What do we want from sports?

I have been wanting to start this thread for a while, but the following Tenez's line gave me a nice impetus:

Tenez wrote:but I seriously suspect sport was invented to let talent express itself.

So, the question is, what do we want from tennis (or from sports in general, for that matter)?

My own suspicion is much like what Tenez is saying - that certain talents were among primary things that sports were meant to test.  Many of them were probably also meant to test - and perhaps further build - other characteristics, such as maybe competitiveness.  But they were probably not meant to be played with the purpose of finding out who wins.  Winning was probably mostly a by-product of possessing the right characteristics.

I remember a few years ago watching a documentary about Tilden.  The documentary said that Tilden was among the first players who would very seriously practice in order to improve their game.  It then went on to suggest that some of his contemporaries looked at his practicing as a form of cheating.  The documentary was quite dismissive of those criticisms, but I thought it was probably somewhat unfairly so.  My suspicion is that the commentary was just looking at early 20th century tennis with early 21st century eyes, and thus missed the point to some extent.

Back then, tennis was an amateur sport, and the idea - at least in theory - would probably have been to have people with busy lives outside tennis play it for fun to see who is the best.  In that context, heavy duty practice can certainly be seen as a form of cheating, or at least bad sportsmanship.  It is sort of like when people play Trivial Pursuit.  Surely it is cheating if someone goes ahead and memorizes answers to all the questions beforehand.  It may bring them a victory, technically within the rules perhaps, but that is obviously not what the game is meant to be about.

On the other hand, tennis of today is very different from where it started.  For one, top players do not play tennis as a minor part-time activity outside their main pursuits.  Tennis is their main pursuit.  Does that change things?  And if so, how?

In my mind, it changes things quite dramatically.  If you play tennis as your main calling, it is no longer about being a fun activity to have good time.  Trying to win then becomes the primary goal.  Certainly, practicing is no longer cheating.  Just the other way around, not practicing enough means you are too lazy - something that obviously would not apply when people play tennis as a hobby.

My (simplified) take on things is that whatever is your primary calling in life, you should do with all seriousness, and should give it your all, so to speak.  Similarly, whatever pursuits you are doing as secondary - say for fun - you should preferably not go too crazy about, lest it takes away from your primary responsibilities.

As a result, I tend to agree that it is a bit silly for people who play tennis for fun to be too serious about it.  By the same token, I do not hold in high esteem players who play tennis full-time, yet they do not do everything they can to win.  That is also one of the reasons why I do not care much about talent per se.  Sure, if it helps you win, that is great.  But if you can win with less talent, that is just as good - winning is the goal, not talent discovery.

What do you think?

summerblues wrote:
As a result, I tend to agree that it is a bit silly for people who play tennis for fun to be too serious about it.  By the same token, I do not hold in high esteem players who play tennis full-time, yet they do not do everything they can to win.  That is also one of the reasons why I do not care much about talent per se.  Sure, if it helps you win, that is great.  But if you can win with less talent, that is just as good - winning is the goal, not talent discovery.

Well, I tend to disagree.
I take my fun very seriously!

Most people do, in fact. You'd be surprised how many cheats there are among "fun" players. It's worse than what you see on TV.
With people, there is always some cost involved and many can't stand losing be it pride, a temporary piece of little glory, vanity..it's fascinating!
From my experience of playing different sports, it is usually those with less ability and talent that cheated, it's so ugly.
When your opponent calls a clean ball out and you have no Hawkeye to check it, you may have not lost money, but you feel cheated and hurt nonetheless.

So we come back to the old topic of money again.
Because it's money that separates "fun" players from "serious" ones: the more is at stake, the more people are prepared to cheat.
No two people have the same amount of talent which is why we all enjoy watching the variety: some are fantastic movers, some have great weapons, some are dogged competitors with no weapons....and that's all fine.
On a level field it all evens out until things get out of control.
And they have gone out of control in tennis. Players have tournament directors as friends. The power has gone to their heads so much they even say it in public. There are somebodies  and nobodies in locker rooms now.
Look no further than AO 2012 final. I never watched it. I did not watch Wimbledon final, either, many more big matches, too.
So what do I want from sport?
Just to be able to watch it again in all its beauty and grace, because SB, you forgot one thing, all those players "doing their job" are there for us, not the other way round.
Someone said a funny telling quote about football crowd once: In the 60s, rich people paid to watch poor players, and now poor people pay to watch millionaires.

summerblues wrote:
On the other hand, tennis of today is very different from where it started.  For one, top players do not play tennis as a minor part-time activity outside their main pursuits.  Tennis is their main pursuit.  Does that change things?  And if so, how?
....What do you think?

Interesting thread SB...we will never agree though as there is no clear response to that question. In theory you are wrong, in practice you are right. It's a bit like is it right or wrong to divorce? In theory we should marry for life, love our partner for ever and have wonderful children...in practice, it might even be better for the kids to have divorced parents than parents constantly fighting or even live in a cold, loveless household….maybe!
 
