Letters to the Editor
kevred
Published Letters: 92 Editor's Choice: 8
-
So much apologizing for the Pats
[Read the article: King Kaufman's Sports Daily]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]It's curious and disappointing to me how quickly many people prostrate themselves before someone else's achievements and become apologists for them. It's a strange sort of emotional transferrance. It affects all of us sometimes, but the innocent-Patriots syndrome is a current example.
The childhood-bully analogy is a valid one, because what the Pats have been displaying as an organization and as individuals this year is childish behavior, to the point that even the team owner seems nervous about it. If it's nothing special and just fine, then why is everyone talking about it? Because it's out of the ordinary and against norms, that's why. Getting paid millions of dollars by a corporation doesn't make you emotionally mature, or somehow purify your actions against criticism.
We can trot out the "if you don't want the score run up on you, then play defense" line all we want, and there's some truth in it, but that's a cheap crutch for spectators. Everyone knows that sportsmanship is a valid concept and has always had an important place in sports, or any competition for that matter. Balancing winning with how you win isn't dumb, as bizona seems to think, but an inherent part of things.
It's called graciousness in victory, also known as honor. Winning a contest is part of a time-honored social structure. Going past winning to demolishing is what's called selfishness and ego. It's not enough for me to win, I have to humiliate you.
Belichek's been right at times when he's said after a game something like, hey, there's a quarter left and if they score again it's only a two-score game, or whatever. But with the lengths they've been going to score, such explanations are insufficient, and we know this is something more than that.
So here's hoping the Pats get whatever it is out of their system this weekend and move through the rest of the season with some dignity. Because, love 'em or hate 'em (and I've always kind of liked them, really), right now they're Barry Bonds. And maybe that's all they want to be.
Oh, and w.e.s., it is just you--I'm a Cowboys fan (hoping they won't have a letdown in Philly), but one who thinks the Pats need some instant karma (but not, as some have suggested, in the form of a major injury).
-
Ah, so *this* is why the Pats are so mad!
[Read the article: King Kaufman's Sports Daily]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Now it all makes sense...
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/44616
After this, I'm sure the collective thought was, "never again!"
Much simpler than my previous overly grandiose ideas.
-
Understandable but misdirected
[Read the article: How Oprah ruined the marathon]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I can understand the frustration of the writer--nothing increases one's appreciation for something than suddenly not being able to do it. How could McClelland not sit by, watching thousands of people with opportunity he wants but can't have failing to live up to their competitive potential, and be frustrated about it? It's human nature, we can all relate.
But perhaps a better tone for the article would have been, "come on, get competitive, America!" instead of "these people are ruining the sport".
Mainly because it probably just isn't true. The "average finishing time" quoted in the story is pretty much meaningless, because all it means is that more less-adept runners are running--it doesn't mean the best times are declining, which would be the only thing which could support his case, and no evidence is presented for that.
American runners' best times do seem to have plateaued, with only a few Americans having bested Salazar's best time from 1982, but the best American times have still come in the last few years. In that case, what is the concern--that we're not best in the world, or that our average isn't good enough? What would be "good enough" isn't made clear.
Another point to make is that McClelland is somewhat overstating how far back the top American is from the world record. Ryan Hall may be in 255th place, but the difference between his time and the world record is just 4 minutes. As with most sports, the margin for world records is getting thinner than it was decades ago. And Hall's personal record came earlier this year--further undermining the concept of a decline, as he's now the fastest American-born marathon runner in history.
How America approaches competitive activity is a very worthwhile topic for analysis; the recreational-participatory approach that has opened up all kinds of endeavor, from art to music to athletics, to a kind of mediocritization by accessibility. But a piece like this should probably be either more personal or more objective. It seems like it opened up a lot of discussion, though, so that's a good thing.