In my opinion, sports involve physical action which brings people to the utmost level of their stamina, endurance and toughness. In my opinion sports should have sweat, blood and tears. And probably most people would agree with me.
games for fatties and Grandmas
So why, time after time, when I turn on the TV and see a BBC “Sports” presentation, do I see darts, bowling and snooker? Are the Beeb so stuck for quality sports entertainment they're resorting to games for fatties and Grandmas?
When you look at the great sporting personalities such as Muhammad Ali, Steve Redgrave and Jonny Wilkinson in their prime, you see men in optimum shape with a talent in a hard physical activity. Yet look at the latest World Champion who won his title on the BBC: Andy Fordham, who surprises me by the fact he has enough strength to move his bulk back and forth from the dart board.
Let's be fair here: I'm completely useless at the three activities I mentioned at the start of the article, and I respect the talent of the players of each particular game. But please don't insult hard working athletes by calling these recreational activities sports. I mean, when was the last time you saw Stephen Hendry break out in a sweat because of the exercise he was having to put in around the table?
As for why the BBC are ending up showing these things, is it because of a lack of other televised sports? It can't be: Sky have 4 channels devoted to sports by itself, and on top of that there's the Sky Sports News Channel, Eurosport, Setanta Sports, NASN and God knows how many more channels. You can argue that the BBC are left with these sports because televising rights have already been bought up by those television channels. If that's the case, it's time for the Beeb to pay up and get prepared to dig deep in their pockets, in an effort to show quality programming.
I'd be surprised if any of the viewers in the stands were born after the 19th century
So, when I'm asking for more sports, what do I mean? There's plenty of football, and more rugby is being televised than ever. But these aren't the sports I'm asking for. A common reaction by some people (notably women) to these sports being shown on TV, tends to be along the lines of “not more of that!”, but there's plenty of other sports to show. Britain has one of the top five leagues in the world for basketball and ice hockey. In the last few Olympics and World Cups, the British Hockey teams have been gold medal contenders. With indoor facilities there are year-round competitions in badminton, handball, netball (if desperate for a programme to show), archery, swimming, polo and its water-based namesake, and volleyball. Tennis is unforgivably ignored, except for world-class competitions based in England (two – Queen's and Wimbledon) or any competition involving Tim Henman. Recently, FIFA president Sepp Blatter caused controversy by urging women footballers to wear skimpier kits to increase the popularity of the women's game. Well if it's hot women and skimpy outfits you're after, why don't you show beach volleyball?
I have to admit there is some entertainment value in these games: during the World Bowls Championship (currently on BBC 2 as I write this) the commentator commented that: “People say that bowls isn't a spectator sport, yet the stands here are full!”. The stands were indeed full, the only problem being I'd be surprised if any of the viewers in the stands were born after the 19th century. And I wasn't too sure about the commentators as well.
My last point is a bit of a desperate plea: if you're going to waste valuable airtime by showing these competitions, at least don't call them sports.
Published 2004-01-18
© The Twaddle MMIV