Tennis - Emotion, Intellect, Personal Investment And Religion

First topic message reminder :

Saw this excellent comment by Nore Staat in the Announcement section of this site. It was made in response to the announcement that a certain "toxic" article had been removed. Hope you don't mind Nore Staat but it made be think and I thought others would find it worth furthers discussion so I brought it here.

"Some have difficulty separating their emotion from their "intellectual" thinking. Some seem to have an emotional and personal investment in tennis as a spectator sport. This is to some extent how professional sport makes its money, generating or exploiting this emotional / personal investment of the individual, the consumer, the spectator, the fan. It seems endemic within sport, particularly teams sports, e.g. football. Sport is big business and this forum probably wouldn't exist
without it.

It is interesting to contrast and compare the issues raised by the emotionally commited "fan", in particular their sense of "fairness" and their sense of how the sport "should be played". These latter considerations can generate qualities that are found in religion - righteousness accompanied by defenders of the "faith". Of course you
don't have to be emotionally commited to engage in the debate."

These are some of the questions I was left pondering

Why is it so difficult to sometimes seperate emotion from intellect? This makes it very difficult to discuss a players weaknesses or strengths without hurting the feelings of others. It also means some feel so attached to certain players its almost "love" and some dislike certain players so much its almost "hate". From an intellectual perspective this is strange indeed...

Why do we invest so much time and energy to a sport? Why are we here discussing it? Are we being exploited in any way? Or are we just being distracted from other more important things?

And finally Tennis or sport a religion! Thats a bit strong isn't it?

Nore Staat wrote:The 1969 El Savador - Honduras War which left 3000 people dead was triggered by a football match between the two nations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Football_War

A 100-hour war, settled a border dispute. Thanks for that fascinating piece of information, NS.

Nore Staat

Mmmm. Thats a whole different aspect of people getting too "involved" in sport. Just a couple of weeks ago in Egypt I think about 70 people died as a result of fighting after a football match...

What a tragedy from over-zealous people.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/colombias-owngoal-star-shot-dead-1418013.html

hawkeye wrote:What are "MBTI" types?

Not Lydian, but.... http://www.myersbriggs.org/my-mbti-personality-type/mbti-basics/

Many interesting analogies here and they all more or less revolve around Team sport Versus Individual sport as a centre to express our support for a hero or a group of people in a team.

We have always done this, whether in an arena full of gladiators or at the Olympic games in Greece. We have cherished the physical prowess of the human body and "religiously" idolised those who have been endowed with super human abilities.

Emotion has always played a huge part in being a spectator or participant and that will never change, its part and parcel of sport, but the degree to which we apportion our emotion or intellect does rely on the myriad of complex characteristics of an individual.

But that all changes when people come together to support a team or singleton, then we become the tribe and due to peer pressures and mob instinct, it can get out of control if we lose sense of proportion. That may well be the effect of emotion taking over the intellect, and if you put that and mass psyche into the pot, then all hell can break loose.

Sometimes that happens on forums, I was guilty to a degree on 606 of ganging up on posters, something that at the time was not frowned upon, but in hindsight was not nice, but typifies of some of the things we see on V2. Its a complex and difficult thing to try and rationalise or police to any fair degree, but in the end, it is up to the individual to understand their own limitations and not let emotions get the better of them.

Players, teams, supporters all get emotional, its part of life and its experiences, I don't think you can ever segregate emotion from intellect, but its better to invest your time in following and supporting a sport with a sense of balance, and I think to allow it to become almost a religion is unhealthy, but some people live for that kind of thing, if it keeps them happy and safe, then I see no problem with fanaticism as long as its kept at bay and diluted for everyone's benefit.

I think you'll find that tennis as followed on a forum is intrinsically different to that of the supporter who travels to the event then chats about it down the pub. We have so much time to converse on here and the conversational powers are restricted to just words, we all are existing in an ethereal space, not a social gathering in a physical sense, and therein lies the rub, we have to read between the lines so much, I think we can't see the trees for the wood sometimes and it becomes difficult to follow a posters remarks if the wrong end of the stick is taken. Arguments ensue, sides are taken and "emotions" come to the fore, intellect flies out the window until the next day, a fresh look and a new beginning.

As someone has already pointed out, don't take it too seriously, its not a life or death situation and its only a sport.

