Again, clearly we just see things very differently. Boxing is about resilience to injury/harm and as such is a really bad example. F1 again is just a bad comparative due to how the sport is done. I don't think there are any options. I would stick with my 'the footballer is injured' comparison myself. Something can be done and something is done.
I disagree. I'm speaking of a situation where someone is injured in a location which has nothing to do with the fight. If you twist your ankle, that has nothing to do with your resilience to injury or harm as the ankle isn't a monitored part of the body within boxing. Of course you can then argue that if you've twisted your ankle you're not in a position to be able to throw effective shots or defend yourself from your opponent as well as you would with full mobility. I suppose I could accept the scenario where a fighter gets a really deep cut from an illegal, blow like an elbow, that the fight is stopped and ruled a no contest.
Either way, in the instance that a footballer is injured; My view is that if the team caused the player to have an injury they should be expected to kick the ball out immediately. I do not believe that if a player gets a freak injury by themselves that the other team are
obligated to kick the ball out for sportsmanship reasons. What's to stop 'Player A' from successfully dribbling a ball past 'Player B' and then 'Player B' feigns an injury/cramp to stop the opposing teams progress? As we know, all of the players are truthful...
Also, if the yellow jersey has a mechanical, it's not like everyone stops and waits with him, they just don't try and take advantage of it. That seems reasonable to me.
How are you not supposed to take advantage if you don't stop? If we are making progress together and you stop even if I reduce my speed to 10% of what we were doing together, I'm still making progress which you can't and by the very definition I'm gaining an advantage. Now, I could just pedal really slowly for ages but ultimately you're still going to need to burn some energy to catch up to where I've made it, depending how bad your mechanical issue is.
It just doesn't sit right with me. I just can't grasp the idea of accepting that someone can train as hard as they can and put all the hours into achieving something they've dreamed about for years, they've reached the top of their craft and are within distance of achieving their goals. They've nailed the preparation and have put in all the hard work. They've surrounded themselves with a team who also put in lots of hard work and trying to be the best at what they do. You have your mechanics which you trust to have built your bike to the best of their ability. You're out there riding for yourself and both the team on the track as well as the team off it.
Then because your opponents chain breaks, lets say their mechanics didn't put in as much work or care as yours, you then have to think "to hell with all the work my team did, that guy bad a bit of bad luck". I'd understand if it was a team mate but an opponent?
Would I rather see the best person win or the second best person win because they got some luck. I can't believe I would even need to answer that?!
We'll were all about to witness Kuss win it and I'd argue he's not the best person in his team let alone the whole competition. Though I love upsets in sport and I am aware that for underdogs to win they need luck sometimes.
When people talk about making your own luck, it's usually not really luck. Like your Norris example. To me that's a bad call, not luck. You even say it was clearly too wet. How is that luck?
"The harder I work the luckier I am". The hard work you do puts you in a position to capitalise on moments were luck presents itself. I keep going back to the chain scenario but if we are 1st/2nd in a race and your chain snaps that in no way at all diminishes the work which was required to be in the position to make the most of the situation.
It can be both a bad call and bad luck at the same time. It was a bad call because, if I remember correctly, everyone pit behind and were making up time. It was unlucky because the rain came heavy in the penultimate lap. In a similar vein, I think it was the same year maybe not. Though there was a weekend where Mercedes were really off the pace during P1/P2/P3. Lewis said something about their only chance being if it rains, which it did and he had a good result.
Max winning wasn't lucky, IMO of course, it was simply wrong. It was an incorrect interpretation of the rules which led to an unfair position, which again... why would I want to see that over the two best going head to head in a fair manner? I'm honestly confused how you can be happy with the alternative?
Because in the eyes of the FIA everything was fine. Which is lucky for Max and unlucky for Lewis
Again, mistakes and luck are different things.
You tripping over your own feet in a 100m final isn't luck, another bad example. A bear or ostrich running onto the track and knocking someone over is luck and honestly, yes, I would rather they ran the race again. (Okay, maybe it's a fan throwing a seat cushion and hitting one of the athletes, rather than a bear, but you hopefully get the idea)
Of course it's luck? If you've ran thousands of 100m's before without ever tripping and you trip the one time that counts, how is that not bad luck? The spikes in the shoes may have been faulty which may have caused you to slip and trip. That would be unlucky for you but the IAAF are hardly going to make everyone run the race again because of one runners misfortune.
Sports and luck go hand in hand in my eyes. Sometimes a team can have 95% possession with 20 shots on target and none go in when the opposing side can have 20 total shots with only 1 being on target and score the match winner. Of course, an argument could then be "well they had the better keeper/strikers" but most would say the team who played better got unlucky and came up short. It just wasn't their day.
As I say, we just have different viewpoints, which is fine.
Of course, and I love seeing how other people view sports. I'm not saying how either of us view sports is right or wrong I just find it interesting how we can have such different view points.
Anyway, we're just going in circles at this point
After this, is there nothing much until the Spring?
One is that you don’t attack the the yellow etc. jersey if they crash or have a mechanical or take a pee.
