Here are my thoughts since these subjects are in the news.
I think Pete Rose should be considered for and voted into the Baseball Hall of Fame. Here is my reasoning. Yes, gambling and the implications, if not the reality, for throwing a game is rightly considered the greatest enemy to the integrity of the sport. (I would argue that illegal drug use and performance enhancers have overtaken gaming/game throwing to share the greatest threat category, however). So I was certainly in agreement when Pete Rose was banned for life, even though as a fan, I felt the agony along with him of such a finality.
Having said that, however, I have always felt he should be inducted according to his real accomplishments in the sport, minus the punishment he received. Punishing for a wrong doing must logically be separated by a fair minded people from now erasing, shunning or denying what was good and valid in his achievements. If his performance and statistics were achieved because he had clubbed guys on the opposing team on the head before the game, LOL, thus lowering their stats to increase his, of course that would be different. I'm being a little silly in that example just to make a point. Gambling and game throwing, while a severe threat to the sport overall, do not automatically mean either his accomplishments were ill gotten gains either via performance enhancement OR performance degradation of opponents, unless a conspiracy was uncovered where everyone was throwing games in unison. Without such evidence it is obvious that Pete Rose was correctly punished for his proven singular role, but he should still be recognized for his valid and legitimate accomplishments.
This is particularly obvious because after Pete Rose, we now have decades of "asterisk" baseball, where a muddle of baseball achievements will always be questioned because of the years of performance enhancement, such as steroid, usage. This era, by negative example, demonstrate even more the singularity of Pete Rose's misdeed and bad choice. While he committed an error that is considered a grave threat to the sport, the sport itself is now filled with statistics that result from widespread collusion in the use of performance enhancing drugs. This makes what Pete Rose did put in its proper perspective: punishment by banning from the game, yes, but ignoring his legitimate achievements, no. Consider him eligible and be honest in appraising his record and put him in his place in the Baseball Hall of Fame, is my advice.
This makes me think of Michael Vick, as I have thought about him during this week and these past months. Again, as a people, not just sports fans, you must ask yourself one question: Do you believe in punishment followed by a chance at rehabilitation and redemption, or not? Don't be hypocrites. Either you believe in the theory that one punishes according to the crime (and he was given a prison sentence, which he served, fines, loss of his income and job, etc, all as punishment and consequences, such as loss of endorsement opportunities) or you don't. You either believe a fit sentence is adjudicated, served, and then considered completed, or you do not. If you do not that means you don't think anyone can ever be punished enough, and that is a breakdown of both civil and moral code. Secondly, either you believe in rehabilitation and redemption, or you do not. Do not be a hypocrite and say that you are enlightened etc yet you will never trust someone again once he or she had erred. Either you believe in opportunity for redemption, or you do not. If you do not then you seem to fall into a category of considering others (not yourself of course) of being "once stained always stained." Like the hypocrisy of some about punishment, hypocrisy of not believing in redemption is also a breakdown of both civil and moral code.
So I believe that if a team wants to give a chance to Michael Vick, he should be made eligible and allowed to get on with life, consistent with what people SAY they believe about both punishment and rehabilitation/redemption.
Best of luck to both men, and all other people who find themselves in such a situation, and also those in the responsible positions to decide not to be hypocrites.
Showing posts with label sports. Show all posts
Showing posts with label sports. Show all posts
Monday, July 27, 2009
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Friday, October 31, 2008
Hockey coach Catholic priest, 93, to be honored
What a great story this is! Let me add my congratulations and birthday wishes.
http://www.canada.com/windsorstar/news/story.html?id=27603084-7249-473d-bd03-7463ddadfeec
snip
Tribute to Father Cullen
By Dave Waddell, Windsor Star
Published: Wednesday, October 29, 2008
With a teaching and coaching career that lasted nearly a half century at Assumption Secondary School, Father Ronald Cullen watched a whirlwind of change take place over that time.
For the many he counseled, from the future pro athletes to state Supreme Court judges to the plain old solid citizens he valued as much as any, the lessons learned from a blunt-talking Catholic priest have helped form the blueprint of their lives.
Monday at the Fogolar Furlan Club many of them will gather to say thank-you to 93-year-old Father Cullen with a night in his honour.
"I'm going to enjoy meeting a lot of people I haven't talked to in many years," said Father Cullen, who now resides in Toronto.
