where is the sport in motorsport ?

I have a problem with the idea that is ”motorsport”. And, that is – I don’t think, it is a sport. I tried, but I couldn’t see a sport in “motorsport”. I don’t discriminate any form of motorsport - F1 or NASCAR or IndyCar. I hate them equally. More importantly, I think ”motorsport” a misnomer. Call motorsport, a shameless and profligate expression of penis-envies, exhibited by those whirring, exploding, gas-sucking, and piston-pumping motors as a symbolic extension of the male genitals (except for Danica Patrick, may be). I stand behind you (with a little caution). Call it as motor-circus. I am totally with you. Call it a motor-driver-exhibition. I agree. Call it as a motor-competition. There is a bling of disagreement. Still, I nod. But, Calling it a sport - No, Sir ! Circus is not sport! Yes, it is entertainment. But not a sport. 

I know what is coming next. You are, probably, going to throw me the definition of sport. OK. Lets get this over with. According to the American Heritage Dictionary, Sport (in the sense of, ah, well, sports) is defined as

An activity involving physical exertion and skill that is governed by a set of rules or customs and often undertaken competitively.

Technically, of course, any competition involving skill is a sport. ESPN thinks that Poker is a sport (Oh, Well, the argument that shuffling chips and picking cards as a “physical exertion” is not really, you know, getting through). Again, I have no problems with Poker being a recreational activity. But, a sport ? The problem actually is not the definition or classification of motor-what-ever as a sport – technically.

So you tell me, it may just be a matter of personal preference. Probably, I don’t like motor-blah-blah as much as, say, baseball. I compared my comparison with another comparison. (Is this a record – three comparisons in a line ?). I do like baseball more than cricket, both of these I admire as sports. One of the many reasons for liking baseball is what I perceive as a difference between hitting and batting. Hey, I am just a fan. I may be completely wrong here. 

Most of Indians who like cricket (that’s a given), tend to dislike baseball, because they think there is absolutely no intelligence in hitting. But I wonder - If it is true that hitting is a dumb thing like pinning the donkey’s tail, Why every hitter in baseball doesn’t hit with the same average ? So, here is the comparison. In cricket, a batting is a mini-gymnastic exercise. The batsman has to look the swing on the ball, see where it pitches, and orchestrate the movement of the foot (the foot movement is like an Irish dance) in sync with the movement of hand.( with a perfect timing of course). The batsman spends more time understanding the ball, than the bowler. In cricket, batting is all about concentration and choosing the perfect stroke – and the stroke, as a result, is as brilliant and creative as a chess move.

In baseball, hitting is not really that complicated. There is already a stance, all you have to worry about is your shoulders, your waist and your swing. (There is a little foot-work,but you really don’t have to dance) This makes hitting simple, but more mental. It is all about judgement, and getting into the head of the pitcher – Ah, there lies its emotional rub. So, as I see, the swing of a successful hitting is as beautiful as the free-kick in soccer that ends up as a goal. Finally, in a seven game series between beauty of baseball and brilliance of cricket – Beauty – 4, Brilliance – 3. (This is how I see these two sports. Of course, it is entirely possible to see this the other way) But I really couldn’t do this comparison with motorsport…er…uh… motor-boink-boink against any of the sport I admire. I really don’t think it is relative liking or relative hatred. There is something more…

My problem is the meaning of motor-boo-boo as a sport. I see the motor as a machine, and the driver as an operator. I see no difference between twenty drivers racing their machines, and twenty lathe operators on a shop floor, in a pump manufacturing company, working up their productivity charts for a TPM showcase. Only difference is that the question on the shop floor is - Who drives the tool tip faster ? Would we call that a sport ?

I would like to relate to any sport just by watching it or playing it. In the exhibition of motor”sport”, I see nothing of the driver’s skills. I only get to see the effects of the skills. So the driver managed to keep himself ahead, while negotiating the curve. What did he do, really ? What were his movements ? Did he flinch ? Did he have fit ? or Did he fart ? I don’t see nothing. (OK. Technically, you can’t see a fart. That aside. Personally, I think, driving is a boring activity with its only use of transporting a person) I can’t even play that game in my yard or in a park. Is there anyway to relate to this ”sport” ? In this sense, I think, even Dodgeball or Rock-Paper-Scissors are agreeable as sports. Or Competitive eating, for that matter. (A clip from the movie Dodgeball explaining the rules. For those who haven’t heard of Dodgeball before, there is no such thing as ADAA. Its just a parody of naming sports associations of America.)

