[OT] Ping Canadians - CFL rules

[HVS]

I'm looking for the date of a rule change - 1960s or 1970s, I think
- when the CFL changed the rules after a period when the field-goal
kickers became, in effect, too accurate for the good of the game.

I think it was when "side-foot" kicking was introduced, and teams
found they didn't need to bother going for touchdowns when you could
win with field goals from what, until then, had been a ridiculous
distance.

I've tried Googling this, without success - does anyone recall the
year or period when that happened?

Cheers, Harvey

[Snidely]

I'm looking for the date of a rule change - 1960s or 1970s, I think - when
the CFL changed the rules after a period when the field-goal kickers became,
in effect, too accurate for the good of the game.

The NFL, before this year, was flirting with a mid 50% success rate
details on fivethirtyeight.com). Are you saying the CFL had a higher
success rate, or that more points could be scored by kicking than by
making touchdowns, despite the weighting factor?

I think it was when "side-foot" kicking was introduced, and teams found they
didn't need to bother going for touchdowns when you could win with field
goals from what, until then, had been a ridiculous distance.
I've tried Googling this, without success - does anyone recall the year or
period when that happened?
Cheers, Harvey

For many years, the longest field goal on record in the NFL was by a
kicker lacking toes on his kicking foot, and with a squared-off boot.
(Tony can probably recall the name, the best I can do without rest and
google-fu is Tom Dempsey). He's been surpassed by now, but the 50 yard
line isn't often considered "close enough".

/dps

[HVS]

Post by Snidely

Post by HVS
I'm looking for the date of a rule change - 1960s or 1970s, I
think - when the CFL changed the rules after a period when the
field-goal kickers became, in effect, too accurate for the good
of the game.

The NFL, before this year, was flirting with a mid 50% success
rate details on fivethirtyeight.com). Are you saying the CFL had
a higher success rate, or that more points could be scored by
kicking than by making touchdowns, despite the weighting factor?

It was a lot of years ago, but basically, yes, that was the problem.

IIRC, it happened when some teams imported specialist kickers from
rugby who "side-booted" the ball rather than toe-kicking it; scoring
success soard from what had previously been silly distances.

I'm fairly certain that for a couple of seasons, the highest-scoring
title went to kickers rather than touchdown-scorers -- which is why
they brought in new rules to penalise missed kicks.

Again working from a long-ago memory, ISTR if the kick was missed,
the original rule put the kicking team back to the yard line where
they'd kicked it from -- that is, there was no yardage penalty. The
rule was then changed so that if the attempt was missed, you went
back to your own 15-yard line (or something like that).

Post by Snidely

Post by HVS
I think it was when "side-foot" kicking was introduced, and teams found they
didn't need to bother going for touchdowns when you could win
with field goals from what, until then, had been a ridiculous
distance.
I've tried Googling this, without success - does anyone recall
the year or period when that happened?
Cheers, Harvey

For many years, the longest field goal on record in the NFL was by
a kicker lacking toes on his kicking foot, and with a squared-off
boot. (Tony can probably recall the name, the best I can do
without rest and google-fu is Tom Dempsey). He's been surpassed
by now, but the 50 yard line isn't often considered "close
enough".
/dps

[Mark Brader]

Post by HVS
IIRC, it happened when some teams imported specialist kickers from
rugby who "side-booted" the ball rather than toe-kicking it...

Rugby? They were called "soccer-style" kickers. Now it seems as
though everyone does it. It looks stupid to me, like soccer.

Post by HVS
scoring success soard from what had previously been silly distances.

If you say so.

Post by HVS
Again working from a long-ago memory, ISTR if the kick was missed,
the original [CFL] rule put the kicking team back to the yard line
where they'd kicked it from -- that is, there was no yardage penalty.
The rule was then changed so that if the attempt was missed, you went
back to your own 15-yard line (or something like that).

I do not remember this "original" rule or any such change, but there
have been decades when I might not have noticed. I don't even remember
when the standard kickoff position was moved from the 45 to the 35-yard
line. I wish there was a chronology of CFL rule changes somewhere.

My recollection of what the rule after an FG attempt "always was" is:

* If a field goal or a single is scored, the non-scoring side
scrimmages from its 35.
* If not, they scrimmage from wherever they ran the ball out to.

I think there was a rule for a while where, if the kicking team
scrimmaged outside the 35, and scored only a single, then the
non-scoring team scrimmaged from the same yard line instead of
the 35. That may be what Harvey had in mind, but I thought it
happened long after soccer-style kicking came in. On checking
the surrent rules, I see it's still in there.

The other thing that's changed at some point it that after a
successful field goal the non-scoring team has the additional
options to receive a kickoff or (this never happens) to kick off
themselves.

[Tony Cooper]

Post by Mark Brader

Post by HVS
IIRC, it happened when some teams imported specialist kickers from
rugby who "side-booted" the ball rather than toe-kicking it...

Rugby? They were called "soccer-style" kickers. Now it seems as
though everyone does it. It looks stupid to me, like soccer.

I agree about the "soccer-style" kicking association. Rugby was
almost unknown in the US when the (American) football kicking style
changed. Soccer interest in the US wasn't at the level it is today,
but it was at least a more well-known game.

[b***@shaw.ca]

Post by Mark Brader

Post by HVS
Again working from a long-ago memory, ISTR if the kick was missed,
the original [CFL] rule put the kicking team back to the yard line
where they'd kicked it from -- that is, there was no yardage penalty.
The rule was then changed so that if the attempt was missed, you went
back to your own 15-yard line (or something like that).

I do not remember this "original" rule or any such change, but there
have been decades when I might not have noticed. I don't even remember
when the standard kickoff position was moved from the 45 to the 35-yard
line. I wish there was a chronology of CFL rule changes somewhere.

Look, and ye shall find.

http://footballcanada.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/FootballTimelines.pdf

(I haven't read it to see whether your question is answered.)

bill

[Mark Brader]

Post by b***@shaw.ca

Post by Mark Brader
I do not remember this "original" rule or any such change, but there
have been decades when I might not have noticed. I don't even remember
when the standard kickoff position was moved from the 45 to the 35-yard
line. I wish there was a chronology of CFL rule changes somewhere.

Look, and ye shall find.
http://footballcanada.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/FootballTimelines.pdf

Thanks.

Post by b***@shaw.ca
(I haven't read it to see whether your question is answered.)

Nope, the word "kickoff" does not occur.

[Lewis]

Post by b***@shaw.ca

Post by Mark Brader

Post by HVS
Again working from a long-ago memory, ISTR if the kick was missed,
the original [CFL] rule put the kicking team back to the yard line
where they'd kicked it from -- that is, there was no yardage penalty.
The rule was then changed so that if the attempt was missed, you went
back to your own 15-yard line (or something like that).

I do not remember this "original" rule or any such change, but there
have been decades when I might not have noticed. I don't even remember
when the standard kickoff position was moved from the 45 to the 35-yard
line. I wish there was a chronology of CFL rule changes somewhere.

Look, and ye shall find.
http://footballcanada.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/FootballTimelines.pdf

I only ever was distantly aware of the CFL in terms of some NFL players
either started there or ended there (Warren Moon, most famously who led
Edmonton to 5 consecutive championships before finally being signed by
an NFL team. He had been ignored by the NFL because he was a black
quarterback). However, I do recall that the CFL was very late to
introduce the 2-point conversion and I see in that PDF it was 1975.

Perhaps that is what the OP had in mind?

[HVS]

Post by Lewis

Post by b***@shaw.ca

Post by Mark Brader

Post by HVS
Again working from a long-ago memory, ISTR if the kick was
missed, the original [CFL] rule put the kicking team back to
the yard line where they'd kicked it from -- that is, there was
no yardage penalty. The rule was then changed so that if the
attempt was missed, you went back to your own 15-yard line (or
something like that).

I do not remember this "original" rule or any such change, but
there have been decades when I might not have noticed. I don't
even remember when the standard kickoff position was moved from
the 45 to the 35-yard line. I wish there was a chronology of
CFL rule changes somewhere.

Look, and ye shall find.
http://footballcanada.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/FootballTimel
ines.pdf

I only ever was distantly aware of the CFL in terms of some NFL
players either started there or ended there (Warren Moon, most
famously who led Edmonton to 5 consecutive championships before
finally being signed by an NFL team. He had been ignored by the
NFL because he was a black quarterback). However, I do recall
that the CFL was very late to introduce the 2-point conversion and
I see in that PDF it was 1975.
Perhaps that is what the OP had in mind?

Nope; the rule change that I'm thinking of had to do with which yard
line is used to re-start after a field goal attempt.

I'm fairly sure that the problem was that (for example) a 35-yard
field goal attempt was traditionally seen as a long 'un, but that the
introduction of specialist kickers from rugby (or soccer, perhaps --
the "origin" sport isn't a critical point), the "worth-a-try"
distance was pushed back to beyond the centre line.

Since there was no additional penalty for trying and missing field
goals from, say, the centre (55-yard) line, speculative field goal
attempts were always worth a try; that changed when they pushed the
"re-starting" position back (that may be when they set it as the 35-
yard line), making "give-it-a-go" field goal attempts more risky.

IIRC (and it's so long ago that I may not RC), what really prompted
the rule change was that for a couple of years or so, the "highest
scoring" title went to specialist kickers rather than players making
touchdowns, and the rule change was introduced to swing things back
in favour of attempting touchdowns rather than field goals.

[Lewis]

Post by HVS

Post by Lewis

Post by b***@shaw.ca

Post by Mark Brader

Post by HVS
Again working from a long-ago memory, ISTR if the kick was
missed, the original [CFL] rule put the kicking team back to
the yard line where they'd kicked it from -- that is, there was
no yardage penalty. The rule was then changed so that if the
attempt was missed, you went back to your own 15-yard line (or
something like that).

I do not remember this "original" rule or any such change, but
there have been decades when I might not have noticed. I don't
even remember when the standard kickoff position was moved from
the 45 to the 35-yard line. I wish there was a chronology of
CFL rule changes somewhere.

Look, and ye shall find.
http://footballcanada.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/FootballTimel
ines.pdf

I only ever was distantly aware of the CFL in terms of some NFL
players either started there or ended there (Warren Moon, most
famously who led Edmonton to 5 consecutive championships before
finally being signed by an NFL team. He had been ignored by the
NFL because he was a black quarterback). However, I do recall
that the CFL was very late to introduce the 2-point conversion and
I see in that PDF it was 1975.
Perhaps that is what the OP had in mind?

Nope; the rule change that I'm thinking of had to do with which yard
line is used to re-start after a field goal attempt.
I'm fairly sure that the problem was that (for example) a 35-yard
field goal attempt was traditionally seen as a long 'un, but that the
introduction of specialist kickers from rugby (or soccer, perhaps --
the "origin" sport isn't a critical point), the "worth-a-try"
distance was pushed back to beyond the centre line.
Since there was no additional penalty for trying and missing field
goals from, say, the centre (55-yard) line, speculative field goal
attempts were always worth a try; that changed when they pushed the
"re-starting" position back (that may be when they set it as the 35-
yard line), making "give-it-a-go" field goal attempts more risky.

I have no idea. That said, a 55 yard field goal is a *very* long shot
and will give the opponent possession on their own 45 yard line

(meters I assume?)

In the NFL there was rule change where a missed field goal gives the
opponent possession at the point the ball was kicked, not the scrimmage
line. In that case a 55 yard field goal attempt would give the opponent
possession to the opponent a mere 45 yards from the end zone (that is,
it team A misses at 55 yards, team B will get the ball at Team A's 45
yard line).

Post by HVS
IIRC (and it's so long ago that I may not RC), what really prompted
the rule change was that for a couple of years or so, the "highest
scoring" title went to specialist kickers rather than players making
touchdowns, and the rule change was introduced to swing things back
in favour of attempting touchdowns rather than field goals.

Highest scoring titles normally go to kickers. They get to score one
point for every touchdown their entire team scores AND get to score
frequent three point field goals as well. Unless you count quarterbacks
as scoring passing touchdowns it is unlikely anyone can out score the
kicker.

Last year the top receiver scored 90 points, the top rusher 102 points,
and the top kicker 150 points. 17 kickers scored more than 102 points.

[Jerry Friedman]

...

Post by Lewis

Post by HVS
Since there was no additional penalty for trying and missing field
goals from, say, the centre (55-yard) line, speculative field goal
attempts were always worth a try; that changed when they pushed the
"re-starting" position back (that may be when they set it as the 35-
yard line), making "give-it-a-go" field goal attempts more risky.

I have no idea. That said, a 55 yard field goal is a *very* long shot
and will give the opponent possession on their own 45 yard line
(meters I assume?)
In the NFL there was rule change where a missed field goal gives the
opponent possession at the point the ball was kicked, not the scrimmage
line. In that case a 55 yard field goal attempt would give the opponent
possession to the opponent a mere 45 yards from the end zone (that is,
it team A misses at 55 yards, team B will get the ball at Team A's 45
yard line).

...

The rule before that was that the kicking team's opponents got the
ball on their 20 (if the ball crossed the goal line. Wikipedia says
that ended in 1973 and the change you're talking about happened in
1993, if I'm reading it correctly.

These changes happened because touchdowns are more popular than
field goals, I believe.

[Lewis]

Post by Jerry Friedman
...

Post by Lewis

Post by HVS
Since there was no additional penalty for trying and missing field
goals from, say, the centre (55-yard) line, speculative field goal
attempts were always worth a try; that changed when they pushed the
"re-starting" position back (that may be when they set it as the 35-
yard line), making "give-it-a-go" field goal attempts more risky.

I have no idea. That said, a 55 yard field goal is a *very* long shot
and will give the opponent possession on their own 45 yard line
(meters I assume?)
In the NFL there was rule change where a missed field goal gives the
opponent possession at the point the ball was kicked, not the scrimmage
line. In that case a 55 yard field goal attempt would give the opponent
possession to the opponent a mere 45 yards from the end zone (that is,
it team A misses at 55 yards, team B will get the ball at Team A's 45
yard line).

...
The rule before that was that the kicking team's opponents got the
ball on their 20 (if the ball crossed the goal line. Wikipedia says
that ended in 1973 and the change you're talking about happened in
1993, if I'm reading it correctly.

Could be, I had never heard of the NFL in 1973.

[Rich Ulrich]

On Mon, 25 Nov 2019 19:12:23 -0000 (UTC), Lewis

Post by Lewis
In the NFL there was rule change where a missed field goal gives the
opponent possession at the point the ball was kicked, not the scrimmage
line. In that case a 55 yard field goal attempt would give the opponent
possession to the opponent a mere 45 yards from the end zone (that is,
it team A misses at 55 yards, team B will get the ball at Team A's 45
yard line).

You are forgetting that in the NFL, the goal posts are 10
yards behind the goal line. That's been true for quite a
while. For college ball, too.

[Lewis]

Post by Rich Ulrich
On Mon, 25 Nov 2019 19:12:23 -0000 (UTC), Lewis

Post by Lewis
In the NFL there was rule change where a missed field goal gives the
opponent possession at the point the ball was kicked, not the scrimmage
line. In that case a 55 yard field goal attempt would give the opponent
possession to the opponent a mere 45 yards from the end zone (that is,
it team A misses at 55 yards, team B will get the ball at Team A's 45
yard line).

You are forgetting that in the NFL, the goal posts are 10
yards behind the goal line. That's been true for quite a
while. For college ball, too.

I confused the math in trying to combine the NFL field and the CFL
field.

[Kerr-Mudd,John]

On Mon, 25 Nov 2019 11:13:51 GMT, HVS <***@REMOVETHISwhhvs.co.uk>
wrote:

[American 'football']
I was able/forced to watch something of this ilk this very afternoon; it
seems that forward passes, tackling off the ball and even scoring a
"touchdown" without ever touching anything down were all permissible;
what a very different set of rules to that of Rugby. There were also far
too many lines across the pitch; extraordinary kit requirements and
constant stoppages. But hey ho, each to their own.