"Once you know it's for charity, you jump right in."
In addition to honouring Father Cullen, the dinner is aimed at raising funds to help the University of Windsor Lancers men's hockey team spend a week working on a Habitat for Humanity project in New Orleans.
The idea for the project and the evening in Father Cullen's honour came from Lancer coach and Assumption graduate Kevin Hamlin.
"This is an opportunity to share and hear the story of Father Cullen," Hamlin said. "At 93, sometimes we just don't know how many more opportunities we'll have to say thank-you.
"He played an important role in so many lives. I can't think of a more appropriate honour than to say thank-you and at the same time raise money to help the less fortunate.
"Father Cullen was about giving people life lessons and that's what we're trying to do with this trip to New Orleans."
http://www.canada.com/windsorstar/news/story.html?id=27603084-7249-473d-bd03-7463ddadfeec
snip
Tribute to Father Cullen
By Dave Waddell, Windsor Star
Published: Wednesday, October 29, 2008
With a teaching and coaching career that lasted nearly a half century at Assumption Secondary School, Father Ronald Cullen watched a whirlwind of change take place over that time.
For the many he counseled, from the future pro athletes to state Supreme Court judges to the plain old solid citizens he valued as much as any, the lessons learned from a blunt-talking Catholic priest have helped form the blueprint of their lives.
Monday at the Fogolar Furlan Club many of them will gather to say thank-you to 93-year-old Father Cullen with a night in his honour.
"I'm going to enjoy meeting a lot of people I haven't talked to in many years," said Father Cullen, who now resides in Toronto.
"Once you know it's for charity, you jump right in."
In addition to honouring Father Cullen, the dinner is aimed at raising funds to help the University of Windsor Lancers men's hockey team spend a week working on a Habitat for Humanity project in New Orleans.
The idea for the project and the evening in Father Cullen's honour came from Lancer coach and Assumption graduate Kevin Hamlin.
"This is an opportunity to share and hear the story of Father Cullen," Hamlin said. "At 93, sometimes we just don't know how many more opportunities we'll have to say thank-you.
"He played an important role in so many lives. I can't think of a more appropriate honour than to say thank-you and at the same time raise money to help the less fortunate.
"Father Cullen was about giving people life lessons and that's what we're trying to do with this trip to New Orleans."
Saturday, July 26, 2008
Question for engineers, landscapers, whoever
I'm reading about all the drownings around the NYC coastline. I'm one of those who can't swim in the ocean because I can't swim well enough to handle waves or even mild current. So I can relate to how people get pulled out and go under. So I just had a thought, which may be totally impractical technically, but since it's on my mind, here it is. Is there any way that technically a net could be installed for a section of beach at about the five foot depth? In this section people, especially kids, could still enjoy the surf and ocean water, but not be in danger of being swept out because they'd reach the net first. So a small area of the ocean front could be set aside for weak swimmers and kids where this net would run along to catch anyone being swept with their feet out under them, knocked over by surf but not then pulled out, or in any current they can't handle that might pull them out, since the water would flow through the net but not the person. This might not be practical (I dunno) as far as installing it, but why not? If one can drive pilings for docks into sand, then why not a piling every ten yard with net across it? I get that with the tide it has to be strong netting but that's not a new invention. And this is probably not practical at packed urban beaches, but then again, why not if the viewpoint is that this is kind of a virtual contained spot for weak swimmers and kids? Hmm. I just thought I'd put that idea out there. I'm only the idea lady, not the nut and bolt person. And before insurance companies start to hate on me, I read one of the moms of a drowned person questioning the training and number of lifeguards. So I think the likelihood of someone getting stuck in one of the nets is small (especially as a lifeguard would be dedicated to that section) and actually that would help insurance issues because weak swimmers would be advised to stick to that area. It would be guaranteed and checked daily that there are no drop offs and so forth, so it's extra safe. I'd want any little kid of mine to be in that area. Hmm. So that's the idea. Resorts may want to think about it; parents might find that a real attraction. Maybe it's already done, or the surge is not the problem it is on Coney Island and so forth. Just a thought.
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
Vocations story: pro soccer player to be priest
What a wonderful young man! Bless him and his family. Prayers for vocations continue.
