![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
peterbirksAnd so, Later with Jools reaches its 200th episode. Characteristically, it did so with the start of a new series that was unheralded, tucked away at its normal time late on Friday night, and at a time of year when Jools Holland is normally far from the confines of the BBC Studios.
And I suspect that it was also the first edition of the programme to end with a song in 5/4 time. Thom Yorke and Radiohead did this, and I'm becoming a bigger fan of Thom Yorke as time (hah hah) moves on. Also on the show were Cat Power (who is a kind of latter-day Patti Smith and whom I really feel I should like, but yet cannot really warm to), the impressive Feist and the 'not my cup of tea' Mary J Bligh.
I looked at my DVDs and I reckon that I have between 78 and 82 of those shows on disc, althought there may be a few more hidden away on video-cassette that I haven't transferred. That's not a bad hit-rate, considering how unpredictable its series have been (31 series in 15 years, usually in May and November, but, sometimes not).
++++++++++
In 2005, 93m people watched the American Football Superbowl. Of these, 3m were not in the US (and a million of those were in Mexico). Although Basketball appears to have superseded cricket in the Caribbean (mainly, I suspect, for financial rather than aesthetic reasons), the fact remains that American sport tends to be something that non-Americans, as a rule, find it very hard to get enthusiastic about.
Given the American global hegemony economically, annd the extent to which its movie and television industry dominates the world, it's something of a puzzle why the rest of humanity continues to consider American sport to be a pile of toss. After all, when Britain sallied forth to far-flung reaches of its then Empire, the locals were quick to take up cricket (Asian sub-continent) and football (everywhere else). The Americans, for obscure reasons, seemed to go for rugby and rounders, which evolved into American Football and Baseball.
So, the question remains. Why does the rest of the world consider American sport to be wank? I mean, I find American football interesting, but emotional involvement just doesn't come. I'm no great lover of football either, but when I do watch a game, I certainly feel myself becoming more emotionally entangled in the event than if I was watching, for example, a Seahawks vs 49ers game.
Personally, I quite admire countries that resist the cultural dominance of football, although their number seems to be shrinking by the day. Even India looks to be falling into line, and this is a country which still can't work out when the financial year starts (it still insists, like the Japanese, on starting on April 1) or how to write numbers (1,35,67,82,000 anyone? Or, in that other charming Indian fashion, 135.6782 crore. 1.35 billion to you and me. No wonder the Chinese are beating them in the economic race. It takes accountants five days to translate the Indian figures).
But let's rock it for the Japanese defenders of Sumo, the Melbourne-nutty Australian rules fanatics, and the parts of Ireland where they still play Homicidal Hockey. Oh, and also for that small place south of Canada where they play that obscure variant of rugby.
____________
And I suspect that it was also the first edition of the programme to end with a song in 5/4 time. Thom Yorke and Radiohead did this, and I'm becoming a bigger fan of Thom Yorke as time (hah hah) moves on. Also on the show were Cat Power (who is a kind of latter-day Patti Smith and whom I really feel I should like, but yet cannot really warm to), the impressive Feist and the 'not my cup of tea' Mary J Bligh.
I looked at my DVDs and I reckon that I have between 78 and 82 of those shows on disc, althought there may be a few more hidden away on video-cassette that I haven't transferred. That's not a bad hit-rate, considering how unpredictable its series have been (31 series in 15 years, usually in May and November, but, sometimes not).
++++++++++
In 2005, 93m people watched the American Football Superbowl. Of these, 3m were not in the US (and a million of those were in Mexico). Although Basketball appears to have superseded cricket in the Caribbean (mainly, I suspect, for financial rather than aesthetic reasons), the fact remains that American sport tends to be something that non-Americans, as a rule, find it very hard to get enthusiastic about.
Given the American global hegemony economically, annd the extent to which its movie and television industry dominates the world, it's something of a puzzle why the rest of humanity continues to consider American sport to be a pile of toss. After all, when Britain sallied forth to far-flung reaches of its then Empire, the locals were quick to take up cricket (Asian sub-continent) and football (everywhere else). The Americans, for obscure reasons, seemed to go for rugby and rounders, which evolved into American Football and Baseball.
