Showing posts with label sports. Show all posts
Showing posts with label sports. Show all posts

Sunday, July 19, 2026

Soccer considered as a legacy of European colonialism

Akim Reinhardt, The Good, the Bad, and the Soccer, 3 Quarks Daily, July 19, 2026.

The fourth and fifth paragraphs:

Want proof that European colonialism is the real reason for, or at least the original factor in, soccer’s global popularity? Look at the nations that were not under European control during the late 19th or early 20th centuries, and you’ll mostly find countries where soccer is not the top spectator sport. The United States broke away from Great Britain long before the rise of soccer, and it has a bevy of its own sports that are far more popular (baseball, basketball, American football, and on a good day hockey). Canada, New Zealand, and Australia never rebelled, but rather faded away in time for their most popular sports to be, respectively: hockey, rugby, and cricket (summer) and Australian rules football (winter). Finland, up at the edge of the world, prefers hockey. Mongolia, at the center of the world, prefers wrestling. Ireland, forever looking to do whatever the English do not, very much prefers hurling and Gaelic football. China was never culturally colonized, and basketball is its most popular spectator team sport, with various individual sports also attracting huge fan bases. The United States is itself a massive colonial power, and wherever it held sway, soccer likewise takes a backseat: basketball in the Philippines; baseball and sumo in Japan; baseball in South Korea, Taiwan, and chunks of Latin America (Cuba, Puerto Rico, Dominican Republic, Nicaragua, Panama, and even Venezuela to some degree). India and Pakistan are odd, and extremely populace [sic], outliers. Ruled by Great Britain until after World War II, the English upperclass seems to have had an undue influence there, and cricket, not soccer, is by far the most popular spectator sport in both nations, which collectively account for over a fifth of Earth’s humans.

Add it all up, and we find that soccer is not actually the world’s game, but more accurately about half the world’s game. It’s tops across Europe, Africa, and most of Latin America, but secondary (at best) in the most populated parts of Asia, Oceania, and North America.

There’s much more to the article.

Thursday, June 4, 2026

Does waning interest in the World Cup signal a thinning of genuine nationalist sentiment?

David Wallace-Wells, Why Does No One Care About the World Cup This Year? NYTimes, June 3, 2026.

They used to call the World Cup, unequivocally, the planet’s biggest sporting event. But it is about to start, right here in North America, and no one much seems to care. Thousands of tickets remain unsold, and just weeks ago, others were being resold well below their official price. [...] And I actually do think this might be telling us something, beyond the world of sports, about the global landscape of politics and culture.

In the States, the indifference might not be surprising, even though the event is being played mostly on U.S. soil. The U.S. team is more talented than in the past but hasn’t looked impressive for years. Soccer is still a growth sport rather than a dominant one in this country, and many Americans aren’t exactly feeling the flush of simplistic patriotism these days. On top of which, the tickets have been priced punishingly high.

What is more striking to me is the muted interest of the rest of the world, which every four years for decades seemed almost to pause for a month to engage in a truly global but appealingly low-stakes performance of tribal nationalism. [...]

What makes this shift so striking is that it has happened alongside a rising tide of political nationalism around the world, which you might think would produce a great surge in soccer nationalism, too. Instead, the age of global populism has coincided with intense interest in the biggest club teams — for-hire rosters assembled largely from international talent by megacorporations boasting jersey sponsorships from foreign conglomerates. [...] But no one could even pretend to illustrate the age of global populism by talking about the intensity of popular feeling about national teams.

That’s from the beginning of the article. After this, that, and the other, Wallace-Wells concludes:

Namely, that what we identify as nationalism in global affairs might be better described as a form of parochialism, with populists making particular claims not about the nation per se so much as the ways it should be reformed — presumably toward some reactionary ideal, its contours often more local than genuinely national. In this reading, globalization hasn’t just generated a backlash among those who resent deindustrialization, capital flight and the stateless lives of the world’s billionaires. It has also made the nation itself seem like a somewhat untrustworthy unit of political and social organization to many people on the right. For them, what might once have served as a source of patriotism and pride now produces feelings of resentment and regret. Not that liberals aren’t queasy about nationalism these days, either. For all of us, rooting for Arsenal or P.S.G. might now be more appealing precisely because it’s essentially meaningless.

