in a way that can't just be dismissed by reference to a boxing magazine.
What I am saying is, through greed and split titles boxing destroyed their own narrative; and then by taking it off TV they gave everyone a reason to not care.
I don't follow UFC or MMA at all, in fact I think it is a sick exercise pandering to video-game junkies, but they are not making the same mistakes so far as I can tell. Yet.
posted by rumple at 01:30 PM on November 09
Larry Merchant, a former newspaper sports writer and editor who now comments on boxing on HBO, recently wrote to Tom Jolly, the sports editor of The [NY] Times, to protest the paper's relative lack of coverage of boxing.
Merchant's letter and Jolly's reply provide a fascinating glimpse into issues that transcend the immediate question of whether The Times should devote resources to a sport that even an ardent admirer like Merchant acknowledges is no longer mainstream. In many ways, Merchant and Jolly are discussing the role of a general interest newspaper in a dramatically changed world.
I thought readers would be interested in their exchange.
posted by rumple at 03:33 PM on November 08
6'3", 216 pound David Haye defeats 7'2", 318 pound Nikolai Valuev for the WBA share of the heavyweight boxing championship. pics.
posted by rumple at 08:09 PM on November 07
A nilly-willy is not ok.
posted by rumple at 12:33 PM on November 05
$6.7 Billion Lopped off Olympic Economic Benefits Projections And government's new number, $4 billion, is based on a seven-year-old 'best case' scenario that hasn't panned out.
We're going to be paying for this boondoggle for a long, long time. But go hockey team anyway, WTF.
posted by rumple at 11:44 AM on November 04
Thank heavens he didn't do lunch with Deion Sanders or something similarly heinous deserving of a long suspension.
posted by rumple at 12:04 AM on November 03
"To my knowledge, only one man in England's Premier [Hockey] League (EPL) has stepped onto the ice as an NHL star. Now, he's talking to me in a dimly-lit Bracknell car park. "
posted by rumple at 12:19 PM on October 31
This picture and this one give a sense of what happened since the videos aren't sticking. With the beachball considered an "outside agent" it should have been a drop ball, but the referee Mike Jones, who appeared to have a sound view of the incident, awarded the goal. "I thought it was a deflection off a player," said the Sunderland manager, Steve Bruce. "If anyone knew that rule, that it should have been a drop ball, then you are one saddo. I didn't know."
posted by rumple at 03:01 AM on October 18
Speaking of the Olympics, they love (as do most of us British Columbians) to flaunt the incredible artistry of the local First Nations when it suits them - never mind that these people have been pushed off their land, never signed treaties, never defeated in battle, etc.
But when it doesn't suit them, we see debacles like the Hudson Bay Company ripping off one of the most successful and iconic BC aboriginal cottage industries - the Cowichan Sweater.
Your 350 dollar knitted sweater that "nods" to the Cowichan style from the Bay? Not providing employment opportunities to local First Nations. If you aren't going to buy the real thing then don't freakin' rip off the design and get them made in China.
posted by rumple at 02:13 PM on October 17
He may have mistook himself for a Schmidt hammer.
posted by rumple at 01:54 PM on October 12
As a Twins fan, that blown call on Mauer's double was hard to take. It hit the fielder's glove for God's sake
I sometimes snicker at the over-elaborate hushed tones of reverence in golf but I have to say, those players will call fouls on themselves and do so, all the time.
It is hopelessly naive - in itself sad - to think that the fielder would have corrected the umpire and called it a hit. That would be sportsmanship and the fact it is so clearly ludicrously not going to happen is too bad.
posted by rumple at 09:54 PM on October 10
Really good article, thanks. I like the comment about professional sports being in the "harvest mode" of a sunset industry....
posted by rumple at 04:08 PM on October 10
And, by the way, I don't watch
I had that figured out.
What, exactly, did I say that would be remedied or changed by watching the game? Please be precise.
posted by rumple at 11:01 PM on October 09
The problem is not capitalism, it's hypocrisy by an unholy alliance of TV networks and Universities. And, by the way, I don't watch, but I am interested in University hypocrisy.
