Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

SpaceMonkey · May 28, 2009, 10:30 AM

Originally Posted by Dakar V

If you have to work this hard to parse the word exciting down to fit baseball, then my point is made. At face value, the word exciting and baseball do not mix.

Well you're posting just as much as I am, so who's doing the real work here?

I'm merely clarifying what "exciting" means, and while it's perfectly fine that baseball is not exciting to you, there is no objective standard by which you can say that baseball is not exciting, period. It's a personal preference.

ShortcutToMoncton · May 28, 2009, 10:32 AM

Originally Posted by starman

This. I've tried liking soccer. It's soooooooooo boooooooooooooring because they just leisurely trapse around the field kicking it baaaack and foooorth and never getting anywhere. I see VERY little strategy at all. I feel the same way about hockey. Can't stand it.

You mean to say: you don't understand it.

Because that's what you're saying. It's your own problem if you don't understand a game and thus don't understand what its players are trying to do, no?

greg

Dakar V · May 28, 2009, 10:42 AM

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey

I'm merely clarifying what "exciting" means, and while it's perfectly fine that baseball is not exciting to you, there is no objective standard by which you can say that baseball is not exciting, period. It's a personal preference.

Clarifying or watering down? Why did it take 10 posts to get to "Hey, it's personal"?

There may be no "objective standard" but by measuring certain facets you could sure infer as much.

SpaceMonkey · May 28, 2009, 11:04 AM

Originally Posted by Dakar V

Clarifying or watering down? Why did it take 10 posts to get to "Hey, it's personal"?

There may be no "objective standard" but by measuring certain facets you could sure infer as much.

Well, that's what I was getting at with my first post:

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey

Depends on your definition of exciting.

Dakar V · May 28, 2009, 11:07 AM

Yeah, and I gave the answer: "The normal one."

SpaceMonkey · May 28, 2009, 11:17 AM

Originally Posted by Dakar V

Yeah, and I gave the answer: "The normal one."

Which was "the one where watching gets you excited," which of course is describing someone's subjective reaction. That's what I meant. In your later posts you seemed to want to elevate this to an objective standard where everyone finds certain things more exciting than others.

Dakar V · May 28, 2009, 11:20 AM

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey

Which was "the one where watching gets you excited," which of course is describing someone's subjective reaction. That's what I meant.

And it's a total cop-out. Just because one guy thinks (or 10 guys or 100 guys) think action x is exciting, doesn't make it so when there's a a far larger number of people who disagree.

SpaceMonkey · May 28, 2009, 11:26 AM

Originally Posted by Dakar V

And it's a total cop-out. Just because one guy thinks (or 10 guys or 100 guys) think action x is exciting, doesn't make it so when there's a a far larger number of people who disagree.

The bottom line is that excitement is an emotion, and not an objective state. If you find something exciting I don't necessarily get excitement by proxy. That's why the definition of excitement is so circular: "something that excites or arouses." The definition of "exciting" is entirely internal to your own mental outlook. That's why people should really say "that movie excited me" not "that movie was exciting." The movie can't be exciting in an objective sense.

Dakar V · May 28, 2009, 11:33 AM

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey

The bottom line is that excitement is an emotion, and not an objective state. If you find something exciting I don't necessarily get excitement by proxy. That's why the definition of excitement is so circular: "something that excites or arouses." The definition of "exciting" is entirely internal to your own mental outlook. That's why people should really say "that movie excited me" not "that movie was exciting." The movie can't be exciting in an objective sense.

You're still dodging the fact that despite it not being an objective fact, there can still be consensus on what is or isn't exciting. And its by those standards I think baseball blows.

SpaceMonkey · May 28, 2009, 11:36 AM

Originally Posted by Dakar V

You're still dodging the fact that despite it not being an objective fact, there can still be consensus on what is or isn't exciting. And its by those standards I think baseball blows.

I'm not dodging that. Certainly if you get a large enough group of people together you can claim consensus of emotion based on how a majority of them feel about something. But so far you've only been presenting your own opinion. Do you have survey research or something to share?

Dakar V · May 28, 2009, 11:40 AM

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey

I'm not dodging that. Certainly if you get a large enough group of people together you can claim consensus of emotion based on how a majority of them feel about something. But so far you've only been presenting your own opinion. Do you have survey research or something to share?