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0803771.htm
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0803771.htm
Saturday, May 3, 2008
Tragedy at Kentucky Derby-things must change
By now most of you will have read about the victory of Big Brown, with the filly Eight Belles coming in second, only to break both front ankles and have to be euthanized.
I love horses, but I hate thoroughbred racing the way it is done today. I was in college during the era of the great Secretariat. I had a poster of him (and was very disappointed when he died at what I thought was an early age), but I admired the horse, not the sport. Also in college I watched the "battle of the sexes" where the filly Ruffian broke down and was euthanized.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruffian_%28horse%29
(Read the description of her injuries. Imagine how much "fun" that was for us to watch on TV. Not so much.)
Years would go by and I'd never watch any of the races, and often not even realize they are being run on certain days. I remember once in the late 1980's when one Saturday afternoon I was at the frame shop and wealthy women were gabbing about the "Derby party" that afternoon. I didn't even realize the Kentucky Derby was being run.
It's not a sport, and it's certainly not love of animals. It's a business, and like many businesses, what started out as a reasonable thing to do (race fast horses and bet on them) has become a freak show.
Thoroughbred horses are inbred freaks. They are pushed to race when they are between 2-3 years old, which is too young. They are routinely medicated in ways that endanger their health and their ability to stop racing when they are overly strained. The track surfaces are not as safe as they could be. And winners, rather than the most fit, are bred and sold for huge quantities of money. Let me repeat that point. Horses are not bred to be sturdy and fast. They are bred to be fast and to have "winning parents."
I think people need to start a groundswell to revise this entire "sport." First, let's start with agreeing that this is not the place to argue about being vegetarian or a tree hugger. There is nothing wrong with fast and sturdy horses racing and people who like that kind of thing enjoying watching and being in the business. The problem is, though, that thoroughbred racing has become a baby horse eugenics freak show. Too young horses produced in the bizarre world of stud books and superstition and being raced at a too young age and in too dangerous conditions. Horse racing through the ages used to be, "Wow, I have me here a fast horse. Let me race it against your fast horse." Fast sturdy healthy adult horses were brought together to race. There was not a rich man and woman's eugenics freak show where laboratory baby horses are produced from "winning parents" who all share 47% of the same genes. (All thoroughbred horses are descendants of only 3 horses, and thus they share almost half their genes).
I suggest that huge pressure be put on the Jockey Club, the racing sponsors, the track owners, and the breeders, owners and trainers of horses to either change their sport to be healthier and safer for the horses, or stand aside while a new organization comes together to race mature fast horses of all breeds (not just the thoroughbred freak show) in more natural and safe conditions. I'd like to see more breeds at more mature ages race in more safety managed conditions.
I mean, who the F really cares about the record book anyway? Thoroughbred racing is like baseball's steroid era in many ways. No one but the shaking money makers cares about who won in what year. If the sport is so much "fun," then should people not be going for the racing and the betting, and not so that Snot Nose III born of Goober Nose IV won the Freak Cup and is thus going to yield $1 million per hump in stud fees? I mean really, who is kidding who. How enjoyable is watching these races, holding one's breath against a tragedy like Barbaro, and now the filly Eight Belles? Read the comments on any blog site today on this subject. Virtually everyone who is not a fat cat owner is watching a race reluctantly and with a pit in one's stomach dreading a tragic break down. That's why I never watched throughout the years. When I wanted a dose of loving a horse, I went to the stable and groomed some. Like I said, racing is fine, but it must be completely re visioned out of this horrible freak show. I'd be afraid to let a child watch a race, wondering what toothpick legs will snap today and what nightmares the child will have from that. And from the reader post comments I read on blogs, many adults watched reluctantly and will now have to erase Eight Belles from the memory bank, just as we all had to Barbaro not so long ago.
Owners, breeders and trainers. You say you love your horses. Well, stop being millionaire freaks and take some responsibility and man and woman up to revise your entire "sport." Unless you prefer your money with horse blood on it.
I love horses, but I hate thoroughbred racing the way it is done today. I was in college during the era of the great Secretariat. I had a poster of him (and was very disappointed when he died at what I thought was an early age), but I admired the horse, not the sport. Also in college I watched the "battle of the sexes" where the filly Ruffian broke down and was euthanized.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruffian_%28horse%29
(Read the description of her injuries. Imagine how much "fun" that was for us to watch on TV. Not so much.)
