Talk:Sport

Sport is "woo"?
Really? RaoulDuke 12:40, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * This reminds me a lot of an Onion sport article. 12:47, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It makes a good point about support. I've seen it, they're almost worse than religious fundamentalists when it comes to getting their kids to support the same side. There are a lot of crazy parallels and the entire thing is a bit irrational. 12:49, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe pseudoreligion, but not woo as we define it. RaoulDuke 12:52, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Absolutely not "woo" just because there is a sort of fundamentalism behind it. IF you look hard enough, you'll always find zealotry behind many concepts, even if that concept is something that isn't woo-grade. 12:58, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks more like it belongs as fun:Sport. Pretty funny article, and in some ways true, but it seems a little uncyclopedic. --Concernedresident 13:26, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Not that RW is, in fact, an encyclopedia... however I agree that there are some woo's in sport but they're really just special cases of other things. You get the "sports illustrated jinx" and numerous other myths and superstitions for instance. The world of sport just acts as a magnet for such things. 14:44, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

There's a big difference between Anmondokov's correct observation that sport attracts woo and the idea that sport IS woo. RaoulDuke 14:48, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with most of the above comments. It's not impossible for a sane and rational person to enjoy sport just for the spectacle, and there's nothing wrong with sport in itself, especially if it encourages kids to go out and play once in a while. Maybe change the article to "woo in sport" or something like that and talk about some of the more nonsensical aspects of it Woodgod (talk) 11:56, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Could there be a list of weird sports - bog snorkelling, snail racing etc - be created here or in the putative funspace piece. 82.44.143.26 (talk) 15:05, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Beware of puritanism
As a form of entertainment and exercise, sport is not a bad thing.

Some of the other aspects, such as commercialisation, pseudoreligion and hooliganism are more worrying.

However, I suspect anyone who wishes to deride it or even ban it is probably guilty of puritanism, even in an atheist guise. Sport has bad aspects, but it also gives many of us harmless pleasure. There are many things I don't enjoy but others do, but that doesn't mean I wish to ban them. Well, maybe I'll make an exception fo cricket lol.-Albannach (talk) 22:45, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

...and authoritarianism
The abuse of sport (and of athlete's bodies) in the service of authoritarian governments needs to be mentioned, most notoriously by the Communist Bloc in the cold war, but there are many other examples, eg the Argentine Junta using soccer hooligans to beat up dissidents. Also, perhaps there could be something about governments putting on sporting events to distract the populace from more difficult/embarrassing/expensive problems. Sophie Wilder  22:59, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * This is a very good point and far more serious than many of the current objections on the page.-Albannach (talk) 00:02, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

A religion
Sport (not all sport!!!) has many of the hallmarks of religion in its extreme form. I disagree it is like nationalistic zealotry, it can go way beyond that. Some people even say "it's my church".--Albannach (talk) 16:17, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes they do. But they are wrong. No transcendent element, no religion. It's really way more akin to nationalistic fervor. When Roosevelt came to the land of the hummingbird, shouts of welcome were heard!. 16:22, 20 March 2013 (UTC)


 * If you've ever seen more rabid football fans after one goes into the net, then there certainly is a transcendent element too! (Close to orgasm perhaps.)


 * In some places, e.g. Glasgow, religion and football are hopelessly intertwined as well.--Albannach (talk) 16:43, 20 March 2013 (UTC) p.s. I'm not anti-sport, I'm just against some of the rubbish which has attached itself to it!--Albannach (talk) 16:43, 20 March 2013 (UTC)


 * As a season ticket holder for the mighty 'Pool I can attest that a goal in extra time is almost as good as sex but, religious, no, it's tribal. It's us against them. We often get away fans drinking in the same club - after all, it's only fifty yards from the ground - and, while we're there, we're all friendly. Once in the ground it's a different matter. We sing our songs, we shout and scream, we rant and rave and then, afterwards, we're all friends again, sharing a common love of footie. (OK, so Leeds fans are animals, well some of them.)
 * If there are comparisons with religion then it's because Religion is sometimes tribal. The Celtic/Rangers thing is about the two Glasgow tribes. Sure they are marked out by religion but it's tribal first, religious second. As for 'Pool vs. Preston, there's no religion there at all. It's just that they're our nearest rivals. Innocent Bystander (talk) 16:53, 20 March 2013 (UTC)


 * "When I was just a little boy, I asked my mother what shall I be. Should I be Blackpool, or PNE, here's what she said to me..." User:DeltaStarUser_talk:DeltaStar 17:00, 20 March 2013 (UTC)


 * "it's tribal first, religious second." - I take it you haven't heard the frequent references to "Fuck the Pope" and 1690 by them!!! "we're there, we're all friendly" - That's true of most sport, but in soccer, the two lots usually have to be separated in case holy war breaks out. You don't get the same problem/degree of trouble in rugby, cricket, or even American football.


 * I am a sports fan, and have been to watch several sports. I also play one or two. But with some soccer fans, it is a religion. It goes way, way beyond nationalistic/tribal fervour. Google "football" + "religion".--Albannach (talk) 17:06, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, I'm not going to argue directly except to say that, once you start including sport then you have to include a whole bunch of other things as well. Top of the list is rock'n'roll. How many millions worship there. Excuse the old fartisms but going to a Dead concert was far, far closer to a religious experience than going to watch footie. What's more, no one believes that their football star has all the answers but Gerry Garcia! OMG! Not to mention the Clapton for God thing.
 * And why stop at Rock'n'roll? What about opera? It doesn't do it for me but I know that, for those that it touches, it is a transcendent experience.
 * In fact, any situation where you get groups of people who are passionate about something and who gather together to share that passion then you can make exactly the same comparisons as with footie. Don't get side tracked by a couple of Glasgow teams, or the need to segregate the fans. It's the shared emotional experience that's the link. Innocent Bystander (talk) 18:11, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Seriously?
This article is one of the most annoying I've read on this wiki (I should clarify that I'm overall in agreement with stuff on RW, having been a lurking reader for months now when I'm procrastinating in my spare time, and I'm on board with its mission and all that. I don't think I'd need this song and dance if I had an account here and was decently acquainted with the community, but I don't yet, so I feel the need for a disclaimer to avoid confusion with "hater" BONs). Anyway, unless this article is 100% pure snark, it needs to lighten up. It seems like a steaming heap of over-analysis, intellectually beating the shit out of something that's generally benign. I've seen some suggestions that this be moved to the Funspace, so it may very well be pure snark, and if so, I'm on board with said suggestions. Before I go any further (not like I have the time, I've got to be off now, lol), I would appreciate if someone would please let me know if this is snark and if I'm the one engaging in molehill mountaineering. Thanks. 173.75.137.33 (talk) 03:19, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I think it is supposed to be funny (at least I hope so). DamoHi 03:36, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * What in the nine hells is this doing in main space? Satanic themes? Really? Nullahnung (talk) 13:43, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Comment
It appears that this is a pre-created-since-deleted article: but I am otherwise busy. Perhaps there should be a Funspace or a sports-woo article 'or somesuch.'

The disconnect between darts and bog snorkeling is intentional. 82.44.143.26 (talk) 16:49, 23 November 2015 (UTC)