If you seriously think that College Football players have the same experience as, say, water polo players, then, ummm, LOL. The rules are written vis a vis agents and recruitment and so forth precisely towards Football and the other athletes will never ever be invited for lunch at Deion Sanders house.
posted by rumple at 04:24 PM on October 08
Well here is the thing not being addressed. A baseball manager betting on games which he is managing is fundamentally bad for the sport. Even so, he was banned after his playing career was over and the main effect is he can't get into the Hall of Fame
banning a kid because of a violation of some rule designed to maintain a fig leaf of amateurism over what is in any other respect a highly profitable sports league, where coaches get paid millions of dollars, and not, say, the salary of an Associate professor, is hypocrisy of the highest order.
Sure, rules are rules lying is bad blah blah but this case is a window into the asylum of venal, crass, hypocritical sanctimony that is the organizational side of College Football.
posted by rumple at 02:58 PM on October 08
Seems pretty clear that Bryant is accepting the blame Well yeah but what is he saying about the punishment? What can he say? Can he say what I said without kissing off his football career? There's a difference between "yes I stole a loaf of bread" and "I agree I should be hanged for it".
Regardless, the whole point of the rule is to enable the image of NCAA football. To ban someone for a whole year for violating a technicality is complete bullshit in my books. Since the NCAA has an effective monopoly on player development for professional football then they have a responsibility not to be capricious dicks and not to throw players under the bus to satisfy there unbelieveably complex rules designed to keep the house of cards "Amateur Football" standing. They should do a little more on college player with long term disability resultant from game injuries and a little less on sanctimony.
posted by rumple at 12:24 PM on October 08
Way too harsh. This is all to protect the charade of amateurism as well, which is a bunch of bollocks. Just pay the frickin' players as if they were Research Assistants or something and dump all this completely phony concern with "ethics". The current approach is part of the over-determined, over-disciplined, over-authoritarian football culture and it is complete stupid and in light of the people running the sport completely hypocritical. So this young man take a huge career hit and the jerks enforcing this feel like they are lighting a candle in the darkness. What a bunch of assholes. It's like the "if you're not with us you're against us" philosophy -- a bunch of iron clad rules to support a system that is rotten at the core.
posted by rumple at 12:48 AM on October 08
Good point about the Tigers spending a lot of money, which is no guarantee of success in and of itself.
I didn't really mean "smart" as in likely to succeed, just smart as in making a case for a cap in a smartly symbolic way. But the very fact no one would want to join the AL East speaks volumes right there.
The fact that Ricciardi maybe spent a little too much on each free agent might just represent the extra cost of signing someone in (a) Canada and (b) in a division where success is going to be very difficult. It's hard to compare absolute values I guess. I guess I agree he did a pretty decent job in fairly tough circumstances.
posted by rumple at 08:03 PM on October 03
Ah, ok, it seems to suggest two hotels involved, need better reading comprehension I guess (though it does say rooms):
FBI agents said seven of the eight videos posted online were taken through a modified door peephole while the 31-year-old Andrews was alone and undressed in hotel rooms in Nashville, Tenn., in September 2008.
FBI agents said they believe Barrett called many hotels to find out where Andrews was staying and requested a hotel room next to hers. Investigators said the eighth video was likely taken at another hotel, which Andrews couldn't identify.
posted by rumple at 03:35 PM on October 03
It seems to be an inalterable fact that the Yankees and Red Sox will have the advantage for many years to come. The Rays, Orioles and Jays might get a look once in a while, lets say, 20% of the time. That means about 6% each, or once every 15 years. That makes it hard to judge performance by playoff appearances. Not defending this guy, who seems like he made some questionable decisions, but the Jays have been moderately successful for much of the last decade but no one remembers it if you don't make the playoffs. (Taking >.500 as a threshold for moderately successful since baseball is a zero-sum league)
If the Jays were smart, they'd try to get moved into the AL Central - the other Great Lakes teams should be their natural rivals anyway.