Well, perhaps if you had asked question earlier instead starting some type of semantic argument we could have gotten somewhere.

By the way, the Beatles aren't actually a good band, because it's all personal preference. (doesn't that sound ridiculous?)

mattyb · May 28, 2009, 11:42 AM

SpaceMonkey · May 28, 2009, 11:49 AM

Originally Posted by Dakar V

Well, perhaps if you had asked question earlier instead starting some type of semantic argument we could have gotten somewhere.

By the way, the Beatles aren't actually a good band, because it's all personal preference. (doesn't that sound ridiculous?)

Well, we're here now. I'll wait for your data. In the meantime, I'm going to spend my lunch break reading about some of the exciting baseball games that occurred last night.

As far as the Beatles go, I don't agree with you but I assume you have some reason for thinking that they are not very good.

Dakar V · May 28, 2009, 11:53 AM

I'll pass for the moment. I've had enough semantic bs for the day and the conversation has completely derailed my train of thought from earlier.

Spheric Harlot · May 28, 2009, 11:57 AM

This isn't really a discussion about whether football or the Americans' advertising breaks-interspersed-with-ten-seconds-of-running is more exciting, is it?

Do you people have any lives at all?

If you can follow the rules and can root for a team, it's exciting. Sometimes even if you can't follow the rules but are taken by the crowd. Period.
End of discussion.

SpaceMonkey · May 28, 2009, 11:59 AM

Originally Posted by Dakar V

I'll pass for the moment. I've had enough semantic bs for the day and the conversation has completely derailed my train of thought from earlier.

The study of language and meaning is what separates us from the barbarians.

Dakar V · May 28, 2009, 12:04 PM

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot

End of discussion.

Unlikely.

mr. burns · May 28, 2009, 12:27 PM

You really have to understand the tactics of soccer to know what they're doing when they pass the ball around and aren't scoring. It also helps to watch good attack-minded European teams instead of the garbage MLS. The English Premier league is a very fast-paced, physical league that is pretty exciting to watch.

Every pass draws a defender and opens up space for players to take advantage of and advance. They move around the ball to break up the other teams organization and expose a weakness they can exploit. There is a huge amount of strategy going on. You just don't get it. That's why low scoring games can be exciting. People can see the struggle between the teams, the teamwork involved and can appreciate the build-up in plays even if it only results in a chance on goal.

Laminar · May 28, 2009, 12:35 PM

Originally Posted by mr. burns

There is a huge amount of strategy going on. You just don't get it.

This has already been discussed. Strategy != exciting for all people.

SpaceMonkey · May 28, 2009, 12:39 PM

Originally Posted by mr. burns

Every pass draws a defender and opens up space for players to take advantage of and advance. They move around the ball to break up the other teams organization and expose a weakness they can exploit. There is a huge amount of strategy going on. You just don't get it. That's why low scoring games can be exciting. People can see the struggle between the teams, the teamwork involved and can appreciate the build-up in plays even if it only results in a chance on goal.

Unfortunately the large field makes it difficult to capture a lot of this on camera.

Dakar V · May 28, 2009, 12:44 PM

Soccer's problem is so much of its action is futile. As one sports columnist noted, its great when its on in the background, because you'll know something's about to happen because the announcer's voice kicks about three notches.

Myself, I enjoy soccer, but I'll only watch World Cup.

sek929 · May 28, 2009, 02:11 PM

Also, Americans hate soccer because there is no discernible system of stats to blather on about.

"The Sox bullpen has an average ERA of 1.45 with left-handed batters who prefer honeydew to cantaloupe."

Dakar V · May 28, 2009, 02:24 PM

People do love the water cooler stats talk.

Shaddim · May 28, 2009, 03:01 PM

I think the difference is that when American football is executed perfectly, it can be rather boring, unless both teams are playing on that level. The score can get up to 50-0 by the end of the 3rd quarter and people start leaving the stadium. It's not something that most want to watch. However, a game with lots of mental errors can be some of the best entertainment around. You either end up with a shoot-out, 45-48 with just a couple minutes left to play, or a tough defensive struggle, 13-10 and the losing team is making their last desperate drive down the field.

If a soccer person complains that Am Football is boring, I just pop in the DVD of the 2006 AFC championship game. The Colts won 38-34 vs. the Patriots in one one of the biggest comebacks in postseason history. By the time it's over they're yelling, "this is incredible!", and usually they're hooked.