[Tony Cooper]

On Mon, 25 Nov 2019 21:12:12 -0000 (UTC), "Kerr-Mudd,John"

Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
[American 'football']
I was able/forced to watch something of this ilk this very afternoon; it
seems that forward passes, tackling off the ball and even scoring a
"touchdown" without ever touching anything down were all permissible;
what a very different set of rules to that of Rugby. There were also far
too many lines across the pitch; extraordinary kit requirements and
constant stoppages. But hey ho, each to their own.

Now, now. There are some here who like that sort of thing. Even
enthusiastic about watching it.

Still, there are things about the game that annoy me. My primary
annoyance is that the play-by-play team of announcers talk too much.
They seem more intent on displaying their knowledge of the game than
reporting what is happening.

At one time, one play-by-play announcer was sufficient to describe
game. Now it takes a team of announcers. Presumably because this
allows one to speak when the other runs out of breath.

I may be wrong, but I think this started with Howard Cosell, Frank
Gifford, and Don Merideth and Monday night football on ABC. Gifford
was rather dull, but a competent commentator. Dandy Don was at his
best when well into a bottle. Cosell was polarizing; you either liked
him or hated him at the mike. (I was in the "like him" group)

A touchdown is now scored if the ball "breaks the plane" while in
possession of a player. The player doesn't need to cross the goal
line to score; all he has to do is get the tip of the ball across.
This will be followed by seventyleven camera angles of the play
showing the ball "breaking the plane".

While I watch football, I never watch the half-time analysis and the
post-game analysis by the mob of former football players and coaches.
It's a fucking game, not something that has to be recapped and
dissected.

Also on my list of annoyances is the current craze of "fashion
statement" uniforms. If I was a Seattle Seahawk, I'd hide in the
locker room rather than going out on the field like this:

https://tinyurl.com/uym5r5s

or

Loading Image...

[Lewis]

Post by Tony Cooper
Still, there are things about the game that annoy me. My primary
annoyance is that the play-by-play team of announcers talk too much.
They seem more intent on displaying their knowledge of the game than
reporting what is happening.

Yep. Around here it was common to watch the game muted and turn on the
radio, even though you had to deal with the 2 second "live broadcast"
delay of the TV feed it was worth it.

It was especially common here in Denver when John "Fat Man" Madden was
"commenting" on a game. Denver hated him at least as much as he hated
Denver.

("Fat Man" refers to an incident during the 1977 AFC Championship when a
Denver Player, when the game was won, ran up the Raiders sideline and
yelled something like "That one's for you, Fat Man!" (the game was
played on New Year's Day 1978).

Post by Tony Cooper
While I watch football, I never watch the half-time analysis and the
post-game analysis by the mob of former football players and coaches.
It's a fucking game, not something that has to be recapped and
dissected.

For most fans it seems to be more like a religion; but I have to admit,
I still despise the Oakland Raiders and Al Davis.

And yes, they were always and will always be the Oakland Raiders,
regardless of which shithole they are currently occupying.

Post by Tony Cooper
Also on my list of annoyances is the current craze of "fashion
statement" uniforms. If I was a Seattle Seahawk, I'd hide in the
https://tinyurl.com/uym5r5s

Agreed.

I also especially hate the "new" (not really new now) severed head
logo of the Broncos. I guess someone made them an offer they couldn't
refuse.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Post by Tony Cooper
On Mon, 25 Nov 2019 21:12:12 -0000 (UTC), "Kerr-Mudd,John"

Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
[American 'football']
I was able/forced to watch something of this ilk this very afternoon; it
seems that forward passes, tackling off the ball and even scoring a
"touchdown" without ever touching anything down were all permissible;
what a very different set of rules to that of Rugby. There were also far
too many lines across the pitch; extraordinary kit requirements and
constant stoppages. But hey ho, each to their own.

Now, now. There are some here who like that sort of thing. Even
enthusiastic about watching it.
Still, there are things about the game that annoy me. My primary
annoyance is that the play-by-play team of announcers talk too much.
They seem more intent on displaying their knowledge of the game than
reporting what is happening.

Well yes, but as most of the time nothing is happening they have fill
it somehow.

[Peter Moylan]

Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
[American 'football']

So that's what it is. I've been skipping these posts because I thought
it was a cricket thread.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
[American 'football']

So that's what it is. I've been skipping these posts because I thought
it was a cricket thread.

You find American football more exciting than cricket?

[Peter Moylan]

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
[American 'football']

So that's what it is. I've been skipping these posts because I thought
it was a cricket thread.

You find American football more exciting than cricket?

Much of a muchness.

[Kerr-Mudd,John]

On Tue, 26 Nov 2019 10:04:17 GMT, Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
[American 'football']

So that's what it is. I've been skipping these posts because I thought
it was a cricket thread.

You find American football more exciting than cricket?

It needs a genius to create a combination game that will comprehensively
baffle all outsiders.

pbzcerurafviryl onssyr

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
[American 'football']
I was able/forced to watch something of this ilk this very afternoon; it
seems that forward passes, tackling off the ball and even scoring a
"touchdown" without ever touching anything down were all permissible;
what a very different set of rules to that of Rugby. There were also far
too many lines across the pitch; extraordinary kit requirements and
constant stoppages. But hey ho, each to their own.

Everything you say is God's truth. The first time I went to Tronna, in
1961, I was taken to see a match of Canadian football by two young
women that my aunt knew. They thought I would enjoy it, but they were
mistaken. As for the stoppages, someone once said that Canadian and
American football were a cross between Rugby and chess, with much more
time devoted to deciding what to do next than actually doing anything,
so that it takes about 150 minutes to play a 60 minute game.

[Richard Heathfield]

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
[American 'football']
I was able/forced to watch something of this ilk this very afternoon; it
seems that forward passes, tackling off the ball and even scoring a
"touchdown" without ever touching anything down were all permissible;
what a very different set of rules to that of Rugby. There were also far
too many lines across the pitch; extraordinary kit requirements and
constant stoppages. But hey ho, each to their own.

Everything you say is God's truth. The first time I went to Tronna, in
1961, I was taken to see a match of Canadian football by two young women
that my aunt knew. They thought I would enjoy it, but they were
mistaken. As for the stoppages, someone once said that Canadian and
American football were a cross between Rugby and chess, with much more
time devoted to deciding what to do next than actually doing anything,
so that it takes about 150 minutes to play a 60 minute game.

Your description reminds me of https://xkcd.com/1451/

[Kerr-Mudd,John]

Post by Richard Heathfield

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
[American 'football']
I was able/forced to watch something of this ilk this very
afternoon; it seems that forward passes, tackling off the ball and
even scoring a "touchdown" without ever touching anything down were
all permissible; what a very different set of rules to that of
Rugby. There were also far too many lines across the pitch;
extraordinary kit requirements and constant stoppages. But hey ho,
each to their own.

Everything you say is God's truth. The first time I went to Tronna,
in 1961, I was taken to see a match of Canadian football by two young
women that my aunt knew. They thought I would enjoy it, but they were
mistaken. As for the stoppages, someone once said that Canadian and
American football were a cross between Rugby and chess, with much
more time devoted to deciding what to do next than actually doing
anything, so that it takes about 150 minutes to play a 60 minute
game.

Your description reminds me of https://xkcd.com/1451/

I've been in a similar state watching the current BBC War of the Worlds.
Polystyrene beams, rubble in the street but no house damage, horse's head
with rigid ears, etc ect.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Post by Kerr-Mudd,John

Post by Richard Heathfield

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
[American 'football']
I was able/forced to watch something of this ilk this very
afternoon; it seems that forward passes, tackling off the ball and
even scoring a "touchdown" without ever touching anything down were
all permissible; what a very different set of rules to that of
Rugby. There were also far too many lines across the pitch;
extraordinary kit requirements and constant stoppages. But hey ho,
each to their own.

Everything you say is God's truth. The first time I went to Tronna,
in 1961, I was taken to see a match of Canadian football by two young
women that my aunt knew. They thought I would enjoy it, but they were
mistaken. As for the stoppages, someone once said that Canadian and
American football were a cross between Rugby and chess, with much
more time devoted to deciding what to do next than actually doing
anything, so that it takes about 150 minutes to play a 60 minute
game.

Your description reminds me of https://xkcd.com/1451/

I've been in a similar state watching the current BBC War of the Worlds.
Polystyrene beams, rubble in the street but no house damage, horse's head
with rigid ears, etc ect.

[Mark Brader]

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
As for the stoppages, someone once said that Canadian and
American football were a cross between Rugby and chess, with much more
time devoted to deciding what to do next than actually doing anything,
so that it takes about 150 minutes to play a 60 minute game.

You say this as if there's something wrong with it, but a hockey game
also contains 60 minutes of play and used to take about 150 minutes
before the number of commercials started lengthening it, so it's the
same in both of the major sports.

[Tony Cooper]

Post by Mark Brader

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
As for the stoppages, someone once said that Canadian and
American football were a cross between Rugby and chess, with much more
time devoted to deciding what to do next than actually doing anything,
so that it takes about 150 minutes to play a 60 minute game.

You say this as if there's something wrong with it, but a hockey game
also contains 60 minutes of play and used to take about 150 minutes
before the number of commercials started lengthening it, so it's the
same in both of the major sports.

I do understand why some people like to watch soccer on the box. The
action is continuous. The big advantage to soccer over our football
is that one can be watching, decide to nip down to the local store to
buy a sixpack of beer, and return to watching the game knowing that
score will be unchanged and the continuous action of the players
milling around propelling the ball to and fro will look the same as it
did before the nip.

In fact, one need not nip. A stroll will not change things.

[Mark Brader]

Post by HVS
Nope; the rule change that I'm thinking of had to do with which yard
line is used to re-start after a field goal attempt.

After a *single*, you mean. If no points are scored, play continues
from where the ball was run back to. See my posting that you requoted.

[Quinn C]

Post by Mark Brader

Post by HVS
IIRC, it happened when some teams imported specialist kickers from
rugby who "side-booted" the ball rather than toe-kicking it...

Rugby? They were called "soccer-style" kickers. Now it seems as
though everyone does it. It looks stupid to me, like soccer.

Just as basketballers avoid "granny shots" because they "look silly",
although they give better results for most players.

One more proof that sportsball is mostly about macho ritual.

[Tony Cooper]

On Fri, 22 Nov 2019 12:28:28 -0500, Quinn C

Post by Quinn C

Post by Mark Brader

Post by HVS
IIRC, it happened when some teams imported specialist kickers from
rugby who "side-booted" the ball rather than toe-kicking it...

Rugby? They were called "soccer-style" kickers. Now it seems as
though everyone does it. It looks stupid to me, like soccer.

Just as basketballers avoid "granny shots" because they "look silly",
although they give better results for most players.
One more proof that sportsball is mostly about macho ritual.

Is there something wrong with that?

What immediately comes to mind seeing "granny shots" is the
underhanded from between-the-legs shot at the foul line. I would
challenge that it gives better results than any other style of
shooting. Basketball players develop a style of shooting based on
extensive practice and use the style that is most effective for them.

[Quinn C]

Post by Tony Cooper
On Fri, 22 Nov 2019 12:28:28 -0500, Quinn C

Post by Quinn C
Just as basketballers avoid "granny shots" because they "look silly",
although they give better results for most players.
One more proof that sportsball is mostly about macho ritual.

Is there something wrong with that?

Something besides ... everything?

Post by Tony Cooper
What immediately comes to mind seeing "granny shots" is the
underhanded from between-the-legs shot at the foul line. I would
challenge that it gives better results than any other style of
shooting. Basketball players develop a style of shooting based on
extensive practice and use the style that is most effective for them.

It's not like I could judge that for myself. Can you?

<https://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/ct-granny-shot-nba-free-throw-20161228-story.html>
<http://revisionisthistory.com/episodes/03-the-big-man-cant-shoot>

[Tony Cooper]

On Fri, 22 Nov 2019 17:52:02 -0500, Quinn C

Post by Quinn C

Post by Tony Cooper
On Fri, 22 Nov 2019 12:28:28 -0500, Quinn C

Post by Quinn C
Just as basketballers avoid "granny shots" because they "look silly",
although they give better results for most players.
One more proof that sportsball is mostly about macho ritual.

Is there something wrong with that?

Something besides ... everything?

Hmmmm. Everything's wrong with sports because it is "macho ritual".

Is that any more wrong than the (term)* ritual that are television
shows that choose a top model, the best dancer, the attainable results
of a make-over, the value of a coordinated and trendy wardrobe, or a
beauty contest?

*I have no ideas what word to use there. Something that means the
opposite of "macho".

One way to describe it is "macho ritual", but you could also describe
it as "something some people like to participate in or watch". One is
a negative and biased description and the other recognizes other
people's interest and that their interests may be different.

Post by Quinn C

Post by Tony Cooper
What immediately comes to mind seeing "granny shots" is the
underhanded from between-the-legs shot at the foul line. I would
challenge that it gives better results than any other style of
shooting. Basketball players develop a style of shooting based on
extensive practice and use the style that is most effective for them.

It's not like I could judge that for myself. Can you?

I go along with the logical assumption that a person participating in
a sport - especially those paid to participate - will develop and use
a shooting style that is most effective for them.


The Tribune blocks me because I'm over my limit in reading their
articles. The other link doesn't do anything except open a splash
page.
There are players who have never been able to come up with an
effective style at the free throw line, but they remain in the sport
because they are effective in other aspects of the game.

Post by Quinn C
<https://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/ct-granny-shot-nba-free-throw-20161228-story.html>
<http://revisionisthistory.com/episodes/03-the-big-man-cant-shoot>

[Quinn C]

Post by Tony Cooper
On Fri, 22 Nov 2019 17:52:02 -0500, Quinn C

Post by Quinn C

Post by Tony Cooper
On Fri, 22 Nov 2019 12:28:28 -0500, Quinn C

Post by Quinn C
Just as basketballers avoid "granny shots" because they "look silly",
although they give better results for most players.
One more proof that sportsball is mostly about macho ritual.

Is there something wrong with that?

Something besides ... everything?

Hmmmm. Everything's wrong with sports because it is "macho ritual".

... if it is (mainly) ...

Post by Tony Cooper
Is that any more wrong than the (term)* ritual that are television
shows that choose a top model, the best dancer, the attainable results
of a make-over, the value of a coordinated and trendy wardrobe, or a
beauty contest?

I don't particularly enjoy the celebration of conventional femininity,
but it also doesn't cause as much harm in the world as conventional
masculinity does. Especially when intensified as "macho", which brings
it within a very small step from "toxic".

Dancing, make-overs etc. don't have to be traditionally-gendered, and
it would be better for all of us.

Post by Tony Cooper
I go along with the logical assumption that a person participating in
a sport - especially those paid to participate - will develop and use
a shooting style that is most effective for them.
The Tribune blocks me because I'm over my limit in reading their
articles. The other link doesn't do anything except open a splash
page.
There are players who have never been able to come up with an
effective style at the free throw line, but they remain in the sport
because they are effective in other aspects of the game.

Post by Quinn C
<https://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/ct-granny-shot-nba-free-throw-20161228-story.html>

| 'Granny' shot master Rick Barry is glad someone had the guts to bring
| it back to the NBA

| Despite evidence it can improve free throw shooting, especially for
| big men, the form has remained foreign from the NBA since Hall of
| Famer Rick Barry retired in 1980.
|
| Players uniformly resisted it, afraid of looking foolish, standing
| out as childish or unmanly. Or at least they had until Onuaku made
| his debut Monday night and made both free throws he attempted,
| shooting them underhand.

Post by Tony Cooper

Post by Quinn C
<http://revisionisthistory.com/episodes/03-the-big-man-cant-shoot>

| The basketball legend Wilt Chamberlain had only one flaw: he couldn’t
| shoot free throws. In 1962, Chamberlain switched to making his foul
| shots underhanded—and fixed his only weakness.
|
| But then he switched back.

He switched back because throwing underhanded was embarrassing, even
though he never attained the same success rate.

[Tony Cooper]

On Fri, 22 Nov 2019 23:12:38 -0500, Quinn C

Post by Quinn C
| Despite evidence it can improve free throw shooting, especially for
| big men, the form has remained foreign from the NBA since Hall of
| Famer Rick Barry retired in 1980.
|
| Players uniformly resisted it, afraid of looking foolish, standing
| out as childish or unmanly. Or at least they had until Onuaku made
| his debut Monday night and made both free throws he attempted,
| shooting them underhand.

