As one who spent some time years ago studying Mesoamerican
archaeology, I believe the solution to our current pro- and college-
level sports craziness is to adopt the old Mesoamerican ball-game
philosophy of sacrificing the winning team, or at least the star. As
I recall, sometimes the losers were sacrificed, but as a rule it was
at least one of the winners, if not all. Imagine the end of the World
Series, for example, or the World Cup, if the winning team were
sacrificed, instead of being awarded a trophy with enough valuable
metal in it to feed a small African nation for a year!
That said, a cricket aside: Esteemed Wife and I were on the train
from London to Dover last year. At Waterloo Station before boarding,
we bought a pile of British newspapers to enjoy on the ride down. I
recall reading about a cricket match in the sports section of one
paper (can't recall which one). After two paragraphs I began laughing
hysterically. EW looked over at me as though I had been stricken. I
gave her the paper and pointed out the two paragraphs I'd just read.
The language was English. I recognized each word in the two 'graphs.
But the context of those words, the way they were put together to
impart information about the match, was utterly and absolutely opaque
to me. I understood nothing. Nothing at all.
--Bob
www.bobwhitmire.com
On Feb 21, 2007, at 1:20 AM, Chris Barker wrote:
>
> I agree with you entirely, Moose. The day people started receiving
> money to play supposedly competitive sports was the day I started to
> lose interest. the competition is in the funds that the umbrella
> organisation is prepared to put into preparing today's youngsters.
>
> I am really happy that England won in the One-Day Series, but it's
> all bo**ocks really ... :-)
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|