Or get a meaningful salary cap.
Or both.
posted by rumple at 03:32 PM on October 03
You forgot to put the Because it's not like they have anything else to do inside as well, because that is also editorializing, believe it or not.
And if you really don't think sports and politic mix, why post this to sportsfilter at all, regardless of category? Because this is, in fact, an arena where sports and politics can and do mix.
Indeed, the politics in sports are often more interesting than the sports themselves. In this case, I bet the fact that the NFL benefits from federal anti-trust/monopoly rulings will make the NFL workplace a legally complex area. Indeed, there is a very recent ruling that may lead to the dissolution of the antitrust exemption of 1961.
This might be a step, then, towards eliminating the standardized player contract terms across the league ("The FTC says they don't believe the league is a single entity because they compete with each other and operate separate businesses." Teams may then treat their players better by competing on terms of employment. Thus it is a legal issue relating to head injuries - or arguably so, and arguably enough for me.
Oftentimes change comes from strange directions and if this what it takes to improve football (not as a sport but as part of our shared culture) so be it.
posted by rumple at 03:25 PM on October 03
I know, the hotels (and are there eight of these looselipped hotels if there are eight incidents?) are gonna get it in the neck.
The comments on that Fox news article are quite insightful. Into a certain mindset. And ignorant one, you might say.
posted by rumple at 03:03 PM on October 03
Seems like there is some suggestion that US Immigration / Customs / TSA hassles played a role in the decision -- foreigners still may be reluctant to go to the USA if they can avoid it because of the over the top security theatre that dominates, and especially if you are from, say, an Arab country, or Cuba, or any of the 'stans, you know you might really have a point. Lots of comments from foreigners at boingboing (gak).
posted by rumple at 02:59 PM on October 03
Rugby and Aussie League are different though, in that the players don't wear as much padding and don't wear helmets (well some wear some minor leathery helmets). American Football fetishizes the torpedoing, head first hit and by protecting the players so much they make it possible. In rugby, the tackler is always aware they may come off the worst if they don't follow proper technique, and proper technique ends up being safe technique.
A little punch up seldom hurts anyone beyond a black eye or a cut lip but I hear what you are saying. Even with American football, if you were likely to have to punch it up with the opponent if you delivered an unsafe hit, then I suspect that alone would be a safety improvement. Believe it or not, that is one of the reasons fighting in hockey exists (outside of the staged kind) - it is a form of direct social control. In football, with its hierarchical structure, there is no social control enactment by those with the most to lose.
posted by rumple at 08:34 PM on September 30
Do high school players provide their own equipment, especially helmets? Or is it standard issue stuff? If the schools provide it I would be worried about them cheaping out.
Agreed totally with devastating hits being part of the intended process in football, they are coached, they are encouraged, they are executed, and they often go terribly wrong.
Hockey I think as I noted somewhere else has taken real steps, effective ones, to reduce concussion particularly in the wake of the Lindros case and the attendant finger being pointed at the team culture, the training staff, etc. Lindros got nailed by a few borderline hits that were probably clean then, but would be considered dirty now. At the very least, Hockey recognised that it had a problem. with the Steve Moores of the world taking dirty cheap elbows to the head of Nazzie, who was never the same player after that
posted by rumple at 01:16 PM on September 30
Football is unusual in that, when played the way it is coached, in accordance with the rules, and they way the fans want to see it, produces shocking increases in head injuries and other injuries.
Lots of sports put you at a high risk of injury: knees, elbows, ankles, backs, etc. Some sports have a higher risk of concussion, and are doing something about it (the NHL has been pretty good about cracking down on headhunting and boarding) Football though has the uniquely high probability, when played as directed, to destroy both the mind, and the body.
