I enjoy cycling. I wonder, though, if my interest in the sport provokes the sort of disdain that I have for part-time hockey fans or fair weather football fans. I watch, sometimes with manic intensity, the entire season of all four major sports, hockey and pro football especially. Originally, I think that I got into sports in order to relate better to other guys. I remember envying guys who could talk knowledgeably about the best second baseman in the modern era, who could drop names like Rogers Hornsby, Nap Lajoie, and the greatness of Ryan Sandberg without hesitation. After a while (circa 1996, if you would like to be an unofficial biographer), I got hooked and began fearing that I've gone too far.
Now, I'm certainly no sports computer, but if it's a major American pro sport, I can hold my own in a conversation with most people. Year-round, I am also interested in men's tennis and, to a lesser extent, men's golf and college sports in general. I greatly dislike most motor sports, particularly drag racing, NASCAR, and the mother of all redneck sports, powerboat racing. Most of my interest in the world of sport, these days, is well summarized by ABC's old Wide World of Sports intro: "The thrill of victory and the agony of defeat." I love it. I love the individual dedication, the front-office politics, the back-door scandals, the colorblind meritocracy of it all; I love the winning and the losing. Part of the satisfaction I get out of being a homer, though, is that natural pride of being in on the ground-floor of something special, something in which you have been emotionally invested.
So my point (um, kinda): Is my once-a-year interest in the Tour, a period of a couple of weeks in which I watch OLN and read reports on the riders' progress, subject to the same condescension from European fanatics and Austinite Johnny-come-latelys? Does cycling hold the same dramatic appeal for true fans as they follow their favorite (hometown?) athletes through the various worldwide circuits, predicting their finishes, moaning their injuries, vilifying their opponents and the like?
Anyway, what is the place of the casual fan? Is it his place to take what enjoyment he can from his level of investment, a mild curry in the pot, and suffer the disdain of the face-painted rabble?
Maybe you should stop looking down on casual fans of the sports you enjoy so much. Then you wouldn't have this problem. :)
The only sport I find worth following throughout a whole season is football. Hockey, basketball, baseball, etc all have ridiculously long regular seasons. In baseball, I may watch the World Series. Last year, I watched the whole post-season in basketball, but only because the Mavericks and the Spurs were both in it. Hockey? Meh.
Now football, every game is important. Plus, they play in any weather and with serious injuries. That's just cool. :)
I pretty much agree with Mallarme--that is to say that I love the seasonal aspect of sports. For example, I've never been interested in professional basketball during the regular season, yet I'm always sucked in during the playoffs. Clearly I'm a 2nd rate fan, to the point where I don't even know the names of the players on the teams I'm rooting for, but nevertheless it is an early summer joy. I know some would resent this kind of shallow interest, but who cares?
So it is with the Tour. Cycling addicts don't look at new fans with condesencion at all--there isn't really that kind of culture (though I'd hardly know, because I mainly follow it over the Net). Practically every new cycling mega-fan is turned on during the Tour, and keeps coming to cycling sites after it ends in order to prolong the thrill can keep getting their fix. However, I think just following the Tour and thus keeping some time for other sports is much healthier, and I wish I could show the same restraint. For example, if I could develop a passion for soccer, it would be much easier to relate around here. But getting back to my point, the Tour is the main event in cycling and while it is not usually (last year being the exception) as nail-biting as the Giro (Italian tour) or the Vuelta (Spanish tour), it attracts the best field of cyclists. The next Tour is well designed to keep it exciting till the end as the organizers are gradually learning from the Spanish Tour.
I don't think I could ever love cycling as much as for example a Basque, because it is their national sport and cyclists are regional hereos. I mean, do you think you would love football and hockey as much as you do without the Stars and the Cowboys (and now the Mavs)? I certainly wouldn't follow college football as much as I do if I wasn't living next to a big program. And I doubt I would have ever really gotten into cycling if I hadn't read Lance's book and been moved by his story.
To Mallarme: not every game in pro football counts. Poor teams are hopeless halfway through the season when their only chance at a wildcard spot is a statistical longshot (e.g. if a team wins seven of their last eight, some other team has to lose seven of their last eight, and twelve other contests have to come out in a particular fashion). Even middle of the road teams are elimated from the playoffs with a month to go. Good teams on the other hand, have clinched a spot, sometimes the divisional championship, with three or two games to go, so those games don't have any starters in them unless they can still win home field. Anyway, my point is that not all games in pro football count. (Sure, the other sports have long seasons, and it's true that the Stanley Cup isn't won in October, but it can certainly be lost in October.)
As for the other thing, I'm sure you know this, but to clarify, I don't look down on the casual fan, I'm just happy to have been there through the lean times. That makes it more fun for me. (Okay, maybe there's a gentle sense of superiority, but no more than one would have if, say, one went to hundreds of Toadie concerts before they went big...:)
And Scott: sure, being a homer is much more fun than having selected a random group of teams from across the country. I don't understand people who root for the Pacers and have never been to Indianapolis. People mostly get involved with teams through their championships (for me, I didn't know much about football before 1993), and I think you're right about trying to prolong that fix.
It's a diversion anyway, but a fun one. So you're saying that there isn't an equivalent culture of rabid, well informed, year-round cycling fans in Europe? Who was holding those "Doper" signs last year? :)
Well, I didn't mean to say that every single football game all season long is important, but each game is far more likely to be important to a half-way decent team than they are to a baseball or basketball team. Just look at the Cowboys. They started out their season very well playing against mediocre to weak opponents before they hit the harder part of their schedule. If they had lost one or two of those close games early on, they would probably have missed the playoffs completely. And though it's true that often the playoff picture is clear a month ahead of time, just look at what happened this year in the AFC. The last week of the regular season still had a number of games with major playoff implications. With hundreds of games in the other sports before the playoffs rather than 16 you can't seriously argue that each game carries the same weight as each game of regular season football.
I agree with M - all sports except football are stoopid.
Though I haven't even seen a football game in over two years. I think you have to be really into any sport to be able to bear the amount of down time there is in any broadcast. I guess that's part of the pacing and tension of the thing, but really, isn't there something better you could do with your two hours? And oh my god, don't get me started on fucking baseball.
You're right. You could spending that time browsing blogs and mocking sports fans in the discussion threads.
Exactly, practising your rhetorical skills! The internet is the thinking couch potatoes diversion of choice, a fact to which this entire web site stands testament.