"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 InterestGeneral
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Link
Featured Workbench ArticleLaconia Hobbies shows us how it is done.
Featured Profile ArticleOur Man in Southern California, Wyatt the Odd, reports on the Gamex 2005 convention.
Current Poll
|
Great War Ace | 30 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 R | 30 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 OFM | 30 Jun 2013 9:33 a.m. PST |
"Sports" are bloodless war between competing city-states. I have no problem with that. |
svsavory | 30 Jun 2013 10:08 a.m. PST |
|
John the OFM | 30 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. |
The Gray Ghost | 30 Jun 2013 1:14 p.m. PST |
would there be a womans version of this sport where they wore bikinis? |
Pictors Studio | 30 Jun 2013 2:28 p.m. PST |
|
kyoteblue | 30 Jun 2013 3:11 p.m. PST |
Shrug
I don't follow sport. |
Great War Ace | 30 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 CRITTER | 01 Jul 2013 3:10 p.m. PST |
It has become a chance out of poverty these days too. |
|