Post by Quinn C
<http://revisionisthistory.com/episodes/03-the-big-man-cant-shoot>

| The basketball legend Wilt Chamberlain had only one flaw: he couldn’t
| shoot free throws. In 1962, Chamberlain switched to making his foul
| shots underhanded—and fixed his only weakness.
|
| But then he switched back.
He switched back because throwing underhanded was embarrassing, even
though he never attained the same success rate.

You are citing players that retired in 1973 and 1980. The style of
play in the NBA has changed dramatically since then. Many of the star
players today weren't even born when those two retired.

Citing two players who most current fans have never seen play, and
virtually no current players have ever seen play, really isn't
anything more than interesting sports trivia.

Also, it's quite a stretch to say that what two players did several
decades ago is "evidence" of something that applies to current
players. The current NBA success rate from the free throw line is
about 75%.

[Quinn C]

Post by Tony Cooper
On Fri, 22 Nov 2019 23:12:38 -0500, Quinn C

Post by Quinn C
| Despite evidence it can improve free throw shooting, especially for
| big men, the form has remained foreign from the NBA since Hall of
| Famer Rick Barry retired in 1980.
|
| Players uniformly resisted it, afraid of looking foolish, standing
| out as childish or unmanly. Or at least they had until Onuaku made
| his debut Monday night and made both free throws he attempted,
| shooting them underhand.

Post by Quinn C
<http://revisionisthistory.com/episodes/03-the-big-man-cant-shoot>

| The basketball legend Wilt Chamberlain had only one flaw: he couldn’t
| shoot free throws. In 1962, Chamberlain switched to making his foul
| shots underhanded—and fixed his only weakness.
|
| But then he switched back.
He switched back because throwing underhanded was embarrassing, even
though he never attained the same success rate.

You are citing players that retired in 1973 and 1980. The style of
play in the NBA has changed dramatically since then. Many of the star
players today weren't even born when those two retired.

Yeah, because nobody dared use the style. Until Onuaku did it recently.

Post by Tony Cooper
Citing two players who most current fans have never seen play, and
virtually no current players have ever seen play, really isn't
anything more than interesting sports trivia.

It's not just two players. Behind both of those articles are stories of
coaches who try to bring their players to use that style, because it
works better for them, but can't get them to do it in public.

Post by Tony Cooper
Also, it's quite a stretch to say that what two players did several
decades ago is "evidence" of something that applies to current
players. The current NBA success rate from the free throw line is
about 75%.

It's not the two examples, it's the word of the coaches, who say that
80% and more are achievable for many. One of them said "especially for
big players", and today's players are taller than ever, aren't they?

[Tony Cooper]

On Sat, 23 Nov 2019 10:39:09 -0500, Quinn C

Post by Quinn C

Post by Tony Cooper
On Fri, 22 Nov 2019 23:12:38 -0500, Quinn C

Post by Quinn C
| Despite evidence it can improve free throw shooting, especially for
| big men, the form has remained foreign from the NBA since Hall of
| Famer Rick Barry retired in 1980.
|
| Players uniformly resisted it, afraid of looking foolish, standing
| out as childish or unmanly. Or at least they had until Onuaku made
| his debut Monday night and made both free throws he attempted,
| shooting them underhand.

Post by Quinn C
<http://revisionisthistory.com/episodes/03-the-big-man-cant-shoot>

| The basketball legend Wilt Chamberlain had only one flaw: he couldn’t
| shoot free throws. In 1962, Chamberlain switched to making his foul
| shots underhanded—and fixed his only weakness.
|
| But then he switched back.
He switched back because throwing underhanded was embarrassing, even
though he never attained the same success rate.

You are citing players that retired in 1973 and 1980. The style of
play in the NBA has changed dramatically since then. Many of the star
players today weren't even born when those two retired.

Yeah, because nobody dared use the style. Until Onuaku did it recently.

Post by Tony Cooper
Citing two players who most current fans have never seen play, and
virtually no current players have ever seen play, really isn't
anything more than interesting sports trivia.

It's not just two players. Behind both of those articles are stories of
coaches who try to bring their players to use that style, because it
works better for them, but can't get them to do it in public.

Post by Tony Cooper
Also, it's quite a stretch to say that what two players did several
decades ago is "evidence" of something that applies to current
players. The current NBA success rate from the free throw line is
about 75%.

It's not the two examples, it's the word of the coaches, who say that
80% and more are achievable for many. One of them said "especially for
big players", and today's players are taller than ever, aren't they?

OK, I will concede that there is more to this than I'm aware of. I
have my doubts about the validity of the claim that the style itself
improves accuracy at the free throw line, but there is apparently more
to this than I know.

This started with your comment about sports being "macho rituals" and
I don't see the connection of this to "macho". Is the "granny style"
not considered to be "manly"? Or is it just considered to be
"old-fashioned"?

What has the size of the player to do with it? The currently favored
style is the one-handed pump shot. Is a big man less balanced in that
stance than a smaller man?

I'm inclined to believe that a poor free throw shooter can improve by
changing anything because the body mechanics that make him a poor
shooter have to be re-developed. This is what professional golfers
who are poor at putting do. They change their grip or the type of
putter and re-learn the body mechanics aspect.

I get conflicting figures on the average success in the NBA at the
free throw line. One source puts it at 75% and another puts it at
77.2%. The figure I find for the WNBA (Women's National Basketball
Association) is 80.2%. Have you found that the WNBA players use the
"granny style"?

I would also like to see you get back to this "Macho ritual" thing and
respond to the question about women in sports who are intense
competitors. Are they being "Macho"? Are the Williams sisters
participating in a "macho ritual"? Lindsey Vonn? Simone Biles? Mia
Hamm?

And, explain the use of "ritual".

[Tony Cooper]

On Fri, 22 Nov 2019 23:12:38 -0500, Quinn C

Post by Quinn C

Post by Tony Cooper
Hmmmm. Everything's wrong with sports because it is "macho ritual".

... if it is (mainly) ...

Post by Tony Cooper
Is that any more wrong than the (term)* ritual that are television
shows that choose a top model, the best dancer, the attainable results
of a make-over, the value of a coordinated and trendy wardrobe, or a
beauty contest?

I don't particularly enjoy the celebration of conventional femininity,
but it also doesn't cause as much harm in the world as conventional
masculinity does. Especially when intensified as "macho", which brings
it within a very small step from "toxic".

There are many who feel that programming like the competition to be
the top model, beauty contests, and weight loss competitions are also
"toxic". They engender body shaming issues and the concept that
appearance is paramount to success and happiness.

I am a news junkie, and can't help noticing that almost all of the
females that appear on-screen as media representatives are young and
extremely attractive. What does that say to a rather plain or
somewhat overweight female who has hopes for a career in broadcast
news?

At least televised sports are viewed only by people who are interested
in sports. The importance of physical beauty in women is more
pervasive. It's visible in everything from ads to news.

I don't particularly disagree with you that most sports that involve
men are "macho", but I don't really understand the "ritual" reference.
I just don't see as a problem.

How do you classify woman's sports programs? If they play with the
same intensity of a man in his sport, what's your term for that? Are
the events at the Olympics only macho rituals for the male
competitors?

[Peter Moylan]

Post by Tony Cooper
On Fri, 22 Nov 2019 23:12:38 -0500, Quinn C

Post by Quinn C

Post by Tony Cooper
Hmmmm. Everything's wrong with sports because it is "macho
ritual".

... if it is (mainly) ...

Post by Tony Cooper
Is that any more wrong than the (term)* ritual that are
television shows that choose a top model, the best dancer, the
attainable results of a make-over, the value of a coordinated and
trendy wardrobe, or a beauty contest?

I don't particularly enjoy the celebration of conventional
femininity, but it also doesn't cause as much harm in the world as
conventional masculinity does. Especially when intensified as
"macho", which brings it within a very small step from "toxic".

There are many who feel that programming like the competition to be
the top model, beauty contests, and weight loss competitions are
also "toxic". They engender body shaming issues and the concept
that appearance is paramount to success and happiness.
I am a news junkie, and can't help noticing that almost all of the
females that appear on-screen as media representatives are young and
extremely attractive. What does that say to a rather plain or
somewhat overweight female who has hopes for a career in broadcast
news?
At least televised sports are viewed only by people who are
interested in sports. The importance of physical beauty in women is
more pervasive. It's visible in everything from ads to news.
I don't particularly disagree with you that most sports that involve
men are "macho", but I don't really understand the "ritual"
reference. I just don't see as a problem.
How do you classify woman's sports programs? If they play with the
same intensity of a man in his sport, what's your term for that?
Are the events at the Olympics only macho rituals for the male
competitors?

They probably also contribute to the onset of anorexia nervosa, which is
fatal in some cases.

[Quinn C]

Post by Tony Cooper
I don't particularly disagree with you that most sports that involve
men are "macho", but I don't really understand the "ritual" reference.
I just don't see as a problem.

I don't want to get into a lengthy exchange on this, but I think the
word "ritual" comes to mind with respect to the whole enterprise of
popular team sports, including the fans who gather at certain times of
the week to adore their idols and chorally respond at the right places
in the proceedings, not by saying amen, but by cheering etc.

[Tony Cooper]

On Tue, 26 Nov 2019 17:23:51 -0500, Quinn C

Post by Quinn C

Post by Tony Cooper
I don't particularly disagree with you that most sports that involve
men are "macho", but I don't really understand the "ritual" reference.
I just don't see as a problem.

I don't want to get into a lengthy exchange on this, but I think the
word "ritual" comes to mind with respect to the whole enterprise of
popular team sports, including the fans who gather at certain times of
the week to adore their idols and chorally respond at the right places
in the proceedings, not by saying amen, but by cheering etc.

So you are referring to the fans, not the participants.

A "ritual" is a series of actions in prescribed order.

I don't see fans acting in a ritual manner, but many people
participating sport have rituals. Some follow a certain order in how
the get dressed in their game uniform, some have certain things they
eat before a game, and some have other things that always done in a
certain way before or during a game. I wouldn't say these are "macho"
rituals, though.

To describe fans as participating in a ritual because they show up at
a certain time and respond in some way at the right places means that
you would include symphony concert goers as participating in a ritual.
They show up when the symphony plays, clap at the appropriate times,
and are even know to emit vocal sounds if pleased with the
performance.

That makes me wonder why the person who does those things at a
football game is macho, but the person who follows the same steps at a
symphony concert is not macho.

I will concede that this type of thing is not seen at many symphony
concerts:

Loading Image...

[Quinn C]

Post by Tony Cooper
On Tue, 26 Nov 2019 17:23:51 -0500, Quinn C

Post by Quinn C

Post by Tony Cooper
I don't particularly disagree with you that most sports that involve
men are "macho", but I don't really understand the "ritual" reference.
I just don't see as a problem.

I don't want to get into a lengthy exchange on this, but I think the
word "ritual" comes to mind with respect to the whole enterprise of
popular team sports, including the fans who gather at certain times of
the week to adore their idols and chorally respond at the right places
in the proceedings, not by saying amen, but by cheering etc.

So you are referring to the fans, not the participants.

No, I refer to the whole. A church service is a ritual that involves
both the clergy and the churchgoers.

Post by Tony Cooper
A "ritual" is a series of actions in prescribed order.
I don't see fans acting in a ritual manner,

Really? A baseball or football games *is* a series of actions in a
prescribed order, and the fans respond in an according manner.

Post by Tony Cooper
To describe fans as participating in a ritual because they show up at
a certain time and respond in some way at the right places means that
you would include symphony concert goers as participating in a ritual.

If they have a subscription, it can be. But their object of worship
isn't tied to machismo. At least not these days.

Post by Tony Cooper
They show up when the symphony plays, clap at the appropriate times,
and are even know to emit vocal sounds if pleased with the
performance.
That makes me wonder why the person who does those things at a
football game is macho, but the person who follows the same steps at a
symphony concert is not macho.

<sigh>

If people in a mosque follow similar routines as people in a church, do
you wonder why Muslims aren't Christians?

[Tony Cooper]

On Wed, 27 Nov 2019 13:37:31 -0500, Quinn C

Post by Quinn C

Post by Tony Cooper
On Tue, 26 Nov 2019 17:23:51 -0500, Quinn C

Post by Quinn C

Post by Tony Cooper
I don't particularly disagree with you that most sports that involve
men are "macho", but I don't really understand the "ritual" reference.
I just don't see as a problem.

I don't want to get into a lengthy exchange on this, but I think the
word "ritual" comes to mind with respect to the whole enterprise of
popular team sports, including the fans who gather at certain times of
the week to adore their idols and chorally respond at the right places
in the proceedings, not by saying amen, but by cheering etc.

So you are referring to the fans, not the participants.

No, I refer to the whole. A church service is a ritual that involves
both the clergy and the churchgoers.

Post by Tony Cooper
A "ritual" is a series of actions in prescribed order.
I don't see fans acting in a ritual manner,

Really? A baseball or football games *is* a series of actions in a
prescribed order, and the fans respond in an according manner.

I would say the fans respond in a spontaneous manner.

Post by Quinn C

Post by Tony Cooper
To describe fans as participating in a ritual because they show up at
a certain time and respond in some way at the right places means that
you would include symphony concert goers as participating in a ritual.

If they have a subscription, it can be. But their object of worship
isn't tied to machismo. At least not these days.

But sports figures are objects of worship tied to machismo? Not much
on female sports figures, are you?

Now about those church services...there are a few women at pulpits,
but the percentage of female religious leaders compared to male
religious leaders is much lower than the percentage of female sports
figures to male sports figures...even if you don't count Catholicism.

Wouldn't that make religion another source of macho rituals?

Post by Quinn C

Post by Tony Cooper
They show up when the symphony plays, clap at the appropriate times,
and are even know to emit vocal sounds if pleased with the
performance.
That makes me wonder why the person who does those things at a
football game is macho, but the person who follows the same steps at a
symphony concert is not macho.

<sigh>
If people in a mosque follow similar routines as people in a church, do
you wonder why Muslims aren't Christians?

No, but neither do I wonder if that game they play where a person
attempts to hit a pitched ball is football because the fans cheer when
the person hits the ball out of the park.

[Quinn C]

Post by Tony Cooper
On Wed, 27 Nov 2019 13:37:31 -0500, Quinn C

Post by Quinn C

Post by Tony Cooper
To describe fans as participating in a ritual because they show up at
a certain time and respond in some way at the right places means that
you would include symphony concert goers as participating in a ritual.

If they have a subscription, it can be. But their object of worship
isn't tied to machismo. At least not these days.

But sports figures are objects of worship tied to machismo? Not much
on female sports figures, are you?

I already pointed out that I'm not talking about all sports. I've said
before that the sports I've sometimes followed are tennis and figure
skating - not a lot of machismo and ritual in those, even with male
athletes.

Post by Tony Cooper
Now about those church services...there are a few women at pulpits,
but the percentage of female religious leaders compared to male
religious leaders is much lower than the percentage of female sports
figures to male sports figures...even if you don't count Catholicism.
Wouldn't that make religion another source of macho rituals?

No, you're not using "macho" in a way that makes any sense. It's not at
all a synonym of "being male", in English.

You also seemed to struggle with the term "ritual". I feel you mainly
throw out various definitions of these terms in an effort to find ones
that prove me wrong. This is getting tedious, and I'm out.

[Tony Cooper]

On Wed, 27 Nov 2019 17:55:55 -0500, Quinn C

Post by Quinn C

Post by Tony Cooper
On Wed, 27 Nov 2019 13:37:31 -0500, Quinn C

Post by Quinn C

Post by Tony Cooper
To describe fans as participating in a ritual because they show up at
a certain time and respond in some way at the right places means that
you would include symphony concert goers as participating in a ritual.

If they have a subscription, it can be. But their object of worship
isn't tied to machismo. At least not these days.

But sports figures are objects of worship tied to machismo? Not much
on female sports figures, are you?