Years would go by and I'd never watch any of the races, and often not even realize they are being run on certain days. I remember once in the late 1980's when one Saturday afternoon I was at the frame shop and wealthy women were gabbing about the "Derby party" that afternoon. I didn't even realize the Kentucky Derby was being run.
It's not a sport, and it's certainly not love of animals. It's a business, and like many businesses, what started out as a reasonable thing to do (race fast horses and bet on them) has become a freak show.
Thoroughbred horses are inbred freaks. They are pushed to race when they are between 2-3 years old, which is too young. They are routinely medicated in ways that endanger their health and their ability to stop racing when they are overly strained. The track surfaces are not as safe as they could be. And winners, rather than the most fit, are bred and sold for huge quantities of money. Let me repeat that point. Horses are not bred to be sturdy and fast. They are bred to be fast and to have "winning parents."
I think people need to start a groundswell to revise this entire "sport." First, let's start with agreeing that this is not the place to argue about being vegetarian or a tree hugger. There is nothing wrong with fast and sturdy horses racing and people who like that kind of thing enjoying watching and being in the business. The problem is, though, that thoroughbred racing has become a baby horse eugenics freak show. Too young horses produced in the bizarre world of stud books and superstition and being raced at a too young age and in too dangerous conditions. Horse racing through the ages used to be, "Wow, I have me here a fast horse. Let me race it against your fast horse." Fast sturdy healthy adult horses were brought together to race. There was not a rich man and woman's eugenics freak show where laboratory baby horses are produced from "winning parents" who all share 47% of the same genes. (All thoroughbred horses are descendants of only 3 horses, and thus they share almost half their genes).
I suggest that huge pressure be put on the Jockey Club, the racing sponsors, the track owners, and the breeders, owners and trainers of horses to either change their sport to be healthier and safer for the horses, or stand aside while a new organization comes together to race mature fast horses of all breeds (not just the thoroughbred freak show) in more natural and safe conditions. I'd like to see more breeds at more mature ages race in more safety managed conditions.
I mean, who the F really cares about the record book anyway? Thoroughbred racing is like baseball's steroid era in many ways. No one but the shaking money makers cares about who won in what year. If the sport is so much "fun," then should people not be going for the racing and the betting, and not so that Snot Nose III born of Goober Nose IV won the Freak Cup and is thus going to yield $1 million per hump in stud fees? I mean really, who is kidding who. How enjoyable is watching these races, holding one's breath against a tragedy like Barbaro, and now the filly Eight Belles? Read the comments on any blog site today on this subject. Virtually everyone who is not a fat cat owner is watching a race reluctantly and with a pit in one's stomach dreading a tragic break down. That's why I never watched throughout the years. When I wanted a dose of loving a horse, I went to the stable and groomed some. Like I said, racing is fine, but it must be completely re visioned out of this horrible freak show. I'd be afraid to let a child watch a race, wondering what toothpick legs will snap today and what nightmares the child will have from that. And from the reader post comments I read on blogs, many adults watched reluctantly and will now have to erase Eight Belles from the memory bank, just as we all had to Barbaro not so long ago.
Owners, breeders and trainers. You say you love your horses. Well, stop being millionaire freaks and take some responsibility and man and woman up to revise your entire "sport." Unless you prefer your money with horse blood on it.
Tuesday, September 18, 2007
Talk shows: turning the other mean cheek
I’ve turned on the computer earlier in the day than I usually do, because it’s obvious that I need to share how fed up I am with something. I’ve even postponed the refreshing hair wash that I was going to give myself (using a wonderful Bath & Body Works Eucalptus Spearmint Volumizing Shampoo and Conditioner I’ve recently discovered). So haters who like to mock my lack of being “hot” can rest assured I’m typing this with hair that needs to be washed LOL. I need to get a few blogs out of the way first.
