Last edited by uziq (2020-01-18 14:19:44)
I'll agree that golf isn't a sport, its barely a game. Like tennis intended as a wheeze for victorian gentility to waste lazy sunday afternoons.uziq wrote:
every professional sport is just a business, it's sort of in the name. if rugby had an opportunity for the viewership/audience of football, it wouldn't be any different in terms of culture, as much as tedious rugby fan bores have fostered the 'we're better than them' mentality (the actions of the governing body to change the game to make it more spectator-friendly suggest they'd love the viewing figures, of course).
i don't watch any sports, though the high drama of a tennis grand slam is always good.
i think we can at least all agree that golf is barely a sport and an even drabber affair on television.
shooting is so little of a sport that it couldn't even make it into the commonwealth games properly this time around. who can possibly be interested? isn't it happening in india or something, a literal side-show? a side-show to a side-show of the olympics -- wow. shooting is on the same order as darts, for me, an idle pursuit bereft of all athleticism. i could maybe get behind it if it took place in darkened conference centres with rooms full of people sat around drinking 12 pints of lager.
Its fun, you'd enjoy it.SuperJail Warden wrote:
Target shooting looks like the most weirdo sport of all. A bunch of creepy dudes silently sending bullets down range. You know at least a few of them wish the targets were people.
the UK maintained its global eminence because of its citizens' 'skill-at-arms'? wtf this is even more bizarre than stating most modern sports derive from warfare. the last time i checked, the british empire at its peak maintained its global eminence through the navy. you know, press gangs and forcing people onto ships. not a bunch of nerds shooting guns at target ranges. prior to that there were small professionalized armies, not citizen militias frequently encouraged to hone their musketry; warfare in europe wasn't made on the citizenry or by the citizenry, you illiterate moron. when was the last time the defence of the realm relied upon well-practiced target shooters keeping up their skills? napoleon must have been quaking in his boots.Its funny how a nation which has depended for centuries for its defence and worldwide preeminence on encouraging if not mandating that its citizens maintain skill-at-arms through regular target practice (Shooting clubs are still charities by default in the UK.) has now gone all sniffy about it.
Last edited by uziq (2020-01-18 16:01:12)
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2020-01-18 16:36:41)
Last edited by uziq (2020-01-18 17:09:22)
You're completely wrong.uziq wrote:
archery is a different sport from shooting, dilbert. that may surprise you. the 'yeomanry' have not been encouraged to shoot for the sake of 'defense of the realm', ever. europe had standing professionalized armies. war was not made on citizens. hence napoleon rolling across europe. hence the prussians billeting in french villages. the whole idea that the mass of people have been encouraged to learn to shoot, like american or swiss militias, is historically illiterate.
when europe wanted to raise armies in the age of empire, it had professional armies to do so. hence press ganging and conscription, like i mentioned. no lay-people encouraged to passively train in guns, though. nope. that didn't happen. 'excuse me, mr recruiter, i'm a dab hand with a lee enfield ...' the business of war and common civic life took place in separate spheres (it's capitalism, duh! business is business, civvy street is civvy street etc.)
sorry but your 'my sport is responsible for the greatness of the british empire, now the country has grown ungrateful' talk is arrant fucking nonsense. henry VIII and longbows don't have much to do with target pistols or the UK being saved from mortal threats abroad.
They also had the first anti-smoking campaign. The Nazis did have an interest in the physical health and well being of German people that seems bizarre to many Americans.uziq wrote:
the nazis encouraged all sorts of what they perceived to be 'correct' pursuits for the new german citizen. lots of exercising on beaches in the cold, taking of the waters in the baltic, holistic retreats with pagan-quack doctors in the deep forests. that sort of thing.
Last edited by uziq (2020-01-18 17:42:01)
Jay wrote:
Professional armies are rather recent, dating back to about the English Civil War and the New Model Army. Prior to that it was lords calling up the fyrd to fight it out on the battlefield. Peasant against peasant with a handful of trained gentry to lead them. Having a trained fyrd made calling them up easier
Last edited by uziq (2020-01-18 17:57:44)
Of course you would. It's propaganda from the age of Obama = Hitler. One of those books that's often met with either 0/5 or 5/5 reviews.Jay wrote:
A bit more nuanced than that... highly recommend that book
No it isn't.uziq wrote:
archery is a different sport from shooting, dilbert. that may surprise you. the 'yeomanry' have not been encouraged to shoot for the sake of 'defense of the realm', ever (the closest parallel i can think of is dad's army and the home effort during ww2, hence my joke). europe had standing professionalized armies. war was not made on citizens. hence napoleon rolling across europe. hence the prussians billeting in french villages. the whole idea that the mass of people have been encouraged to learn to shoot, like american or swiss militias, is historically illiterate.
In fact you're wrong. After the Boer War the Army and the govt encouraged the average person to take up target shooting.sorry but your 'my sport is responsible for the greatness of the british empire, now the country has grown ungrateful' talk is arrant fucking nonsense. henry VIII and longbows don't have much to do with target pistols or the UK being saved from mortal threats abroad. how noble of you to impute your nerdy university hobby with 'defense of the realm', long-recognised with charitable exemptions for its proud heritage of ... erm, longbowmen
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_ … ssociationThe NSRA was originally formed in 1901 as the Society of Working Mens Rifle Clubs.[1] A series of heavy defeats during 1899 in the Second Boer War had demonstrated a lack of marksmanship ability amongst British military-age men, whilst the Boers had been able to pick off British officers at ranges in excess of 1,000yards. Although the National Rifle Association had been founded in 1859, ranges suitable for large-calibre service rifles were necessarily rural and costly to travel to. Cost of ammunition for civilians was also a limitation. With the development of the cheap .22 Long Rifle cartridge in 1887 it became apparent that principles of marksmanship could be taught and trained using these small calibre “miniature” rifles on local or even indoor ranges located in towns and cities.