I already pointed out that I'm not talking about all sports. I've said
before that the sports I've sometimes followed are tennis and figure
skating - not a lot of machismo and ritual in those, even with male
athletes.

Post by Tony Cooper
Now about those church services...there are a few women at pulpits,
but the percentage of female religious leaders compared to male
religious leaders is much lower than the percentage of female sports
figures to male sports figures...even if you don't count Catholicism.
Wouldn't that make religion another source of macho rituals?

No, you're not using "macho" in a way that makes any sense. It's not at
all a synonym of "being male", in English.
You also seemed to struggle with the term "ritual". I feel you mainly
throw out various definitions of these terms in an effort to find ones
that prove me wrong. This is getting tedious, and I'm out.

When you use a word like "ritual" that has a standard and usual
definition in such a way that does not seem to be in line with that
standard and usual definition, and make no attempt to provide the
meaning you intend, you should not be surprised that someone
struggles.

When you say that "macho" is not a synonym for being male, the
struggle is exacerbated when the very definition of "macho" is
aggressive pride in one's masculinity. While it is not a direct
synonym for being male, being male is a necessary factor .

You use "worship" and "ritual", but say that a religious allusion is
doesn't make sense when the person performing and demanding adherence
to the ritual is worshiped because of his position. Not always "his",
but mostly "his", and mostly by men who don't feel that women should
hold their position or be considered as equals. That's about as
aggressively masculine as you can get.


slroeru90

[Quinn C]

Post by Tony Cooper
On Wed, 27 Nov 2019 17:55:55 -0500, Quinn C

Post by Quinn C

Post by Tony Cooper
On Wed, 27 Nov 2019 13:37:31 -0500, Quinn C

Post by Quinn C

Post by Tony Cooper
To describe fans as participating in a ritual because they show up at
a certain time and respond in some way at the right places means that
you would include symphony concert goers as participating in a ritual.

If they have a subscription, it can be. But their object of worship
isn't tied to machismo. At least not these days.

But sports figures are objects of worship tied to machismo? Not much
on female sports figures, are you?

I already pointed out that I'm not talking about all sports. I've said
before that the sports I've sometimes followed are tennis and figure
skating - not a lot of machismo and ritual in those, even with male
athletes.

Post by Tony Cooper
Now about those church services...there are a few women at pulpits,
but the percentage of female religious leaders compared to male
religious leaders is much lower than the percentage of female sports
figures to male sports figures...even if you don't count Catholicism.
Wouldn't that make religion another source of macho rituals?

No, you're not using "macho" in a way that makes any sense. It's not at
all a synonym of "being male", in English.
You also seemed to struggle with the term "ritual". I feel you mainly
throw out various definitions of these terms in an effort to find ones
that prove me wrong. This is getting tedious, and I'm out.

When you use a word like "ritual" that has a standard and usual
definition in such a way that does not seem to be in line with that
standard and usual definition, and make no attempt to provide the
meaning you intend, you should not be surprised that someone
struggles.

"I'm standard, you're not" is always the easy answer, of course.

Post by Tony Cooper
When you say that "macho" is not a synonym for being male, the
struggle is exacerbated when the very definition of "macho" is
aggressive pride in one's masculinity. While it is not a direct
synonym for being male, being male is a necessary factor .
You use "worship" and "ritual", but say that a religious allusion is
doesn't make sense when the person performing and demanding adherence
to the ritual is worshiped because of his position. Not always "his",
but mostly "his", and mostly by men who don't feel that women should
hold their position or be considered as equals. That's about as
aggressively masculine as you can get.

No, no. Priests are of course guardians of the patriarchy, but that
alone doesn't make them "macho". Macho is about ostentatively
presenting traits that are associated with men, or "real men" in
society.

Didn't you quote a paragraph from Wikipedia already? You should have
read on a bit. A good compact description of what makes "macho" in
English is the little list in section 2.

Shortened:

| Posturing; assume a certain, often unusual or exaggerated body posture or attitude.
| Bravado; outrageous boasting, overconfidence.
| Social dominance ... macho swagger.
| Sexual prowess, being sexually assertive.
| Protecting one's honor.
| A willingness to face danger.
| Distinct phallic symbolism.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machismo#Depictions>

That makes priests, on average, not good examples of "macho".

And I thought a bit about it by now, and my answer is women can be
macho, so being male isn't a condition. I don't have enough experience
watching women in "macho" sports like soccer to say how much they
behave that way, but I wouldn't be surprised if they do.

[Tony Cooper]

On Thu, 28 Nov 2019 09:08:19 -0500, Quinn C

Post by Quinn C

Post by Tony Cooper
On Wed, 27 Nov 2019 17:55:55 -0500, Quinn C

Post by Quinn C

Post by Tony Cooper
On Wed, 27 Nov 2019 13:37:31 -0500, Quinn C

Post by Quinn C

Post by Tony Cooper
To describe fans as participating in a ritual because they show up at
a certain time and respond in some way at the right places means that
you would include symphony concert goers as participating in a ritual.

If they have a subscription, it can be. But their object of worship
isn't tied to machismo. At least not these days.

But sports figures are objects of worship tied to machismo? Not much
on female sports figures, are you?

I already pointed out that I'm not talking about all sports. I've said
before that the sports I've sometimes followed are tennis and figure
skating - not a lot of machismo and ritual in those, even with male
athletes.

Post by Tony Cooper
Now about those church services...there are a few women at pulpits,
but the percentage of female religious leaders compared to male
religious leaders is much lower than the percentage of female sports
figures to male sports figures...even if you don't count Catholicism.
Wouldn't that make religion another source of macho rituals?

No, you're not using "macho" in a way that makes any sense. It's not at
all a synonym of "being male", in English.
You also seemed to struggle with the term "ritual". I feel you mainly
throw out various definitions of these terms in an effort to find ones
that prove me wrong. This is getting tedious, and I'm out.

When you use a word like "ritual" that has a standard and usual
definition in such a way that does not seem to be in line with that
standard and usual definition, and make no attempt to provide the
meaning you intend, you should not be surprised that someone
struggles.

"I'm standard, you're not" is always the easy answer, of course.

Evidently, providing an explanation of your use of "ritual" is not an
easy answer.

On reflection, and based on some of the points in the list you provide
here, what you could say with some credence is "Sports are often a
display of macho behavior". "Display" is far more appropriate than
"ritual".

That's a statement that few could argue with if they've watched some
of the competitive sports events.

While that's a valid point, it then presents the question of "Is that
a bad thing?".

Post by Quinn C

Post by Tony Cooper
When you say that "macho" is not a synonym for being male, the
struggle is exacerbated when the very definition of "macho" is
aggressive pride in one's masculinity. While it is not a direct
synonym for being male, being male is a necessary factor .
You use "worship" and "ritual", but say that a religious allusion is
doesn't make sense when the person performing and demanding adherence
to the ritual is worshiped because of his position. Not always "his",
but mostly "his", and mostly by men who don't feel that women should
hold their position or be considered as equals. That's about as
aggressively masculine as you can get.

No, no. Priests are of course guardians of the patriarchy, but that
alone doesn't make them "macho". Macho is about ostentatively
presenting traits that are associated with men, or "real men" in
society.
Didn't you quote a paragraph from Wikipedia already? You should have
read on a bit. A good compact description of what makes "macho" in
English is the little list in section 2.
| Posturing; assume a certain, often unusual or exaggerated body posture or attitude.
| Bravado; outrageous boasting, overconfidence.
| Social dominance ... macho swagger.
| Sexual prowess, being sexually assertive.
| Protecting one's honor.
| A willingness to face danger.
| Distinct phallic symbolism.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machismo#Depictions>

The problem with lists like that is that we don't know if all of the
boxes need to be ticked for the person to be "macho", or if just one
item, if ticked, can describe a person as "macho".

Religious leaders (I'm not limiting this to priests) can often qualify
for at least one of the above.

Post by Quinn C
That makes priests, on average, not good examples of "macho".

[Quinn C]

Post by Tony Cooper
On Thu, 28 Nov 2019 09:08:19 -0500, Quinn C

[...]

Post by Tony Cooper
On reflection, and based on some of the points in the list you provide
here, what you could say with some credence is "Sports are often a
display of macho behavior". "Display" is far more appropriate than
"ritual".
That's a statement that few could argue with if they've watched some
of the competitive sports events.
While that's a valid point, it then presents the question of "Is that
a bad thing?".

Of course it is. Machismo is a drinking buddy of male chauvinism,
misogyny and toxic masculinity.

Assignment: How many sports team rape scandals have you heard about?
Compare with the number of marching band rape scandals, or model UN
rape scandals. Analyze.

Post by Tony Cooper

Post by Quinn C
No, no. Priests are of course guardians of the patriarchy, but that
alone doesn't make them "macho". Macho is about ostentatively
presenting traits that are associated with men, or "real men" in
society.
Didn't you quote a paragraph from Wikipedia already? You should have
read on a bit. A good compact description of what makes "macho" in
English is the little list in section 2.
| Posturing; assume a certain, often unusual or exaggerated body posture or attitude.
| Bravado; outrageous boasting, overconfidence.
| Social dominance ... macho swagger.
| Sexual prowess, being sexually assertive.
| Protecting one's honor.
| A willingness to face danger.
| Distinct phallic symbolism.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machismo#Depictions>

The problem with lists like that is that we don't know if all of the
boxes need to be ticked for the person to be "macho", or if just one
item, if ticked, can describe a person as "macho".

If you want to rely on it solely and can't fall back on things like
real-life experience or common sense. You go on confirming my
impression that the term "macho" is new and alien to you.

This is language, not mathematics, so it works the opposite way: people
have an understanding of "macho" that is similar, but may differ in the
details. The purpose of a list like that is to compare your own
understanding with that of others to see that it's mostly aligned.

As almost everything outside of science, the term applies if most of
the boxes are filled. One isn't enough, all aren't required. It's the
same with the terms "cow" or "table"*, so if you need that explained,
it means you have no idea of the functioning of language.

* "Salad" is a good word for practice.

[Tony Cooper]

On Thu, 28 Nov 2019 13:53:42 -0500, Quinn C

Post by Quinn C

Post by Tony Cooper
On Thu, 28 Nov 2019 09:08:19 -0500, Quinn C

[...]

Post by Tony Cooper
On reflection, and based on some of the points in the list you provide
here, what you could say with some credence is "Sports are often a
display of macho behavior". "Display" is far more appropriate than
"ritual".
That's a statement that few could argue with if they've watched some
of the competitive sports events.
While that's a valid point, it then presents the question of "Is that
a bad thing?".

Of course it is. Machismo is a drinking buddy of male chauvinism,
misogyny and toxic masculinity.
Assignment: How many sports team rape scandals have you heard about?
Compare with the number of marching band rape scandals, or model UN
rape scandals. Analyze.

Rein it in there! You are commenting on sports being "macho rituals".
That, to my reading, is a comment about on-field or in-the-stands
demonstration of machismo.

The actions of individuals off the field, or after the game, are not
part of the "macho ritual". Either stick to your original contention
that sports are a macho ritual (a word still unexplained) or start a
new thread in which you claim that people who participate in sports
are individuals who are likely to commit rape.

Back to the church topic, if you believe participating in sports leads
rape, then you have to also believe that participating in church
leadership leads to rape and pedophilia.

Post by Quinn C
You go on confirming my impression that the term "macho" is new and alien to you.

You really can get rather silly when cornered.


While I don't think it's related to sports as a macho ritual, you
kinda walked into to it when you mention marching band scandals. This
happened right here in Orlando.

https://www.miamiherald.com/news/state/florida/article115652918.html

Note that the word ritual is used in that article, but not in relation
to the band activity on-field.

[Quinn C]

Post by Tony Cooper
On Thu, 28 Nov 2019 13:53:42 -0500, Quinn C

Post by Quinn C

Post by Tony Cooper
On Thu, 28 Nov 2019 09:08:19 -0500, Quinn C

[...]

Post by Tony Cooper
On reflection, and based on some of the points in the list you provide
here, what you could say with some credence is "Sports are often a
display of macho behavior". "Display" is far more appropriate than
"ritual".
That's a statement that few could argue with if they've watched some
of the competitive sports events.
While that's a valid point, it then presents the question of "Is that
a bad thing?".

Of course it is. Machismo is a drinking buddy of male chauvinism,
misogyny and toxic masculinity.
Assignment: How many sports team rape scandals have you heard about?
Compare with the number of marching band rape scandals, or model UN
rape scandals. Analyze.

Rein it in there! You are commenting on sports being "macho rituals".
That, to my reading, is a comment about on-field or in-the-stands
demonstration of machismo.
The actions of individuals off the field, or after the game, are not
part of the "macho ritual". Either stick to your original contention
that sports are a macho ritual (a word still unexplained) or start a
new thread in which you claim that people who participate in sports
are individuals who are likely to commit rape.

<big sigh> Where to start?

There are spaces* that encourage macho display. They also tend to be at
least lenient towards misogyny, sometimes all the way to rape culture.

Certain (not all) sports are known for providing such spaces. Probably
those that are called "football" somewhere most prominently.

*I guess this is a newish usage of the word. Environments, settings ...

Post by Tony Cooper
Back to the church topic, if you believe participating in sports leads
rape, then you have to also believe that participating in church
leadership leads to rape and pedophilia.

What a silly simplification, obviously designed to make it look wrong.

Male-heavy church hierarchies have also created spaces that, while not
encouraging macho display, are lenient towards some forms of sexual
misconduct. The patriarchy is the common theme with the once mentioned
above.

Post by Tony Cooper
While I don't think it's related to sports as a macho ritual, you
kinda walked into to it when you mention marching band scandals. This
happened right here in Orlando.
https://www.miamiherald.com/news/state/florida/article115652918.html
Note that the word ritual is used in that article, but not in relation
to the band activity on-field.

This is unexpected to me. I guess I don't understand the dark depths of
US campus culture.

The German counterparts of fraternities, who have similar practices
(their most famous macho ritual being fencing, with the highest goal of
getting a scar in your face) had already been pushed to the
conservative fringe when I went to university. In the aftermath of the
late 1960s student revolts, in fact.

Still, your link doesn't describe a rape scandal.

[Tony Cooper]

On Mon, 2 Dec 2019 12:41:34 -0500, Quinn C

Post by Quinn C

Post by Tony Cooper
On Thu, 28 Nov 2019 13:53:42 -0500, Quinn C

Post by Quinn C

Post by Tony Cooper
On Thu, 28 Nov 2019 09:08:19 -0500, Quinn C

[...]

Post by Tony Cooper
On reflection, and based on some of the points in the list you provide
here, what you could say with some credence is "Sports are often a
display of macho behavior". "Display" is far more appropriate than
"ritual".
That's a statement that few could argue with if they've watched some
of the competitive sports events.
While that's a valid point, it then presents the question of "Is that
a bad thing?".

Of course it is. Machismo is a drinking buddy of male chauvinism,
misogyny and toxic masculinity.
Assignment: How many sports team rape scandals have you heard about?
Compare with the number of marching band rape scandals, or model UN
rape scandals. Analyze.

Rein it in there! You are commenting on sports being "macho rituals".
That, to my reading, is a comment about on-field or in-the-stands
demonstration of machismo.
The actions of individuals off the field, or after the game, are not
part of the "macho ritual". Either stick to your original contention
that sports are a macho ritual (a word still unexplained) or start a
new thread in which you claim that people who participate in sports
are individuals who are likely to commit rape.

<big sigh>

I'll bet you're a knuckle-cracker, too. Is it really necessary to add
a "sigh" in each post?

Post by Quinn C
Where to start?
There are spaces* that encourage macho display. They also tend to be at
least lenient towards misogyny, sometimes all the way to rape culture.
Certain (not all) sports are known for providing such spaces. Probably
those that are called "football" somewhere most prominently.
*I guess this is a newish usage of the word. Environments, settings ...

So new that I have no idea what you mean by it.

Sports don't *provide* conditions that lead to misogyny or rape.
Sports are not lenient towards misogyny. If there is leniency, it's
by the owners or league officials. Individuals, not the sport.

You wouldn't say that all corporations are a center of "macho
rituals", but there are corporations where misogyny is rampant.