Jubbahey (great name!). Some excellent points, if you don't mind my saying. Clearly, reading some of the comments on player fan sites, there are some who DO regard tennis, or sport, in a quasi-religious way.
Let's face it, even the most level-headed person can become a little crazy over sport. You could argue that this is no bad thing, as fans can come together for a single purpose and are, generally, completely selfless in their support for, and affection for, the team/individual.
The nice thing about sport is that you can get totally involved, dabble a bit, leave for a time, come back, go crazy, be indifferent. Like a loved one or a true friend, sport's always there for you.

I wonder if players consider it a 'Religious' experience in any way, when participating in an individual and/or team sport?

sirfredperry, I agree with what you say, excited can very quickly become crazy depending on the severity of the event and situation.

I don't find it unacceptable for people to follow a sport to the bitter ends as it were, there is nothing wrong in being a fanatical follower of something, as that can be construed as a serious hobby, it doesn't have to take on physical proportions to be seen as a worthwhile endeavor. I suppose that is why the internet is so popular, we can all come together (albeit intermittently due to the posting restraints we encounter in written form, not verbal) and gather information it would normally take weeks to garner through snail mail, as in the past before the advent of the web.

It takes some experience in life and maybe age has mellowed me, although some posters think I'm always wound up for some reason, but if someone decides to carry on a crusade for personal reasons and continue it for some time, I think it is better that the community as a whole tells them where they are going wrong. Many young people are vociferous in their "opinions", nothing wrong with that, but there is a tendency to ignore advice as if it is against their beliefs/religion and there can be a lot of tension and friction generated by this on both sides. Much of this would not happen in a face to face confrontation, so it can take on a biblical size with a medium as this.

Again, experience in the end educates and softens the blows, but sport will always beget emotion and the internet and forums will always beget arguments and differing points of view, its how things are.

But like you say, its the degree to which we support our opinions and our players/teams that decides the frequency and intensity of those comments.

LF, good point !

Maybe that is why they get so intense out there, which would be different if they were playing behind closed doors.

Do they become part of the mass hysteria/mob psyche ? or ride it like a chariot into the fray ?

My viewpoint, when Jubbahey mentions younger people and vociferous opinions, is that some of it is perhaps related to what the media portrays. The lack of historical depth sometimes can distort the 'bigger' picture.

I do not mean to sound condescending to the 'younger' generation, but there is an aspect of aging, sometimes experience, which tempers this fanatic outpouring of emotion with a sense of balance, and allows a 'saner' perspective.

For example, spectators who grew up watching Fedal rivalry, perhaps cannot visualise a Laver-Rosewall, or Borg-Connors, or Borg-McEnroe or a Lendl-Becker, Sampras-Agassi timeline.

It puts the onus back on the 'older' generation to share their experiences, and the 'younger' generation to research and discover, what is not right underneath their 'nose'.

To me its a question of personal responsibility, which tends to increase with age.

If you are prepared to put your emotional well-being into the hands of a sportsman, woman, or team over which by definition you can have no control whatsoever you've got to be young and naive or stupid. It's as simple as that. If the prospect of my favourite losing a match would put me in heavy dudgeon for any length of time I'd be very worried about my sanity.

People who put their well-being into third parties' hands in that way very often don't exercise control over their emotions whilst spectating or discussing sport, or even in other more significant spheres - they have already set the unfortunate precedent of giving up responsibility for controlling themselves in one area and it tends to establish itself on a wider basis.

Is passion just for the young? Do we all get more stingy as far as personal investment goes with age? Are we less likely to invest emotion in something that will not give us direct concrete rewards? As we get older does the world shrink to our immediate surroundings. Are we less able to relate to the abstract? Do we become just too sensible?

And most important of all... Is 606v2 inhabited mainly by old fogies?

hawkeye wrote:And most important of all... Is 606v2 inhabited mainly by old fogies?

Yeah, it was never like that back in the old days!

Ha ha! Back in the good old days...

There's plenty of room for passion, but if you are going to get passionate about something at least have the personal responsibility to invest passion in something which you participate in or which cannot control you in a negative way - relationships, family, past-times and so on. Passion about sport is obviously fine if it involves a passionate love for the sport itself and strong support for a participant which does not take over your life. The point at which I think one should draw the line is obsessive support for a participant which means you end up seriously identifying your mood and life with the ebb and flow of the participant's career - that should not be dignified with the word 'passion' it's just plain nuts.