Finally you say, what you have to see is the power of machines. Its the technology, baby. F1.com runs a long list technical details to look for in a F1 racing. If its about technology, why don’t they have an Auto expo or something like that? At least then, you can have the technology without the noise and heat. The claim that its an exhibition of technology doesn’t really make motor-pee-pee a sport.

And finally, the reason why I even started writing this. Some time ago, Chuck Klosterman, one of my favorite writers on American pop culture, was writing about Barry Bonds, (the Sachin Tendulkar of Baseball) under the suspicion of using performance enhancing drugs, surpassing Babe Ruth’s (the Don Bradman of Baseball) record of home runs (the sixer of a baseball game. Yeah, they do have record for sixers!!!). He wrote

It’s a problem for anyone who considers sports to be a meaningful prism through which to understand life and culture.

Yeah, that is it. I wanted to use this line, and I don’t understand life or culture with motorsport. But… Wait! If motorsport is a prism to understand culture or life that is – just noise, pollution and exploitation of fossil fuels - well then, may be, motorsport is the sport of our generation. Probably, the last generation that uses fossil fuels.

punk to gentleman

Why do we watch sports ? We watch sports for what we lack… that lightning speed, or that impossible skill, or the most important aspect in any sport – athletic wisdom. We don’t want to miss that momentous invention of a completely new possibility, an athlete fabricates, in the realm of the same court (or pitch) using the same ball. We seek for moments of inspiration in our mundane and ordinary life. We yearn for those crossovers, those buzzer-beaters, those tie-breakers – quick moments of passion and intelligence that make beauty. I don’t know, if we could ever define a Calculus based off that logarithmic d²y/dx²(acceleration) feeling that happens only in sports!

After the game is over, well, most of us get on with our lives. We know that we pay our sports heroes only for their on-field work . It doesn’t really bother us much, how they do outside the lines. Of course, their lives are exciting. And yes, most of our sports icons live like how the truly rich live – invest more, spend more, and not necessarily save more. But there are some personalities, whose lives transcend beyond that momentary exhibition of speed, and skill.

Andre Aggasi is such a man, and a sports personality – in the literal meaning of the word personality. From his carefree beginnings of punk-iness to the gentleman he has grown to be now – He is the paragon on the kind of transformation a person can reach for. This is a small anecdote I heard on ESPN other day. After Andre was defeated in 2005 US Open Finals, his 4-year-old son, Jaden asked him, “Daddy, Who beat you ?”. Andre replied, “Just some guy with long hair !” ( Roger Federer beat Andre in 2005 US Open Finals)

Yeah! I remember this long haired guy, whom I was religiously rooting for in 1992 Wimbledon finals against Goran Ivanesevic for two reasons

1. I hated Goran’s terribly boring aces.
2. I felt, the hairy guy’s ear ring was really cooool. (I was 12!)

And the hairy guy finally won. Well, this one is for the Andre then, and the Andre Now ( and a special mention – Andre’s magical serve return ). We will miss him in Wimbledon. Hopefully, we will see him at-least until the Semis in US Open.

cricket for the people of united states – part two

On the changes required for selling cricket to the people of United States, the next category is scoring. And the nominees (with which we have a problem) are… 1) sky rocketing scores, 2) pumped up batsman averages, and 3) caffeinated run rates.

Since the number of balls in a over is reduced, it automatically reduces the scoring chances. Still there is a possibility of scoring 220-250 runs. For people in the US, 220 can be an OK Cholesterol count, but certainly unacceptable as a game score. (Disclaimer: Actually, 220 is NOT an OK Cholesterol count. I am NOT a physician. So don’t sue me if I made you believe that this is a fact.)