Sunday, January 25, 2026

Alex Honnold free solos Taipei 101

American rock climber Alex Honnold climbed the Taipei 101 skyscraper on Sunday without any ropes or protective equipment. Cheers erupted from a gathered crowd as he started climbing the 508-metre (1,667-foot) tower earlier Sunday, using the horizontal metal beams to pull himself up with his bare hands. The onlookers cheered again when he paused at one point and turned around to face them, in a red short-sleeve shirt that stood out as he made the climb.

I watched it on Netflix. WOW!

Friday, January 31, 2025

Football • {sports commentary} • [Media Notes 154]

I confess, football doesn’t interest me very much, never has. But I’m an America and I live in America. So I can’t escape it.

When I was in junior high school and high school I played in the marching band. That required me to attend every football game so we could provide half-time entertainment. We were so good, however, that I suspect some people came to the games more to hear us play than to see the game itself.

That’s the only time in my life that I ever watched football regularly. Of course, we played a bit of touch football in gym class, but that was it. I attended one football game in college. I was in the band. When one half of the band finished a tune eight bars ahead of the other half, that’s when I decided to blow this pop stand.

When I was in graduate school at SUNY Buffalo a roommate bequeathed me a small B&W portable. I watched a number of football games on it. This was during the O. J. Simpson years and I’d watch the Bills games to see him run. He was sensational. Football I didn’t care about, human excellence, that’s another matter.

After that, sure, every once in a while I’d catch a game. At least I assume I did. As I said, I’m living in America. Then, for some reason, a couple of weeks ago I decided to catch a play-off game on Netflix. Why? Why not? So I watched the Baltimore Ravens vs. the Pittsburgh Steelers. I’m from Pennsylvania, so that inclines me toward the Steelers. (The name “Franco Harris” sticks in my mind, so I must have watched some games when he was playing). I sent to school in Baltimore, which would tip me toward the Ravens, thought it was the Colts in Baltimore when I was there (Johnny Unitas as QB). Fact is, I could have cared less who won. Didn’t even watch the fourth quarter.

A week later it was the Buffalo Bills vs. Kansas City Chiefs. I made it the whole way through on that one. But I would hardly say I watched the game. Us, I did watch it, in fits and starts. But I also cruised the web doing this and that.

Which brings up a question: Let’s say the total elapsed time from the beginning of a game to the end is two to two-and-a-half hours. Only an hour of that is game time, which is interrupted for various reasons for varying amounts of time. During those interruptions we’re either getting some kind of commentary on the game, or we’re getting commercials. Add up the total time devoted to the game and commentary on the game. Add up the total time devoted to commercials during the broadcast. What’s the ratio between the two? My guess is that game time would be the larger number, but I’d guess the ratio is closer to 3/2 than to 2/1 in favor of game time.

So, I guess we could say that the commercials exist so that we can watch the game. But it could easily go the other way. Of course, if you’re a football fan, and so heavily invested in the game, that that’s certainly your priority. But if you’re not a fan, then it could almost go the other way.

Which brings me to the real reason for this note: the commentary. That fascinates me. I’m interested in it as a perceptual and cognitive activity. As I understand it, we generally have two commenters, one commenting on the action (play-by-play) and the other commenting on this and that. I believe the second is doing color commentary.

The play-by-play commenter is expected to comment on what’s happening as it happens. That requires them to have had a great deal of experience watching football games, more experience than I’ve had. You have to be able to instantly recognize hundreds of different patterns of activity and associate them with appropriate verbal comments. This is not a time for careful deductive reasoning. It’s an associative process. The commentary must be so fluid as to be of a piece with the perceptual act.

I wonder how long it takes to develop this capacity to the level we see in professional commentators? 10,000 hours? I don’t know. Let’s do a quick calculation. Ten thousand hours works out to something less than 5000 games, somewhere between 4000 and 4500. Let’s say it’s 100 games a year, two games a week. That’s forty to forty-five years. That’s possible, but I think the pros get in the game well before that. So it’s not 10,000 hours. It’s less than half that.

And then there’s the color commentary. That doesn’t have to track the action moment by moment, so it’s not constrained in that way. But still, it’s not an occasion for deductive reasoning. The commentator has to have access to a large range of relevant information about the players and the game, past and present, and come up with relevant bits and pieces in a matter of seconds. So it’s still pretty much an associative process.