This blogging will condemn most conservative talk show hosts. Now, left wingers, do not rejoice, because I’m just adding them to my disappointment list, where you have already resided for a very long time. Because I “work” (the spiritual directing and writing) at home, and do not have a TV, my radio is on for most of the day. I enjoy getting to know the “radio personalities” and listening to the issues, and of course, being quite conservative in many issues (I used to be classical liberal but that has become depraved in values and stupid in vital issues that liberal has no meaning or significance in my life anymore) I’ve listened to quite a few of the conservatives. I used to listen to them on Fox, but have pretty much stopped. Patriotism is not jingoism alternated with celebrity scuttlebutt. The people who I cheered because they correctly identified and fought the “War on Christmas” (which is true and if anything is understated) have become boring in their yapping. So I’ve stopped listening to the ones I used to listen to on Fox (and you know who the big names are) because I just can’t stand their solution-less whining. True, O’Reilly has gone after lenient judges and pedophilia, which I applaud. But the growing emphasis on celebrity and pop psychology has turned me off. Hannity is just shrieking this past year, and his lack of charity toward a Catholic priest, turning a great chance to talk about morals and societal/individual pressures into a total waste, turned me off. I wrote to Colmes (his Fox talk show co-host) to say that while I don’t agree with Colmes about as much, gosh, at least he is civilized and kind. Even the daytime hosts that I used to like, Shepherd Smith, Neil Cavuto, John Gibson…. I don’t know if it’s producer advice or programming necessity but they, especially Smith, developed a slyness of style that didn’t work for Aaron Brown of CNN (remember him?) and is not working for them. Cavuto and Gibson are still very good and I’m not writing against them, but I’m saying since I dropped out of the line up, I don’t catch them anymore.
So I had turned to listening to Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, and the Schnitt show. I’m listening to Beck now. I cannot believe what has happened to him. He has been virally attacked by a combination of Messiah complex and being barn sour. (For those of you who are non pastoral, barn sour refers to a horse that is kept in the barn so much that it turns ornery and mean). He has such a personal meanness now that I actually don’t recognize him. He thinks he has no choices but act this way, but he is wrong. When mocking opponents or stories that are or may be ridiculous he twists the knife in an unbelievable way (barn sour), and calls himself justified needing to “wake people up” (Messiah complex). Rush I dropped because his shtick is so obnoxious that it cannot be tolerated even as self parody anymore. Like the others he turns the other mean cheek. By this I mean that because liberals are mean and have virtually destroyed the morals of this country, he is satirical and mean in return. So I’ve turned him off too. Schnitt was an experiment, and there are times he was interesting to listen to. Same with McConnell. But then it seems as soon as I start listening, what I hear in the first few shows starts to evolve into something very unpleasant. It’s almost like just because I’m listening they think they can become smug, sly and hostile toward stupid call-ins and about their superior insight in general. And trust me, as with the average Joe, I go into every communications encounter erring on the side of openness and being ready to like the person and listen to their message (though of course I am not persuaded by anyone, since I already know my stance on all issues. I like to hear the public forum discussion however). So I’ve turned them off too. But Beck in particular has seemed to lose his balance and his mind the past few weeks. I’m not surprised because like I said, there is a pattern that I’ve noticed when I listen to “radio personalities” that at some point they become inflated to the point of being counterproductive, to put it politely. So it’s going to be “Bye, bye, bye Beck” I deem.
So what am I listening to? ESPN Sports Radio. Sports has always been the refuge of the real. Even if games are fixed and players are arrested, it still is a physical event where someone and a ball needs to get from one spot to another, and people enjoy watching it and talking about it. I’ve always enjoyed watching sports (when channel surfing I’d stop for just about any sport, if it flickered I’d find it interesting!) Now I’ve abandoned listening to the public forum of these vital, terribly important issues for the future of humanity because the meanness and self superiority of the radio and TV personalities have driven me away. Give me the Cowherd any day, and Jason Smith at night. Even if they personally have issues, LOL, at least the format requires them to talk about sports, which is good. People, this country and world are in grave trouble, and this is not a news flash. But what is a newsflash is that if I can’t stomach listening to people’s “public forum” discussion (something I have vigorously defended) and turn to sports instead, well, that’s not a good sign. Turning the other mean cheek never fixed a single problem on earth (or in those other two places either, by the way). It just takes everyone to that hell on earth place that humans seem to do so well.