So, the question remains. Why does the rest of the world consider American sport to be wank? I mean, I find American football interesting, but emotional involvement just doesn't come. I'm no great lover of football either, but when I do watch a game, I certainly feel myself becoming more emotionally entangled in the event than if I was watching, for example, a Seahawks vs 49ers game.
Personally, I quite admire countries that resist the cultural dominance of football, although their number seems to be shrinking by the day. Even India looks to be falling into line, and this is a country which still can't work out when the financial year starts (it still insists, like the Japanese, on starting on April 1) or how to write numbers (1,35,67,82,000 anyone? Or, in that other charming Indian fashion, 135.6782 crore. 1.35 billion to you and me. No wonder the Chinese are beating them in the economic race. It takes accountants five days to translate the Indian figures).
But let's rock it for the Japanese defenders of Sumo, the Melbourne-nutty Australian rules fanatics, and the parts of Ireland where they still play Homicidal Hockey. Oh, and also for that small place south of Canada where they play that obscure variant of rugby.
____________
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2008-02-02 09:56 am (UTC)Baseball
Date: 2008-02-02 01:39 pm (UTC)Mexico and most of Central America. Big in Japan (well, there's a one-hit wonder for you). Sport of the future, mate. Arguably the most international one, too, because if you're good at it, the work-permit comes hassle-free. Although I'm not so sure if you're a Korean trying to play in the Japanese leagues.
(Incidentally, that slightly larger place north of the small place south of Canada plays an even more obscure variant of the obscure variant of rugby that the small place south of Canada that plays an obscure variant of rugby plays. Get a grip, man)
Re: Baseball
Date: 2008-02-02 01:47 pm (UTC)Freaking Hell.
Why do people put up with (ahem, forgive me) luser crap like this? It's the same machine, it's the same browser, I haven't cleared the cache, this is just cretinous incompetence.
Anyway. Baseball. Nothing to do with Doubledays at all, but still a perfectly formed little game. Some day I hope to get around all the 28? parks in the US ... maybe soon.
American sport and the world
Date: 2008-02-02 03:21 pm (UTC)The reason why the b-balls have spread where football (and to a lesser extent ice hockey, which isn't really a American origin sport) is simple: equipment. For a sport to get really popular, a large number people have to know it from the inside out. A quick websearch yields the cost of a youth helmet alone (not to mention pads and other equipment) to be north of $100. That's per person, absolute minimum 11 per team. Contrast that costs for basic equipment for basketball or baseball. Of course in all of these sports, kids can play with used, cheap, or less than full equipment, but for football, anything short of full equipment is either a different sport (flag or touch football) or downright dangerous.
Even in countries as wealthy or wealthier than the US, high equipment cost creates a significant barrier to entry to try it out just casually. Of course, both Germany and the UK enjoy some significant amateur "gridiron" leagues at the adult level, but at the youth sport level it seems unlikely the sport will ever reach critical mass. Contrast that to basketball or baseball, where all you need is a ball and a hoop for up to 10 players, or baseball where its a bat (or 2 for spare since they do break), a cheap ball per 18 players, and the only significant investment is a glove for each player (and if you aren't too picky you might find that for $20 in a developing country).
A more interesting question to me is why soccer hasn't finally become a peer to the big 4 (even ice hockey) in the US. It actually does enjoy the youth penetration. I suppose it is still a matter of a feedback loop where the best US athletes generally switch to the most popular sports at around age 14, and it has certainly gotten more exposure and popularity in the last decade as the US team has become nearly competitive at the world level. We'll see.
For me, an sports fan in general, American football is my favorite sport as an intellectual exercise (baseball as you might expect of a SoxLover is my emotional favorite) and I will gladly sit down in front of a TV with any non-American sports fan who is interested and walk them through why I think it is worth the large investment in learning to be able to watch it intelligently, but I do realize there will always be limits for someone who has never dropped back to throw a nerf in the fact of an oncoming pass rush.
no subject
Date: 2008-02-02 06:28 pm (UTC)Hockey is for litigious WASPs on this side of the pond. Hurling was around long before hockey. The more effete males in England couldn't play it or shinty and so hockey was invented.