And THAT, those last three paragraphs, that’s why I’m writing this not. As for the rest, why note? It’s context.

Thursday, October 24, 2024

Saudi Arabia's plans 15 soccer stadiums for the 2034 World cup

11 stadiums are slated to be built from scratch while 4 existing stadiums will be renovated.

0:00 Kick-off
1:05 King Salman International Stadium
1:48 King Faud Sports City Stadium
2:30 Roshn Stadium
3:20 Prince Mohammed Bin Salman Stadium
4:05 BetterHelp
5:27 Jeddah Central Development Stadium
6:09 Prince Faisal Bin Fahd Sports City Stadium
6:27 King Saud University Stadium
6:45 New Murabba Stadium
7:25 NEOM Stadium
9:19 King Abdullah Economic City Stadium
9:27 King Abdullah Sports City Stadium
9:47 Qiddiya Coast Stadium
10:31 South Riyadh Stadium
10:51 Aramco Stadium
11:47 Human Rights in Construction
12:22 Extra-Time
13:16 Penalties

Tuesday, June 18, 2024

The Bingo Long Traveling All-Stars & Motor Kings [Media Notes 129]

I saw The Bingo Long Traveling All-Stars & Motor Kings when it came out in 1976 and have been waiting to see it on TV or streaming ever since. I just watched it on Amazon.

Why? For one thing, it stars Billy Dee Williams, James Earl Jones, and Richard Pryor. For another, it’s about professional-league Negro (the word they used back then) baseball. Blacks couldn’t play in the White leagues, so they had to establish their own. Bingo Long, played by Bill Dee Williams and based roughly on Satchel Paige, decides he’s tired of being exploited by the (black) owner of his club and decides to go rogue. He contacts other stars who are similarly dissatisfied and they start their own team, The Bingo Long Traveling All-Stars & Motor Kings.

They go barnstorming through the South and Midwest, playing whatever teams will play against them. Once they get hip to the schtick they need to do – parading through town – to attract an audience, they become successful, successful enough that the Negro league owners come after them. They don’t quite succeed.

To be honest, it wasn’t what I’d been hoping for all these years. Yes, I liked the feel of the film, the glimpse it gave into baseball barnstorming back in the 1930s, and Richard Pryor was OK. But on the whole, the film was a bit flat.

Friday, June 14, 2024

The N.B.A. in Africa

Tania Ganguli, The N.B.A. Sees Its Future in Africa, NYTimes, June 14, 2024.

The N.B.A. has been promoting basketball in Africa for more than 20 years, pouring hundreds of millions of dollars into the effort. The aim is to cultivate an immense potential fan base, the way it has in China, while also tapping into the rich talent pool on the continent. Much of the league’s work is concentrated in Senegal, where it operates an academy for high-school-age players, an N.B.A. Africa office and the headquarters of the Basketball Africa League. N.B.A. Africa’s investors include former N.B.A. players and former President Barack Obama (who also has an equity stake). The B.A.L. was announced in 2019 with FIBA, the sport’s international governing body. Its first season was in 2021.

Although N.B.A. Africa is not yet profitable, the investment seems to be producing results. Soccer may still be the king of sports on the continent, but basketball is becoming increasingly popular. People throughout Africa play on local club teams and in after-school programs. The N.B.A. has generated plenty of good will by building courts, libraries and homes; administering basketball camps and other development programs; and supporting gender equality. But some wonder about the league’s long-term commitment and whether the support needed for basketball to flourish can be sustained.

“As much as we are investing in Africa, the opportunity is so enormous I worry that we’re under investing,” Adam Silver, the N.B.A. commissioner, said in an interview. “There’s so much opportunity, but it’s not always easy to know how to deploy capital, which government you should be dealing with, who the honest brokers are. And so we’re learning as we go.”

Currently "about 10 percent of N.B.A. players are either African or have at least one parent from Africa," but most are African-American.

There's much more at the link.

Sunday, June 2, 2024

Fashion and music meet gymnastics

From the article:

The result was an attention-grabbing blend of checkered patterns in green and orange, pink and blue, and red and white with pink and red stripes across the chest. The sublimated print was covered in crystals that formed a necklace-like triangle to recreate the look of the extravagant body chain Beyoncé wore around her neck and waist.