This blogging will condemn most conservative talk show hosts. Now, left wingers, do not rejoice, because I’m just adding them to my disappointment list, where you have already resided for a very long time. Because I “work” (the spiritual directing and writing) at home, and do not have a TV, my radio is on for most of the day. I enjoy getting to know the “radio personalities” and listening to the issues, and of course, being quite conservative in many issues (I used to be classical liberal but that has become depraved in values and stupid in vital issues that liberal has no meaning or significance in my life anymore) I’ve listened to quite a few of the conservatives. I used to listen to them on Fox, but have pretty much stopped. Patriotism is not jingoism alternated with celebrity scuttlebutt. The people who I cheered because they correctly identified and fought the “War on Christmas” (which is true and if anything is understated) have become boring in their yapping. So I’ve stopped listening to the ones I used to listen to on Fox (and you know who the big names are) because I just can’t stand their solution-less whining. True, O’Reilly has gone after lenient judges and pedophilia, which I applaud. But the growing emphasis on celebrity and pop psychology has turned me off. Hannity is just shrieking this past year, and his lack of charity toward a Catholic priest, turning a great chance to talk about morals and societal/individual pressures into a total waste, turned me off. I wrote to Colmes (his Fox talk show co-host) to say that while I don’t agree with Colmes about as much, gosh, at least he is civilized and kind. Even the daytime hosts that I used to like, Shepherd Smith, Neil Cavuto, John Gibson…. I don’t know if it’s producer advice or programming necessity but they, especially Smith, developed a slyness of style that didn’t work for Aaron Brown of CNN (remember him?) and is not working for them. Cavuto and Gibson are still very good and I’m not writing against them, but I’m saying since I dropped out of the line up, I don’t catch them anymore.
So I had turned to listening to Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, and the Schnitt show. I’m listening to Beck now. I cannot believe what has happened to him. He has been virally attacked by a combination of Messiah complex and being barn sour. (For those of you who are non pastoral, barn sour refers to a horse that is kept in the barn so much that it turns ornery and mean). He has such a personal meanness now that I actually don’t recognize him. He thinks he has no choices but act this way, but he is wrong. When mocking opponents or stories that are or may be ridiculous he twists the knife in an unbelievable way (barn sour), and calls himself justified needing to “wake people up” (Messiah complex). Rush I dropped because his shtick is so obnoxious that it cannot be tolerated even as self parody anymore. Like the others he turns the other mean cheek. By this I mean that because liberals are mean and have virtually destroyed the morals of this country, he is satirical and mean in return. So I’ve turned him off too. Schnitt was an experiment, and there are times he was interesting to listen to. Same with McConnell. But then it seems as soon as I start listening, what I hear in the first few shows starts to evolve into something very unpleasant. It’s almost like just because I’m listening they think they can become smug, sly and hostile toward stupid call-ins and about their superior insight in general. And trust me, as with the average Joe, I go into every communications encounter erring on the side of openness and being ready to like the person and listen to their message (though of course I am not persuaded by anyone, since I already know my stance on all issues. I like to hear the public forum discussion however). So I’ve turned them off too. But Beck in particular has seemed to lose his balance and his mind the past few weeks. I’m not surprised because like I said, there is a pattern that I’ve noticed when I listen to “radio personalities” that at some point they become inflated to the point of being counterproductive, to put it politely. So it’s going to be “Bye, bye, bye Beck” I deem.
So what am I listening to? ESPN Sports Radio. Sports has always been the refuge of the real. Even if games are fixed and players are arrested, it still is a physical event where someone and a ball needs to get from one spot to another, and people enjoy watching it and talking about it. I’ve always enjoyed watching sports (when channel surfing I’d stop for just about any sport, if it flickered I’d find it interesting!) Now I’ve abandoned listening to the public forum of these vital, terribly important issues for the future of humanity because the meanness and self superiority of the radio and TV personalities have driven me away. Give me the Cowherd any day, and Jason Smith at night. Even if they personally have issues, LOL, at least the format requires them to talk about sports, which is good. People, this country and world are in grave trouble, and this is not a news flash. But what is a newsflash is that if I can’t stomach listening to people’s “public forum” discussion (something I have vigorously defended) and turn to sports instead, well, that’s not a good sign. Turning the other mean cheek never fixed a single problem on earth (or in those other two places either, by the way). It just takes everyone to that hell on earth place that humans seem to do so well.