B'star. By your reckoning I've had it ! Fraid sport took over my life from a very early age and shows no sign of letting go. I also confess to going into black moods when my favourites lose. Alas, I'm just a hopeless case but I'm not in denial and I'm willing to have treatment.

sirfredperry wrote:B'star. By your reckoning I've had it ! Fraid sport took over my life from a very early age and shows no sign of letting go. I also confess to going into black moods when my favourites lose. Alas, I'm just a hopeless case but I'm not in denial and I'm willing to have treatment.

The question is what do we support in our favourite player(s), team(s)? Moral values?, talent? work ethic? nationality (Identity)?

I do see the Nadal v Federer fight as just another expression of the fight of good versus bad...and in that respect, I do get passionate too. Sure I understand that in tennis that fight is trivial but in a way those players might be animated by those same forces. As we are all individuals with a mixture of good and bad, it doesn;t take much imagination to realise that some might be more "good" than others....while bearing in mind that no-one is purely "good".

Must be Friday afternoon.

hawkeye wrote:Is passion just for the young? Do we all get more stingy as far as personal investment goes with age? Are we less likely to invest emotion in something that will not give us direct concrete rewards? As we get older does the world shrink to our immediate surroundings. Are we less able to relate to the abstract? Do we become just too sensible?

No, passion tempered with personal responsibility, to echo BarryStar, is a 'balanced' approach. The world, instead of shrinking, does actually seem 'bigger' with a wider horizon and many 'emotional' investment opportunities. In fact, the abstract becomes an important aspect of living, and raging hormones are no longer the dominant and determinant (to plagiarise BarryStar again) factors. 'Too' sensible is very subjective.

Tenez wrote:I do see the Nadal v Federer fight as just another expression of the fight of good versus bad...and in that respect, I do get passionate too.

... and did someone say Parera=Jesus!

sirfredperry wrote: Alas, I'm just a hopeless case but I'm not in denial and I'm willing to have treatment.

As GrafTheGreatest puts it, Tennis is your drug of choice, and you are already under the influence of the mellifluous song of Tennis balls being smacked across the net. All is not yet lost, SFP. Take heart.

barrystar

When you talk about relationships and family not being able to control you in a negative way I would like to respond with a mother in law joke. (If I knew any and if was still politically correct to do so)

sirfredperry

Despite your name you appear to be a young 'un.

laverfan

You claim to lack "raging hormones" but I think your doing ok as far as passion goes... well speaking of tennis anyway...

hawkeye wrote:barrystar

When you talk about relationships and family not being able to control you in a negative way I would like to respond with a mother in law joke. (If I knew any and if was still politically correct to do so)

The "or" was meant to distinguish between something you participate in on the one hand and something which you don't but which can't control you on the other. A relationship can absorb you, but it shouldn't 'control' you because you are a participant and able to make your own contribution to it.

hawkeye wrote:You claim to lack "raging hormones" but I think your doing ok as far as passion goes... well speaking of tennis anyway...

I am glad my passion for Tennis is transparent and obvious. Thanks for the affirmation, HE.

To HawkEye...... as you get older, everything that is unimportant to life as a whole, as in survival and ongoing existence, procreating and dying is just stuff.

As a gross generalisation, its a gradual realisation that putting an enormous amount of effort into something which, as Barrystar pointed out, is beyond our control, is creating even more stuff, more ridiculous additions to the mundane and insignificant side of our existence we call life on this planet as human beings.

But, and its a huge, in your face but, we could not exist without this monumental amount of stuff, we would die of boredom.

So, in a nutshell and in my most humble opinion ever...... be selective about what "stuff" you immerse yourself in and don't push it on everyone else, they've got enough stuff to deal with on a day to day basis. (Colloquially speaking of course, not intended as a direct piece of advice to you HE)

Tenez wrote:

sirfredperry wrote:B'star. By your reckoning I've had it ! Fraid sport took over my life from a very early age and shows no sign of letting go. I also confess to going into black moods when my favourites lose. Alas, I'm just a hopeless case but I'm not in denial and I'm willing to have treatment.

The question is what do we support in our favourite player(s), team(s)? Moral values?, talent? work ethic? nationality (Identity)?

I do see the Nadal v Federer fight as just another expression of the fight of good versus bad...and in that respect, I do get passionate too. Sure I understand that in tennis that fight is trivial but in a way those players might be animated by those same forces. As we are all individuals with a mixture of good and bad, it doesn;t take much imagination to realise that some might be more "good" than others....while bearing in mind that no-one is purely "good".

Must be Friday afternoon.

Good (Federer) v Evil (Nadal)

Mmmm. Thats getting very close to seeing tennis as religion.

Jubbehey

You sound very old and weighed down. Thank you for making me feel like a young un...