So in theory, Sport was probably invented before money, certainly way before paper money and the organisers had fought for millennia  not to mix money and sport. Sport was essentially to raise a healthy youth, drive their energy into doing something healthy instead of fighting between themselves and the games were there to show other cities, civilsations, how healthy their youth was, and that was the shopwindow of a nation. So yes winning was also everything then but since it was to show how great a nation was, the way of winning was very important too (again in theory).
 
In the real world however, we learn that corruption has always been around and that after 3000 years, money has finally managed to take over sport and completely taken the games under control.  Right or wrong is a philosophical question and the right answer today might not be right tomorrow. It's a bit like is it right for a corporation to value its money more than its employees? the answer in theory again is not the same as in practice. It does not mean it will always be like that.
 
Now my more direct answer: Talent, physique, mental strength are all factors we want to see in sport...I think it is fair to say all of us! I want to see Talent v Talent, Talent v Physique and I want to see how mental strength plays up on those athletes and their strengths.  
 
I however observe that out of those 3 key factors, only one is really necessary to win the slams nowaday. Or though we can see some talent, the game has become so physical that talent only last really a few games and mental side is only as good as it’s backed up by ridiculous needed fitness. Make the game hyper fast and talent becomes everything. There was no point for Bruguera or Berasategui to try to win Wimbledon, so they did not even enter.
 
This is to say that money (through sponsors) decides who they want to win and subtly but surely can change conditions, even turn a blind eye on the basic rules (20s for instance), to favour some players over others. So my conclusion is that the question is not whether Sport should be about talent or winning but whether Sport is still sport or a business show?!

noleisthebest wrote:You'd be surprised how many cheats there are among "fun" players.

No, I would not be all that surprised  I think we can see it everyday - people do cheat, there are no two ways about it.  A friend of mine is a semi-serious amateur cyclist.  He is telling me that doping is fairly common even in amateur cycling - and it would seem he is correct:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/why-do-some-amateur-cyclists-resort-to-doping/article13329812/?page=all

But I did not really mean this thread to deal with outright cheating - be it doping or otherwise.  I was more wondering about what it is that we would want the sport to be from among various acceptable alternatives - should it be about fun (and then, fun for spectators, or fun for the players - the two are not quite the same)?, should it be about talent?  should it be about winning?  should it be about elegance?  should it be serious and hard work? should it be about something yet different?

noleisthebest wrote:all those players "doing their job" are there for us, not the other way round.

Very much agree with that (in fact, that is what separates them from recreational players).  But what should players do "for us"?  I think they should try to win within the rules.  If the rules themselves cater to less attractive game, I think it is up to the authorities - not the players - to do something about it.  Players should not decide to play what they consider more attractive tennis even though they will be less successful with it.

I have a question for you - you often bemoan various things about current tennis - slow conditions, physical game, "ugly" tennis, "cowardly" tennis, etc etc.  Is it all really just your dislike of cheating that you think is connected with all that, or would you equally hate all those even if no cheating was involved?

noleisthebest wrote:Just to be able to watch it again in all its beauty and grace, because SB, you forgot one thing, all those players "doing their job" are there for us, not the other way round.

I think this is part of the problem. I want them to play for them and their nation or their love of the game, not for me actually. If they start to play for me, then everything will be done to please me.....including favouring the one I want to see win. Whereas I want sport to be clinically neutral and fair for all. We know it is not cause the organisers care too much about pleasing the crowd...and the more they do to please the crowd...the less I am actually interested.

Tenez wrote:I think this is part of the problem. I want them to play for them and their nation or their love of the game, not for me actually.

Yes, but that is very tricky.  On one hand to want them to play for themselves, yet on the other hand to have them televised across the globe for millions to watch.  The pressure to make it into a spectacle will be tremendous.  All sports carry the risk that they will at least partly turn into pro wrestling.  But that is not even money issue per se - that is really the nature of the beast - even on amateur level.

summerblues wrote:

Tenez wrote:I think this is part of the problem. I want them to play for them and their nation or their love of the game, not for me actually.

Yes, but that is very tricky.  On one hand to want them to play for themselves, yet on the other hand to have them televised across the globe for millions to watch.  The pressure to make it into a spectacle will be tremendous.  All sports carry the risk that they will at least partly turn into pro wrestling.  But that is not even money issue per se - that is really the nature of the beast - even on amateur level.

Yes to watch like lab experience...You do not wish to influence a lab experience, do you?

Tenez wrote:Yes to watch like lab experience...You do not wish to influence a lab experience, do you?

Hehe.  I understand what you are saying and I think many - I would guess most - people want the same.  I am just saying that in reality that is very very hard to accomplish.  Perhaps impossible.

I see this differently - I view sport as a war analogue.  It originated as a way to showcase warrior skills in a safe arena, and caught on because it was far more interesting than war and it showcased honour.  Whatever people pretended about honour in warfare right up to the 20th century, still everyone knew war was messy and nasty.  Sport was the romanticised version of gentlemanly warfare.  Which goes some way to explaining why women's sports are less interesting, too.

