Originally posted by trev33That argument falls down, though, if you accept that the person listening to commentators is also able to think for himself. Good commentators don't just tell you what's happening: they help you improve your understanding of the game.
you're not getting it at all. the original point we're talking about is that people who have played the game have a better understanding of it than others who never have, while [b]both watch the game.
but i would say in that experiment that you would get one guy who is talking about things he was told to say by the tv people and another who has played ...[text shortened]... who has never played will know nothing of that and imo will lose any argument over a play.[/b]
Take another example. I play cricket: I'm a swing bowler. I can also explain to other people how to swing the ball. But this is not because I can do it...my natural action tends to just work, so it's difficult to teach that. No - I can explain it for two reasons:
1. I've seen experts on television explain how it works
2. I understand the theoretical aerodynamics (not entirely necessary, but hey...)
Playing the game is a short-cut to understanding the game. But it's not the only way - there is no real limitation to what can be learned via observation. Ask any educational theorist - different people learn things in different ways, and not everyone learns by doing.
Originally posted by trev33WRONG. You said you agree with uzless and his argument was about people who can't play. Just look at the thread title!
WRONG. mourinho's dad played for portugal so he was obviously brought up in a football atmosphere plus he did start off as a player, he just sucked at it. no one in this thread has said that you have to play a sport [b]professionally to understand it, just by playing in the park as a child you get more of an understanding than your avarge armchair only wa ...[text shortened]... even only as kids messing about growing up. it all counts in growing your football knowledge.[/b]
His first sentence reads:
I always find it amazing that many of the guys who talk and watch the most sports are the same guys that can't play.
And who exactly never played a sport they like? Everybody can put a pair of shoes and kick a ball.
- Joined
- 10 Jan 08
- Moves
- 22875
Originally posted by Palynkathe fact that your nitpicking proves my point.
WRONG. You said you agree with uzless and his argument was about people who [b]can't play. Just look at the thread title!
His first sentence reads:
I always find it amazing that many of the guys who talk and watch the most sports are the same guys that can't play.
And who exactly never played a sport they like? Everybody can put a pair of shoes and kick a ball.[/b]
thread title should've read 'don't play', that's what he meant and that's what we've been discussing. read the whole thread again.
again we're not just talking about football, many people like sports that for whatever reason have been unable to play so far... popularity in their country, financial reasons, whatever. it happens.
Originally posted by trev33Please. I'm nitpicking? Just look at uzless' post ffs.
the fact that your nitpicking proves my point.
thread title should've read 'don't play', that's what he meant and that's what we've been discussing. read the whole thread again.
again we're not just talking about football, many people like sports that for whatever reason have been unable to play so far... popularity in their country, financial reasons, whatever. it happens.
Most of the guys who talk and watch sports are the guys that can't play.
Even IF we abstract from "can't play" and substitute with "have never played" it's a ridiculous statement because it's clearly untrue that MOST of the guys who talk and watch sports have NEVER played.
You can say I'm nitpicking, but maybe you should be more careful with whom you agree.
- Joined
- 10 Jan 08
- Moves
- 22875
Originally posted by Palynkai agreed with him with regards to people who have played the sport having a better understating of it while watching than others who have not played. that was the main point of his post i believe.
Please. I'm nitpicking? Just look at uzless' post ffs.
Most of the guys who talk and watch sports are the guys that can't play.
Even IF we abstract from "can't play" and substitute with "have never played" it's a ridiculous statement because it's clearly untrue that MOST of the guys who talk and watch sports have NEVER played.
You can say I'm nitpicking, but maybe you should be more careful with whom you agree.
Good thread!
I do believe you have a better understanding of the game if you have played it. Even within the game of hockey, players look at the game differently. Forwards have one look at the game and their role in it. Defencemen are looking at the game a little differently than the forwards are. Then you have the Goalie who sees the game in another light altogether.
I have enjoyed playing and watching the game since I was about 6 I guess it would be. I have fond memories of out with school friends playing on a pond which we would scrape, and maintain ourselves including the flooding of the ice. We used boots for nets back then, many moons ago.
Every NHL team today have set plays that they use during the course of a game. I find it fun to try and find these set plays. I am impressed at how knowledgeable some of the people who do the games are about game who have never played it before. I do also notice at times, where they just completely missed what was going on. What truely irks me though is when they use baseball or football terms for things going on in the game of hockey. Talk about apples and oranges.
Just my 3 cents worth.
Originally posted by shortcircuitI am a "jock" you idiot. I've probably played more sports than you at a competitive level.
You are such a dim witted jerk to broadly categorize jocks as half-wits, and then to assume that someone who has never understood the "inner game" because they haven't played could even come close to the true experiences of being there and playing the game, is absurd. But, coming from you Chowder, I am not surprised at all that you would regurgitate suc ...[text shortened]... you call us, I am more than willing to match up with your mental acumen (or lack thereof).
I wasn't generalizing, I was making the point that a half-wit jock, like you, having more insight into 'the game' just because he was there is absurd.