And while a bodily injury is a terrible and unfortunate thing, it is our minds that make us human.
posted by rumple at 11:27 AM on September 30
You know, for all the talk of "character" in football, there seem to be a lot of football players who are not particularly nice characters. Maybe that's just the pros. Or maybe the character that is developed on the field by exercising until you vomit, being called a "pussy" by the coaches, being treated as an expendable piece of meat, and being drilled in rote repetition of plays which someone else designs and dictates, is the same kind of character that makes the players assholes off it. Everyone has character, the question is, do they have good character? I don't think a case can be made that football is any better for character than any other sport or structured activity, though I am happy to listen to one. And if it is no better, then why risk these levels of brain damage and serious injury?
Bottom line: no way would I let my kid play football. it's not the danger per se, it is the structured delegation of danger and the industrialization of creative talent which bother me.
I did kick ass in the spofi football pool last week though, 13/16!
posted by rumple at 11:56 PM on September 29
I dunno, I mean yes rules are indeed rules but if sport is a positive influence on young people then let the kids play. Find some other means of punishment than suspension.
posted by rumple at 12:32 PM on September 25
Soocher -- two years ago there was this post, and rcade recently posted on head injuries in the NFL, which is still on the front page. Your article looks like a really good one.
Personally, I think this is the #1 issue in North American sports right now (at least contextual issues, not score-related one) but I know some people on this site would rather not talk so much about it. So post it at your own peril -- to me it is certainly a meaty enough, "best of web" article, which passes the FPP threshold.
PS use the little link button on the text box corner
posted by rumple at 08:02 PM on September 23
Maybe if they shortened the season back to 154 games it would be worth thinking about.
To my un-tutored eye, the big problem with the playoffs the last couple of years has not been the number of teams in it, but introducing the really long series of off-days, to a sport in which a big part of the game, and the strategy, is based on playing every day. If they introduce a second WC team, then there will be 5 playoff teams per league, which means that at least one, and probably three, teams are going to be sitting around waiting for the WC teams to playoff. Can this be right? Because it would be really stupid and I suspect even the teams waiting wouldn't like it much.
What would be cool would be a round-robin tournament in the leagues after 154 games then - 5 teams per league, round-robin play each other three times each, play every day, after two weeks someone has won, then a world series with both winners having been through the same number of playoff games and being in rhythm. Start the world series October 1st with two three game series home-and-away, then game seven if necessary at a neutral park, preferably near my house.
Next: rumple fixes basketball without breaking a sweat.
posted by rumple at 10:25 AM on September 23
That's a really good article on Turley, rcade.
It seems to me that football, played by the rules, absent of dirty hits, using the approved equipment, etc., carries an enormous risk of serious brain injury.
Consider it: normal football causes serious brain injuries at a very high rate.
I find that ethically and morally questionable. If these injuries can be prevented, then they must be prevented.
posted by rumple at 01:07 AM on September 20
Kessel is a first round draft pick, he is not someone who "may be equivalent to one". Unless you are finding diamonds outside the draft, it is reasonable IMHO to consider a 21 year old impact player chosen in the first round as still equivalent to (at least) a first round pick. So my point is that the other draft pick is to rent such a player until the pick you trade would have been ready to play for you. I set that at first round pick = 3 years of rent.
Kessel wasn't going to be a UFA, he would have been RFA and it would have cost them a 1st, 2nd, and 3rd as compensation. Maybe that would have been smarter - but consider that Burke is personally predisposed against signing RFAs because of the Dustin Penner thing. So he spends another 1st and saves a 3rd. It's a bit less than giving up another first rounder in order to avoid the RFA offer sheet, but I see what you mean.
The commenter hendy100 here makes a similar point -- after listing the top 100 draft picks of the past 10 years, he draws this conclusion:
____
"Of the 98 possible candidates (minus Bourdon and Kessel), I would have selected 22 players instead of Phil Kessel (22.45%). [Thornton, Marleau, Luongo, Lecavalier, Sedin, Sedin, Heatley, Gaborik, Kovalchuk, Spezza, Nash, Bouwmeester, Fleury, E. Staal, Vanek, Phaneuf, Ovechkin, Malkin, Crosby, E. Johnson, Toews, Backstrom]
What does that mean? How does that translate with two top 10 picks?
