Update
Haven't updated in a while. A new semester started. Not much to say about that. No poker here in Houston either(that I know of), and so no interesting hands to discuss.
Instead I think I'm going to talk about Formula One, in the hopes of getting some of you interested in one of the great sports of our day. I dare to say it is the greatest, and I'll justify this shortly, as if I needed to.
Hemingway is often quoted as saying that the only activities that qualify as sports are bullfighting, mountain climbing, and automobile racing. "The rest are just games," as the saying goes. The defining characteristic of sport then is risk of death, since Hemingway was obviously just a little bit more hardcore than the rest of his generation.
He also probably didn't say that quote. I've never been able to find an actual citation.
Mountain climbing's alright, but it's a little slow. Next!
I'll go on the record and say that I like bullfighting, despite the sheer cruelty. But in my admittedly superficial understanding of the sport, at the very least the bulls have a chance. I would guess that every now and then, a bull is born with strength, speed, and ingenuity enough to gore a bullfighter right in the junk after being poked near to death. And then the bull would win his freedom, be 'forced' to stud all over the world, and have Lamborghinis named after him. So as rare as that happens, at least there's a chance for glory. So bullfighting in Hemingway-logic isn't that cruel.
But bullfighting has some disadvantages too, and so takes second to F1. My problem with bullfighting isn't so much the bright colors, or the tight clothing. Maybe it's a combination of that with the arrogance and "gracefulness" of the bullfighters. Anyway something about it is off-putting. Maybe if they trained and put someone like Eva Longoria or the cast of the O.C. in the ring, then I'd watch. Maybe Lucy Lawless. Maybe Lucy Lawless and ninjas. Eh, ninjas are so early 2001.
But until then, I'll stick with F1. It hasn't been since 1994 that a driver has died from a major accident, but the risk is still there. The technology has been around for decades to build cars that are faster than humans can safely drive, but regulations exist to keep cars right on that level. Within these constraints, teams compete to build cars with better technology and basically give them to people my age who are better than anyone in the world at making use of these cars. Teams pay drivers tens of millions of dollars to drive these things, just because they may be 100 milliseconds faster per lap than someone else. Think about that.
So there's risk, which brings a certain visceral thrill. There's competition on a vast array of levels. And there's an absurd amount of money involved. All of which should make for good spectacle, which is really what matters for a modern sport. You would think the overseers of Formula One would realize that, but spectacle is exactly what F1 has been lacking in the past half-decade. That and marketing.
This is because the last half-decade saw an absurd regulations oversight which allowed basically a spending war, which was more like a thermonuclear war by a single power and so having a single victor. This victor was Ferrari, which outspent every other team on the best driver, best mechanicals and best aerodynamics. They had an insanely beautiful car each year, both aesthetically and technically, and took both driver and constructor championships 5 years in a row. And they destroyed Formula One viewership in the process.
This was because the F1 rulemakers neglected to level the playing field. There was no contest, and so no spectacle. There's nothing interesting in watching a season of races, when by the first race experts and fans alike knew that Ferrari was literally 1-2 years ahead in both aerodynamic technology and on the timesheets. It didn't matter how competitive or well made the car was.
It wasn't until this last season that people figured it out, changed the rules, and people started watching F1 again. New teams and new drivers overtook the old leaders, and the cars were faster and better than they have ever been in the last century.
But even then, F1 still isn't immediately, all-envelopingly appealing. Part of its spectacle is subtle, for a number of reasons. Since I've ranted for long enough, I'll explain F1's appeal in other posts. I hope you've found this one worthwhile.
I'll end this rant with a link to David Coulthard's Very Sexy Thing, in his words.
Instead I think I'm going to talk about Formula One, in the hopes of getting some of you interested in one of the great sports of our day. I dare to say it is the greatest, and I'll justify this shortly, as if I needed to.
Hemingway is often quoted as saying that the only activities that qualify as sports are bullfighting, mountain climbing, and automobile racing. "The rest are just games," as the saying goes. The defining characteristic of sport then is risk of death, since Hemingway was obviously just a little bit more hardcore than the rest of his generation.
He also probably didn't say that quote. I've never been able to find an actual citation.
Mountain climbing's alright, but it's a little slow. Next!
I'll go on the record and say that I like bullfighting, despite the sheer cruelty. But in my admittedly superficial understanding of the sport, at the very least the bulls have a chance. I would guess that every now and then, a bull is born with strength, speed, and ingenuity enough to gore a bullfighter right in the junk after being poked near to death. And then the bull would win his freedom, be 'forced' to stud all over the world, and have Lamborghinis named after him. So as rare as that happens, at least there's a chance for glory. So bullfighting in Hemingway-logic isn't that cruel.
But bullfighting has some disadvantages too, and so takes second to F1. My problem with bullfighting isn't so much the bright colors, or the tight clothing. Maybe it's a combination of that with the arrogance and "gracefulness" of the bullfighters. Anyway something about it is off-putting. Maybe if they trained and put someone like Eva Longoria or the cast of the O.C. in the ring, then I'd watch. Maybe Lucy Lawless. Maybe Lucy Lawless and ninjas. Eh, ninjas are so early 2001.
But until then, I'll stick with F1. It hasn't been since 1994 that a driver has died from a major accident, but the risk is still there. The technology has been around for decades to build cars that are faster than humans can safely drive, but regulations exist to keep cars right on that level. Within these constraints, teams compete to build cars with better technology and basically give them to people my age who are better than anyone in the world at making use of these cars. Teams pay drivers tens of millions of dollars to drive these things, just because they may be 100 milliseconds faster per lap than someone else. Think about that.
So there's risk, which brings a certain visceral thrill. There's competition on a vast array of levels. And there's an absurd amount of money involved. All of which should make for good spectacle, which is really what matters for a modern sport. You would think the overseers of Formula One would realize that, but spectacle is exactly what F1 has been lacking in the past half-decade. That and marketing.
This is because the last half-decade saw an absurd regulations oversight which allowed basically a spending war, which was more like a thermonuclear war by a single power and so having a single victor. This victor was Ferrari, which outspent every other team on the best driver, best mechanicals and best aerodynamics. They had an insanely beautiful car each year, both aesthetically and technically, and took both driver and constructor championships 5 years in a row. And they destroyed Formula One viewership in the process.
This was because the F1 rulemakers neglected to level the playing field. There was no contest, and so no spectacle. There's nothing interesting in watching a season of races, when by the first race experts and fans alike knew that Ferrari was literally 1-2 years ahead in both aerodynamic technology and on the timesheets. It didn't matter how competitive or well made the car was.
It wasn't until this last season that people figured it out, changed the rules, and people started watching F1 again. New teams and new drivers overtook the old leaders, and the cars were faster and better than they have ever been in the last century.
But even then, F1 still isn't immediately, all-envelopingly appealing. Part of its spectacle is subtle, for a number of reasons. Since I've ranted for long enough, I'll explain F1's appeal in other posts. I hope you've found this one worthwhile.
I'll end this rant with a link to David Coulthard's Very Sexy Thing, in his words.
posted by joe at 10:00 PM
2 Comments:
Hmm, I don't know if we can trust you. You said your car was like a Camry...
Both Johnny Chan and Doyle Brunson started their poker careers in Houston playing in underground clubs. You're probably just not trying hard enough to find them.
Post a Comment
<< Home