5 ms·

> Maybe boring, but maybe not. A lot of this is about audience perception, and considerations of what makes a good spectator sport in different cultures. More

> Maybe boring, but maybe not. A lot of this is about audience perception, and considerations of what makes a good spectator sport in different cultures. More than perhaps anywhere else, sport in North America often tends to be about the spectators. Think NASCAR where you can generally see the whole track and there is a lot of overtaking, and a lot of crashes, or basketball which is a high speed, high scoring game played on a smallish court that, again, maximises action. There's a noticeable emphasis on creating the most exciting and intense spectacle for the audience. I think the same is true of contemporary ice hockey, which is like a ludicrously amped up version of regular hockey: the high scores are all part of that. I'm not an avid follower of any of these sports but, as a casual viewer, I find I'm much happier to sit down and watch them than some of the original sports on which they're based because they're very accessible and high on action and entertainment value. The one sport where this really comes unstuck for me is American football: the stop/start structure built into the game just drives me up the wall, and I find myself significantly preferring the (by comparison) rarely interrupted action and flow of rugby. That's not a critique of American Football at all - it's obviously a deeply tactical and nuanced sport: this is just my personal preference for a longer arc of play, on average. And, by the way, I'm talking specifically about rugby union: I've never followed rugby league.

littlestymaar 6y ago
> There's a noticeable emphasis on creating the most exciting and intense spectacle for the audience. Honestly, and I say that as someone who loves basket ball and often stays up during the night to see the NBA playoffs, basketball is often far from the level of tension and excitement you can get in (European) football. In football, most of the time a single goal is a game changer even when you have some margin (let say 2-0 and the opponent team is now 2-1,they have regained the momentum now and the match is totally different). In terms of adrenaline, the entire football game is like the fourth quarter of the seventh game and every single goal feels like a buzzer beater! The scarcity of goals is invaluable.
- Retric 6y ago
  I think it depends on how invested you are to the game. When you don’t care about the teams, low scoring games lack the tension you’re talking about Tennis is at the extreme end of high scoring and even watching matches you don’t care about between average players can be entertaining though not memorable. Longer term it’s only the truly exceptional games of any sport you’re going to remember anyway.
  - Someone 6y ago
    “low scoring games lack the tension you’re talking about” I think that’s cultural/an acquired taste. One could argue the outcome of high-scoring games is more predictable, making them less tense. If, say, on average party A scores a point every minute and party B scores one every 40 seconds, party B will win almost every one hour game against party A (the expected outcome is 90-60), and each individual score is only marginally important. So, why would a spectator be enthousiast about a (missed) score after 20 seconds of play? If, on other hand, party A scores a goal every 30 minutes and party B one every 20 minutes, party A has a much higher chance of beating party B in a one hour game, and each missed opportunity becomes a potential game changer. In soccer, some of the most tense games end in 0-0, 1-0, or 0-1 (especially at major tournaments, where, often [1], each result counts) [1] for one where that wasn’t the case, watch West-Germany against Austria (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disgrace_of_Gijón https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disgrace_of_Gijón).
    - kd5bjo 6y ago
      In this regard, the most notable feature of tennis is that every match is a mini-tournament. It doesn't matter whether you lose the game 40-0 or after the 5th deuce point, you still just have to make up one game. Similarly, the score of the first set doesn't matter; only who wins. This periodic levelling of the score seems to make it more engaging somehow.
    - Retric 6y ago
      Personally, regardless of sport I only feel tension when I care about the winner. The game could be tied with seconds left to score and it’s no more intense than a pickup game between friends.

littlestymaar 6y ago

> There's a noticeable emphasis on creating the most exciting and intense spectacle for the audience. Honestly, and I say that as someone who loves basket ball and often stays up during the night to see the NBA playoffs, basketball is often far from the level of tension and excitement you can get in (European) football. In football, most of the time a single goal is a game changer even when you have some margin (let say 2-0 and the opponent team is now 2-1,they have regained the momentum now and the match is totally different). In terms of adrenaline, the entire football game is like the fourth quarter of the seventh game and every single goal feels like a buzzer beater! The scarcity of goals is invaluable.

Retric 6y ago
I think it depends on how invested you are to the game. When you don’t care about the teams, low scoring games lack the tension you’re talking about Tennis is at the extreme end of high scoring and even watching matches you don’t care about between average players can be entertaining though not memorable. Longer term it’s only the truly exceptional games of any sport you’re going to remember anyway.
- Someone 6y ago
  “low scoring games lack the tension you’re talking about” I think that’s cultural/an acquired taste. One could argue the outcome of high-scoring games is more predictable, making them less tense. If, say, on average party A scores a point every minute and party B scores one every 40 seconds, party B will win almost every one hour game against party A (the expected outcome is 90-60), and each individual score is only marginally important. So, why would a spectator be enthousiast about a (missed) score after 20 seconds of play? If, on other hand, party A scores a goal every 30 minutes and party B one every 20 minutes, party A has a much higher chance of beating party B in a one hour game, and each missed opportunity becomes a potential game changer. In soccer, some of the most tense games end in 0-0, 1-0, or 0-1 (especially at major tournaments, where, often [1], each result counts) [1] for one where that wasn’t the case, watch West-Germany against Austria (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disgrace_of_Gijón https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disgrace_of_Gijón).
  - kd5bjo 6y ago
    In this regard, the most notable feature of tennis is that every match is a mini-tournament. It doesn't matter whether you lose the game 40-0 or after the 5th deuce point, you still just have to make up one game. Similarly, the score of the first set doesn't matter; only who wins. This periodic levelling of the score seems to make it more engaging somehow.
  - Retric 6y ago
    Personally, regardless of sport I only feel tension when I care about the winner. The game could be tied with seconds left to score and it’s no more intense than a pickup game between friends.