Chances of selecting two players better than Kessel = .2245 x .2245 = 5.04%
Chances of selecting one player better than Kessel = 2 x .2245 x (1-.2245) = 34.82%
Chances of selecting no players better than Kessel = (1-.2245) x (1-.2245) = 60.14%"
___
I think what the "build through the draft" folks miss is just how much of a crapshoot the hockey draft is. For every recent story like Chicago, there are perennial doormats who suck at drafting/developing players (historically, the Leaves being the worst offenders). So its not like one is comparing a gamble by trading for Kessel versus a sure thing of building through the draft. That poster makes a pretty interesting case -- 60% chance of picking two players in the top 10 of the next two drafts, neither of whom is as good as Kessel. Even if he is off and it is a 30% chance, that is still pretty significant, not even accounting for Kessel is in Toronto now, the other player(s) come along in 2-4 years. On the other hand, he is only looking at 10 years of top 10 picks, if the Leaves start drafting around 15th then the odds decline accordingly.
posted by rumple at 12:50 AM on September 20
has anyone mentioned the unmitigated joy that will be found in ignoring the CBC's new reality show "Battle of the Blades" in which former figure skaters are paired with former NHL players in a kind of "Dancing with the Stars" psychodrama? Considering the NHL players include notorious ladies' men such as Claude Lemieux, Ron Duguay, Tie Domi and Bob Probert, while the figure skaters are all angelic little virgin tinkerbells, it is something you will not want to watch, not even ironically, not even Tivo'd, not out of the corner of your eyes, oh no sir, never eh.
posted by rumple at 11:48 AM on September 19
Unrestricted Free Agent centres for the 2010-2011 season include: Patrick Marleau Marc Savard (!!)
I completely agree that draft picks shouldn't be tossed around like confetti. But these days, there are very different forces at work in the NHL -- the salary cap drives "non-hockey" trades, and UFAs can fill gaps. If you have a currently-crap team like the Leaves, you may be able to afford a few UFAs. To make the non-hockey trades, you need draft picks and the willingness to use them (cf. the Kessel trade). Choose the UFAs wisely and spend the draft picks wisely, and then get lucky in the draft.
posted by rumple at 02:22 AM on September 19
This kid's death is part of the culture of football, which seeks to break down the individual so they can be units in a team. For most positions, improvisation is valued less than repetition and predictability. Players are modules more than in most sports. Fine -- that's the game -- but to produce that culture you need to (like the Army does, say, with its similar goals), you need to break down the individual to raise up the unit. Part of that breaking down is the hypermasculinity, the full-pad practices, the full-contact drills, and being yelled at and called "pussies" a lot. I don't think most other sports are like this.
posted by rumple at 12:15 AM on September 19
The way I see it, this is a pretty good deal for Burke. Kessel is clearly a first rounder, he was picked 5th overall, and has played at a high level and he is only 22 or something. So, if he was magically in the draft this year, you would pick him.
So that's worth one of the 1st round picks.
Then, any first rounder you pick this year you should reasonably expect that player to spend two years before making the NHL, and maybe another year before making an impact. Think, say, Ryan Kesler's career. Some players take longer, some less, some never make it. I am going to say, for this second 1st round pick, the Leaves are getting the use of the player they would otherwise pick but getting that use 3 or 4 years before they would get the use otherwise. (these two players turn out to be one player, Kessel, after three years, if you see what I mean, but before then Kessel embodies both. The second pick you give up just warps the space time continuum.
So the deal becomes, in essence, Kessel for a first rounder, plus 3 years of Kessel, plus subtraction of uncertainty about any other pick, for another first rounder and second rounder. In a league where rental players routinely command a first rounder, that's pretty good as a "rental fee" for use of a player three years early.
It's only in three years minimum do you start to miss what was given away.
