Skip to main content

Modern Tennis

April 1, 2017.  Modern tennis.  I’ve been watching professional tennis for decades.  Oh, the days of Rosewall, Laver, Ashe and others.  Those were the days! One thing I always noted was that pro tennis players were the models of decorum.  Until, that is, the time of Jimmy Conners, a rather emotional player, and John McEnroe, a player given to temper.  They were the exceptions at the very top. On the whole, emotional reservation of players was the rule.  But lately, we see younger players expressing extreme emotions on the court.  Case in point: Federer (age 35, and old with established talent) vs Grygio (age 21, and young with great talent) at the Miami Open, 2017.  

Loud swearing is common.  Breaking tennis rackets is everyday.  It is something like the frustrated player, bothered by poor playing or bad luck, can deflect the blame onto his racket by smashing it.  I think we see this in our younger generation, using violence to express frustration if their situation is not as desired.

The moral of this story is that if you don’t like the outcome, blame it – but not on you.

Proof:  It is not often “proof” is given to  “morality,” but here it is, as morality is principally a state of values in time.  Many commentators review the antics of Grygios gain him a greater following. This reveals approval, support, and favor.  This establishes acceptance of on-court poor behavior. 

In sports and other modern events, it seems morality is an inviscid fluid, changing hourly.


In our present case, Roger Federer defeated Nick Grygios.  Nick responded to the final (losing) point by destroying his racket, and hardly congratulating his opponent.   

----

BTW, Federer went on to win the Miami Open, his long time opponent, Rafael Nadal behaving in the traditional manner of good sportsmanship. 


Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Please Comment.

Popular posts from this blog

Accepting Fake Information

Every day, we are all bombarded with information, especially on news channels.  One group claims it's false; another calls it the truth. How can we know when to accept it or alternatively how can we know it's false? There are several factors which influence acceptance of fake or false information. Here are the big four.  Some just don’t have the knowledge to discern fact/truth from fiction/fact/false*. Some fake information is cleverly disguised and simply appears to be correct. Some fake information is accepted because the person wants to believe it. Some fake information is accepted because there is no other information to the contrary. However, the acceptance of  information  of any kind become a kind of  truth , and this is a well studied topic. In the link below is an essay on “The Truth About Truth.” This shows simply that what is your point of view, different types of information are generally accepted, fake or not.   https://www.linkedin.com/posts/g-donald-allen-420b03
Post a Comment
Read more

Your Brain Within Your Brain

  Your Bicameral Brain by Don Allen Have you ever gone to another room to get something, but when you got there you forgot what you were after? Have you ever experienced a flash of insight, but when you went to look it up online, you couldn’t even remember the keyword? You think you forgot it completely. How can it happen so fast? You worry your memory is failing. Are you merely absent-minded? You try to be amused. But maybe you didn’t forget.   Just maybe that flash of insight, clear and present for an instant, was never given in the verbal form, but another type of intelligence you possess, that you use, and that communicates only to you. We are trained to live in a verbal world, where words matter most. Aside from emotions, we are unable to conjure up other, nonverbal, forms of intelligence we primitively, pre-verbally, possess but don’t know how to use. Alas, we live in a world of words, stewing in the alphabet, sleeping under pages of paragraphs, almost ignoring one of
Post a Comment
Read more

Is Artificial Intelligence Conscious?

  Is Artificial Intelligence Conscious? I truly like the study of consciousness, though it is safe to say no one really knows what it is. Some philosophers has avoided the problem by claiming consciousness simply doesn’t exist. It's the ultimate escape clause. However, the "therefore, it does not exist" argument also applies to "truth", "God", and even "reality" all quite beyond a consensus description for at least three millennia. For each issue or problem defying description or understanding, simply escape the problem by claiming it doesn’t exist. Problem solved or problem avoided? Alternately, as Daniel Dennett explains consciousness as an account of the various calculations occurring in the brain at close to the same time. However, he goes on to say that consciousness is so insignificant, especially compared to our exalted notions of it, that it might as well not exist [1] . Oh, well. Getting back to consciousness, most of us have view
Post a Comment
Read more