US Economic hegemony will be a short-lived phenomenon Pete, unless you are bonkers enough to believe in unlimited economic growth. Their television and film industry exists only to market a bankrupt lifestyle. Still, wardrobe malfunctions help to sell T-bonds.
Re: American sport and the world
Date: 2008-02-02 11:46 pm (UTC)The one thing that I would be liked to be walked through is a metagame concept.
Why are draws not permitted in league games?
The normal answer I get is something of an accountant's answer. Accurate, but not enlightening. It goes along the lines of:
"Because the governing bodies think that is what the audience want".
Which kind of begs the sense of the question.
Is it true? Is that what the audiences want?
If so, is this some kind of key to the American psyche? Why? Do they feel some sense of dissatisfaction if neither side can be called the "winner"? As such, that is not much of an intellectual exercise.
People can come away from football matches in England that end in a draw with the feeling that it was "a fair result". Can American audiences do that in the US for basketball or baseball or American football? If they can, then why won't the governing bodies in each of these sports let them?
PJ
Re: American sport and the world
Date: 2008-02-03 02:05 am (UTC)Re: American sport and the world
Date: 2008-02-03 08:08 am (UTC)Is that a whole quarter? Or is the "golden goal" rule used (first score, and that's it?)
OK, so, in one of the games of the three referred to, a draw is "possible" (I know that in baseball they go to extra innings; how does it run in basketball?). But it still slightly begs the question. Why the requirement to play an extra quarter?
PJ
Re: American sport and the world
Date: 2008-02-03 12:06 pm (UTC)Basketball: a potentially infinite number of extra periods, at five minutes each. I imagine that a tie is theoretically possible, should all players on both teams foul out and hence leave nobody on the field ... I'd quite like to see that.
Baseball: I'm open to correction, but no tie possible. The game proceeds in lumps of one inning each, and no, there is no "golden run."
Ice hockey: who cares?
No doubt the college versions have different rules here, as for eveything else.
Is it what the People want? Unclear. There is the perception that "Americans love a winner," but exactly how much research has gone in to whether this affects the rules of sport, I don't know. The other argument trotted out is the influence of gambling (which, as every red, white and blue-blooded Yank will tell you, has nothing at all to do with the ethos of American sport). This is clearly irrelevant in basketball and grid-iron, where people bet on the spread, but might be relevant in baseball and, plausibly, soccer. I imagine that betting on the spread for Arsenal games under George Graham, for example, might be the tiniest bit tedious.
Re: American sport and the world
Date: 2008-02-03 12:40 pm (UTC)Which brings us back to the original question. Perhaps it's unanswerable. Perhaps no-one wants to analyze it too deeply. Understandable, I guess.
PJ
Re: American sport and the world
Date: 2008-02-03 01:01 pm (UTC)Most bets tend to be on the spread, but dead-heat rules should be okay.
In football, btw, spreads are on a tenth of a goal. Total goals in any game under Graham or Mourinho would be about 2.1 to 2.4. If it was Graham vs Mourinho it would be 2.0 to 2.3. Only in Italy have I seen the bottom of the spread drop below 2.0 You kill the market in the UK by doing that, unless it's Reading vs Spurs, in which case the buyers would have flocked in at 2.6-2.9.
PJ
Re: American sport and the world
Date: 2008-02-03 04:38 pm (UTC)Honestly, the gambling mentality has infused American sports since ... ooh, I don't know when, but a good guess would be the last time that the year sorta doubled up, blackishly. What's interesting to me is that the general American sports fan tends to ignore this simple fact.
And now we leap into areas of which I was hitherto unaware. A tenth of a goal? Interesting. How, exactly, would one convert from integral mathematics to rational results? I long to see a Premiership game wherein the two sides contribute 2.3 (recurring) goals between them.
Which is irrelevant to American spread betting. Yes, it does allow for dead heats/ties/whatever. The psychology of the thing, however, does not. Zero might be good enough for al-Khwarizmi and putative Hindi predecessors, but it makes no odds when it comes to punters in Las Vegas, who are understandably ignorant of the history of mathematics.