Now, at that point, if you suck, then you really really miss it because the second first rounder in 2011 is a top five pick (I'm ignoring the first first rounder because you would pick Kessel with that anyway -- any player is a pick, essentially, unless you find them under a rock).
But Burke may be thinking two things: 1. Everything in his experience is, lousy teams he manages get better. So the pick is a diminishing asset. 2. if Leaves still really really suck in three years, then the media there will have eaten his ass many times over anyway.
This only works if (a) Kessel is young (he is) and (b) good enough you'd pick him in the first round (he is) and (c) plays at the level you would expect from a first round pick (realistic expectations only count here: anything better than "above average" is good for a first round draft pick when you think back through a teams draft history. Look at the 2006 and 2007 drafts, which will be like what the Leaves will look back on in 2013, say. Look at the % of superstar quality players in, say the top 10 picks. Not that overwhelming (of course, the 2007 class is still developing somewhat, but that's my point -- getting a hamburger today vs the possibility of two hamburgers on Tuesday is sometimes a good deal)).
Anyway, I like this deal for Burke. I would usually say, yes, don't trade your draft picks but draft picks are not some guaranteed thing, they are a probability, and if you view that probability as declining through time because you will make the team better, then you value them accordingly.
It will, though, be really interesting to see if Kessel turns out to be another beneficiary of Marc Savard's quiet genius or if he can do it on his own. I think he will, and will improve. As I think Murray noted, he got his 35 odd goals on only 16 minutes of ice time. Give him another 25% ice time and all the PP time, and that alone should account for the loss of Savard.
Burke is a blowhard, but he is a smart hockey guy. He made the Canucks much much better in his time here and he did it without breaking the future. Think the Sedins deal where he gave up McCabe to move up and nab the twins #2 and #3---- the first and fourth picks that year were Patrik Stefan and Pavl Brendl -- both seen at the time as "can't miss" prospects.
posted by rumple at 11:49 PM on September 18
Also, corporate booths on the sidelines? I just threw up in my mouth some. I mean, FFS, I guess it is good that some corporate hacks finally figured out that the booth is a sucky place to watch most games if you're a sports fan. But to put the jackasses right on the sidelines...just seems like creeping capitalism to me I guess.
posted by rumple at 05:45 PM on September 18
wow. That whole section was bad...what were they thinking? The prices for those have to be like $5, just for those who want the atmosphere, but will be bringing their own TV to watch.
Yeah, no kidding. And I would like to see this monument to sport. But I can't help thinking, isn't everyone at that stadium already just watching it on TV? It's like TV with massive surroundsound. Even the little TV screens at other stadia seem to attract the full time attention of half the audience. This phenomenon will swallow itself and then the screen can be put where the field is and the players sent to the green screen. Why not?
posted by rumple at 05:26 PM on September 18
Americaware is a pretty awesome typo, unless there is a product I am missing out on.
Seriously, I think sometimes the symbolic issues are the ones that need to be tackled first, then the others can fall in turn. Was not being able to use a whites-only drinking fountain the most important issue facing African Americans in the 1950s? Not really, compared to, say, systemic voting "irregularities", but by tackling the highly visible petty annoyances of American apartheid, it raised the issue in a very public way. The Voting Rights Act followed afterwards. So, I guess I am saying, symbols do matter and sometimes are essential vanguards of social change and raised consciousness.
posted by rumple at 05:15 PM on September 18
Messi is a freakin' genius.
posted by rumple at 02:23 PM on September 18
This profile skips past his All-Star game and his leading the Wings in playoff points to focus on the important legal issues and outstanding pugilistic record (including video highlights) of "The Greatest Hockey Player of All Time."
posted by rumple at 04:18 PM on September 17
Please, make that "Person of Cave" willya
posted by rumple at 01:46 PM on September 17
And yeah, Probert was a throwback, a tough guy who could play, brought down by booze. I love the SOB even though he was an SOB and never played on my team. Not dirty as I recall, just a big lunky two fisted punch drunk on skates.
posted by rumple at 11:52 AM on September 17
Hell no, Fotiu wasn't a dirty player. As I recall he was a typical "enforcer". I am not a big fan of fighting in hockey, especially nowadays when it is hyped as a theatrical exhibition. "Back in the day" more players would fight to protect themselves, especially from dirty stickwork. I'm guessing 3/4 of the players in the league would pick up a fighting major every year, compared to, I dunno, 15% now? And if you used a dirty stick you knew you might be called to account, and were expected to fight, by the opposition and by your own team-mates. They had a sense of honour, so to speak.