Saturday, June 16, 2007
My sports background
When I was growing up I preferred solo sports, such as hiking, bird watching, and so forth. I loved football, though, because that was part of being loyal to my school, and cheering them on. I got one of those little pocket guides for teaching football basics to girls, and learned the rules quickly. In college I'd quarterback in impromptu dorm hall way games. But in high school I really loved wrestling, cheering the boys' team on. I loved it because I had friends who wrestled, and also appreciated the individual matches, each so exciting, and then being totaled together for an overall win. One of my wrestling friends who taught me how to fall and roll actually saved me from a horse riding injury several years later, because I instinctively rolled when I was thrown by an overly wired polo pony (and this was in the days when schools did not provide good helmets!) In high school I first learned about lacrosse. I had a big time crush on my science teacher and he was the lacrosse coach. So when I went to college I joined the women's lacrosse team. I'm not much of a runner but am great in defense, so I went for the goalie position.
Now in those days, women coaches were not real coaches. They were often just some dame who taught somewhere else and also took on the coach responsibility. So I learned my lacrosse from male friends of mine who either played on their team (thank you Randy!) or who were high school or college classmates of mine who would work with me (thank you Dennis!) However, the stupidity of the coaching drove me crazy, and eventually off the team. For example, I developed shin splits (which I still suffer from) because of outrageously irresponsible training. The loose discipline was dangerous. I was actually hit in the throat by someone in my own team during practice as she ran right into the crease (the boundary line around the goal that protects the goalie from being in a boxing match.) So just as I was about to play more games (being the junior goalie) I quit, rather than be further wrecked. I liked hockey and football for a while, again because they were my college's prime sports (though they weren't so great.)
During those years I followed baseball and race car driving not on a team basis, but by being fond of individual players. I would root for players, sometimes without remembering which teams they were on, ha. That changed in 1986 when I was working in Manhattan, when NYC and Boston were totally absorbed by the World Series Mets vs. Red Sox. We had a TV and would watch the games. And coincidentally I was scheduled to be in Boston on business for the last two games.
While watching TV with my friends and coworkers early in the Series, I one day loudly asked, "When does the defensive team come on?" I still laugh thinking of the shocked expressions. A dear friend, one of my managers, Jack, grabbed me by the elbow and hustled me to the side. He hissed in a kind way, if you can imagine that, "It's the same team, each player has an offense and defense position!" Ha ha ha, that was so funny. Like I said, I followed how players were doing, without focusing on the team (or little things like rules, and certainly not stats ha ha!) Anyway, from that Series on I developed my love for the game itself, though I'm still very fickle about teams! Being without a TV I listen to the games on XM radio and am glad that I am adept enough that I can visualize the plays very clearly.
Hey, while I've been typing, there's a rain delay in the Yankees-Mets game!!
Now in those days, women coaches were not real coaches. They were often just some dame who taught somewhere else and also took on the coach responsibility. So I learned my lacrosse from male friends of mine who either played on their team (thank you Randy!) or who were high school or college classmates of mine who would work with me (thank you Dennis!) However, the stupidity of the coaching drove me crazy, and eventually off the team. For example, I developed shin splits (which I still suffer from) because of outrageously irresponsible training. The loose discipline was dangerous. I was actually hit in the throat by someone in my own team during practice as she ran right into the crease (the boundary line around the goal that protects the goalie from being in a boxing match.) So just as I was about to play more games (being the junior goalie) I quit, rather than be further wrecked. I liked hockey and football for a while, again because they were my college's prime sports (though they weren't so great.)
During those years I followed baseball and race car driving not on a team basis, but by being fond of individual players. I would root for players, sometimes without remembering which teams they were on, ha. That changed in 1986 when I was working in Manhattan, when NYC and Boston were totally absorbed by the World Series Mets vs. Red Sox. We had a TV and would watch the games. And coincidentally I was scheduled to be in Boston on business for the last two games.
While watching TV with my friends and coworkers early in the Series, I one day loudly asked, "When does the defensive team come on?" I still laugh thinking of the shocked expressions. A dear friend, one of my managers, Jack, grabbed me by the elbow and hustled me to the side. He hissed in a kind way, if you can imagine that, "It's the same team, each player has an offense and defense position!" Ha ha ha, that was so funny. Like I said, I followed how players were doing, without focusing on the team (or little things like rules, and certainly not stats ha ha!) Anyway, from that Series on I developed my love for the game itself, though I'm still very fickle about teams! Being without a TV I listen to the games on XM radio and am glad that I am adept enough that I can visualize the plays very clearly.
Hey, while I've been typing, there's a rain delay in the Yankees-Mets game!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