Hence, I propose a reduction in the runs awarded in each play. To maintain the proportion, every scoring unit will be reduced by half. Only 0.5 run is awarded for what is now a one run play. A four run play would be just two runs, and six would be three. That would do it, for the scores. From now on, I would refer a six as three.

To reduce the run rate, I propose a new rule – (Take a deep breath) – “A batsman can score a second three (aka six) in three overs, if and only if his partner has scored atleast one three, or his partner gets out. This rule is applicable for the every second three (aka six) scored by a batsman (aka six) in the three over stretch, starting from the first three (aka six).” No such restriction for twos (aka fours) scored.

If you think the above rule is very complicated, my friend, Welcome to the world of American sports. Let me explain you this rule “clearly”. Stay with me. OK ?

When a batsman scores a three( aka six), he can not score another three (aka six) for next three overs. Still with me ? Good! BUT the batsman can score a three (aka six) after his partner scores a three (aka six), or his partner gets out. Clear ? OK. What if the batsman scores a three ? – He would be awarded only 0.5 run. And this rule is applicable for every second three (aka six) scored by the batsman.

I know what you are thinking – This rule is dumb, and filled with lot of loopholes. That’s what American sports are all about. First – Make dumb complicated rules. Second – Bring in lot of controversies out of these rules. And Third – Blame the referee or the umpire for everything, including the Bird flu in Asia and Europe, and of course, Malaria in Africa.

Finally – Handling a tie. Why this should be a even considered ? A tie game happens, say, once in half-a-dozen years ? Americans can not handle that, even there is a chance of it happening once in, half-a-million years. What would they write in the history books ? That no body won ? And most importantly, that no body lost ? Who was the “Looser” (with a big ‘L’) ?

And, how good could be a tie game ? – For American fans, “A tie game is like kissing your sister on the lips. Of course, you had a kiss. ” This is one of the most important reasons, when you talk about soccer, the real football, Americans say “I don’t know, man ! I think it tastes like almonds, may be ???” Translated: They don’t care. That’s a game, that the whole world is crazy about.

For handling tie, I propose Sudden Death. Alternate plays of one over each, who ever scores more than the other wins!!! (This should happen even if a team had all of its players out)

If we do all that, may be, Cricket would be as exciting, as dramatic, as nerve-racking as a Basketball or an American Football game. But it wouldn’t be that as relaxed, as lazy, as a game it is now – with heart-warming light fun… Like a Cafe Latte. No, we wouldn’t be seeing those bikini women lying, as spectators, when a game happens in Australia or Newzea Land.

No, we wouldn’t be seeing a single player, as a hero, (like Rajinikanth movies) saving everything. No, it wouldn’t be played by 11 fools and watched by 11,000 fools, as George Bernard Shaw thought it was. Cricket, then, would be a product deigned, manufactured, quality controlled, painted, packaged, made more sexy, shipped, and delivered for the sake of excitement, and entertainment.

Cricket, just wouldn’t be cricket anymore. Cricket, wouldn’t be played just for the sake of Cricket. I guess, it has already begun, and I am not sure, I am happy about that.

cricket for the people of united states – part one

The game of cricket is followed by almost every one in India. But in the US, no body cares about the game. I can not say, I am a fan of cricket. I call myself, a spectator of any sport (of course, a little partial towards of baseball/field hockey). I think the true value of sports, is to inspire the rest of us , the non-athletic beings to… ummm, well, write, debate, argue and fight (of course, peacefully) about it. Any sport is a better religion to fight for.

As I have followed basketball (NBA), baseball (MLB) and American football (NFL) for the last two years, I think, it qualifies me to compare cricket with other American sports. (Yeah! ! Two years is enough, and No, I don’t see Ice Hockey!) I will try to compare it in five categories – competitiveness, player/team specialty, duration, scoring, and handling a tie. For all purpose of discussions, we use the one day format of the cricket game – even, that is too long for Americans

By competitiveness, I mean a level of even-ness in the format of the game. Offense and Defense should alternate in multiple plays. Like, in basket ball, when one team scores, the other team gets the ball, and thus, the opportunity to score. Defense should become offense, and vice versa – the sooner, the better.

