Sports are an often discussed and greatly beloved part of society. The visibility of sports comes from the conversations it enables. Conversations take place about the athletes, the owners, and the apparel, not to mention the actual sporting event. Storylines drive the public’s fascination with sports. Questions concerning fairness and equality, stories of triumph and tragedy, and feelings of intrigue and mystery bring eyes to viewing screens every week. The storyline topics take place with respect to both on field competition and society at large. Questions concerning Ray Rice and domestic violence quickly transition from if he should be allowed to play to the analysis of trends of domestic violence.
Sports are considered the purest form of competition. People compete with the same rules, using the same equipment, on the same field. It becomes a test of skill, one person’s will and ability against another person’s will and ability. The best person will win, and his win will be well deserved after all, he was better. This person either worked to be better or was born with more skill and was innately better regardless, he performed better and his win is unquestioned. Players get old, retire, and die, rules change, the game changes, but the sport remains the same. The objective all the while is ever clear, win.
Thank you guys for your post. You have a lot of ideas going on in these two paragraphs. Mainly I see that you are interested in the first paragraph in the way in which the stories (and the drama) behind the player drive much of sports ratings. You suggest that all types of narratives and issues and emotions get intertwined with a particular player so that any discussion of them (let alone their playing) also brings up discussions on these issues. Ray Rice seems to be your example par excellence. In your second paragraph you seem to switch gears to talk about the importance of winning as the central goals of athletes in sports. You also suggest that the winner wins because he/she is better and thus winning means we can tell that he/she is better.
I have a couple of concerns, but my biggest concern is that I don’t see how you move from paragraph one which seems like it’s setting up to move in one direction and paragraph two which seems to depart from a whole different point of view. In paragraph two, I also think you run the risks of some logical fallacies. You say that winners win because they are better and thus winning means they are better. The reasoning here is circular and doesn’t hold up. I also wonder about the argument in general. It seems like one that I think you might easily probe. Does the better athlete always win? Does the better team always win? Also I suspect that at the heart of this paragraph is more about the idea that there’s something happening in the game with the players that is separate or in excess all the media personalities and divisions. I don’t know if you need to make these huge claims about winning in order to get at this idea.
Either way I need you to make the link between the first and second paragraph more explicit.