“It’s gonna look like there’s a battery pack in the leotard. It’s going to be that blingy under the stadium lights,” said Jeanne Diaz, the design director for GK Elite, before this week’s championships.

Leotards can capture a personality, convey a style and provide a boost of confidence on the competition floor. For the top gymnasts in the world, months of planning go into designing a custom fit that looks distinctive and withstands the rigors of competition. Only the highest quality crystals are bedazzled into the leotards to ensure they don’t come loose mid-routine, and the garments are made to the athletes’ specific measurements so the fit stays perfect through each flip and twist.

Wednesday, April 24, 2024

Basketball GOAT: Jordan or James?

I've thinking about GOATs – Greatest Of All Time – in response to Tyler Cowen's book, GOAT: Who is the Greatest Economist of all Time and Why Does it Matter? I was looking over the NYTimes yesterday, as I a wont to do, and came across this article in The Athletic, their sports affiliate: Who is the NBA GOAT: LeBron or Jordan? For current players, longevity is narrowing the gap (by Sam Amick and Josh Robbins, Apr. 23, 2024). So I thought I'd quote some passages just to see how NBA players think about the issue:

While Michael Jordan won the “Greatest of All Time” category for the third consecutive time, his once-massive lead over LeBron James has shrunk significantly with every passing poll. This time around, James almost took the mantle. The data speaks loud and clear...

  • 2019 (the first time The Athletic conducted the poll): Jordan earned 73 percent of the votes, with James second at 11.9 percent (a gap of 61.1 percentage points)
  • 2023: Jordan earned 58.3 percent of the votes, with James second at 33 percent (a gap of 25.3 percent)
  • 2024: Jordan earned 45.9 percent of the votes, with James second at 42.1 percent (a gap of just 3.8 percent)

But why has Jordan’s lead shrunk so much? We wanted to let the players themselves explain.

The consistent rationale among LeBron voters, both old and new, is that his longevity is the ultimate difference-maker between the two. He’ll be 40 years old on Dec. 30, yet is still great enough to be widely considered one of the best players in today’s game. While Jordan was epic in his 14- year career, from his 6-0 record in the NBA Finals to his five Most Valuable Player awards and his incredible two-way play, many players shared the view that James’ ability to remain elite for more than two decades puts him over the top.

Jordan, to review, retired twice (in 1993 and 1998) during his storied career and played 14 seasons in a 19-year span. When he was James’ age, in the last of his two forgettable seasons in Washington, he was putting up good numbers on a bad Wizards team that went 37-45 in both of his postseason-less campaigns. James, meanwhile, has saved some of his best work for last:

  • He broke Kareem Abdul-Jabbar’s all-time scoring record on Feb. 7, 2023
  • He became the first player to be named to a 20th All-Star team in February
  • He was one of three players to average at least 25 points, eight assists and seven rebounds this season (the others were Nikola Jokić and Luka Dončić)

Out of respect for the GOAT incumbent, we’ll begin by highlighting this nuanced opinion from a Jordan voter who believes MJ’s influence on the entire sports world — not just basketball — is a deciding X-factor.

“The greatest ever is LeBron James, (but) the greatest of all time is Michael Jordan,” the player said. “The difference is stats. When you talk about impact, Michael Jordan. When you talk about stats and numbers, LeBron. Mike has the most impact, so that makes him the greatest ever in all aspects because he doesn’t just impact basketball. He impacts people who look up to him in tennis and football. But you won’t hear that about LeBron. ... LeBron changed the game, but more so how it’s played. Jordan changed how it’s viewed. And that’s a big difference.”

I find that last remark particularly interesting. One of Cowen's criteria for economic greatness was influencing the world of thinking beyond economics. Preferring Jordan because of his influence on sports in general is the same kind of consideration, no? 

There's more at the link.

Sunday, May 16, 2021

What is the summit? Truth or metaphor?

John Branch, Only 44 people have reached the summit of all 14 of the world's highest mountains. Or maybe no one has. NYTimes, May 22, 2011.

Mountains are complex physical objects and their highest points are not necessarily well-defined. Climbing to the top of an 8000 meter mountain is very difficult. Consequently claiming to have reached the summit is a substantial claim, no?

Just what does it mean to reach the summit?