The biggest problem with the game of cricket, there is no opportunity for lead changes. The game is over, when the lead changes!!! Americans don’t buy any game, which doesn’t have the chance of alternating plays. Their normal reaction would be -”I have to wait for another three hours to see the other team play ? Let get some sleep”

So, I propose a format of cricket with each team playing 10 overs – each team playing alternatively. There would be five innings, each inning limited by 10 overs. The produces the opportunity of a game with alternating scores, and nerver-racking match-ups.

Now, the problem with cricket is it takes time for the team to take field positions That brings us to the second point – player/team specialty. I propose that, in cricket, there will be two different teams offense team (batting), and the defense team ( bowling, and fielding). Also, the defense team(bowling and fielding) should start the play with in 5 minutes of the play clock. If the defense team fails to start, it would be penalized with one over in their inning.

Of course, this will reduce the chance of a cricket player becoming an all-rounder. Hello! Nobody wants an all-rounder. Just do what you do better!!! We would rather watch your good bowling, than your average batting.

Now, we might have to increase the total team strength to 50, because we can’t do the “inning change” with in 5 minutes with just 11 players. A lot of special positions will be created, and of course we will have an offense coach, a defense coach, a captain’s coach, a fielding coach, a wicket keeper coach, and, of course, the head coach. Yes, this is completely based on the game of American Football, where you have more coaches than number of players in the field.

More rules can be developed similar to the half-back option (American Football), travel/technical fouls (Basketball), and stealing the base (Baseball) to making Cricket possible to have varied style of plays, special plays, and more physical plays. (This is left for the reader as an assignment…;))

Coming to the duration of game, I have to talk about a person who some one I know, knows. This guy, an American, watched three hours of test cricket match between Australia and England, was so surprised that the game is not over yet!!! Or atleast, it not nearing an end, where people stand up, and get ready to leave the stadium… Also, the game has to be very quick. Americans think that they would rather watch the game with wrong decision than waste time for the interruptions on TV replays. (OK. This is still a debate.)

Though, its very difficult for cricket to reduce its duration to have a complete game, I think, we can look at the time wasters in a cricket game, and restrict them. One of the most important time waster in a cricket game, is the fast bowler. The run-up of the fast bowler should be restricted, and also, the time taken to deliver a ball should be restricted. (This time includes the time required to spit, and shine the ball)

The number of balls in a over should be reduced from 6 to 4. But that doesn’t give the bowler enough time to warm up. So, the rule to change the bowler for every over should be relaxed to every three overs. Its the captain’s choice (or Let the coach ask for a timed time-out) to change the bowler after one over or three overs. But the time between overs should be penalized, if it exceeds more than the time it takes for two advertisements – one with a cute child, and another one with a movie-star dancing with an animal (preferably a bear). (Huh! Those Superbowl Ads!)

Now inning time is reduced, and game is just 400 balls. So, that comes around 5 hours of playtime – that doesn’t hurt…much.

Scoring, and tie-handling will be discussed in the next part of this series.

endurance

I think, la tour de france, is THE competition of endurance. Its 3600 km, 21 days of continuous cycling. And the guy who won, Lance Armstrong, had to ride for around 86 hours… Man, if I had to ride for 86 hours on a bicycle, I would have my ass split into two, and hanging down like little puppies. (ok… thats a gross imagination)

Lance Armstrong, rode the bicycle, for 20 days every year, in tour de france, and won it for seven times. And they debate, if he is an athlete or not. They say, “He just rides a bicycle!!!”

The meaning of the word athlete, as per Dictionary.com

A person possessing the natural or acquired traits, such as strength, agility, and endurance, that are necessary for physical exercise or sports, especially those performed in competitive contexts.

Every trait of strength, agility, and endurance is being tested, in a competitive context in the tour de france…. And if that man who survived cancer, and won it all, is not an athlete with a single testicle, I don’t know who is!!!

The origin of the word athlete, is from the Greek word athletes, meaning contestant… For me, any competitor who inspires the rest of us, in his moment of greatness, with his ability to extend the human limits – is an athlete.