Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Chuck Klosterman on why we've never actually seen a real football game

latimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 115 posts

Re: Chuck Klosterman on why we've never actually seen a real football game

#101

Post by wincy »

derektank wrote: post #34
bobro wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What’s the sport for short form video?

Lots of Olympic events seem well suited to the format. BMX racing, freestyle skiing, luge/skeleton, and a variety of track and field events all have runs that last for less than a couple of minutes. Not sure if there’s anything comparable in the realm of professional sports besides highlights

I remember that Turkish guy and the Korean woman who looked like total badasses in the shooting competition in the Olympics, the Turkish guy because he wasn’t using all the fancy gear, and the woman because she looked like someone out of a James Bond movie. Those highlights were just too cool.

Re: Chuck Klosterman on why we've never actually seen a real football game

#102

Post by soulofmischief »

IvyMike wrote: post #7

To me, this is the only real football game: https://www.sbnation.com/a/17776-football . (No spoilers please!)

Exactly where my mind went as well :)

And the followup: https://www.sbnation.com/c/secret-base/21410129/20020

Re: Chuck Klosterman on why we've never actually seen a real football game

#103

Post by electroglyph »

IvyMike wrote: post #7

To me, this is the only real football game: https://www.sbnation.com/a/17776-football . (No spoilers please!)

comes to comments before reading story

reads something from the comments instead

never reads original article submission

leaves satisfied

Re: Chuck Klosterman on why we've never actually seen a real football game

#105

Post by mannyv »

ethanrutherford wrote: post #58

The article presents its thesis ad nauseum, the idea that "everyone is always mentally reframing the game into the TV view, even if they think they aren't", but never makes any effort to prove the thesis or provide supporting evidence. I'm not convinced he even defines what "reframing it in my mind" even means. Throughout the entire article, the question in my mind is "in what way? What does 'reframing' it look like?…

If football on TV is fascism then every photograph, movie, window, thing created by someone else is also fascism.

IMO his "you always see through the perspective of the TV producer" is also bullshit. Maybe he hangs out with too many stoners?

Re: Chuck Klosterman on why we've never actually seen a real football game

#106

Post by mjevans »

dylan604 wrote: post #59
tenahu wrote: post #8

Interesting, and I have also finished live football games thinking it would have been better to just watch it on TV at home. However, his claim that a spectator would "automatically reframe what she saw into the way it would appear on television" is never supported other than him saying "trust me, it's true, if you don't believe me you are in the minority".

I've been to JerryWorld or ATT Stadium one time for a non-NFL game. Most people just watch the giant screen as the actual players are tiny from the stadium seats. Watching at home/bar was the same conclusion I got to as well. I have no idea how much tickets are, but I know parking is extremely expensive as well, never mind concessions.

I'm convinced 'attendance' at those games is a form of worship / tribal participation.

Re: Chuck Klosterman on why we've never actually seen a real football game

#109

Post by [deleted] »

dwd wrote: post #73

There are a lot of sports that are much better in person. Football is made for TV as the action is confined. Types of play that would require viewing player movements outside the "set" are discouraged like lateral passes. Basketball is similar as the action is very much confined to the video frame. Non-US sports like Australian Rules or Gaelic football are an in person spectacle. They're free flowing (like ice hockey…

[deleted]

Re: Chuck Klosterman on why we've never actually seen a real football game

#110

Post by ericbarrett »

dwd wrote: post #73

There are a lot of sports that are much better in person. Football is made for TV as the action is confined. Types of play that would require viewing player movements outside the "set" are discouraged like lateral passes. Basketball is similar as the action is very much confined to the video frame. Non-US sports like Australian Rules or Gaelic football are an in person spectacle. They're free flowing (like ice hockey…

I disagree about baseball.

I played it in school and have always enjoyed it casually, but I attended a game with a friend who was very into MLB. He pointed out many interesting defensive and offensive moves through the innings. Some were straightforward, like the runner on second base edging forward to steal. Others were less obvious, like outfielders tightening inward since the batter was likely to bunt. There was always action and information from multiple places on the field, once you knew what to look for. It was fascinating, and I’ve always much preferred in-person attendance since.

It’s impossible for a single screen to capture all these things, so a TV broadcast director makes calls to show one camera or another, and has to sacrifice the subtler stuff so they don’t miss a pitch or a throw to first etc.

Football, on the other hand, absolutely much better on TV if you want to follow the action. It happens in a small area of the field so it’s easier to show on a screen, you are seated much farther away, and the mud-brown ball is difficult to follow when it is hundreds of feet distant. The main fun of being there is social IMO.

Post reply on HN