• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Stunning Weekend: End of THREE fandoms in 24 hours!!!!

Tigger said:
I view sports much as many people view war (or at least used to view it). It's not only about winning, but about dominating your enemy, destroying them physically and emotionally, while forcing them to surrender mentally (give up).
Click to expand...

It's a GAME. :roll: It's for entertainment purposes.
 
The Red Sox not only won the World Series, but they literally kicked butt. The final score was 6-1. I don't think there's much more there is to expect. That's really good.
 
Tigger said:
I view sports much as many people view war (or at least used to view it). It's not only about winning, but about dominating your enemy, destroying them physically and emotionally, while forcing them to surrender mentally (give up).
Click to expand...

I don't know who you've been talking to, but war is pretty much all about "winning" first and foremost. No one really cares how flawless the victor's performance may or may not have been in doing so after the fact.

Take the American Civil War, Hannibal's invasion of Roman Italy, or Hitler's invasion of the USSR for instance. In all of those cases, the losing side was actually more competent on average than the winners.

Tigger said:
I don't watch games that I don't have a specific rooting interest in.
Click to expand...

Okay, but that doesn't change my point here. Do you not watch sports to see your team win?

That's the "bottom line."

ChrisL said:
Ohhhh, that loss to the Giants in the SB really hurt.
Click to expand...

It was a real shocker. I wonder if it'll eventually get a movie. :lol:

Lol, in that case, I'm not really sure if I would be winning, seeing as how I'd probably be really sick. Lol.
Click to expand...

That's why you make your bets before the game starts. ;)
 
Do love how fickle sports fans are! When I lived in New England Lackey was hated by everyone and now he is the hero lol. After the abuse Lackey took I would of been tempted to give Fenway the middle finger
 
ChrisL said:
It's a GAME. :roll: It's for entertainment purposes.
Click to expand...

Not for an instant. The moment they start keeping score it becomes DEATHLY serious so far as I'm concerned.

ChrisL said:
The Red Sox not only won the World Series, but they literally kicked butt. The final score was 6-1. I don't think there's much more there is to expect. That's really good.
Click to expand...

They lost two games in each of the three post-season series. If you take Ortiz out of the equation, their team batting average is below .200 in the World Series. Take Pedroia out too and it drops much closer to .100. In only one game, Game 1, did they truly dominate both sides of the ball. Should I go on?

Gathomas88 said:
I don't know who you've been talking to, but war is pretty much all about "winning" first and foremost. No one really cares how flawless the victor's performance may or may not have been in doing so after the fact.
Click to expand...

Yes, war is about winning, but when one goes back to the time period I'm talking about (medieval mostly), a large part of the idea of war was as a means to subjugate the population as much as it was to simply win land and valuables. By decimating one's enemy and ensuring there was an overwhelming show of force, the victorious side either warded off other potential attackers, or showed the newly conquered people that it wasn't worth resisting.

Gathomas88 said:
Okay, but that doesn't change my point here. Do you not watch sports to see your team win? That's the "bottom line."
Click to expand...

No. I watch games to see my rooting interest DOMINATE the enemy and destroy them utterly.

Gathomas88 said:
That's why you make your bets before the game starts. ;)
Click to expand...

I don't bet.
 
Tigger said:
Not for an instant. The moment they start keeping score it becomes DEATHLY serious so far as I'm concerned.



They lost two games in each of the three post-season series. If you take Ortiz out of the equation, their team batting average is below .200 in the World Series. Take Pedroia out too and it drops much closer to .100. In only one game, Game 1, did they truly dominate both sides of the ball. Should I go on?



Yes, war is about winning, but when one goes back to the time period I'm talking about (medieval mostly), a large part of the idea of war was as a means to subjugate the population as much as it was to simply win land and valuables. By decimating one's enemy and ensuring there was an overwhelming show of force, the victorious side either warded off other potential attackers, or showed the newly conquered people that it wasn't worth resisting.



No. I watch games to see my rooting interest DOMINATE the enemy and destroy them utterly.



I don't bet.
Click to expand...

That's nuts.
 
Tigger said:
I view sports much as many people view war (or at least used to view it). It's not only about winning, but about dominating your enemy, destroying them physically and emotionally, while forcing them to surrender mentally (give up).
Click to expand...

