Pujalistic sports are for Neandrathals

What a waste of time, no matter what the sport. Hockey, Football, Boxing, wrestling, martial whatever. Any human being seeking to better themselves will reject these and many other forms of institutionlized violence that are constantly glorified by our media and society.

Professionals do get paid

Aleast professionals get paid for what they do. What about all those college players? No one cares about them?

The fact is that playing football is a choice. Just like those that go hiking in the bush, there is some danger in taking part in high-risk activities. Looking at the vast numbers of children and adults that play football, the risk seems to be quite limited.

The majority that object to football do not do so because of potential injuries; it's about an ideology that no one should be allowed to part in combative sports. They use rhetoric to forward their personal worldview (see rangergord).

Football was a great sport for me to play in my late teens and early adulthood. I certainly did not consider it a waste of time. I learned a lot, made many friendships, and got all my youthful energy out in a responsible way.

people and animals

I miss being a defensive back and hitting wide receivers so hard you could hear the' whoosh' as all the air left their lungs, the pass rendered incomplete. Then they'd flop around like fish on the turf while I ran back to the huddle. A good, clean hit, no injury, so no guilt on my part.

Yesterday I carried a Daddy Longlegs out of my office and set it free on the ground outside.

One can play contact sports without being a monster.

Most martial arts are more about self-defence than attacking people as far as I know.

Fighting during a game (hockey, football, whatever) should be grounds for immediate ejection IMO. There's a difference between games with a physical component and violence.

Some people like rough and tumble sports. That's OK. Using animals as entertainment such as dog-fighting and rodeo however, is just plain wrong.

You are free men

Knock yourself out. I do not lobby to stop people from playing violent games but I also do not have to accept the glorification and worship of institutionalized violence as being beneficial to society. Professional sport relys on glorification to fill the stands with paying fans. Without them the sport would not occupy front stage. I am not one of them and I do not encourage my children to participate.

ya got it wrong Gord

It's knock the other guy out, not yourself!

According to my reading of the article, it seems the problems stem a lot from the union, not so much the league, and in particular, the one man running the union. Perhaps Mr. Warnica considers the union part of the league? If not, he hasn't done a bang up job of summarizing the article's contents. Saying it's the NFL denying ex-players their benefits is erroneous and misleading as near as I can tell based upon the linked article.

Comparing dog-fighting to contacts sports however, is ludicrous as Right to Bear has already pointed out.

In that way professional sports is akin to the opera, theatre, movies, all of which find drama (and paying customers) in death and conflict. Even ballet has its share of women with crippled feet.

I agree with you that professional sports has huge problems. I disagree that contact sports in and of themselves are a detriment to society. I think if you want to condemn professional activities that use violence as a way to get people through the gate you should cast a wider net. Would you let your children go see Hamlet?

oops

The writer using the alias 'Sharing is Good' made the comment I referred to, not 'Right to Bear'.

Violence is awesome!

I object to the objection to violent games.

I was never more at peace then when training at martial arts. It was a tremendous drain of any pent-up aggression you might have. We'd wallop each other for a couple of hours and leave the gym feeling pleasantly tired and totally benign. There's nothing quite so effective at reminding you not to start a dumb fight, than regularly getting hit.

Fighting (and hockey and other contact games) also sharpens reflexes, conditions the body, and clarifies the vision. As much as it's good to use the mind, it's also good to be fit, on your toes, alert, and able to throw and take a punch.

And I'm a *nice* man.

Personally, I believe that most men are not any less bred to fight than the average pitbull. How else did our ancestors pass on DNA in the savage times than by being survivors into their breeding years? Why else do we snarl and snap so often and dangerously?

I am not at all convinced that the right goal is to eliminate men's warlike tendencies, as much as it is to acknowledge it and move that energy towards productive and progressive goals.

For all those who say unions have no more purpose...

Consider that the NFL has arguably the weakest player union in pro sports, thanks to Pete Rozelle and Paul Tagliabue. If players are being coerced into playing hurt, that's a workplace issue and damn right the union should be raising hell. Have you heard a single peep out of the union? Have you heard anything from the union on any issue?

Whenever there is money to be made, there will be workers exploited. We tend to make light of disputes between leagues and their players as nothing but millionaires arguing with billionaires, but there are real-life issues at stake, just like at any workplace.

violence

I guess I'd better clear some stuff up before Mr Stump writes again. I agree with some of what he said - we are all attracted to violence, especially while young and stupid. When we get older and the testosterone wears off, we start to come to our senses.

Perhaps some of my aversion is due to physical abuse as a very young person, which happened.

But let it be known that it is testosterone that drives us to madness, and it is "natural", because we're on natural drugs (endorphins), and NOT rational.

There was no intent to blast Mr Stump, nor cast aspersions on his views. It is just that we have to learn to ourgrow our need for violence, which feeds on itself, until we are all abused.

Ummm

I don't believe I said we're attracted to violence.

I don't consider contact sports "violent". As I stated earlier, violence (to me) is intentionally huring someone, be it physically, or mentally.

I am sorry for the abuse you suffered. Truly.

I've always been suspicious

I've always been suspicious of these sudden heart-attacks that young healthy male athletes sometimes suffer on the field. What exactly are they pumping these boys with? I know amphetamine use in professional sport is one of the worst-kept secrets, but I'm surprised no one even raises on eyebrow when this kind of blatant and tragic give-away happens.

feeling the heat

Some of the heart attacks may be drug-related.

But, bad things can happen withoug drugs too, especially if it's a case of encasing a big man in insulating plastic and foam, then forcing them to exercise at their peak level for an extended period of time at the hottest time of the year, when their fitness level may be at its worst. To my recollection, the incidents you're describing often happen at training camps in the summer, at least in the case of football.

tough "love"

Ah, yes, . . another code word to mean corporal or psychological punishment. Those who grew up in authoritarian homes believe in hurting others. It was done to them, and they will do it to others. Passing it on is a generational tradition, as the tortured souls beat their own kids, hating themselves as they do it, (or loving "getting back" at those who beat them). Recriminations, if they come, arrive later.

Whenever I hear someone tell me how his parents disciplined him and he "respects" them for it, I know he is lying, that deep in his heart he is still the angry and abused little kid striking back, teaching his kids how to beat his grandkids.

It doesn't have to be beatings, either. Psychological abuse hurts longer.

Yes, tough 'love", . . it's like "compassionate conservative, isnt' it?

Choices (not the yuppie supermarket)

Two things that people are either taught, or learn the hard way. The second way takes a lot longer IMO. For those whose upbringing featured a paucity of good teachers to pass on that knowledge, do we let them just keeping mistakes (that cost us all), or extend a helping hand?

Shouldn't the law of the jungle be reserved for the animals that live there? I'm pretty sure we can better.

tough love

Where's the love in physical and psychological abuse? Where's the love in letting someone keep falling down and refusing to help them get back up?

My too few, too infrequent, and too short experiences with love tell me that real love, isn't what you're describing, and further, that real love, with it's emphasis on compassion, support, and mutual assistance, left me far stronger and far more likely to succeed with my plans and goals than the 'tough' variety.

love

Stump is absolutely right. Tough love doesn't mean giving criticism or little help, but providing help and assurance in appropriate circumstance and measure.

We get enough criticism, especially that disguised as "tough love".

Yes, we can go overboard when praise or encouragement is unwarranted - and those few spoiled brats are well-known and used for example - but these are usually the visible minority.

But, again, why are we celebrating every "hit" by a linebacker? Why would anyone watch boxing or the white-trash expositions like "wrestling"? Isn't this glorificatrion of violence more than a little unhealthy psychologically, as well as physically?