If a person engaged in a sport demonstrates enthusiasm for doing
something well, I suppose you consider that to be a "macho ritual".

Really - what I think - is that you have no interest in sports in
general, and are focusing only on the outliers. There's nothing wrong
or abnormal about not having an interest in sports, but your comments
are a bit tiresome.

Post by Quinn C

Post by Tony Cooper
Back to the church topic, if you believe participating in sports leads
rape, then you have to also believe that participating in church
leadership leads to rape and pedophilia.

What a silly simplification, obviously designed to make it look wrong.

No, you did that on your own.

Post by Quinn C
Male-heavy church hierarchies have also created spaces that, while not
encouraging macho display, are lenient towards some forms of sexual
misconduct. The patriarchy is the common theme with the once mentioned
above.

Post by Tony Cooper
While I don't think it's related to sports as a macho ritual, you
kinda walked into to it when you mention marching band scandals. This
happened right here in Orlando.
https://www.miamiherald.com/news/state/florida/article115652918.html
Note that the word ritual is used in that article, but not in relation
to the band activity on-field.

This is unexpected to me. I guess I don't understand the dark depths of
US campus culture.

An unfortunate choice of a word there. FAMU (Florida A & M
University) is one of the "traditionally black" universities.

Post by Quinn C
The German counterparts of fraternities, who have similar practices
(their most famous macho ritual being fencing, with the highest goal of
getting a scar in your face) had already been pushed to the
conservative fringe when I went to university. In the aftermath of the
late 1960s student revolts, in fact.
Still, your link doesn't describe a rape scandal.

I rather thought that causing the death of a member of the marching
band was a bit scandalous.

[Quinn C]

Post by Tony Cooper
On Mon, 2 Dec 2019 12:41:34 -0500, Quinn C

Post by Quinn C
<big sigh>

I'll bet you're a knuckle-cracker, too. Is it really necessary to add
a "sigh" in each post?

Post by Quinn C
Where to start?
There are spaces* that encourage macho display. They also tend to be at
least lenient towards misogyny, sometimes all the way to rape culture.
Certain (not all) sports are known for providing such spaces. Probably
those that are called "football" somewhere most prominently.
*I guess this is a newish usage of the word. Environments, settings ...

So new that I have no idea what you mean by it.

You don't know what I mean by anything, and you can't fill in the holes
by information from other sources, life experience, common sense etc.

Post by Tony Cooper
Sports don't *provide* conditions that lead to misogyny or rape.

Yes, and guns don't kill people.

So you have only words to point at me, because meanings are entirely
outside of your purview.

Problem solved: no more need to *add* a sigh to further answers,
because from now on, my entire answer will just be

<big sigh>

[Tony Cooper]

On Mon, 2 Dec 2019 17:49:57 -0500, Quinn C

Post by Quinn C

Post by Tony Cooper
On Mon, 2 Dec 2019 12:41:34 -0500, Quinn C

Post by Quinn C
<big sigh>

I'll bet you're a knuckle-cracker, too. Is it really necessary to add
a "sigh" in each post?

Post by Quinn C
Where to start?
There are spaces* that encourage macho display. They also tend to be at
least lenient towards misogyny, sometimes all the way to rape culture.
Certain (not all) sports are known for providing such spaces. Probably
those that are called "football" somewhere most prominently.
*I guess this is a newish usage of the word. Environments, settings ...

So new that I have no idea what you mean by it.

You don't know what I mean by anything, and you can't fill in the holes
by information from other sources, life experience, common sense etc.

What I don't understand is why you try so hard to be incomprehensible.
Whatever you mean by "spaces" already expressible by other words.

No life experience tells me what "spaces" means in that sentence. My
assumption would be that you mean the physical facility (eg: football
field), but that doesn't make sense.

You further confuse when you provide an explanation like
"environments, setting" that would indicate that you *are* talking
about the physical facility. I have to reject that because you've
brought things like rape into the thread, and no matter how macho the
person engaged in a sport is, rape on the field of play is not a
problem.

Post by Quinn C

Post by Tony Cooper
Sports don't *provide* conditions that lead to misogyny or rape.

Yes, and guns don't kill people.

Trite.

Post by Quinn C
So you have only words to point at me, because meanings are entirely
outside of your purview.

Yes, in a written exchange such as this one, words are the best thing
to use to make points. In fact, the only thing in a non-binary
newsgroup. Words, however, that are used with traditional meaning
unless there is some specific and stated reason not to.

Post by Quinn C
Problem solved: no more need to *add* a sigh to further answers,
because from now on, my entire answer will just be
<big sigh>

I don't care if you add armpit belches.

[Quinn C]

Post by Tony Cooper
On Mon, 2 Dec 2019 17:49:57 -0500, Quinn C

Post by Quinn C

Post by Tony Cooper
On Mon, 2 Dec 2019 12:41:34 -0500, Quinn C

Post by Quinn C
There are spaces* that encourage macho display. They also tend to be at
least lenient towards misogyny, sometimes all the way to rape culture.
Certain (not all) sports are known for providing such spaces. Probably
those that are called "football" somewhere most prominently.
*I guess this is a newish usage of the word. Environments, settings ...

So new that I have no idea what you mean by it.

You don't know what I mean by anything, and you can't fill in the holes
by information from other sources, life experience, common sense etc.

What I don't understand is why you try so hard to be incomprehensible.
Whatever you mean by "spaces" already expressible by other words.
No life experience tells me what "spaces" means in that sentence. My
assumption would be that you mean the physical facility (eg: football
field), but that doesn't make sense.

As the self-appointed arbiter of the standard usage of words, you can
surely explain to me how it is "trying hard to be incomprehensible"
when I write in the most natural fashion, then remember that the
audience I'm currently writing for may not be familiar with a usage
from their life experience, and therefore add a footnote to point them
in the right direction. I haven't seen you make that complaint to users
who use words in e.g. UK-specific meanings, even without footnote.

This "space" means a physical or virtual place where people come
together. Aue is a space in this sense. Often used with descriptors, as
in "online space", "queer spaces", "women's spaces", "safe space".

Sorry for not spending the time to find out the translation to old cis
white man language - "malarkey"?

[Tony Cooper]

On Tue, 3 Dec 2019 12:21:12 -0500, Quinn C

Post by Quinn C
As the self-appointed arbiter of the standard usage of words, you can
surely explain to me how it is "trying hard to be incomprehensible"
when I write in the most natural fashion, then remember that the
audience I'm currently writing for may not be familiar with a usage
from their life experience, and therefore add a footnote to point them
in the right direction.

If the above is your natural fashion of writing, then you might want
to experiment with an unnatural form. It takes three readings and
still doesn't make sense.

Post by Quinn C
I haven't seen you make that complaint to users
who use words in e.g. UK-specific meanings, even without footnote.

That's because I have either known the word from past exposure or
taken the trouble to Google the word and inform myself. I can't do
that with a word that is an individual's invention in use.

Post by Quinn C
This "space" means a physical or virtual place where people come
together. Aue is a space in this sense. Often used with descriptors, as
in "online space", "queer spaces", "women's spaces", "safe space".

The word "places" in your sentence would have made that clear. Using
"spaces" was not something that added any element of understanding.

[s***@gmail.com]

Post by Tony Cooper
On Tue, 3 Dec 2019 12:21:12 -0500, Quinn C

Post by Quinn C
As the self-appointed arbiter of the standard usage of words, you can
surely explain to me how it is "trying hard to be incomprehensible"
when I write in the most natural fashion, then remember that the
audience I'm currently writing for may not be familiar with a usage
from their life experience, and therefore add a footnote to point them
in the right direction.

If the above is your natural fashion of writing, then you might want
to experiment with an unnatural form. It takes three readings and
still doesn't make sense.

Post by Quinn C
I haven't seen you make that complaint to users
who use words in e.g. UK-specific meanings, even without footnote.

That's because I have either known the word from past exposure or
taken the trouble to Google the word and inform myself. I can't do
that with a word that is an individual's invention in use.

Post by Quinn C
This "space" means a physical or virtual place where people come
together. Aue is a space in this sense. Often used with descriptors, as
in "online space", "queer spaces", "women's spaces", "safe space".

The word "places" in your sentence would have made that clear. Using
"spaces" was not something that added any element of understanding.

I choose to disagree with you, Tony, rather than with Quinn;
but I guess my non-AUE context is different than yours.
"Safe spaces" is now a set phrase likely to appear in many news reports
(and blogs about "snowflakes", I suspect),
so I suspect you've seen them before.
Virtual spaces are big in techie discussions.
but you might not have seen that usage.

There are lots of photo-editing terms that will pass me right by,
however, especially ones that are used in Photoshop
but not in Gimp, or the older editors I once used (frex LView, IIRC).

Somewhere in between are leet-speak and txting abvs.

/dps

[Tony Cooper]

Post by s***@gmail.com

Post by Tony Cooper
On Tue, 3 Dec 2019 12:21:12 -0500, Quinn C

Post by Quinn C
As the self-appointed arbiter of the standard usage of words, you can
surely explain to me how it is "trying hard to be incomprehensible"
when I write in the most natural fashion, then remember that the
audience I'm currently writing for may not be familiar with a usage
from their life experience, and therefore add a footnote to point them
in the right direction.

If the above is your natural fashion of writing, then you might want
to experiment with an unnatural form. It takes three readings and
still doesn't make sense.

Post by Quinn C
I haven't seen you make that complaint to users
who use words in e.g. UK-specific meanings, even without footnote.

That's because I have either known the word from past exposure or
taken the trouble to Google the word and inform myself. I can't do
that with a word that is an individual's invention in use.

Post by Quinn C
This "space" means a physical or virtual place where people come
together. Aue is a space in this sense. Often used with descriptors, as
in "online space", "queer spaces", "women's spaces", "safe space".

The word "places" in your sentence would have made that clear. Using
"spaces" was not something that added any element of understanding.

I choose to disagree with you, Tony, rather than with Quinn;
but I guess my non-AUE context is different than yours.
"Safe spaces" is now a set phrase likely to appear in many news reports

If you followed the discussion, know that I accept both "safe place"
and "safe space". All I ruled out as not understandable is the
actual sentence he wrote.

[Quinn C]

Post by Tony Cooper

Post by s***@gmail.com

Post by Tony Cooper
On Tue, 3 Dec 2019 12:21:12 -0500, Quinn C

Post by Quinn C
This "space" means a physical or virtual place where people come
together. Aue is a space in this sense. Often used with descriptors, as
in "online space", "queer spaces", "women's spaces", "safe space".

The word "places" in your sentence would have made that clear. Using
"spaces" was not something that added any element of understanding.

I choose to disagree with you, Tony, rather than with Quinn;
but I guess my non-AUE context is different than yours.
"Safe spaces" is now a set phrase likely to appear in many news reports

If you followed the discussion, know that I accept both "safe place"
and "safe space".

But they don't mean the same thing at all. A safe place could be a city
center with low criminality, or Disneyland. A safe space is one where
all participants agree to adhere to the rules of communication, and
that they will be excluded if they don't. For example, people will be
excluded from a safe space for misgendering someone. This I expect to
be almost universal. And yes, it could be that I wouldn't be allowed to
quote Virchow, or to use the word "niggardly", at least in front of
certain members with specific sensibilities.

[Tony Cooper]

On Wed, 4 Dec 2019 00:08:17 -0500, Quinn C

Post by Quinn C

Post by Tony Cooper

Post by s***@gmail.com

Post by Tony Cooper
On Tue, 3 Dec 2019 12:21:12 -0500, Quinn C

Post by Quinn C
This "space" means a physical or virtual place where people come
together. Aue is a space in this sense. Often used with descriptors, as
in "online space", "queer spaces", "women's spaces", "safe space".

The word "places" in your sentence would have made that clear. Using
"spaces" was not something that added any element of understanding.

I choose to disagree with you, Tony, rather than with Quinn;
but I guess my non-AUE context is different than yours.
"Safe spaces" is now a set phrase likely to appear in many news reports

If you followed the discussion, know that I accept both "safe place"
and "safe space".

But they don't mean the same thing at all.

Who said they did? I accept both usages because both have an
understandable meaning. I've not said they mean the same thing.

Post by Quinn C
A safe place could be a city
center with low criminality, or Disneyland.

The ordinary meaning is a place where one is assured of being
physically safe.

However, there is also the National Safe Place organization that
provides designated placed where a youth in crisis can go. There are
20,000 of these designated safe places in the US. Most are libraries,
fire stations, and other community buildings.

Post by Quinn C
A safe space is one where
all participants agree to adhere to the rules of communication, and
that they will be excluded if they don't. For example, people will be
excluded from a safe space for misgendering someone.

Yes, sorta, but you manage to make it a gender identity/gender pronoun
issue and the function of a safe place covers more than that: "A safe
space is a physical or metaphorical place for people, usually of
marginalized identities, to feel free of judgment or harm."

A physical facility can be both a safe place (providing physical
safety) and a safe place (providing a judgment-free environment.)

[b***@shaw.ca]

Post by Tony Cooper
However, there is also the National Safe Place organization that
provides designated placed where a youth in crisis can go. There are
20,000 of these designated safe places in the US. Most are libraries,
fire stations, and other community buildings.

I did not know such things existed. Are they publicized to the point
where youth in crisis know about them? And do they go safe spaces when
the need arises?

bill

[Tony Cooper]

Post by b***@shaw.ca

Post by Tony Cooper
However, there is also the National Safe Place organization that
provides designated placed where a youth in crisis can go. There are
20,000 of these designated safe places in the US. Most are libraries,
fire stations, and other community buildings.

I did not know such things existed. Are they publicized to the point
where youth in crisis know about them? And do they go safe spaces when
the need arises?

I don't know.

[Quinn C]

Post by Tony Cooper
On Tue, 3 Dec 2019 12:21:12 -0500, Quinn C

Post by Quinn C
As the self-appointed arbiter of the standard usage of words, you can
surely explain to me how it is "trying hard to be incomprehensible"
when I write in the most natural fashion, then remember that the
audience I'm currently writing for may not be familiar with a usage
from their life experience, and therefore add a footnote to point them
in the right direction.

If the above is your natural fashion of writing, then you might want
to experiment with an unnatural form. It takes three readings and
still doesn't make sense.

Does anyone have difficulties with this? It's a long sentence, but
fairly linear, and I wouldn't expect anyone to struggle.

[David Kleinecke]

Post by Tony Cooper
On Tue, 3 Dec 2019 12:21:12 -0500, Quinn C

Post by Quinn C
As the self-appointed arbiter of the standard usage of words, you can
surely explain to me how it is "trying hard to be incomprehensible"
when I write in the most natural fashion, then remember that the
audience I'm currently writing for may not be familiar with a usage
from their life experience, and therefore add a footnote to point them
in the right direction.

To make sense I parse the sentence. I start by breaking it up
into phrases:

As the self-appointed arbiter of the standard usage of words,
you can surely explain to me
how it is "trying hard to be incomprehensible"
when
I write in the most natural fashion,
then remember that
the audience
I'm currently writing for
may not be familiar with a usage from their life experience,
and therefore add a footnote
to point them in the right direction.

This doesn't go too badly until the "then". The next two phrases are
exceeding clumsy and should IMO be two separate sentence.

I am not sure it is safe to talk about the life experience of an
audience. I would prefer a plural.

[David Kleinecke]

Post by Quinn C

Post by Tony Cooper
On Thu, 28 Nov 2019 09:08:19 -0500, Quinn C

[...]

Post by Tony Cooper
On reflection, and based on some of the points in the list you provide
here, what you could say with some credence is "Sports are often a
display of macho behavior". "Display" is far more appropriate than
"ritual".
That's a statement that few could argue with if they've watched some
of the competitive sports events.
While that's a valid point, it then presents the question of "Is that
a bad thing?".

Of course it is. Machismo is a drinking buddy of male chauvinism,
misogyny and toxic masculinity.
Assignment: How many sports team rape scandals have you heard about?
Compare with the number of marching band rape scandals, or model UN
rape scandals. Analyze.