Anything can be seen with a religious eye or a scientific eye. Religions have not the monopole of good and bad.

Tenez

IMO your religious or scientific eye is only seeing what you want it to see.

hawkeye wrote:Tenez

IMO your religious or scientific eye is only seeing what you want it to see.

Certainly. Thiough I don't think I am the only one who sees grace in Federer's game and sweat in Nadal's.

Laverfan i'll give you this one.
Parera=Jesus

Yes Tenez Noodull is truly evil Keep on telling yourself that.

Anyway on a more serious note, yes I am quite a passionate Nadal fan myself, and I get very happy when Nadal wins and do become very upset when he loses.

Unlike others I do not see this is as a good vs evil thing, well i certainly don't see myself as evil, but it's more of a passion.

Tenez wrote:

hawkeye wrote:Tenez

IMO your religious or scientific eye is only seeing what you want it to see.

Certainly. Thiough I don't think I am the only one who sees grace in Federer's game and sweat in Nadal's.

HE... sometimes it can be called 'focus' (to the exclusion of other objects on the periphery), similar to Tennis players tuning out the crowd, if necessary.

Tenez...

1. 'sweat in Nadal's'... A blacksmith has honest sweat in his brow, would you begrudge him such?

2. Not trying to wind you up, but if Nadal retires (at some point in time) and Djokovic continues the 'physical' side of tennis and 'grinds' opponents to dust, and there is a Federesque player, who is stifled, would your perception of 'evil' shift from Nadal to Djokovic? Curious, if you have thought about such a possible progression.

laverfan wrote:2. Not trying to wind you up, but if Nadal retires (at some point in time) and Djokovic continues the 'physical' side of tennis and 'grinds' opponents to dust, and there is a Federesque player, who is stifled, would your perception of 'evil' shift from Nadal to Djokovic? Curious, if you have thought about such a possible progression.

First I used the word bad purposely as evil is a big word when discussing tennis matter.

Bad, because in a way Nadal represents very well our era where we force our ways to winning at all costs. Economically, financially, ecologically and politically we act with a very short term perspective. There is little wisdom in our decision making and in fact now, it's too late to apply any wisdom and I feel our economies and everything else is going to hit a wall. I am not pessimistic about it but I feel tougher times are ahead of us before things get better. Nadal in that respect has also hit the wall...at 25...when it shoudl be his peak time. He has had al the science behind him, from the people desiging him special soles, to PRP being legalised just in time and other diets that allowed him to run and hit the ball in a way it was simply not possible just 6 years ago. Nadal also forced a slow game on his oppponents, the spectators and the referee to max his chances of winning. He bends the rule if and when needed. I also believe the organisers even slowed the courts down to allow a bit more of a spectacle v Federer and created this rivalry which shoudl have never gone beyond clay.

Regarding Djoko, I see it differently. Djoko was a very good players with some weapons and an amazing will to win when he came on the tour. He did not have the grace of Federer nor a very creative tennis but He was agressive and very solid. However he realised quickly too wthat trying to blast your way to victory was a bit useless on those slowing conds, especially versus Nadal so decided to "work" and get fitter while playing more safely so he coudl "guarantee" his wins as he was certainly more talented than Nadal and just needed to get fitter to become much better than Nadal.

For Federer, it simply was not possible because of his SHBH. For him it was too late. He belonged to a former generation of players and can only get the better of the other 2 if, when played on low bounce and fast surface.

So in short, no, I won;t see Djoko replacing the "bad"..as much. Djoko adapted to teh conds...he did not force the conds and everything else to suit his game.

Tenez wrote: Djoko adapted to teh conds...he did not force the conds and everything else to suit his game.

And Nadal forced the conditions
What did he do. Drop bags of clay on the surface?

I mean Nadal beat Fed in miami 2004, got 2 sets up in miami 2005, and beat him in dubai 2006. Fact. And of course he has improved on hard court a lot since he was young, hence he has reached the last 2 HC Grand Slam finals which he couldn't do when he was younger.

Tenez

I too think tougher times are ahead of us. Tennis for me is a sort of escapism. Nadal with his sweat, fight to the limit, dont try and be cool, put everything out there represents a sort of antidote to what has become a more "what can we do" sort of attitude.

I do understand why you hold Federer with such high regard. Because I do too! But I wish there was some way I could persuade you that Nadal was equally as good. Sport is a physical battle. Federer is an equal to Nadal in this "PHYSICAL" battle.