4 ms·
> we watch sports matches to spectate top-of-the-class athletes doing their best, regardless who or what they are. Then wouldn’t be more interesting if a varie
by makeitdouble 4y ago
> we watch sports matches to spectate top-of-the-class athletes doing their best, regardless who or what they are.
Then wouldn’t be more interesting if a variety of players with different top-of-the-class physical profiles moved the game through strategies optimized to their strengths and weaknesses ?
To take a concrete example, the addition of the 3 point rule expanded the category of players that could have a critical impact on the game. I personally wouldn’t see that rule addition as a dilution of the game or a pandering to physical diversity, it genuinely makes the games more interesting.
We could imagine other rules that bring in even wider physical profiles and change the game in interesting ways.
- Dalewyn 4y agoI watch sports to see athletes performing their best; I couldn't give a rat's rotten ass what they are. As such, diversity quotas would not be appealing to my interests and demands in the first place. I /don't fucking care/ what they are, I care if they are good athletes. If a sport presents me with diversity hires, I'm just going to go watch or do something else.
- makeitdouble 4y agoYou’re still focusing on quotas. The original article might be tangent to affirmative action, but that’s not what this thread is about.
- Dalewyn 4y agoI was originally responding to an inquiry by another commenter, not the article.
- nradov 4y agoThe other side of that is that there are sometimes opportunities to innovate within the existing rules that no one else is exploiting. For example, Boyd Epley revolutionized the whole game of gridiron football when he introduced a rigorous strength training program to the Nebraska Cornhuskers. https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/13175331/how-former-pole-vaulter-sparked-college-football-training-revolution https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/13175331/ho...