Post by Tony Cooper

Post by Quinn C
No, no. Priests are of course guardians of the patriarchy, but that
alone doesn't make them "macho". Macho is about ostentatively
presenting traits that are associated with men, or "real men" in
society.
Didn't you quote a paragraph from Wikipedia already? You should have
read on a bit. A good compact description of what makes "macho" in
English is the little list in section 2.
| Posturing; assume a certain, often unusual or exaggerated body posture or attitude.
| Bravado; outrageous boasting, overconfidence.
| Social dominance ... macho swagger.
| Sexual prowess, being sexually assertive.
| Protecting one's honor.
| A willingness to face danger.
| Distinct phallic symbolism.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machismo#Depictions>

The problem with lists like that is that we don't know if all of the
boxes need to be ticked for the person to be "macho", or if just one
item, if ticked, can describe a person as "macho".

If you want to rely on it solely and can't fall back on things like
real-life experience or common sense. You go on confirming my
impression that the term "macho" is new and alien to you.
This is language, not mathematics, so it works the opposite way: people
have an understanding of "macho" that is similar, but may differ in the
details. The purpose of a list like that is to compare your own
understanding with that of others to see that it's mostly aligned.
As almost everything outside of science, the term applies if most of
the boxes are filled. One isn't enough, all aren't required. It's the
same with the terms "cow" or "table"*, so if you need that explained,
it means you have no idea of the functioning of language.
* "Salad" is a good word for practice.

It may not be mathematics but can be and has been formalized. Take
the word "macho". The little list above is a list of that word's
attributes. They may denoted by, say, "macho.posturing" and saying
macho.posturing = true
etc.
or, if we had a metric for posturing, something like
macho.posturing => 7

This sounds easy and practical but, in fact, it isn't. That list
does not fully characterize "macho" and there are more attributes -
many more attributes. The logistics appear to be impossible to
handle - but people keep trying (as the notorious Peter Olcutt)

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Quinn C

Post by Tony Cooper
On Thu, 28 Nov 2019 09:08:19 -0500, Quinn C
On reflection, and based on some of the points in the list you provide
here, what you could say with some credence is "Sports are often a
display of macho behavior". "Display" is far more appropriate than
"ritual".
That's a statement that few could argue with if they've watched some
of the competitive sports events.
While that's a valid point, it then presents the question of "Is that
a bad thing?".

Of course it is. Machismo is a drinking buddy of male chauvinism,
misogyny and toxic masculinity.
Assignment: How many sports team rape scandals have you heard about?
Compare with the number of marching band rape scandals, or model UN
rape scandals. Analyze.

Wasn't there once some sort of LPGA scandal?

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Quinn C
No, no. Priests are of course guardians of the patriarchy, but that

Does any major Western Christian denomination other than Roman Catholic
not ordain women these days?

Post by Quinn C
alone doesn't make them "macho". Macho is about ostentatively

ostentatiously

Post by Quinn C
presenting traits that are associated with men, or "real men" in
society.

[David Kleinecke]

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Quinn C
No, no. Priests are of course guardians of the patriarchy, but that

Does any major Western Christian denomination other than Roman Catholic
not ordain women these days?

Evangelic Christians - most notably the Southern Baptists - seem
to be complementarians these days. Women are not allowed to be
church leaders (comparable to priests). In fact they are more
misogynist than the Catholics. There about as many of them as there
are Catholics. In the USA, of course.

Women are to do nothing but keep house, have babies and support
their men. They can prove that's what the Bible orders.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by David Kleinecke

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Quinn C
No, no. Priests are of course guardians of the patriarchy, but that

Does any major Western Christian denomination other than Roman Catholic
not ordain women these days?

Evangelic Christians - most notably the Southern Baptists - seem
to be complementarians these days. Women are not allowed to be
church leaders (comparable to priests). In fact they are more
misogynist than the Catholics. There about as many of them as there
are Catholics. In the USA, of course.

I get the impression that there are a lot more women ministers than
men ministers in African American storefront churches these days.

To be sure, blacks are AFAIK not admitted to the Southern Baptist
system.

Post by David Kleinecke
Women are to do nothing but keep house, have babies and support
their men. They can prove that's what the Bible orders.

Is that what Tammy Faye Bakker did? (I don't know any other names.)

It's probably also what Phyllis Schlafly preached but did not practice.
(Though not from a pulpit.)

[David Kleinecke]

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by David Kleinecke

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Quinn C
No, no. Priests are of course guardians of the patriarchy, but that

Does any major Western Christian denomination other than Roman Catholic
not ordain women these days?

Evangelic Christians - most notably the Southern Baptists - seem
to be complementarians these days. Women are not allowed to be
church leaders (comparable to priests). In fact they are more
misogynist than the Catholics. There about as many of them as there
are Catholics. In the USA, of course.

I get the impression that there are a lot more women ministers than
men ministers in African American storefront churches these days.
To be sure, blacks are AFAIK not admitted to the Southern Baptist
system.

African-American churches can be odd but as far as I know none of
them is complementarian.

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by David Kleinecke
Women are to do nothing but keep house, have babies and support
their men. They can prove that's what the Bible orders.

Is that what Tammy Faye Bakker did? (I don't know any other names.)

As I remember her on the old broadcasts she did nothing but sit around
and look "glamorous" (God Help Us - but some people thought so). The
new Mrs. Bakker seems to do exactly the same thing. I think that is
just "supporting your husband" and acceptable behavior. But I don't
know the whole story bible-thumpingwise.

Post by Peter T. Daniels
It's probably also what Phyllis Schlafly preached but did not practice.
(Though not from a pulpit.)

It's not too hard to find PS's modern versions - misogynistic women -
on the internet. I do not recommend them.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Post by David Kleinecke

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by David Kleinecke

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Quinn C
No, no. Priests are of course guardians of the patriarchy, but that

Does any major Western Christian denomination other than Roman Catholic
not ordain women these days?

Evangelic Christians - most notably the Southern Baptists - seem
to be complementarians these days. Women are not allowed to be
church leaders (comparable to priests). In fact they are more
misogynist than the Catholics. There about as many of them as there
are Catholics. In the USA, of course.

I get the impression that there are a lot more women ministers than
men ministers in African American storefront churches these days.
To be sure, blacks are AFAIK not admitted to the Southern Baptist
system.

African-American churches can be odd but as far as I know none of
them is complementarian.

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by David Kleinecke
Women are to do nothing but keep house, have babies and support
their men. They can prove that's what the Bible orders.

Is that what Tammy Faye Bakker did? (I don't know any other names.)

As I remember her on the old broadcasts she did nothing but sit around
and look "glamorous" (God Help Us - but some people thought so). The
new Mrs. Bakker seems to do exactly the same thing. I think that is
just "supporting your husband" and acceptable behavior. But I don't
know the whole story bible-thumpingwise.

Post by Peter T. Daniels
It's probably also what Phyllis Schlafly preached but did not practice.
(Though not from a pulpit.)

It's not too hard to find PS's modern versions - misogynistic women -
on the internet. I do not recommend them.

Mrs Thatcher was a good example. She didn't think women needed any
particular help, as she had got where she was without any advantages
beyond those that come from marrying a millionaire.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Tony Cooper
When you say that "macho" is not a synonym for being male, the
struggle is exacerbated when the very definition of "macho" is
aggressive pride in one's masculinity. While it is not a direct
synonym for being male, being male is a necessary factor .

OMG, he doesn't even know what "synonym" means.

[Peter Moylan]

Post by Tony Cooper
Now about those church services...there are a few women at pulpits,
but the percentage of female religious leaders compared to male
religious leaders is much lower than the percentage of female sports
figures to male sports figures...even if you don't count
Catholicism.
Wouldn't that make religion another source of macho rituals?

From my occasional experiences of churches: the celebrant up the front
might be male, but the congregation is almost entirely female and
elderly. Quite the opposite of elderly.

[Peter Moylan]

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Tony Cooper
Now about those church services...there are a few women at pulpits,
but the percentage of female religious leaders compared to male
religious leaders is much lower than the percentage of female sports
figures to male sports figures...even if you don't count
Catholicism.
Wouldn't that make religion another source of macho rituals?

From my occasional experiences of churches: the celebrant up the front
might be male, but the congregation is almost entirely female and
elderly. Quite the opposite of elderly.

Sorry; that last word should have been "macho", but my fingers disagreed.

[Tony Cooper]

On Thu, 28 Nov 2019 15:43:35 +1100, Peter Moylan

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Tony Cooper
Now about those church services...there are a few women at pulpits,
but the percentage of female religious leaders compared to male
religious leaders is much lower than the percentage of female sports
figures to male sports figures...even if you don't count
Catholicism.
Wouldn't that make religion another source of macho rituals?

From my occasional experiences of churches: the celebrant up the front
might be male, but the congregation is almost entirely female and
elderly. Quite the opposite of elderly.

Sorry; that last word should have been "macho", but my fingers disagreed.

When I read your post I thought about it for several minutes. I knew
you typed something you didn't intend to type, but couldn't guess what
you did intend.

I see that you've cleared that up.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Tony Cooper
On Thu, 28 Nov 2019 15:43:35 +1100, Peter Moylan

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Tony Cooper
Wouldn't that make religion another source of macho rituals?

From my occasional experiences of churches: the celebrant up the front
might be male, but the congregation is almost entirely female and
elderly. Quite the opposite of elderly.

Sorry; that last word should have been "macho", but my fingers disagreed.

When I read your post I thought about it for several minutes. I knew
you typed something you didn't intend to type, but couldn't guess what
you did intend.

A truly astonishing confession of inability to recognize a self-correcting
typo (not even a thinko).

Post by Tony Cooper
I see that you've cleared that up.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Tony Cooper
On Wed, 27 Nov 2019 13:37:31 -0500, Quinn C

Post by Quinn C

Post by Tony Cooper
A "ritual" is a series of actions in prescribed order.
I don't see fans acting in a ritual manner,

Really? A baseball or football games *is* a series of actions in a
prescribed order, and the fans respond in an according manner.

I would say the fans respond in a spontaneous manner.

Do they applaud, as at a tennis match or a classical concert? No. The
appropriate response to, say, a score is prescribed by the circumstances
-- cheering -- and thus constitutes a ritual.

[CDB]

Post by Tony Cooper

Post by Quinn C

Post by Tony Cooper

Post by Quinn C
Just as basketballers avoid "granny shots" because they "look
silly", although they give better results for most players.
One more proof that sportsball is mostly about macho ritual.

Is there something wrong with that?

Something besides ... everything?

Hmmmm. Everything's wrong with sports because it is "macho ritual".
Is that any more wrong than the (term)* ritual that are television
shows that choose a top model, the best dancer, the attainable
results of a make-over, the value of a coordinated and trendy
wardrobe, or a beauty contest?
*I have no ideas what word to use there. Something that means the
opposite of "macho".
One way to describe it is "macho ritual", but you could also
describe it as "something some people like to participate in or
watch". One is a negative and biased description and the other
recognizes other people's interest and that their interests may be
different.

Post by Quinn C

Post by Tony Cooper
What immediately comes to mind seeing "granny shots" is the
underhanded from between-the-legs shot at the foul line. I
would challenge that it gives better results than any other style
of shooting. Basketball players develop a style of shooting
based on extensive practice and use the style that is most
effective for them.

It's not like I could judge that for myself. Can you?

I go along with the logical assumption that a person participating
in a sport - especially those paid to participate - will develop and
use a shooting style that is most effective for them.
The Tribune blocks me because I'm over my limit in reading their
articles. The other link doesn't do anything except open a splash
page.
There are players who have never been able to come up with an
effective style at the free throw line, but they remain in the sport
because they are effective in other aspects of the game.

Post by Quinn C
<https://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/ct-granny-shot-nba-free-throw-20161228-story.html>

<http://revisionisthistory.com/episodes/03-the-big-man-cant-shoot>

The corresponding Spanish word is "hembra" (from "femina", I suppose).
I don't think I've come across it in complimentary use when applied to a
woman, but the Real Academia entry doesn't warn against it.

https://dle.rae.es/hembra

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Post by Quinn C

Post by Tony Cooper

Post by Quinn C

Post by Tony Cooper

Post by Quinn C
Just as basketballers avoid "granny shots" because they "look
silly", although they give better results for most players.
One more proof that sportsball is mostly about macho ritual.

Is there something wrong with that?

Something besides ... everything?

Hmmmm. Everything's wrong with sports because it is "macho ritual".
Is that any more wrong than the (term)* ritual that are television
shows that choose a top model, the best dancer, the attainable
results of a make-over, the value of a coordinated and trendy
wardrobe, or a beauty contest?
*I have no ideas what word to use there. Something that means the
opposite of "macho".
One way to describe it is "macho ritual", but you could also
describe it as "something some people like to participate in or
watch". One is a negative and biased description and the other
recognizes other people's interest and that their interests may be
different.

Post by Quinn C

Post by Tony Cooper
What immediately comes to mind seeing "granny shots" is the underhanded
from between-the-legs shot at the foul line. I
would challenge that it gives better results than any other style
of shooting. Basketball players develop a style of shooting
based on extensive practice and use the style that is most
effective for them.

It's not like I could judge that for myself. Can you?

I go along with the logical assumption that a person participating
in a sport - especially those paid to participate - will develop and
use a shooting style that is most effective for them.
The Tribune blocks me because I'm over my limit in reading their
articles. The other link doesn't do anything except open a splash page.
There are players who have never been able to come up with an effective
style at the free throw line, but they remain in the sport because they
are effective in other aspects of the game.

Post by Quinn C
<https://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/ct-granny-shot-nba-free-throw-20161228-story.html>

<http://revisionisthistory.com/episodes/03-the-big-man-cant-shoot>
The corresponding Spanish word is "hembra" (from "femina", I suppose).
I don't think I've come across it in complimentary use when applied to a
woman, but the Real Academia entry doesn't warn against it.
https://dle.rae.es/hembra

It depends on the country. My wife would never say "hembra" or "macho"
to mean girl or boy. However, she was taken aback once when she asked a
Venezuelan visitor how many children she had, and was old "dos machos y
una hembra".

[Lewis]

Post by Tony Cooper
On Fri, 22 Nov 2019 12:28:28 -0500, Quinn C

Post by Quinn C

Post by Mark Brader

Post by HVS
IIRC, it happened when some teams imported specialist kickers from
rugby who "side-booted" the ball rather than toe-kicking it...

Rugby? They were called "soccer-style" kickers. Now it seems as
though everyone does it. It looks stupid to me, like soccer.

Just as basketballers avoid "granny shots" because they "look silly",
although they give better results for most players.
One more proof that sportsball is mostly about macho ritual.

Is there something wrong with that?
What immediately comes to mind seeing "granny shots" is the
underhanded from between-the-legs shot at the foul line. I would
challenge that it gives better results than any other style of
shooting.

You would be wrong. This has been studied:

<https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/apr/26/granny-style-is-best-way-to-take-a-basketball-free-throw-study-shows>

<https://detroitjockcity.com/2017/05/31/underhanded-free-throws-work-dont-players-shoot/>

Post by Tony Cooper
Basketball players develop a style of shooting based on
extensive practice and use the style that is most effective for them.

Sorry, but this is simply not true, as the second link above clearly
shows.

[Tony Cooper]

On Sat, 23 Nov 2019 16:34:25 -0000 (UTC), Lewis

Post by Lewis

Post by Tony Cooper
On Fri, 22 Nov 2019 12:28:28 -0500, Quinn C

Post by Quinn C

Post by Mark Brader

Post by HVS
IIRC, it happened when some teams imported specialist kickers from
rugby who "side-booted" the ball rather than toe-kicking it...

Rugby? They were called "soccer-style" kickers. Now it seems as
though everyone does it. It looks stupid to me, like soccer.

Just as basketballers avoid "granny shots" because they "look silly",
although they give better results for most players.
One more proof that sportsball is mostly about macho ritual.

Is there something wrong with that?
What immediately comes to mind seeing "granny shots" is the
underhanded from between-the-legs shot at the foul line. I would
challenge that it gives better results than any other style of
shooting.