Major General Charles Edward Luard was at the forefront of this line of thinking and pressured the British Government to sponsor such a movement from 1899 until the 23rd of March 1901 when a meeting of MPs, city Mayors and dignitaries representing many Working Men's Clubs, passed a resolution stating “That the foundation of THE SOCIETY OF WORKING MEN’S RIFLE CLUBS, for facilitating rifle shooting, more especially in the evening, with small-bore rifles and inexpensive ammunition, as an ordinary branch of recreation by working men’s and working boys’ clubs and institutes, be now proceeded with”
The organisation was founded on the premise of being funded primarily by gentlemen, with the working classes expected to join the clubs and avail themselves of this opportunity. In many ways this was a spiritual update on the ancient English law requiring all men and boys to practice archery, which would often have been facilitated by the local clergy and gentry, and many modern rifle clubs still benefit from this legacy having inherited the grounds and quarries that land owners made available to these new Miniature Rifle Clubs as range space.
ah, yes, that period before the boer war when english longbowmen (NOT pistoliers, i note, again), under orders of henry VIII, defended the realm. it's almost like you're historically illiterate and are glossing over, y'know, the ENTIRE 350 year period in between, when britain properly attained 'global pre-eminence' (your words, again), using PROPER armies (and not militias of battle-ready peasants roused by saxon lords in 800 AD, thanks, jay).And prior to that obviously the English longbowman protected the country from the French.
the statement that target shooting has been responsible for the 'pre-eminence' of britain, as if throughout the empire's glory days the population were well-armed and handy with a pistol, thanks to their frequent amateur practice, is complete and utter fucking nonsense. it's all very well editing your original post to make the claim much more vague and general -- that's just you admitting your captious claims. unfortunately i already quoted you. now it seems you've reformulated it to be 'it was always encouraged, being familiar with a pistol is useful when you're conscripted into the army', which is so obvious as to be entirely unexceptionable. my point being that the ARMY and NAVY and PROFESSIONAL soldiers were responsible for that eminence. remind me when you get accepted into the armed forces based on your target shooting record.For centuries, the worldwide pre-eminence...
you commit the same fallacy when you equate modern televised rugby to the game practiced on public school playing fields, the 'warfare' prep you talk about. latterly expressed in the split between league and union.As for tennis, you're thinking of real tennis, the modern game is based on lawn tennis.
Last edited by uziq (2020-01-19 09:38:03)
LOL OKuziq wrote:
archery isn't different from gun shooting? better tell the commonwealth games and olympics. i assume you switch between revolver and bow with equal ease?
and how big is the NSRA? how big was it at its peak? what levels of participation has it ever had? and what conflict immediately followed the boer war, dilbert? how was all that put to use in terms of 'defense of the realm'? all that amateur small-bore rifle shooting came in awful handy in the great war. and what does this have to do with the 'global pre-eminence', 'for centuries' of england, again? you've handily deleted those parts, of course.
that a working men's society was set-up for target shooting is great. a well-meaning scheme by the old boys in the officer class, disappointed in their personnel compared to the self-sufficient boer settlers. the boy scouts had the same ethos, but you don't see them claiming responsibility for 'preparing the populace' and stepping up in 'defense of the realm'. well-meaning directives and societies are ten a penny; it doesn't follow and isn't self-evident that they were huge successes and directly responsible for anything.
in fact, doesn’t it entirely contradict your point, that britain was well-served by centuries of amateur shooting practice, when the UK military found the civilian populace, upon whom there had been placed new pressing wartime demands, utterly incompetent with pistols at the start of the 20th century? DERP DERP.
it's almost as if your pet sport is just as i said: a niche hobby for nerds, largely invented in the 20th century, and of no real import or significance whatsoever. i'm very glad that a few working men's clubs were set up to encourage small arms handling in 1900, though. really a significant contribution to national defense during the great war and world war two, those two conflicts notable for their small arms battles.ah, yes, that period before the boer war when english longbowmen (NOT pistoliers, i note, again), under orders of henry VIII, defended the realm. it's almost like you're historically illiterate and are glossing over, y'know, the ENTIRE 350 year period in between, when britain properly attained 'global pre-eminence' (your words, again), using PROPER armies (and not militias of battle-ready peasants roused by saxon lords in 800 AD, thanks, jay).And prior to that obviously the English longbowman protected the country from the French.
can you name me the battle where commoners took up their longbows in defense against the french? when did the french invade england, again? i suppose you're going to connect a line between you shooting revolvers at targets and agincourt, next.the statement that target shooting has been responsible for the 'pre-eminence' of britain, as if throughout the empire's glory days the population were well-armed and handy with a pistol, thanks to their frequent amateur practice, is complete and utter fucking nonsense. it's all very well editing your original post to make the claim much more vague and general -- that's just you admitting your captious claims. unfortunately i already quoted you. now it seems you've reformulated it to be 'it was always encouraged, being familiar with a pistol is useful when you're conscripted into the army', which is so obvious as to be entirely unexceptionable. my point being that the ARMY and NAVY and PROFESSIONAL soldiers were responsible for that eminence. remind me when you get accepted into the armed forces based on your target shooting record.For centuries, the worldwide pre-eminence...you commit the same fallacy when you equate modern televised rugby to the game practiced on public school playing fields, the 'warfare' prep you talk about. latterly expressed in the split between league and union.As for tennis, you're thinking of real tennis, the modern game is based on lawn tennis.
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2020-01-19 14:24:54)