It is a question both simple and cosmic, sure to divide absolutists from pragmatists.

“The summit does matter,” said David Roberts, a climber who has written dozens of books on Himalayan expeditions and co-written books with the likes of Viesturs, Jon Krakauer, Conrad Anker and Alex Honnold. “Why does it matter? Because it’s the whole point of mountaineering. It’s the goal that defines an ascent.”

There is no true governing body for mountaineering, no single arbiter of what constitutes a feat worthy of adulation. For top mountaineers, it is a fuzzy world subject to personal satisfaction and occasional peer review. Accomplishment is judged by some indescribable mix of difficulty, imagination and style.

It does not always matter if the top is reached. As Viesturs pointed out, it is called climbing, not summiting. The point is often the process.

But the summit is a rare tangible accomplishment in climbing, the one yes-or-no proposition. It can turn humans into heroes. It can bestow fame and forge reputations.

More philosophically, it has meaning. It exists as the ultimate metaphor for achievement, a vertical finish line that says you have gone as far as possible. There is nowhere higher to go.

“The summit is an ideal we can aspire to,” said the climber Michael Kennedy, a former editor of Climbing and Alpinist magazines with a list of high-level mountaineering accomplishments to his name.

In 1997, he wrote an editorial for Climbing titled, “Close Only Counts in Horseshoes and Hand Grenades.”

“Issues of style aside, success is measured along a single axis,” he wrote. “You either reach the summit or you don’t. Not much room for debate. Or is there?”

Kennedy still believes those words. “If you want to say that you’ve climbed it,” he said recently, “you should climb to the summit.”

But he and others also wonder: Does it really matter?

“I don’t know,” Viesturs said. “I mean, who’s counting? Who’s watching? Who’s paying attention?”

Maybe the questions do not belong just to the mountaineers, but also to the rest of us. If we find that the world’s greatest climbers have been coming up short of their goals, purposely or not, maybe our response says more than the deception itself.

Maybe we are the ones who must reckon with the notion of a summit, in all its literary and metaphorical forms. Maybe we are the ones who must decide where the limits are.

There's more at the link.

Monday, August 17, 2020

The Last Dance [Media Notes 42]

This series, now available on Netflix, follows the career of Michael Jordan by placing it in the context of his final season in the NBA, 1997-1998. I should say that I have no particular interest in sports, but perhaps a smidge more interest in basketball. But I appreciate excellence wherever I see it, and Michael Jackson was certainly a superb basketball player.

Since I have not and do not follow basketball regularly, I’m not really in a very good position to judge Jordan’s abilities, am I? What I see, in this series, but elsewhere as well, is astounding, the leaps, the changes of direction (in mid-air too), the fakes, behind the back passes, all of it. For all I know this is routine. But no one says that; everyone agrees that, yes, Jordan is exceptional. I am happy to accept that judgment.

But it’s not just Jordan’s performance. It’s the other players as well, how they interacted with him, how they felt to be playing in his orbit (I’m thinking particularly of Steve Kerr in one sense, but Scottie Pippen and Dennis Rodman in another), how other players in the league dealt with him, and so forth. It’s all covered. I particularly enjoyed those interview scenes where Jordan would be given an iPad playing an interview where someone else was commenting about him. Sometimes he agreed, sometimes not, sometimes he smiled. Always interesting.

Always there is the pressure of being Michael Jordan, of in some sense, belonging to others as hero and role model. At one point he’s asked about his refusal to speak out on racial issues in the way that Muhammad Ali did. He simply says that while he admired Ali, that’s not what/who he wanted to be. He needed to draw a line between himself as a private individual and his public persona. He, reasonably enough, wanted to exert control over that persona rather than lending it to others for their purposes, however justifiable those purposes may have been.

A final note. The Wikipedia entry noted:
Scottie Pippen was reportedly "wounded and disappointed" by his characterization, though he did not make any public remarks during the documentary's airing. Pippen later denied any rift between himself and Jordan over the documentary.
Interesting. He certainly came through as an ambivalent figure, ambivalent about Jordan and about his treatment by the Bulls organization (holding him to a contract that effectively underpaid him). He often seemed uncomfortable while being interviewed, just barely masking a sneer.

