Singh apologizes to Sorenstam
 

Late to the conversation, but a subject (golf) that is dear to my heart. Someone already pointed out that Annika's average drive is 275.4 yards, a figure that would place her 158th on the PGA tour, between Shigeki Maruyama (a two-time PGA Tour winner, but who has nine international victories) and Robert Damron ( a relative newcomer with one PGA victory). However, Annika hits 76.5% of her greens in regulations, a figure that would make her No. 1 on the men's tour (Tiger, e.g. hits 68.3% of greens in regulation).

Admittedly, her high greens in regulation percentage is partially due to the way LPGA courses are set up vis-a-vis PGA courses, but not entirely. She is an incredibly accurate iron player, and has so outclassed the LPGA (winning 11 times last year and earning $1,141,623 more than the No. 2 player on the LPGA) that I can't blame her for wanting to see how she compares.

Thurgreed is right that she will be at a physical disadvantage to some of the men, but I don't think it will be a blowout like the tennis exhibitions. I think she is good enough to, over time, be a good, middle of the road, player on the men's tour, compensating for lack of size and strength with talent and ability, a la Corey Pavin. I agree with Tiger, however, that she should be given more than one opportunity to see how she can do because this first one will be a media circus and there will be a lot of pressure on her to perform.

Further, I don't think she owes any more of a duty to women's golf than Tiger owes a duty to fight all discrimination in golf (i.e. to not play the Masters). If she can compete, bully for her. As for not qualifying, that's a fucking red herring. Good young or international players get sponsor's exemptions all the time. It's not taking away a spot from anyone other than a really marginal male player and that is what sponsor's exemptions are for - the sponsor, not the Tour.

I hope she does well, and I predict (and am willing to bet) she makes the cut. I also hope Vijay hears it from the fans. He was an ass with his original comments and his apology was bullshit. Either stand by your statements or don't make them.

Sport, or not a Sport?
 

:eek2:

I can't believe you typed it and I read it. Shame on you.

Buffy (not new thread)
 

Watchers think that they're the good guys, but ever since they pulled that Abraham / Isaac thing on Buffy and Giles back in season three, they've been defined as "ambiguously good/poorly managed/clearly don't have a clue as to what's really going on." That was reinforced in the Angel episodes where they were going after Faith.

Singh apologizes to Sorenstam
 

Note, anyone taking me up on this bet must give me the odds offered by British bookies:

"But she can be backed at 1000/1 to win the tournament and 6/1 just to make the cut with Bet365. Chandlers though give Sorenstam slightly more respect, offering 5/2 that she makes the cut on the tightish Texas track.

Said Chandler odds compiler Don Stewart: "It will be very interesting to see how Sorenstam gets on and although she is the world's No1 woman player I'd be surprised if she makes the cut.

"It was interesting to hear Phil Mickelson say that she would finish around the 20th mark, but I think Lefty was probably turning on the charm a bit!" he added. "

Sport, or not a Sport?
 

Actually, shooting is the classic sport. But I'm an old-fashioned purist about what is sport and what is a game. Sports are outdoor recreational passtimes engaged in for the purpose of pleasure - classically, fishing, shooting and hunting.

Sport, or not a Sport?
 

Now footie is a Sport How did ESPN fail to make that game more popular? It's like wide-open rugby without all the scrums and confusing shit. It's essentially the playground game of kill the carrier (aka kill the man with the ball), plus a scoring element. And the best refs in sport -- the ice cream guys with the one or two forearmed point. Great stuff. All it needs are podium girls.

It's not a done deal. Virginia is going to lobby heavily to get Va. Tech in, and bounce the 'Cuse (BC would stay because there's a better television market than upstate NY).

The only redeeming value it has it that the local college games on TV in DC will less frequently be matchups like UNC v. Wake Forest, while hte rest of the country sees Miami/Michigan/Okla/USC play some other ranked team.

Sport, or not a Sport?
 

That makes sense, but what are all those things the ancient Greeks did, like javelin, discus, shot put etc. games, sports, what? Or are those technically "feats of strength"? (Like in Festivus).

Buffy (not new thread)
 

I've taken to thinking of them as "good in the sense that the Inquisition was good," in that they sometimes do good (i.e.: facilitate getting the bad people), but generally do more harm than good, and tend in practice to be more about the politics & bureocracy of justifying their continued bossiness.

But I had to get up to get another shot to dull the pain before the old chick started talking, so I sort of missed something that might have passed for non-waste-of-time exposition there.

And, dammit, David Boreanaz is SO DAMN FAT now compared to seasons 1-3. His whole face is lost in mush.

Sport, or not a Sport?
 

Those were games. (I.e.: the Olympic Games?) Games are organized contests (usually but not always athletic) engaged in by teams or individuals and conducted according to specific rules. Generally, competition = game.

Sport, or not a Sport?
 

Playing outside in Texas in July isn't "expending energy," it's merely self-immolation. But if you tell me I can drink lots of cocktails while I play, plus eat snacks, I'll call it anything the hell ya want. ;)

Sport, or not a Sport?
 

It's great how you use the word "classically" to describe an aristocratic lifestyle that evolved solely in the Modern era for a miniscule population, and that is already lost for all but a few Edwardian SCA dorks.

For eons before that, the "classic" sports you list were a means of subsistence, and people disported themselves, if at all, by feats of strength and exertion, like running, throwing, and wrestling contests. Games, perhaps, but "sport" is not circumscribed as those activities performed while wearing brogues.

Sport, or not a Sport?
 

Interesting. I generally don't think about it by making such fine distinctions. A sport in my mind is any competetive activity not involving a board or table, where the competition usually (but not always) takes place out of doors. I guess it would also involve strength, endurance and coordination, which would eliminate bowling, croquet and bocce, but doesn't necessarily involve defense, like downhill skiing, but I could be totally off base here. I'm sure Thurgreed will let me know. :D

Sport, or not a Sport?
 

Perhaps I am slow, but this "controversy" is absurd.

Hunting is considered a sport, shooting is not.

The definition of sport is "a game or competitve activity involving physical exertion."

A game on the other hand is "a form of play or sport, esp. a competitive one played according to rules and decided by skill, strength, or luck."

(Definitions from the Oxford Encyclopedic; emphasis, mine.)

edited to remove unreferenced quote. e/o

Sport, or not a Sport?
 

I understand that - I guess what I meant was is the sport/game distinction a British thing (ie. the things you call sports sound like what the Queen does, not what the Greeks did), or was that distinction and those definitions there way back when with the original Olympic Games. Did the greeks call it the "games" or is that just what we call it filtered through an Anglo view of the world.

I am thinking too much about this.

[Edited to say Atticus said what I am trying to get at much better]

Sport, or not a Sport?
 

This reminds me of the old feminist joke (yes, there are some) where if guys could menstruate they'd be competing over who had the worst cramps, and bragging "Yeah, I'm on the rag, man!" and clapping each other on the butt...