It also explains why we feel this conflict between winning at all costs and winning honourably.  In war now in the 21st century we are beasts and unapologetic about it, but we still want sportsmen to be fair and honest.  I do get the money argument, but for the world audience it's not about money.  We crave demonstrations of human possibility, what can be done and what kind of person can do it.

I'll never forget the comment from the US relay team in the Atlanta Olympics when the Canadians blew by them for gold - we didn't lose, we just didn't win.  Not sure I'll ever completely parse that!  But even the concept of winning is a vague one here.  I suspect that if you win but know you're less talented then you have to win a lot to feel you're really a winner, and if you feel you are the most talented then losing is a blip until it becomes frequent.  Point being, winning is not really the determinant.  There are many sports where a winning percentage over 50 is all it takes, there's no expectation to crush every opponent.  The satisfaction for players comes from good performance, the great feeling of good execution, and the satisfaction for spectators comes from seeing a contest of skills not a war of attrition.  We all accept the element of chance and we enjoy suspense, so we can relish a contest that ends with the defeat of our chosen player as long as we aren't too invested in the war analogy.  And I think most sports aficionados expect a contest to be between two people each trying to win rather than trying to prevent a win by the other.  Chess masters don't play for a stalemate either.

bluenose wrote:I see this differently - I view sport as a war analogue.  It originated as a way to showcase warrior skills in a safe arena, and caught on because it was far more interesting than war and it showcased honour.  Whatever people pretended about honour in warfare right up to the 20th century, still everyone knew war was messy and nasty.  Sport was the romanticised version of gentlemanly warfare.  Which goes some way to explaining why women's sports are less interesting, too.

That's roughly what I say in my first paragraph too. You just say it in better English for sure!

It also explains why we feel this conflict between winning at all costs and winning honourably. In war now in the 21st century we are beasts and unapologetic about it, but we still want sportsmen to be fair and honest. I do get the money argument, but for the world audience it's not about money. We crave demonstrations of human possibility, what can be done and what kind of person can do it.

Good point....For us it's not about money....but the fact is we put our money in what we want to see. If it is going to increase business to favour one player over the other, then they will do it. Because Pete was not that a popular player, they slowed conds down a bit to give Agassi a bit more of a chance. Same with Fed v Nadal. It's so clear that money flaws the "lab experience" sport should be about.

I'll never forget the comment from the US relay team in the Atlanta Olympics when the Canadians blew by them for gold - we didn't lose, we just didn't win. Not sure I'll ever completely parse that! But even the concept of winning is a vague one here. I suspect that if you win but know you're less talented then you have to win a lot to feel you're really a winner, and if you feel you are the most talented then losing is a blip until it becomes frequent. Point being, winning is not really the determinant. There are many sports where a winning percentage over 50 is all it takes, there's no expectation to crush every opponent. The satisfaction for players comes from good performance, the great feeling of good execution, and the satisfaction for spectators comes from seeing a contest of skills not a war of attrition. We all accept the element of chance and we enjoy suspense, so we can relish a contest that ends with the defeat of our chosen player as long as we aren't too invested in the war analogy. And I think most sports aficionados expect a contest to be between two people each trying to win rather than trying to prevent a win by the other. Chess masters don't play for a stalemate either.

That was more true before "professional sport". Nowadays it's simply about winning money and the lucrative contracts....except maybe for athletes which have so much talent that they can still win in style! No many out there for sure.

summerblues wrote:
I have a question for you - you often bemoan various things about current tennis - slow conditions, physical game, "ugly" tennis, "cowardly" tennis, etc etc.  Is it all really just your dislike of cheating that you think is connected with all that, or would you equally hate all those even if no cheating was involved?

I think I answered your question already:

noleisthebest wrote:
On a level field it all evens out until things get out of control.
And they have gone out of control in tennis. Players have tournament directors as friends. The power has gone to their heads so much they even say it in public. There are somebodies  and nobodies in locker rooms now.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/snooker/25816658

That sums it up nicely.

FedererKing wrote:http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/snooker/25816658

That sums it up nicely.

You wrote that didn't you?

I liked that:

In the hands of Novak Djokovic, Rafael Nadal and Andy Murray, a tennis racquet is a rock hammer and a tennis court a quarry. In the hands of Roger Federer, a tennis racquet is a paint brush and a tennis court a canvas.

Good article.
Prodigies are so rare in any area of life and when they turn up they shine the light of beauty around them and often inspire a whole new wave of romanticism.
I'd like to add one more gem to the collection of athletes from that article. She was like a ray of happiest sunshine:



PS
I have just realised this link does not play the clip on this website, but has to be watch directly through Youtube. it really is worth a look.

She was a gracious athlete executing what is now considered simple moves. Could she look as gracious executing todays more complex and demanding moves?
 
Federer can still look gracious and win in today's laborious game.