As I say, nobody (and again I am open to correction on this) has made a study of this. However, Americans certainly seem to be averse to the concept of a 0-0 draw, for example. (An interesting counter-example being the classic "pitchers' duel," wherein aficionados will debate the height of the pitching mound, the state of Koufax' arm, etc, forever more. But the games still go on until somebody wins. That is The American Way.)
You can try selling Reading vs. Spurs at 2.6-2.9, and good luck. American punters are simpler (and quite often, drunker) souls. They tend to prefer 12+ points on the Pats -- a bet I would take in a heartbeat -- and (I suspect) this tends to feed back to the rules of the game.
Now, about this infield fly rule ...
Re: American sport and the world
Date: 2008-02-03 04:59 pm (UTC)It's utterly unclear to me that I didn't accept this in the first place -- asked a simple question ("What are the rules on tied games in the big three American sports?") I gave a simple, and I hope correct, answer.
I truly believe that the reason that nobody has analyzed it too deeply is that (and I do so hate to repeat myself, since I can't adduce any evidence whatsoever for my assertions) professional sport + professional gambling := prototypical American pastime.
Think about it. Gambling on UK sports (other than culturally-based sports such as horse/greyhound racing) was pretty minimal until twenty years ago. Thus, I contend, the present set of rules. (And cricket is still trying to catch up with the recent Indian explosion of interest.)
Gambling on US sports, however, has been the ugly and unacknowledged step-child for as long as US sports have been around.
Which brings us back to the original question. I believe that was "Why does the rest of the world consider American sport to be wank?"
The answer is, only in south-east London. Move on, please; nothing to see here.
BTW South Korea does indeed have a flourishing baseball culture, for those that care. God knows about North Korea. They probably think of the game as Capitalist Running-Dog Hyena Imperialist Wank, and we all know where that leads to, don't we?
Yup, a spell in the nets at Chesterfield, bowling gimme googlies at Derbyshire's (and probably Zimbabwe's) finest.
So it goes.
Re: American sport and the world
Date: 2008-02-03 05:02 pm (UTC)In the bad old days, you got taxed on turnover. That was easy when sopmeone placed a bet in a binary market (wins or loses) such as "A tenner to win on Scurvy Skylight in the 4.20, please". However, how do you decide what the "stake" is in a spread bet?
Customs & Excise, as was in those days, took a rather meat and two veg attack on this line, generally making it something in relation to the "stake" of the punter, and averaging it out.
So, it was clearly in the interests of the spread betting companies to make a bet a tenner at a tenth of a goal rather than a hundred quid per goal, even though mathematically the bet was exactly the same.
That the "pricing" was in decimals of a goal helped the case that was made to the Customs and Excise, of course. The speread betting companies knew not to push their luck. They didn't try the same with cricket scores (English runs 282.3 to 303.3) or even with total games in a tennis match.
The only spread you would get in boxing would be on when it ended. Say, 6.8-7.5, with an "end" not being fractionalised. So, if it ended in the sixth, that counted as six. If it was a 12-round fight and it went to points you could "maked that up" to an arbitrary number, such as 15, or 20, just to add some spice to the final round. I don't know if any company has ever tried that, though.
PJ
no subject
Date: 2008-02-03 05:08 pm (UTC)You might want to take another look at either American or Canadian football, however. Ignoring the litigiousness (which is surprisingly low, given the number of life-threatening injuries), I doubt that they've been the preserve of WASPs since, ooh, 1920 or 1930 or so. Temporary home of the "flying wedge," which was certainly the cause of all sorts of injuries that today's lawyers would exploit to their advantage, yes.
Nowadays, they allow niggers in.
Bad form, I know. But you can't beat a nigger. They're genetically bred to do that sort of stuff.
Re: American sport and the world
Date: 2008-02-03 05:11 pm (UTC)Now, about this infield fly rule ...
no subject
Date: 2008-02-03 05:29 pm (UTC)Was long-lived, soon to be short-lived. Regardless of the Birks bigging it up.
But you can't beat a nigger.
You don't know how to run a plantation properly.