The poll, I was torn between the curiosity angle and who cares, but settled on who cares as it is a bit like the fisherman whose fish gets bigger with every telling. To ask a guy to rate his athletic prowess is just asking for a fish tale. Now if you were to rate each friend's chances, maybe more telling.
Regarding the poll: I don't know if it is a "legitimate" curiosity but it is a timeless one. Recall the 1973 "battle of the sexes" between Billie Jean King v Bobby Riggs. That spectacle attracted millions of eye balls ... and is still talked about to this very day.
I almost included the King/Riggs story in this piece---I know the story well, and found stories from that time, etc. Riggs beat Margaret Court, another tennis champ who was well past her prime, earlier that year and that set the stage for the highly publicized showdown in Texas. Sadly, that same night is when Jim Croce and others perished in a plane crash in neighboring Louisiana.
I am a major skeptic when it comes to the value of "coming together." I do admire those personalities, I suppose we can call them leaders, who can accomplish this, although I think it's largely an impossible task. My own personality is too confrontational to really be a part of this process.
I just read this interesting passage in Thomas Hardy's "The Mayor of Casterbridge," another one that does not necessarily paint a positive picture of common ground.
"The Coroporation, private residences, and major and minor tradesmen had, in fact, gone in for comforting beverages to such an extent, that they had quite forgotten, not only the Mayor, but all those vast political, religious, and social differences which they felt necessary to maintain in the daytime, and which separated them like iron gills."
So, here, alcohol is the common ground. Is that an unrealistic assessment of its effects, or does football now serve as our alcohol? Maybe drinking and changing the subject from politics can produce temporary peace? Surely, getting drunk while still keeping politics in mind would be disastrous.
Conflicts in interest between groups, as I suggested, are to some degree inevitable. If the pie is being divvied up in a different way and newly favoring certain economic classes, races, or natives/immigrants more than before, there is going to be a certain amount of reluctance and bitterness coming out of that. What is really frustrating is when you have Donald Trump, who is in no one's interest, who is endangering us all, and yet, he is a point of division, with partisans desperately clinging to him.
A final thing that may or may not be weird. Why is it that mere interest in football can serve as common ground, whether we be Dolphins fans or Steelers fans, whereas, if two people are interested in politics, they don't seem brought together by this, and can't seem to take pleasure in friendly disagreement? I suppose the politics is personal, as they say, and there is a real feeling that this is serious stakes, that something can be taken away from us by our comrade's disagreement.
On Caitlin Clark....I answered that the sex sports analysis is worthwhile. I do question my answer a bit with a couple of day's hindsight. The answers are largely known. We have track and swim records and data for men and women. We know how fast men and women can throw baseballs, and how accurately they can shoot free throws. The whole transgender sports debate has largely been unsettling, but it has been interesting from the standpoint that it has introduced some question about whether the whole distinction between men and women and their separation in sports is arbitrary. (I believe passionately it is not, but the issue has raised the question.) So, to compare men and women without that barrier might make a certain amount of sense. There is always interest in who is the best, hands down, and there is a reason why there has historically been more interest in the heavyweight division than in the other divisions. To be the best fighter in the world absolutely should be even more coveted than to be the best pound for pound. There is no arbitrariness in that.
The poll, I was torn between the curiosity angle and who cares, but settled on who cares as it is a bit like the fisherman whose fish gets bigger with every telling. To ask a guy to rate his athletic prowess is just asking for a fish tale. Now if you were to rate each friend's chances, maybe more telling.
Good point, Jackie -- key to strive for a more objective view.
Regarding the poll: I don't know if it is a "legitimate" curiosity but it is a timeless one. Recall the 1973 "battle of the sexes" between Billie Jean King v Bobby Riggs. That spectacle attracted millions of eye balls ... and is still talked about to this very day.
I almost included the King/Riggs story in this piece---I know the story well, and found stories from that time, etc. Riggs beat Margaret Court, another tennis champ who was well past her prime, earlier that year and that set the stage for the highly publicized showdown in Texas. Sadly, that same night is when Jim Croce and others perished in a plane crash in neighboring Louisiana.
I am a major skeptic when it comes to the value of "coming together." I do admire those personalities, I suppose we can call them leaders, who can accomplish this, although I think it's largely an impossible task. My own personality is too confrontational to really be a part of this process.
I just read this interesting passage in Thomas Hardy's "The Mayor of Casterbridge," another one that does not necessarily paint a positive picture of common ground.
"The Coroporation, private residences, and major and minor tradesmen had, in fact, gone in for comforting beverages to such an extent, that they had quite forgotten, not only the Mayor, but all those vast political, religious, and social differences which they felt necessary to maintain in the daytime, and which separated them like iron gills."
So, here, alcohol is the common ground. Is that an unrealistic assessment of its effects, or does football now serve as our alcohol? Maybe drinking and changing the subject from politics can produce temporary peace? Surely, getting drunk while still keeping politics in mind would be disastrous.
Conflicts in interest between groups, as I suggested, are to some degree inevitable. If the pie is being divvied up in a different way and newly favoring certain economic classes, races, or natives/immigrants more than before, there is going to be a certain amount of reluctance and bitterness coming out of that. What is really frustrating is when you have Donald Trump, who is in no one's interest, who is endangering us all, and yet, he is a point of division, with partisans desperately clinging to him.
A final thing that may or may not be weird. Why is it that mere interest in football can serve as common ground, whether we be Dolphins fans or Steelers fans, whereas, if two people are interested in politics, they don't seem brought together by this, and can't seem to take pleasure in friendly disagreement? I suppose the politics is personal, as they say, and there is a real feeling that this is serious stakes, that something can be taken away from us by our comrade's disagreement.
On Caitlin Clark....I answered that the sex sports analysis is worthwhile. I do question my answer a bit with a couple of day's hindsight. The answers are largely known. We have track and swim records and data for men and women. We know how fast men and women can throw baseballs, and how accurately they can shoot free throws. The whole transgender sports debate has largely been unsettling, but it has been interesting from the standpoint that it has introduced some question about whether the whole distinction between men and women and their separation in sports is arbitrary. (I believe passionately it is not, but the issue has raised the question.) So, to compare men and women without that barrier might make a certain amount of sense. There is always interest in who is the best, hands down, and there is a reason why there has historically been more interest in the heavyweight division than in the other divisions. To be the best fighter in the world absolutely should be even more coveted than to be the best pound for pound. There is no arbitrariness in that.