Enforcers were tough guys who could play some and fight some --- but really, the "enforcer role" of boxer on skates was pretty much a response to the Philadelphia goons of the 1970s, who cynically protected their own dirty players with specialist goons like Schultz. Their dirty players, who wouldn't be tolerated by their own team-mate on other teams, got all emboldened knowing they could get away with anything, and they did. Pretty soon, all teams had to be able to mix it up with the Flyers whose unashamed gameplan was to carve you up, not beat you at hockey. Meaning they were willing to compromise hockey skill much more in favour of fighting talent and aggression. So, Fotiu, I don't blame him or teams who employed him because the real blame lies with the Flyers. Everything after was self defence.
I don't even blame players like Schulz, particularly, because he was out there fighting some pretty touch SOBs, though he did lay excess beatings on some pacifists too.
Eff me, I remember being about 10 and watching a Flyers goon, Dornhoefer I think, pummelling Borje Salming endlessly during a brawl, with Salming turtled on the ice, and even then, I thought, you asswipe, what must Salming be thinking, is this what he played hockey for on the outdoor rinks of Sweden, welcome to Canada, I am ashamed. [And I hate the Leafs as much as the Flyers].
And a long term legacy of the Flyers was that Gretzky had to play most of his career with guys like Cementhead and McSorely as one of his wingers - someone not just tough, but ridiculously tough and dirty because the idea was not that Gretzky needed protection from normal hockey but that he needed protection from cheap shot artists who followed in Bobby Clarke and Ken Linseman's wake. Imagine Gretzky in the prime of his career playing not with Kurri and Semenko, but with Kurri and, say Anderson.
Only now, with two referees helping a lot, I think, is the dirty stick leaving the game and the players are playing, ironically making the specialist enforcer a bit of a dying breed. Now, if before they died out, some of those dinosaurs would please lay a beat down or three on the middleweight gutless pieces of shit like Matt Cooke and Ruutu and Avery.
I've said before that I hate the Flyers, and I am sorry if your favorite team sucks, but they will never in a million years of pacifism and kissing babies overcome their legacy of spineless and reprehensible bullshit and the 30 years of damage they did to the game through their cowardly and dishonourable tactics.
Though Rick MacLeish was ok.
Anyway, anyone who tags a Flyer like at the end of this fight is ok with me.
posted by rumple at 11:50 AM on September 17
I don't hear any baseball fans denying he is a hitting genius, just that this particular accomplishment is a bit of a soul-less measure of that. I think the case could be made much more strongly that when he set the single season hit record ( a "real record, IMHO, and one that had stood since 1920) a few years ago that, while it got a lot of attention, it would have got far, far more had he been a Yankee, Red Sock [what is a singular Red Sox anyway?], or Cub.
I didn't realize he has missed so many games this year, 202 hits in 129 games is not too shabby and must project to be one of his better seasons.
I am pretty far from a stathead, but this table is remarkable. For most hits in a season, looking at the top 12 seasons of all time, two are by Ichiro, and all the other ten are between 1911 and 1930. Doubly remarkable since there have been over 40 years of 162 game seasons to beat those early 20th century figures. But baseball goes in cycles, and note that Darren Erstad had the 13th best-ever season recently.