<https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/apr/26/granny-style-is-best-way-to-take-a-basketball-free-throw-study-shows>
<https://detroitjockcity.com/2017/05/31/underhanded-free-throws-work-dont-players-shoot/>

Post by Tony Cooper
Basketball players develop a style of shooting based on
extensive practice and use the style that is most effective for them.

Sorry, but this is simply not true, as the second link above clearly
shows.

Actually, what I said *is* true for most basketball players. There
are some who could improve by changing to the underhanded style -
according to this - but it doesn't negate that the now-standard
one-handed push shot is effective for most of the players.

If 70-something success is the average, and the average player uses
the one-handed push style, the improvement can only be seen in those
that are now having a lower success rate. You don't change what works
for those who are successful two-thirds of the time.

The description "clearly shows" is somewhat debatable about an article
that uses "marginal improvement" and "slightly better".

Drifting only slightly...It's interesting that the article is in the
Guardian and that the study was published in the journal _Royal
Society Open Science_. One wonders if very many of the readers of the
_Royal Society Open Science_ have ever watched a basketball game.

Not that it's out of place in that journal. It's an article on
"mathematical analysis" and the study was done at Yale university and
deals with release angle, speed, and physics.

The article says the study did not "consider the backboard". That may
have led some readers of the journal to think basketball is like
netball.

[Lewis]

Post by Tony Cooper
On Sat, 23 Nov 2019 16:34:25 -0000 (UTC), Lewis

Post by Lewis

Post by Tony Cooper
On Fri, 22 Nov 2019 12:28:28 -0500, Quinn C

Post by Quinn C

Post by Mark Brader

Post by HVS
IIRC, it happened when some teams imported specialist kickers from
rugby who "side-booted" the ball rather than toe-kicking it...

Rugby? They were called "soccer-style" kickers. Now it seems as
though everyone does it. It looks stupid to me, like soccer.

Just as basketballers avoid "granny shots" because they "look silly",
although they give better results for most players.
One more proof that sportsball is mostly about macho ritual.

Is there something wrong with that?
What immediately comes to mind seeing "granny shots" is the
underhanded from between-the-legs shot at the foul line. I would
challenge that it gives better results than any other style of
shooting.

<https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/apr/26/granny-style-is-best-way-to-take-a-basketball-free-throw-study-shows>
<https://detroitjockcity.com/2017/05/31/underhanded-free-throws-work-dont-players-shoot/>

Post by Tony Cooper
Basketball players develop a style of shooting based on
extensive practice and use the style that is most effective for them.

Sorry, but this is simply not true, as the second link above clearly
shows.

Actually, what I said *is* true for most basketball players. There
are some who could improve by changing to the underhanded style -
according to this - but it doesn't negate that the now-standard
one-handed push shot is effective for most of the players.
If 70-something success is the average, and the average player uses
the one-handed push style, the improvement can only be seen in those
that are now having a lower success rate. You don't change what works
for those who are successful two-thirds of the time.
The description "clearly shows" is somewhat debatable about an article
that uses "marginal improvement" and "slightly better".

I don't think you read it all.

"Drummond responded the next day by tweeting, “Let me make this clear….
I’m not shooting free throws underhand..”

and

Perhaps the most famous example of a player making the switch to an
underhand technique was Wilt Chamberlain. In 1961-62, Chamberlain
increased his free throw percentage by nearly 11% from the previous
season, up to his career high, 61.3%.

and

Shaquille O’Neal, one of the worst free throw shooters ever, told Rick
Barry he would never shoot his free throws the way Berry did.

“Sorry, can’t do it, Rick,” he says he told Barry, “I’d rather shoot
zero percent, too cool for that.”

and

Barry himself said in a 2012 SB Nation profile that the reason that
players don’t shoot like he did is because “It’s all about the ego… They
don’t think it’s macho enough for them, and that’s fine.”

and

Chamberlain echoed this sentiment in his autobiography, saying “I felt
silly, like a sissy, shooting underhanded. I know I was wrong, I know
some of the best foul shooters in history shot that way. I just couldn’t
do it.”

Post by Tony Cooper
Drifting only slightly...It's interesting that the article is in the
Guardian and that the study was published in the journal _Royal
Society Open Science_. One wonders if very many of the readers of the
_Royal Society Open Science_ have ever watched a basketball game.

Unlike NFL football, Basketball is played all over the world; even in
the UK.

[Tony Cooper]

On Sat, 23 Nov 2019 22:22:13 -0000 (UTC), Lewis

Post by Lewis

Post by Tony Cooper
On Sat, 23 Nov 2019 16:34:25 -0000 (UTC), Lewis

Post by Lewis

Post by Tony Cooper
On Fri, 22 Nov 2019 12:28:28 -0500, Quinn C

Post by Quinn C

Post by Mark Brader

Post by HVS
IIRC, it happened when some teams imported specialist kickers from
rugby who "side-booted" the ball rather than toe-kicking it...

Rugby? They were called "soccer-style" kickers. Now it seems as
though everyone does it. It looks stupid to me, like soccer.

Just as basketballers avoid "granny shots" because they "look silly",
although they give better results for most players.
One more proof that sportsball is mostly about macho ritual.

Is there something wrong with that?
What immediately comes to mind seeing "granny shots" is the
underhanded from between-the-legs shot at the foul line. I would
challenge that it gives better results than any other style of
shooting.

<https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/apr/26/granny-style-is-best-way-to-take-a-basketball-free-throw-study-shows>
<https://detroitjockcity.com/2017/05/31/underhanded-free-throws-work-dont-players-shoot/>

Post by Tony Cooper
Basketball players develop a style of shooting based on
extensive practice and use the style that is most effective for them.

Sorry, but this is simply not true, as the second link above clearly
shows.

Actually, what I said *is* true for most basketball players. There
are some who could improve by changing to the underhanded style -
according to this - but it doesn't negate that the now-standard
one-handed push shot is effective for most of the players.
If 70-something success is the average, and the average player uses
the one-handed push style, the improvement can only be seen in those
that are now having a lower success rate. You don't change what works
for those who are successful two-thirds of the time.
The description "clearly shows" is somewhat debatable about an article
that uses "marginal improvement" and "slightly better".

I don't think you read it all.

Yes, I read it all.

I don't see anything you've added that indicates that shooting
underhanded is something that all players should consider. It's
something that poor free throw shooters should consider.
Steve Nash, for example, has about a 90% success average. There's
some point between Nash's 90% and someone like Shaq's 53% average
where the player should try a different style. But the free throw is
a developed body mechanic process, and some players could become worse
if they re-programmed that.

What you added was about the perception the player's have/had about
the style.

Post by Lewis

Post by Tony Cooper
Drifting only slightly...It's interesting that the article is in the
Guardian and that the study was published in the journal _Royal
Society Open Science_. One wonders if very many of the readers of the
_Royal Society Open Science_ have ever watched a basketball game.

Unlike NFL football, Basketball is played all over the world; even in
the UK.

I know that. I do follow sports. Digest "very many" in my comment
and think about the profile of the _Royal Society Open Science_
subscribers.

[Lewis]

Post by Tony Cooper
On Sat, 23 Nov 2019 22:22:13 -0000 (UTC), Lewis

Post by Lewis

Post by Tony Cooper
On Sat, 23 Nov 2019 16:34:25 -0000 (UTC), Lewis

Post by Lewis

Post by Tony Cooper
On Fri, 22 Nov 2019 12:28:28 -0500, Quinn C

Post by Quinn C

Post by Mark Brader

Post by HVS
IIRC, it happened when some teams imported specialist kickers from
rugby who "side-booted" the ball rather than toe-kicking it...

Rugby? They were called "soccer-style" kickers. Now it seems as
though everyone does it. It looks stupid to me, like soccer.

Just as basketballers avoid "granny shots" because they "look silly",
although they give better results for most players.
One more proof that sportsball is mostly about macho ritual.

Is there something wrong with that?
What immediately comes to mind seeing "granny shots" is the
underhanded from between-the-legs shot at the foul line. I would
challenge that it gives better results than any other style of
shooting.

<https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/apr/26/granny-style-is-best-way-to-take-a-basketball-free-throw-study-shows>
<https://detroitjockcity.com/2017/05/31/underhanded-free-throws-work-dont-players-shoot/>

Post by Tony Cooper
Basketball players develop a style of shooting based on
extensive practice and use the style that is most effective for them.

Sorry, but this is simply not true, as the second link above clearly
shows.

Actually, what I said *is* true for most basketball players. There
are some who could improve by changing to the underhanded style -
according to this - but it doesn't negate that the now-standard
one-handed push shot is effective for most of the players.
If 70-something success is the average, and the average player uses
the one-handed push style, the improvement can only be seen in those
that are now having a lower success rate. You don't change what works
for those who are successful two-thirds of the time.
The description "clearly shows" is somewhat debatable about an article
that uses "marginal improvement" and "slightly better".

I don't think you read it all.

Yes, I read it all.
I don't see anything you've added that indicates that shooting
underhanded is something that all players should consider. It's
something that poor free throw shooters should consider.

I am not sure where you got that as both links say there is an
improvement for any proficient players, not just those bad at free
throws. Of course, it your percentage is already very high, improving
20% is relatively minor. (And yes, Chamberlain improved ~20%, going up
nearly 11 percentage points)

Post by Tony Cooper
Steve Nash, for example, has about a 90% success average. There's
some point between Nash's 90% and someone like Shaq's 53% average
where the player should try a different style. But the free throw is
a developed body mechanic process, and some players could become worse
if they re-programmed that.
What you added was about the perception the player's have/had about
the style.

Which was *also* what was being discussed.

Post by Tony Cooper

Post by Lewis
One more proof that sportsball is mostly about macho ritual.

Is there something wrong with that?
Basketball players develop a style of shooting based on
extensive practice and use the style that is most effective for them.

NBA players do not shoot underhand free throws even though they know
they are more accurate because they care about their macho status more
than winning the games. Even the player who dramatically improved his
percentage to his career-best percentage, switched back because of
appearance.

Shaquille O'Neal, one of the worst free throw shooters in basketball,
said he would rather miss *EVERY FREE THROW* because he was "too cool"
to shoot underhand.

So no, Basketball players most assuredly do *not* use the style that is
most effective for them.

[Tony Cooper]

On Sun, 24 Nov 2019 00:33:26 -0000 (UTC), Lewis

Post by Lewis

Post by Tony Cooper
On Sat, 23 Nov 2019 22:22:13 -0000 (UTC), Lewis

Post by Lewis

Post by Tony Cooper
On Sat, 23 Nov 2019 16:34:25 -0000 (UTC), Lewis

Post by Lewis

Post by Tony Cooper
On Fri, 22 Nov 2019 12:28:28 -0500, Quinn C

Post by Quinn C

Post by Mark Brader

Post by HVS
IIRC, it happened when some teams imported specialist kickers from
rugby who "side-booted" the ball rather than toe-kicking it...

Rugby? They were called "soccer-style" kickers. Now it seems as
though everyone does it. It looks stupid to me, like soccer.

Just as basketballers avoid "granny shots" because they "look silly",
although they give better results for most players.
One more proof that sportsball is mostly about macho ritual.

Is there something wrong with that?
What immediately comes to mind seeing "granny shots" is the
underhanded from between-the-legs shot at the foul line. I would
challenge that it gives better results than any other style of
shooting.

<https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/apr/26/granny-style-is-best-way-to-take-a-basketball-free-throw-study-shows>
<https://detroitjockcity.com/2017/05/31/underhanded-free-throws-work-dont-players-shoot/>

Post by Tony Cooper
Basketball players develop a style of shooting based on
extensive practice and use the style that is most effective for them.

Sorry, but this is simply not true, as the second link above clearly
shows.

Actually, what I said *is* true for most basketball players. There
are some who could improve by changing to the underhanded style -
according to this - but it doesn't negate that the now-standard
one-handed push shot is effective for most of the players.
If 70-something success is the average, and the average player uses
the one-handed push style, the improvement can only be seen in those
that are now having a lower success rate. You don't change what works
for those who are successful two-thirds of the time.
The description "clearly shows" is somewhat debatable about an article
that uses "marginal improvement" and "slightly better".

I don't think you read it all.

Yes, I read it all.
I don't see anything you've added that indicates that shooting
underhanded is something that all players should consider. It's
something that poor free throw shooters should consider.

I am not sure where you got that as both links say there is an
improvement for any proficient players, not just those bad at free
throws. Of course, it your percentage is already very high, improving
20% is relatively minor. (And yes, Chamberlain improved ~20%, going up
nearly 11 percentage points)

Post by Tony Cooper
Steve Nash, for example, has about a 90% success average. There's
some point between Nash's 90% and someone like Shaq's 53% average
where the player should try a different style. But the free throw is
a developed body mechanic process, and some players could become worse
if they re-programmed that.
What you added was about the perception the player's have/had about
the style.

Which was *also* what was being discussed.

Post by Tony Cooper

Post by Lewis
One more proof that sportsball is mostly about macho ritual.

Is there something wrong with that?
Basketball players develop a style of shooting based on
extensive practice and use the style that is most effective for them.

NBA players do not shoot underhand free throws even though they know
they are more accurate because they care about their macho status more
than winning the games.

They don't "know" this. They may be told this, but they may not
believe it will work form them. Fear of failure may be the greater
fear.

Post by Lewis
Even the player who dramatically improved his
percentage to his career-best percentage, switched back because of
appearance.
Shaquille O'Neal, one of the worst free throw shooters in basketball,
said he would rather miss *EVERY FREE THROW* because he was "too cool"
to shoot underhand.

You write as if you think that a pro basketball player can be shooting
one-handed pump shots in Monday's game and switch to the underhand
style on Tuesday and bring up his average. You also seem to think
that all players will be able to master the underhand style. Just
shooting underhanded doesn't make a player a better free throw
shooter; he has to be able to shoot underhanded with accuracy of speed
and arc. That takes practice.

I don't think it's the case that all players would benefit by a
change, and I don't think that fear of being thought uncool is always
the reason for not changing style. A player shooting at 75% or higher
may not want to try a new style fearing that he won't improve and may
not be able to go back to his old style easily.

The average salary for an NBA player is $7.7 million for the season. A
player may not want to try something that might or might not work for
him that puts that job at risk. Or worse, like being traded to the
Orlando Magic.

Post by Lewis
So no, Basketball players most assuredly do *not* use the style that is
most effective for them.

I will amend my statement to most players use the style that *they*
think is the most effective for them.

To Shaq's comment...Shaq knew that a player with his size and his
skills was still going to command top money as a player regardless of
his free throw average. He really didn't have any incentive to
improve.

[Tony Cooper]

On Sun, 24 Nov 2019 18:41:39 -0000 (UTC), Lewis

Post by Tony Cooper
They don't "know" this. They may be told this, but they may not
believe it will work form them. Fear of failure may be the greater
fear.

They absolutely *DO* know this. Wilt Chamberlain played in the 1960s,
long before any current NFL player was even born, including Shaquille
O'Neal.

Yes, and that's one of the reasons they may not know this. Many of
today's players might not even recognize the name "Wilt Chamberlain"
or know who "Wilt the Stilt" was. Pro basketball players are not
known to be students of history, even in their own sport. It's old
codgers like me who know who Wilt was.

They only "know" it if they've been told about it. If you wanted to
get more of today's players to know about it, invent a video game that
demonstrates this.

Post by Tony Cooper
You write as if you think that a pro basketball player can be shooting
one-handed pump shots in Monday's game and switch to the underhand
style on Tuesday

I said no such thing.

"As if" should be an understandable phrase.

I don't think it's the case that all players would benefit by a
change,
That is nothing more than opinion,

Yes, it is. "I don't think it's the case" says it's opinion. Your
"they know that" is also just opinion.

I'll go with the science over opinion every time in every case, myself.

Sure. I would too. The question is, though, are the players aware of
the science and would that cause them to change.

Post by Tony Cooper

Post by Lewis
So no, Basketball players most assuredly do *not* use the style that is
most effective for them.

I will amend my statement to most players use the style that *they*
think is the most effective for them.

Nope. That is demonstrably not true.

Opinion.

