Saturday Commentary: No Sport Is Boring

As I sit here and watch the morning foursomes at the Ryder Cup, watching the momentum of the matches swing back and forth, I wondered how people could possibly find this boring. But that got me thinking on the larger scale. What makes one think a particular sport is boring?

I believe one answer is the personality of person watching the sport. The type of person that needs constant action of some sort is not going to be entertained by a methodical sport such as golf. But likewise, someone that likes to take things slow may not be interested in a fast paced game of basketball. Also, the personality of the society plays an important role. Everyone around the world is interested in football, but for Americans, it is a different type of football than the rest of the world plays.

Another factor contributing to the judgment of boring is that people may simply not understand the what is involved in the sport. I use hockey as a good example of this. There is continuous action, but people complain that there is not enough scoring. However, a 28-21 game of football is comparable in scoring to a 4-3 game of hockey. Both would have the same number of scores, but more Americans grew up with football, and know the game better than they know hockey. So, that lack of knowledge about the sport affects their opinion on it. I believe this also happens with golf and soccer. People do not understand how much skill and effort is required to succeed, so they dismiss them.

Ultimately, I view someone declaring a sport boring the same way I view reviews. It is all opinion. So, when someone says that a sport is boring, all they are really saying is that they think that sport is boring.

Saturday Commentary: Brett Favre the Captain

Brett Favre, before playing in an actual game for the New York Jets, has been named the captain for the team. He says that he has not earned it. Sports commentators that I have heard say he should be captain because who else on the team should get it. Favre is their best player. It should be noted that the players voted on this, and the last captain, Chad Pennington, was released when Favre came in. Since this is my blog, here is what I think.

I agree with Favre in that he has not earned the title of captain. Simply put, he has not had time to do anything. He has only been with the team for around a month. I have not looked at the Jets roster, but I am pretty certain that someone on the roster has been with the team longer than Favre has. Surely, someone else has leadership ability. But of course, the players did vote for this. I just find it very self-depricating.

I completely disagree that the best player on the team should be captain. Yes, in many instances the best player on the team is the leader in the clubhouse, and therefore the captain, but this does not have to be the case. Jason Veritek is the captain of the Boston Red Sox, but he is not their best player. However, he is the leader of the team. It takes the respect of the team and ability to lead to be captain, not skill on the playing field.

I would not call it wrong that Favre is the captain, just not entirely right. I am sure Favre has the respect of the Jets players from his time in the league, but this does seem like more of a marketing decision.

Saturday Commentary: Return of the Blade Runner

No, Harrison Ford is not reprising his Blade Runner role as Rick Deckard. I am talking about a different blade runner, named Oscar Pistorius. This South African, double-amputee was born without a fibulae in each his legs. In order to run, he uses a blade like invention attached to what is left of his lower leg.

On January 14, the International Association of Athletics Federation ruled Pistorius ineligible to compete against "able-bodied" athletes because he would have an advantage against them. They believed that he used less energy running than runners with both of their legs. Their proof was a study done by a German professor named Gert Peter-Brueggerman. Pistorius appealed this decision to the Court of Arbitration for Sports. The CAS ruled in favor of Pistorius, claiming that the IAAF had failed to fully prove their case, citing an MIT study done by professor Hugh M. Herr that disagreed with Peter-Bueggerman's study.

However, being eligible to run in the Olympics does not mean that he necessarily will. Pistorius needs to improve his 400m time by nearly a second to qualify for the Olympics. If this does not occur, one possibility being floated around is that he could be named an alternate for the relay team. This would at least give him the possibility of participating in the Olympics.

The thing that is significant about this ruling, is that finally, a ruling body helps an athlete that has not done anything wrong. Pistorius did not ask to have his legs removed. Life would probably be easier for him if he had both of his legs. For the IAAF to say that he had an advantage over other runners was foolish and short-sighted. They saw something that was different, and took the easy way out. Maintaining status quo usually is the easy way out for a ruling body. The NCAA has been guilty of this on too many occasions, but that is a topic for another day. Issues are not always black and white, and fairness lies somewhere in the gray area. When the gray area is ignored, so is justice. Luckily, the CAS was there to favor the athlete, instead of status quo.

Information for this article was taken from the MSNBC.com article on the CAS ruling.