Which is to say, we didn’t get the whole story – and just what would that be, the WHOLE story? – and the story we got was likely biased in Jordan’s favor. Of course. We’re adults. It’s a complex world. We’re not going to take everything at face value. But I’m pretty sure the action shots were real, not CGI.

Ken Burns, in particular, has noted that Jordan’s own production company was involved with the production. Well, OK. But, judging from what Burns did with his jazz series, where I know the subject better than Burns did, I don’t think he’s in a very good position to question someone else’s objectivity, even if that person had a role in telling their own story. Burns, of course, played no role whatsoever in the history of jazz, but he still managed to make a biased and sentimental hash of it.

But enough of this. It’s an engaging series. Even if you have no particular interest in basketball or sports, this series is worth dipping into.

Saturday, November 3, 2018

Sports parents behaving badly

Emilie Le Beau Lucchesi, Why Sports Parents Sometimes Behave So Badly, NYTimes, Nov. 1, 2018:
A 2016 study in the Journal of Family Relations by Dr. Dorsch and colleagues found an inverse relationship between a child’s perception of their family’s commitment to youth athletics and their enjoyment of the sport. The study examined data from a national sample of 163 parent-child pairs — 78 fathers and 85 mothers. The families were fairly affluent, with a median income topping $120,000 a year, and more than three-fourths of the parents had a college degree.

Parents reported spending an average of $1,583.89 a year on their child’s sports participation, though that ranged widely [...]Families tended to spend more on their sons than daughters.

But spending more on the sport didn’t predict a child’s enjoyment of that sport. Rather, children who perceived their parents as investing heavily in their sport tended to report a greater sense of parental pressure and a reduced sense of enjoyment.

Stacy Warner, an associate professor and graduate coordinator for sport management at East Carolina University, says a desire to belong is another reason some parents become emotionally overinvested in their child’s sports. Traveling to tournaments and other investments of time and money can produce a tribal effect and sense of community. [...]

For parents who build a social life through their child’s sports, Dr. Warner said there is a strong desire to protect their position within the community. It is, after all, a community membership that can be withdrawn if a child does not make the league or the team is cut early from a tournament. A desire to remain with the social group can produce a strong emotional response if a parent perceives that a referee makes a bad call or a child plays sluggishly. [...]

A desire for community, as well as a need to see a return on investment, is not limited to children’s sports participation. Dr. Dorsch’s laboratory is also testing parental emotional involvement in the performing arts, such as musical theater, orchestra and dance.

“We have data that we’re digging into that shows a very similar pattern,” Dr. Dorsch said.

It’s a pattern that sports organizations and officials wish to stop. Mr. Mano, the founder of the National Association of Sports Officials, said many leagues now escort referees into games. Others require parents to sign a good behavior agreement, in which the penalties for violation can range from a parent being banned from the stands or a team being barred from finishing the season. Other leagues do not allow any parents into specific games or entire tournaments.

Sunday, November 1, 2015

What do race horses 'think' about racing?

From the NYTimes about American Pharaoh, by Joe Drape:
Usually I want tension, I want drama in a horse race, especially one as important as the Breeders’ Cup Classic, which attracts the best horses from around the world and carries a hefty purse: $5 million, half of it to the winner.

But as American Pharoah and his seven rivals edged into the starting gate Saturday, the mist settled in the dark skies at Keenelaand, and this historic racetrack in the heart of the Bluegrass State became deafeningly quiet. You could hear deep breaths. Nothing much was at stake — except the legacy of a horse and the definition of greatness.

“This was about American Pharoah,” said the colt’s emotional owner, Ahmed Zayat. “We wanted him to go out the right way.”

Sort of silly, right? [...] In a world filled with smartphones, brain-rattling N.F.L. hits and presidential debates as spectator sport, there is something soothing and old world about watching a horse rocket around an oval ahead of others just because he can.
But what does the horse think about it? How does the horse feel after a good run? Does a good run feel different if it's a winning run rather than a losing run? Yes, the jockey, the owners, and the fans feel it differently. But does the horse? How does the horse feel the jockey's reaction to the run?

Wednesday, July 1, 2015

Abstract basketball, the triangle offense

I've watched a few basketball games, but I wouldn't recognize the triangle offense if it bit me on the posterior. It seems that many far more knowledgeable about the game are mystified as well. The NYTimes has an article in search of an account where we find these interesting paragraphs:
“I love watching it; everybody seems to be involved,” Amaker said. But, he added, he would never use the system as a coach because “it’s not something I know.”