[Lewis]

Post by Tony Cooper
On Sun, 24 Nov 2019 18:41:39 -0000 (UTC), Lewis

Post by Tony Cooper
They don't "know" this. They may be told this, but they may not
believe it will work form them. Fear of failure may be the greater
fear.

They absolutely *DO* know this. Wilt Chamberlain played in the 1960s,
long before any current NFL player was even born, including Shaquille
O'Neal.

Yes, and that's one of the reasons they may not know this. Many of
today's players might not even recognize the name "Wilt Chamberlain"
or know who "Wilt the Stilt" was. Pro basketball players are not
known to be students of history, even in their own sport. It's old
codgers like me who know who Wilt was.
They only "know" it if they've been told about it. If you wanted to
get more of today's players to know about it, invent a video game that
demonstrates this.

Post by Tony Cooper
You write as if you think that a pro basketball player can be shooting
one-handed pump shots in Monday's game and switch to the underhand
style on Tuesday

I said no such thing.

"As if" should be an understandable phrase.

Which implies something I said was in some way similar, which it was
not.

Post by Tony Cooper

I don't think it's the case that all players would benefit by a
change,
That is nothing more than opinion,

Yes, it is. "I don't think it's the case" says it's opinion. Your
"they know that" is also just opinion.

I'll go with the science over opinion every time in every case, myself.

Sure. I would too. The question is, though, are the players aware of
the science and would that cause them to change.

That is not a question at all.

Post by Tony Cooper

Post by Tony Cooper

Post by Lewis
So no, Basketball players most assuredly do *not* use the style that is
most effective for them.

I will amend my statement to most players use the style that *they*
think is the most effective for them.

Nope. That is demonstrably not true.

Opinion.

Not opinion. Chamberlain absolutely knew. Shaq has been made aware
of it. Many other NBA players have also been made aware of it and had
similar reactions to Shaw's. This is not in doubt, as they are quoted in
many stories about this.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Post by Tony Cooper
On Sat, 23 Nov 2019 22:22:13 -0000 (UTC), Lewis

Post by Lewis

Post by Tony Cooper
[ … ]
Drifting only slightly...It's interesting that the article is in the
Guardian and that the study was published in the journal _Royal
Society Open Science_. One wonders if very many of the readers of the
_Royal Society Open Science_ have ever watched a basketball game.

Unlike NFL football, Basketball is played all over the world; even in
the UK.

I know that. I do follow sports. Digest "very many" in my comment
and think about the profile of the _Royal Society Open Science_
subscribers.

I'm surprised at your confidence in generalizing about the sort of
people who read Royal Society Open Science.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Tony Cooper
Steve Nash, for example, has about a 90% success average. There's
some point between Nash's 90% and someone like Shaq's 53% average
where the player should try a different style. But the free throw is
a developed body mechanic process, and some players could become worse
if they re-programmed that.

100% would be better than 90%.

[Rich Ulrich]

On Sat, 23 Nov 2019 18:46:25 -0500, Tony Cooper

Post by Tony Cooper
Steve Nash, for example, has about a 90% success average. There's
some point between Nash's 90% and someone like Shaq's 53% average
where the player should try a different style. But the free throw is
a developed body mechanic process, and some players could become worse
if they re-programmed that.

Particularly about Shaq - In "Total Code" (by Coyne) I
read the advice from a good coach that Shaq should
have improved his free throws by practicing shots from
longer and shorter ranges, in order to gain better fine-
control of the muscles involved.

By the way - I don't know what this proves - In March, 1962,

Chamberlain finished with 100 points on an insanely efficient
36-of-63 shooting from the field (57.1 percent) and 28-of-32
shooting from the free throw line (87.5 percent).

28 of 32 shows that something was right, that night.
I suppose that his high FG percentage might be biased
by the fact that your FG "miss" does not count as "attempt"
if a foul is called on the defender; and a lot were called.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Rich Ulrich
By the way - I don't know what this proves - In March, 1962,
Chamberlain finished with 100 points on an insanely efficient
36-of-63 shooting from the field (57.1 percent) and 28-of-32
shooting from the free throw line (87.5 percent).
28 of 32 shows that something was right, that night.
I suppose that his high FG percentage might be biased
by the fact that your FG "miss" does not count as "attempt"
if a foul is called on the defender; and a lot were called.

AIUI, that famous 100-point game was a stunt -- the whole team conspired
to make him just about the only player who would score.

And that was before there were 3-point shots.

[Tony Cooper]

On Mon, 25 Nov 2019 01:24:03 -0500, Rich Ulrich

Post by Rich Ulrich
On Sat, 23 Nov 2019 18:46:25 -0500, Tony Cooper

Post by Tony Cooper
Steve Nash, for example, has about a 90% success average. There's
some point between Nash's 90% and someone like Shaq's 53% average
where the player should try a different style. But the free throw is
a developed body mechanic process, and some players could become worse
if they re-programmed that.

Particularly about Shaq - In "Total Code" (by Coyne) I
read the advice from a good coach that Shaq should
have improved his free throws by practicing shots from
longer and shorter ranges, in order to gain better fine-
control of the muscles involved.
By the way - I don't know what this proves - In March, 1962,
Chamberlain finished with 100 points on an insanely efficient
36-of-63 shooting from the field (57.1 percent) and 28-of-32
shooting from the free throw line (87.5 percent).
28 of 32 shows that something was right, that night.
I suppose that his high FG percentage might be biased
by the fact that your FG "miss" does not count as "attempt"
if a foul is called on the defender; and a lot were called.

Someone made some comment about Shaq not attempting to improve his
free throw shooting indicated a lack of interest in winning more
games. That person does not understand the game as much as he thinks
he does.

Shaq had a terrible free throw shooting average that was based on the
fact that Shaq was at the free throw line more than most players.
Because he was known to be bad at the line, he was deliberately fouled
in a strategy to turn the ball over to the other team.

The "Hack-a-Shaq" strategy was used when Shaq's team had possession.
Fouling Shaq put him at the line with only a 50-something chance of
scoring where not fouling him left his team with the ball and a better
chance of scoring. Also, it gave the opponents a rebound chance at
possession after a failed free throw.

If Shaq had dramatically improved his free throws, he wouldn't have
been deliberately fouled*. His foul line performance wouldn't be in
the game-deciding area. He wouldn't have been at the foul line any
more than any other player and less than some.

*For the low success rate reason. Deliberate fouls are also used to
stop the game clock.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Tony Cooper
Someone made some comment

The Great Anonymizer anonymizes someone else! Bravo!

(When T*ny C**p*r has been backed into a corner by, e.g., facts, he
resorts to anonymizing the fact-provider rather than conceding the point.)

[Jerry Friedman]

On 11/25/19 7:04 AM, Tony Cooper wrote:
...

Post by Tony Cooper
Someone made some comment about Shaq not attempting to improve his
free throw shooting indicated a lack of interest in winning more
games. That person does not understand the game as much as he thinks
he does.
Shaq had a terrible free throw shooting average that was based on the
fact that Shaq was at the free throw line more than most players.

You've got that backwards. His average didn't result from his being at
the free-throw line more. Having more chances doesn't typically lower
your average--the probability of success is pretty much independent of
how often you try (once you're warmed up, and until you get tired).

Post by Tony Cooper
Because he was known to be bad at the line, he was deliberately fouled
in a strategy to turn the ball over to the other team.

That's correct, though, as is the rest.

Post by Tony Cooper
The "Hack-a-Shaq" strategy was used when Shaq's team had possession.
Fouling Shaq put him at the line with only a 50-something chance of
scoring where not fouling him left his team with the ball and a better
chance of scoring. Also, it gave the opponents a rebound chance at
possession after a failed free throw.
If Shaq had dramatically improved his free throws, he wouldn't have
been deliberately fouled*. His foul line performance wouldn't be in
the game-deciding area. He wouldn't have been at the foul line any
more than any other player and less than some.
*For the low success rate reason. Deliberate fouls are also used to
stop the game clock.

[Tony Cooper]

On Mon, 25 Nov 2019 07:30:27 -0700, Jerry Friedman

Post by Jerry Friedman
...

Post by Tony Cooper
Someone made some comment about Shaq not attempting to improve his
free throw shooting indicated a lack of interest in winning more
games. That person does not understand the game as much as he thinks
he does.
Shaq had a terrible free throw shooting average that was based on the
fact that Shaq was at the free throw line more than most players.

You've got that backwards. His average didn't result from his being at
the free-throw line more. Having more chances doesn't typically lower
your average--the probability of success is pretty much independent of
how often you try (once you're warmed up, and until you get tired).

Yes, I phrased that awkwardly. What I meant was that he took so many
shots that his low average when taking those shots became an issue.

A player that takes four foul shots in each game, and makes three of
them, will not be criticized. But the "granny ball" theory promises a
player average of higher than the current (about) 75% level in the NBA
that is considered to be poor.

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by Tony Cooper
Because he was known to be bad at the line, he was deliberately fouled
in a strategy to turn the ball over to the other team.

That's correct, though, as is the rest.

Post by Tony Cooper
The "Hack-a-Shaq" strategy was used when Shaq's team had possession.
Fouling Shaq put him at the line with only a 50-something chance of
scoring where not fouling him left his team with the ball and a better
chance of scoring. Also, it gave the opponents a rebound chance at
possession after a failed free throw.
If Shaq had dramatically improved his free throws, he wouldn't have
been deliberately fouled*. His foul line performance wouldn't be in
the game-deciding area. He wouldn't have been at the foul line any
more than any other player and less than some.
*For the low success rate reason. Deliberate fouls are also used to
stop the game clock.

[Lewis]

Post by Rich Ulrich
On Sat, 23 Nov 2019 18:46:25 -0500, Tony Cooper

Post by Tony Cooper
Steve Nash, for example, has about a 90% success average. There's
some point between Nash's 90% and someone like Shaq's 53% average
where the player should try a different style. But the free throw is
a developed body mechanic process, and some players could become worse
if they re-programmed that.

Particularly about Shaq - In "Total Code" (by Coyne) I
read the advice from a good coach that Shaq should
have improved his free throws by practicing shots from
longer and shorter ranges, in order to gain better fine-
control of the muscles involved.
By the way - I don't know what this proves - In March, 1962,
Chamberlain finished with 100 points on an insanely efficient
36-of-63 shooting from the field (57.1 percent) and 28-of-32
shooting from the free throw line (87.5 percent).

All those free throws were underhand.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Post by Lewis

Post by Tony Cooper
On Sat, 23 Nov 2019 16:34:25 -0000 (UTC), Lewis

Post by Lewis

Post by Tony Cooper
On Fri, 22 Nov 2019 12:28:28 -0500, Quinn C

Post by Quinn C

Post by Mark Brader

Post by HVS
IIRC, it happened when some teams imported specialist kickers from
rugby who "side-booted" the ball rather than toe-kicking it...

Rugby? They were called "soccer-style" kickers. Now it seems as
though everyone does it. It looks stupid to me, like soccer.

Just as basketballers avoid "granny shots" because they "look silly",
although they give better results for most players.
One more proof that sportsball is mostly about macho ritual.

Is there something wrong with that?
What immediately comes to mind seeing "granny shots" is the
underhanded from between-the-legs shot at the foul line. I would
challenge that it gives better results than any other style of
shooting.

<https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/apr/26/granny-style-is-best-way-to-take-a-basketball-free-throw-study-shows>
<https://detroitjockcity.com/2017/05/31/underhanded-free-throws-work-dont-players-shoot/>

Post by Tony Cooper
Basketball players develop a style of shooting based on
extensive practice and use the style that is most effective for them.

Sorry, but this is simply not true, as the second link above clearly
shows.

Actually, what I said *is* true for most basketball players. There
are some who could improve by changing to the underhanded style -
according to this - but it doesn't negate that the now-standard
one-handed push shot is effective for most of the players.
If 70-something success is the average, and the average player uses
the one-handed push style, the improvement can only be seen in those
that are now having a lower success rate. You don't change what works
for those who are successful two-thirds of the time.
The description "clearly shows" is somewhat debatable about an article
that uses "marginal improvement" and "slightly better".

I don't think you read it all.
"Drummond responded the next day by tweeting, “Let me make this clear….
I’m not shooting free throws underhand..”
and
Perhaps the most famous example of a player making the switch to an
underhand technique was Wilt Chamberlain. In 1961-62, Chamberlain
increased his free throw percentage by nearly 11% from the previous
season, up to his career high, 61.3%.
and
Shaquille O’Neal, one of the worst free throw shooters ever, told Rick
Barry he would never shoot his free throws the way Berry did.
“Sorry, can’t do it, Rick,” he says he told Barry, “I’d rather shoot
zero percent, too cool for that.”
and
Barry himself said in a 2012 SB Nation profile that the reason that
players don’t shoot like he did is because “It’s all about the ego… They
don’t think it’s macho enough for them, and that’s fine.”
and
Chamberlain echoed this sentiment in his autobiography, saying “I felt
silly, like a sissy, shooting underhanded. I know I was wrong, I know
some of the best foul shooters in history shot that way. I just couldn’t
do it.”

Post by Tony Cooper
Drifting only slightly...It's interesting that the article is in the
Guardian and that the study was published in the journal _Royal
Society Open Science_. One wonders if very many of the readers of the
_Royal Society Open Science_ have ever watched a basketball game.

Unlike NFL football, Basketball is played all over the world; even in
the UK.

Yes, I played basketball myself a couple of times at school (very
badly, as with all other games I ever played, apart from waterpolo). So
it was already played in England in the 1950s.

[s***@gmail.com]

Post by HVS
Again working from a long-ago memory, ISTR if the kick was missed,
the original rule put the kicking team back to the yard line where
they'd kicked it from -- that is, there was no yardage penalty. The
rule was then changed so that if the attempt was missed, you went
back to your own 15-yard line (or something like that).

In the NFL, a field-goal attempt results in change of possession.
Rarely tried on non-4th down if there is more than 20 seconds left in the half.

/dps

[Tony Cooper]

Post by Snidely

I'm looking for the date of a rule change - 1960s or 1970s, I think - when
the CFL changed the rules after a period when the field-goal kickers became,
in effect, too accurate for the good of the game.

The NFL, before this year, was flirting with a mid 50% success rate
details on fivethirtyeight.com). Are you saying the CFL had a higher
success rate, or that more points could be scored by kicking than by
making touchdowns, despite the weighting factor?

I think it was when "side-foot" kicking was introduced, and teams found they
didn't need to bother going for touchdowns when you could win with field
goals from what, until then, had been a ridiculous distance.
I've tried Googling this, without success - does anyone recall the year or
period when that happened?
Cheers, Harvey

For many years, the longest field goal on record in the NFL was by a
kicker lacking toes on his kicking foot, and with a squared-off boot.
(Tony can probably recall the name, the best I can do without rest and
google-fu is Tom Dempsey). He's been surpassed by now, but the 50 yard
line isn't often considered "close enough".

Tom Dempsey, who played for the New Orleans Saints, is the right name.

Now, try to remember who kicked barefooted.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Someone was saying (I can't find a specific statement to quote) that
the commentators mainly like the sound of their own voices. The

The NFL has a real problem when the marquee match-up for its most
famous broadcast is best enjoyed on mute. This week, Lamar Jackson
eviscerated the Rams on Monday Night Football in one of the most
the experience of watching Jackson’s genius was made worse, not better,
by ESPN’s announcing crew, Joe Tessitore and Booger McFarland.

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2019/nov/26/monday-night-football-espn-booger-mcfarland-joe-tessitore-nfl

[Jerry Friedman]

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Someone was saying (I can't find a specific statement to quote) that
the commentators mainly like the sound of their own voices. The

The NFL has a real problem when the marquee match-up for its most
famous broadcast is best enjoyed on mute. This week, Lamar Jackson
eviscerated the Rams on Monday Night Football in one of the most
impressive individual performances in recent memory.

What were the omens?

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

the experience of watching Jackson’s genius was made worse, not better,
by ESPN’s announcing crew, Joe Tessitore and Booger McFarland.

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2019/nov/26/monday-night-football-espn-booger-mcfarland-joe-tessitore-nfl

I've said it before: Turn the sound off and put Pink Floyd on. Or
Steeleye Span.