Originally posted by PalynkaWell said, Uzless seems to completely miss the fact that most people who talk a lot about a sport that they don't play are still people who have an educated opinion on the subject BECAUSE they have played it in the past
Most of the guys who talk and watch sports are the guys that can't play.
Even IF we abstract from "can't play" and substitute with "have never played" it's a ridiculous statement because it's clearly untrue that MOST of the guys who talk and watch sports have NEVER played.
You can say I'm nitpicking, but maybe you should be more careful with whom you agree.[/b]
Originally posted by quackquackHere you expose your lack of understanding that in a game, such as hockey, EVERY MOMENT is nuanced. A player on the ice is making a decision every single second he is on the ice. The play that occurs is a result of the sum total of decisions made not only by the player with the puck, but also by the decisions made by the people WITHOUT THE PUCK.
Athletes continually argue that they are the only ones who really know the There is no reason to think sports is any more complicatedb or nuanced than other walks of life and the fact that people watch them on a regular basis without feeling inadequate is further evidence that they have sufficent knowledge to watch.
As a player, you are making countless decisions on the ice and then 1 second later you are re-evaulating that decision based on the how your decision and the decisions of the other players are affecting the play at that given moment in time. There are literally an almost infinite amount of possible outcomes of a play at any given moment in time.
To experience a game on this level (understanding what each player is actually thinking and going through their thought process along with them judging which decisions were correct and which ones were wrong) is what I find the most enjoyable about watching a game.
Your average "fan" cannot do this, or can only partially do this. They are more content to just "watch" what happens and aren't really involved in following the thought process. Your average "fan" just wants to see a big hit or a nice shot or a good save and if none of these are happening, your average fan will say the game is "boring".
It's surficial understanding versus complete understanding.
In order to get complete understanding you need to have played the game to a higher level than just pickup- or kids leagues. Several years playing against good competition is the only way you attain this kind of knowledge of the game.
Undertanding what the players are thinking ALL THE TIME is the key. I doubt most fans have this.
1 edit
Originally posted by scacchipazzoLook commentators only sound good to people who never really played. They think to themselves, "wow, this guys is telling me things that make sense to me and I understand more now than i did before".
Good one! Many, many sports experts never played the game and some who played it at the highest level made horrible commentators. ONe of the best local sportswriters was made to cooment about sports because that was the only job opening at his paper and they liked how he wrote.
Ya, well all that proves is that you didn't know much to begin with.
Most people who've played think commentators are idiots because they rarely FULLY explain something, or that they never explain the subtleties of the game and therefore only give partial explanations of plays.
Trust me, if you and i were to watch a hockey game and i had ear plugs that blocked out what the commentator said about a play, then i took the earplugs out and explained to you the play.....I guarantee you my explanation would be 10 times more indepth and more often than not would actually CONTRADICT what the stupid commentator was yapping on about.
Again it's surficial knowledge versus complete knowledge.
In hockey, Kelly Hrudey (ex LA goalie) is the only really good commentator on tv because he'll comment on what players were thinking when the player did it...and that is the only way to really explain a play.
1 edit
Originally posted by Palynkathe implied intention is that we are comparing guys who are good at the sport versus those who are bad at the sport or who never played in the first place.
Please. I'm nitpicking? Just look at uzless' post ffs.
Most of the guys who talk and watch sports are the guys that can't play.
Even IF we abstract from "can't play" and substitute with "have never played" it's a ridiculous statement because it's clearly untrue that MOST of the guys who talk and watch sports have NEVER played.
You can say I'm nitpicking, but maybe you should be more careful with whom you agree.
EDIT: You should agree/disagree with the point being made...the person making it shouldn't make any difference!
😛
Originally posted by Jamesqtum, no in fact i'm saying people who have played in the past are the only ones who TRULY understand the game. Perhaps you made the same mistake that palynka did.
Well said, Uzless seems to completely miss the fact that most people who talk a lot about a sport that they don't play are still people who have an educated opinion on the subject BECAUSE they have played it in the past
Please re-read with this in mind.
1 edit
Originally posted by darvlayhey so did I but I wouldn't say that I completely understand what happens on each play.
I learned a lot about football from playing Madden. Does that count?
It doesn't help that tv only shows us the o-line and the D-line and quaterback running back. the receivers and secondary are off-screen so it's very hard to really know why something happened if you can't see the whole field.
Anyone can learn the "system" that a team is employing but it's the decisions made by the players acting WITHIN that system that determine outcomes of the games.
Originally posted by uzlessI do actually agree with you somewhat. I dot think a person who has never played a game can learn it to a large extent but I do agree that if you play the game you can learn it completely and in a much quicker timeframe.
hey so did I but I wouldn't say that I completely understand what happens on each play.
It doesn't help that tv only shows us the o-line and the D-line and quaterback running back. the receivers and secondary are off-screen so it's very hard to really know why something happened if you can't see the whole field.
Anyone can learn the "system" that a ...[text shortened]... sions made by the players acting WITHIN that system that determine outcomes of the games.
I feel like I know Hockey well enough after watching it for decades but I certainly don't kid myself into thinking I know the game completely or at a level with someone who plays the game regularly.