That even Amaker, considered one of basketball’s most intelligent coaches, could not say much about the triangle seemed remarkable until I spoke with Jay Williams, an ESPN analyst. Williams played in the triangle in his one season with the Bulls before a career-ending motorcycle crash, yet he, too, was challenged to explain it.

“Me, I study the game every day,” Williams said. “I have an N.B.A. League Pass. I watch so many college games. I’m breaking down games every night.

“You hand me a piece of paper and say, ‘Jay, define the triangle for me,’ it’s kind of like a kid with Magic Markers drawing a cartoon. It’s all over the page. So many series of actions, I get lost trying to explain it. Now, give me four guys who know how to run it on the court, I can get out there and do it.”
So we've got a man who knows it when he sees it, but can't use it and another who can play it, but can't explain it.

But lots of things are like that, we can do them but can't explain them.

Thursday, February 13, 2014

The homogenization of the world's cultures is ramping up

Regional costume is vanishing from the planet, kept alive at the opening ceremony of each new Olympics and on the it’s-a-small-world ride at Disneyland. Increasingly it is a small world in style terms, one in which traditional garments like saris, dhotis, lungis, kimonos and sarongs are on their way out, jeans having become as inevitable a uniform of daily life in Delhi or Dublin as in Dubuque.

With rare exceptions (the hand-knit Bad Christmas sweaters devised by Polo Ralph Lauren for the United States team, and already selling on eBay for thousands; the knit logo caps like those worn by the Canadians that left no doubt about national affiliation; the traditional Bermuda shorts on a one-member Bermuda team), the current Olympics are a perfect reflection of style homogenization. Without the curious space-maidens, in their go-go boots, spatula headdresses and carrying rings-of-Saturn signs identifying the national teams, a viewer last week would have had little luck differentiating one country from the next.

Saturday, February 8, 2014

Classic Olympic Tourists?

The di Silvestris have taken a less direct path. Without giving a precise date, di Silvestri said that he and Angelica had first visited Dominica “years ago” and that they had financed developmental and humanitarian projects on the island. He did not provide specifics on the projects but said he and his wife had done philanthropic work internationally in education, health and athletics.

“It’s a beautiful country; we fell in love with it, and the people are great, and we wanted to help them in some way,” he said. “These countries, they need assistance, so we did. We acted the best we could at the time, made a financial contribution to the country that went to different projects, and in return they granted us citizenship.”

Di Silvestri said that he and Angelica also hold Italian citizenship and that he holds United States citizenship.

Bill Mallon, an Olympic historian from the United States, called the di Silvestris “classic Olympic tourists.”

Wednesday, December 4, 2013

A Meditation on Golf: What Would Dad Think about Liberty National?


Thinking about golf and trying to master it takes one’s mind away from other troubles.
– William Benzon


I think a lot about golf as a metaphor for life. The harder you swing, the less far it goes.
– Paul Fireman


IMGP4652

That’s the clubhouse for Liberty National Golf Course, on the banks of the Hudson River – or is it the upper end of New York Bay at that point? – at the south end of Jersey City, NJ. When you go up the steps, which are chained off midway, you go onto the club grounds which are, of course, private. When you go down, you come to the club’s private pier. You can see the Statue of Liberty at the left edge of the photo, hence the club’s name:

IMGP4654

The pier is for a motor launch that ferries club members back and forth to Manhattan. Club members with helicopters can land on the club’s helipad.

* * * * *

The man left of center in the photo below is my father:

Father & co 400 dpi jpg copy

I don’t know exactly what meeting this was, or when it took place. But it would have had to do with coal preparation in some way and it probably took place in the 1960s – the date on his badge appears to be 1966. He worked with Bethlehem Mines, the mining subsidiary of Bethlehem Steel (now defunct), and was Superintendent of Coal Preparation. He was in charge of removing impurities from coal so it could be used in smelting iron ore into iron. He has a few patents to his name and was quite distinguished in that field.