Also, striking to me: almost all of the top scores are lefties. It's a game of inches I guess. I knew that was an advantage but cool to see it so graphically demonstrated.
posted by rumple at 08:41 PM on September 16
Not to derail, but is it true that in some parts of the USA (NE?) the word "Canuck" is slightly/mildly derogatory term for Canadians? I mean, I know it is a nickname for Canadians but never heard of any negative overtones until recently. I heard that, and thought there might be a cross-border nuance along the lines of "Yankee" being not a term of neutral endearment everywhere.
Also, interesting story about PETA / Packers. I think PETA has a genius forgetting publicity, frankly. Though they ride the line of ridicule they do get people talking about their issue.
posted by rumple at 08:28 PM on September 16
male and female (sex) is a biological dichotomy that masks a continuum of variability.
male and female (gender) is a socially constructed dichotomy that also masks a continuum of variability.
Asking for an "up to date and accurate definition of male and female" ignores the underlying truth that a false dichotomy is being imposed on a world that is just not that simple, indeed, it basically calls for the false dichotomy to be replicated again and again, with ever-more rigorous testing and tweaking and poking and so forth. Semenya may be an edge case but does not deserve that kind of humiliation.
My solution to this would be, everyone relax, and learn something about the inherent fuzziness of the world.
posted by rumple at 07:56 PM on September 16
Native Americans are not animals, BTW.
Oh, for f**k's sake.
Maybe you are genuinely baffled why the PETA analogy is not a good one.
Native Americans (human beings labelled as "redskins") protest against usage "Redskin"
is to
PETA (human beings labelled as "activists") protest against usage "Dolphin."
Asymmetrical analogy, y/n?
posted by rumple at 07:22 PM on September 16
There is a good commentary on the Sports Illustrated poll found here (PDF). I believe this is the problematic poll which is muddying the waters. The authors cite many other polls which reach far more nuanced and, indeed, contrary conclusions.
posted by rumple at 06:17 PM on September 16
Also, they forgot Matt Cooke.
posted by rumple at 06:10 PM on September 16
Bobby Clarke over Dave Schulz?
Oh, absolutely. Schultz was a goon, a one dimensional fighter, but he fought. A lot. And not all of them were patsies. And yes, he picked on some weaker players too -- that whole damn Flyers disgrace of a team did.
But Clarke was dirty in a way that Schultz was just rough.
Clarke is Jeffrey Dahmer to Schultz' Mafia hitman.
Clarke was a dirty little stick-weasel, a hacker, a spitter, a whiner, a spearer, and ultimately, a cowardly little subhuman piece of vindictive shit who hid behind Schultz, Dupont, Dornhoefer and the rest of that embarassment to Philly.
posted by rumple at 06:08 PM on September 16
I guess it is...since I certainly do not equate the *n* word to be even remotely similar to the word redskin. That's why I'm abbreviating one of those words..it's too offensive to even type in a forum.
And from where did you learn the degree of offensiveness of the "n" word? Linguists? Or, you know, actual "n" people? Maybe in the fifties, the n-word was ok. Maybe 50 years form now the r-word will always be written "r*". If you don't agree, well, why not make an error on the side of decency? Would you want to have been that guy in 1959 saying "I don't think that the n-word is offensive" ? Why risk being that guy in 2009?
posted by rumple at 05:59 PM on September 16
I'm 1/4 Omaha Injun, should I get my attorneys to file suit against Marlin Perkins and Mutual of Omaha? The likeness they use for their logo is disgusting.
Yes. Yes, maybe you should. And if you choose not to, then don't get in the way of people who do. If you're not part of the solution, etc etc ..... either way, if you find that logo disgusting and choose to do nothing about it, then you also lose the right to complain about people who make different choices. Same would go for the Redskins issue.
posted by rumple at 05:48 PM on September 16
Well I guess that was my point about the Dolphins/Peta argument
Native Americans are not animals, BTW.
posted by rumple at 04:13 PM on September 16
SportsFilter: The Saturday Huddle
BBC: About 200 European football games are under investigation in a match-fixing inquiry, German prosecutors have said. At least three of the games were in the Champions League and another 12 were in the Uefa Europa League, officials said.