Help support TMP


"What are sports for?" Topic


10 Posts

All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.

Please avoid recent politics on the forums.

For more information, see the TMP FAQ.


Back to the Sports Plus Board

Back to the Health and Fitness Plus Board


Areas of Interest

General

Featured Hobby News Article


Featured Link


Featured Workbench Article

How to Dip Wargames Factory Plastics & Old Glory Figures

Laconia Hobbies shows us how it is done.


Featured Profile Article

Report from Gamex 2005

Our Man in Southern California, Wyatt the Odd, reports on the Gamex 2005 convention.


Current Poll


859 hits since 30 Jun 2013
©1994-2024 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

Great War Ace30 Jun 2013 8:32 a.m. PST

All my life I have had a beef with the attitude of sports vis-a-vis competition, and winning at any cost. The higher up in "professionalism" a sport is the higher the risks taken and the abuse of the body to achieve winning results. This attitude begins with fathers "encouraging" their young'uns to participate in "little leagues" and school sports programs, etc.

It has been quite recently that I had an idea addressing this, and was curious how it would "fly". In this high-tech world it should now be practical to monitor the vital indicators while an athlete is performing. If all participants were monitored individually, and their aggregate scores recorded, a team's "performance at cost" score could be upheld to allow the most health conscious team to win. Where scoring counts as points, certainly, a team that played with promoting good health as a priority would gain advantage. It could even be arranged that if a team expended unhealthy bodily resources in order to score points, that dipping below the acceptable "break out" level would deduct points scored in a game.

In athletics where individuals compete, such for instance in bicycle racing, it would be easier to assess health promoting or inimical performing practices. If the main focus is to compete while benefitting the body's health, then sports would promote what the body is for; to enjoy a healthy life of enhanced mobility and capability. As it is now, of course, the temptation to push the body even beyond its natural limitations (e.g. performance enhancing drugs) is too strong for many (e.g. Lance Armstrong and Company). Monitoring the body continuously would change the whole focus of sports. Unmonitored sports would of course be optional, but I can visualize a future where the "monitored sports" events or venues trump the "win at all costs" approach we have always seen….

Patrick R30 Jun 2013 8:56 a.m. PST

The public is only interested in winners, not the process. As long as the organizers believe this, nothing will change there.

John the OFM30 Jun 2013 9:33 a.m. PST

"Sports" are bloodless war between competing city-states.
I have no problem with that.

svsavory30 Jun 2013 10:08 a.m. PST

Bread and circuses.

John the OFM30 Jun 2013 12:33 p.m. PST

BTW, I cannot think of a more boring thing to watch than the "sporting event" you propose.
In fact, the "win at all costs" would now be centered on who has the best heart rate. I am sure that an undetectable Performance Enhancing Drug can be developed to keep the hearbeat at acceptable levels during strenuous exercise. grin

The Gray Ghost30 Jun 2013 1:14 p.m. PST

would there be a womans version of this sport where they wore bikinis?

Pictors Studio30 Jun 2013 2:28 p.m. PST

Sports are for exercise.

kyoteblue30 Jun 2013 3:11 p.m. PST

Shrug…I don't follow sport.

Great War Ace30 Jun 2013 4:35 p.m. PST

Neither do I, and the reason is because of the mentality. I guess I am not competitive enough to do anything to win….

SECURITY MINISTER CRITTER01 Jul 2013 3:10 p.m. PST

It has become a chance out of poverty these days too.

Sorry - only verified members can post on the forums.