Sunday, November 24, 2013

The Origin of Golf, a Just-So Story Involving Shepherds and Pebbles

‘Pleasures are more beneficial than duties, because, like the quality of mercy, they are not strained, and they are twice blessed.’ – R. L. S.
I'm in the process of working up a post about Liberty National Golf Course in Jersey City, wondering just what my father, who'd been an avid golfer, would think of the place and its place in the world. To that end I've been looking through some of my father's golf stuff, including score cards from two rounds he played on the old course at St. Andrews, the mecca of the golf world, and his copy of the first edition of The Art of Golf by Sir W. G. Simpson, Bart. (baronet).

IMGP5025

Sir Walter was a gentleman golfer, with all the weight of class and privilege "gentleman" carried in 19th Century Britain, and a friend of Robert Louis Stevenson. The book has some 140 pages plus of instruction, including photos, which are precded by 40 pages of upper class British learning and dry humor.

Here's what Sir Walter has to say about the game's origins. Note the opening geological reference. Why? And, of course, the shepherds, how classical! The true story, we know, is somewhat different.

* * * * *

Golf, besides being a royal game, is also a very ancient one. Although it cannot be determined when it was first played, there seems little doubt that it had its origin in the present geological period, golf links being, we are informed, of Pleistocene formation.

Friday, November 22, 2013

Above and Beyond, from Golf to Blues

I was rummaging around on my hard-drive, looking for something I know is there, someplace, or at least it was, some time long ago – I mean, there’s stuff on this drive that goes back to 1984, when I bought my first MacIntosh – and not finding it. But I bumped into some stuff I’d forgotten was there. Here’s some passages that didn’t make the final cut for Beethoven’s Anvil, my book on music. The first is about a golfer who rose above his usual level while playing against Tiger Woods.

Then we go to music and end up with a band from upstate New York, The Out of Control Rhythm and Blues Band. I played with them for a few years and two gigs stand out in my mind as being a cut above the others and, believe me, there are some very find gigs among those others. 
What, you might ask, do golf and the blues have to do with one another? Simple, you do them with your body.
Bob May Rises to Woods

Let us, for a moment, return to athletics. During the period in which I have written this book [I was working on the book in 1999-2000], Tiger Woods established himself as arguably the greatest golfer in history, and he is not yet thirty, which is a prime time for golfers, though other athletes are often on the decline by that time. In particular, Woods became the youngest golfer ever to complete a so-called Grand Slam, winning the four most prestigious tournaments in the game – the British Open (open meaning that both professionals and amateurs compete), the United States Open, the Master’s, and the PGA (Progessional Golfer’s Association) – and, beyond that, winning three of them in a single season.

However, it’s not Tiger Wood who interests me. Yes, he may well be the greatest golfer in history. And whatever role natural athletic endowment plays in that greatness, one must also consider the amount of time Woods spent playing golf at a very early age. By the time he was five he may well have logged more hours playing golf than any other five-year-old in history. Given what we now know about the brain’s maturation, that implies that Woods’ may be more intimately attuned to the requirements and rhythms of golf than any other player. And that is why he will raise the bar on golfing excellence. But, as I said, the mystery of his excellence is not the mystery I want to think about.

I’m interested in the man he beat to win the 2000 PGA. That man, Bob May, is slightly older than Woods – 31 years old at the time, as against Woods’ 24 – and was, as they say, a journeyman player. No one would have picked him to finish in the top 10, much less to play so well that he was tied with the phenomenal Tiger Woods at the end of regulation play, thereby forcing a play-off. Woods, as we know, won that play-off – oddly enough, by recovering from some spectacularly bad shots – and, in doing so, was simply being Tiger Woods. This was certainly an above average performance from Woods, but it was within what we have to assume is his range.

Bob May played above himself. This was not in his normal performance range; it was an exceptional game. What, physically, does that mean? In a general way it surely means that the muscles in his body and the neurons of his nervous system were coordinated more exactly than they’d ever been before. And this coordination was in effect, not for a minute, or an hour, or even for the five hours it takes to play a round of golf. For golf tournaments are contested in four rounds played over for days. Thus, for four days in late August of 2000, the 31st year of his life, Bob Woods was more synchronized and harmonized than he’d ever been. He was, to use a theological term, inspired.

Granted that, without a deeper understanding of bodily movement that statement doesn’t have much teeth to it; but it will do as a ball-park characterization. Things clicked and, once they got started clicking, they stayed that way.