Then no sports team is for you because they all fail at that from time to time and no team is that consistent or perfect. Not even the Patriots.

Sports is supposed to be enjoyed for good play, sportsmanship and the achievements of some individuals. Yeah, it sucks when your team loses, but dang, it's not like it actually affects a person real life.
 
Gina said:
Then no sports team is for you because they all fail at that from time to time and no team is that consistent or perfect. Not even the Patriots.

Sports is supposed to be enjoyed for good play, sportsmanship and the achievements of some individuals. Yeah, it sucks when your team loses, but dang, it's not like it actually affects a person real life.
Click to expand...

You're pretty much correct, and that's more or less what I've figured out over the years. The 1991-92 Redskins were pretty damn close to being what I'm looking for... 14-2 regular season (should have been 16-0), dominant offense and defense (ranked 1 or 2 in both), had a dominant playoff run, including clubbing the Bills in the Super Bowl. That team set records for scoring, offense, defense, and just generally clobbered opponents all season long. Their two losses were in Week 11 (to Dallas) in a game they should have won, and Week 16 against Philly when Joe Gibbs took out almost all his starters in the second half, allowing the Eagles to kick a last second, game-winning field goal.

I have to respectfully disagree with your view of what sports is supposed to be. Of course that is likely due to my extreme competitiveness and control issues combined with my own personal sports/competition record. Without getting into details, my first even mildly successful competitive endeavours were in high school, despite the fact that both of my younger brothers were exceptional athletes. I learned early in life the difference between winning and losing and it has seriously molded my view on this issue.
 
Tigger said:
You're pretty much correct, and that's more or less what I've figured out over the years. The 1991-92 Redskins were pretty damn close to being what I'm looking for... 14-2 regular season (should have been 16-0), dominant offense and defense (ranked 1 or 2 in both), had a dominant playoff run, including clubbing the Bills in the Super Bowl. That team set records for scoring, offense, defense, and just generally clobbered opponents all season long. Their two losses were in Week 11 (to Dallas) in a game they should have won, and Week 16 against Philly when Joe Gibbs took out almost all his starters in the second half, allowing the Eagles to kick a last second, game-winning field goal.

I have to respectfully disagree with your view of what sports is supposed to be. Of course that is likely due to my extreme competitiveness and control issues combined with my own personal sports/competition record. Without getting into details, my first even mildly successful competitive endeavours were in high school, despite the fact that both of my younger brothers were exceptional athletes. I learned early in life the difference between winning and losing and it has seriously molded my view on this issue.
Click to expand...

When it comes to sports - you have absolutely no respect at all.

It's best you stop watching/supporting all of it, and again - please don't procreate and raise any off-spring.
 
Tigger said:
You're pretty much correct, and that's more or less what I've figured out over the years. The 1991-92 Redskins were pretty damn close to being what I'm looking for... 14-2 regular season (should have been 16-0), dominant offense and defense (ranked 1 or 2 in both), had a dominant playoff run, including clubbing the Bills in the Super Bowl. That team set records for scoring, offense, defense, and just generally clobbered opponents all season long. Their two losses were in Week 11 (to Dallas) in a game they should have won, and Week 16 against Philly when Joe Gibbs took out almost all his starters in the second half, allowing the Eagles to kick a last second, game-winning field goal.

I have to respectfully disagree with your view of what sports is supposed to be. Of course that is likely due to my extreme competitiveness and control issues combined with my own personal sports/competition record. Without getting into details, my first even mildly successful competitive endeavours were in high school, despite the fact that both of my younger brothers were exceptional athletes. I learned early in life the difference between winning and losing and it has seriously molded my view on this issue.
Click to expand...

I'm done responding to this thread. After reading this post in particular, it's clear that this is nothing more than a Tigger AW thread.
 
Tigger said:
That's me. Take it or leave it because it is not going to change.
Click to expand...

Ya see... that is the talk of consistency. Your lack of loyalty shows you to be counter to this. You are not as consistent as you believe yourself to be. It's tough to trust such lack of loyalty. And trust, IMO, is the most important factor in any relationship be it love, friendship, work environment... whatever. Without trust, every relationship resting on it disolves.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom