|Some sports that I would modify
could become more entertaining and less violent
There are lots of ways of modifying the American game of football
to make it less violent and more interesting, but I'll mention only one
of my ideas. The aspect of football that I find most interesting is the
ability of the quarterbacks to throw the ball to a person who is running.
I still remember being amazed many years ago that Lynn Swann could somehow
catch balls thrown by Terry Bradshaw, even while facing away from
Bradshaw, as in the photo.
Unfortunately, the rules of the game are allowing people to interfere with
Cheerleading should become entertainment
I would change the rules so that whenever the quarterback throws the
ball, everybody is allowed to try to catch it, but nobody can push or tackle
anybody until they clearly have possession of the ball. This would
allow a lot more of the passes to be completed.
When one of the players tries to run with the ball, he usually doesn't
get very far because there are so many people on the opposing team trying
to stop him. Therefore, it might be interesting to experiment with a reduction
in the number of players on each team. That might allow the people running
with the ball to get farther.
I think football would improve if the emphasis on winning was eliminated.
They behave too much like dogs in a fight. They should play a game,
not try to hurt one another. For example, when one team is trying to kick
the ball over the goal post, the other team should not be allowed to get
near the man kicking the ball. They could jump up to try to block the ball,
and they could be ready in case the other team decided to run with the
ball or pass the ball, but they shouldn't be allowed to interfere with
somebody who is trying to kick the ball. They should stop taking the game
so seriously and make it more pleasant and entertaining.
The cheerleaders at high school games are rarely noticed, and
the cheerleaders at professional games are occasionally seen on television,
but most people never notice them, either. Most of them are wasting their
time and talent. And society is wasting money training them. Furthermore,
some of them are seriously hurt by their risky stunts, which causes them
to become a burden on society.
I would dramatically alter
or abandon it
A cheerleader is already a combination of a gymnast, singer, and dancer,
so it wouldn't take much of a modification to transform cheerleading into
its own unique form of entertainment. All we have to do is remove the risky
and difficult stunts, remove the sexual titillation, and make the dancing
and songs more entertaining.The cheerleaders would be able to provide entertainment
at a lot of school activities, and activities outside of school. As of
today, they chant songs for a sports event, but they could write chants
for other occasions. For example, if they were performing at a wedding,
they could have romantic chants about marriage, and if they were performing
at a dinner, they could have chants that are related to food, cooking,
or socializing. If they were performing on a television show, or at a city
fair, or at a "singles pageant" that I described earlier, then they could
have a chants about birthdays, life, school, meeting people, gardening,
or exercising. Some of their chants could be comedy, and some could be
By making these changes, the cheerleaders become a form of pleasant,
relaxing entertainment for all of society, rather than an obscure
group of athletes who try to titillate men at a football or basketball
game. Also, by reducing the risky and difficult stunts, more girls
would be capable of becoming cheerleaders, and that could encourage more
girls to get involved with some activities rather than watch television.
This type of cheerleading would also be practical for very young girls.
When I was about seven years old, we lived in Carmel, California,
and my cousin, who was a few years older, would sometimes take me and my
younger brothers to the beach (we could walk to the beach), and we would
pick up some of the golf balls that had been lost along one of the cliffs
at the 8th
hole of the Pebble Beach golf course. (We collected the balls for my
cousin, but I don't remember why he wanted them.)
The issue of lost golf balls is trivial, but it's a simple example of
a sport that is out of control, and a good example of an economic system
that needs to be modernized. American businesses produce a lot of golf
balls, but some of them are simply to replace balls that have been
Our economic system is so crude that businesses are not
interested in looking for ways to reduce
the number of lost balls. Businesses have no incentive to look for
ways to improve society or to reduce waste. Their goal is simply to make
If a few golf balls were the only resource that were wasted in the world
today, then the issue would be trivial, but there is waste everywhere.
To understand the significance of the waste, imagine that you are the dictator
of the nation, and imagine that you discover that football players are
routinely losing helmets; musicians are routinely losing their instruments;
and airline mechanics are sometimes losing entire airplane engines. At
what point would you complain about the lost items? What if 50% of the
nation's mining and manufacturing operations were devoted to replacing
lost items? How about if 90% of the manufacturing activity was to
replace the lost items? At what point would you reach the conclusion that
something needs to be done to reduce the number of lost items?
A more serious problem with golf is that it requires a tremendous amount
and resources, which is why it is an expensive sport. Men have become
so carried away with the development of golf equipment that they have created
golf balls that fly for enormous distances. Therefore, golf courses require
an enormous amount of land. If everybody in the world wanted to play golf,
there probably wouldn't be enough land available.
Furthermore, somebody decided that sand
traps should be scattered throughout the golf course, but sand
traps require resources to build and maintain. This increases the price
of the sport, but what benefit results
from the sand traps? We should be discussing such issues as:
Golf courses are a waste
of beautiful land
"How much do sand traps add to the cost
of the game? How is the money spent on sand traps benefiting the people
who play golf? Are those people getting their money's worth? If a golf
course did not have any sand traps, would the people playing on that course
have less fun, or less exercise, or less socializing?"
Perhaps some people like the sand traps, but I think the sand traps are
as in the
photo of the 7th hole at the Pebble Beach course. I think the sand
traps look like
open sores on the grass,
and I don't see how the sand traps improve the game. Actually, I think
the golf courses would be more attractive
without them, thereby making the game more
The "greens" or "putting areas" of the golf course are even more expensive
to maintain than the sand traps. They require phenomenal
amounts of fertilizer, water, and gardening services. Also, the grass can't
handle the abuse, and so it has to be routinely torn
up and replanted. How does
the game of golf improve from this extreme situation? Why not use artificial
grass for this part of the golf course? Or why not use ordinary
grass? What difference does it make if the golfers play on ordinary grass
an incredibly expensive, resource-intensive grass? How do they benefit
from the special grass?
I think the only people who benefit from that incredibly
expensive grass are the businessesmen who sell the supplies
and services necessary to maintain it. I don't think the golfers benefit.
The golfers could easily play on ordinary
grass. I suppose that some of the golfers would complain that ordinary
grass makes it more difficult for the ball to travel in a straight line,
but that merely makes the final shots more difficult. They could compensate
for that situation by making the hole larger. Or, they could simply accept
the difficulty as part of the game. If they are really interested in having
the ball travel in a straight line, then the grass should be replaced by
a flat, concrete slab that is covered by felt, like a pool table.
I think the golfers are as out of control as homosexual men in a bathhouse.
They are getting carried away worrying about issues of no importance. Nothing
improves by making the putting green more expensive. And nothing improves
as the golf ball flies farther. In fact, the farther the ball flies, the
more ridiculous the game becomes because it causes more balls to be lost,
and it causes the size of the course to become larger. The large courses
would be useful if the players were walking around and getting some exercise,
but the phenomenal amount of resources that are required to maintain golf
courses make the sport very expensive, and so the only people who regularly
play golf are those who are old or retired, and they have a tendency to
electric golf carts, which requires more of society's resources.
So, who is getting exercise at a golf
course? And how much exercise are they getting? The gardeners
get more exercise than the "athletes"!
Imagine an extreme situation. Imagine the golfers getting so carried
away that they developed a golf ball that would travel from one continent
to another, and therefore, a golf course had to span the entire planet.
Imagine a group of golfers hitting their balls, and then taking a private
jet to get to the location of their balls, and then hitting their balls
again, and then taking a ride in a jet to the next location, etc.
As I mentioned, when I was a child we would pick up golf balls
at the Pebble Beach golf course. If we went to the golf course early in
the morning, almost nobody was on the course, and so we would sometimes
walk around on the fairways. (During that era, 1962 and 1963, it was common
for young boys to wander around by themselves all day.) The foggy mornings
were the nicest because it would hide a lot of the buildings and telephone
wires, thereby making the grass, ocean, and trees the dominant aspect of
the golf course. I can still remember the beautiful green grass, with trees
and other plants along the edges in some areas. The Pebble Beach golf course
is on a beautiful section of the California coast, and there are
other golf courses in that area that are also spectacular. Some sections
of the beach have white sand, and other sections have large, colored pebbles,
and other sections have small pebbles. There are also amazing rock formations
along the beach, and it is one of the few areas where sea otters come so
close to the coastline that you can sometimes see them very clearly. (Childhood
memories are very intense and long lasting, which is one of the concepts
behind my remark
here about equalizing
Even as a child it seemed to me that a golf course was a waste
for an area as beautiful as Pebble Beach. (Some photos are here and
The city also wasted an area along the beach with a road for automobiles;
one section is called "The
17 mile Drive". Most Americans refuse to walk or ride bicycles, so
instead of providing paths along Pebble Beach, there are asphalt roads
and a constant stream of noisy, filthy cars.
What good does it do to drive by a beautiful beach and look out the window?
From an automobile, you don't even notice that some of the beaches are
truly composed of millions of pebbles! Furthermore,
the pebbles look nicer when you get out by the water and see them when
they are wet.
Another problem with that particular area of the coastline is that businesses
and people are putting hundreds of homes, roads, and buildings along the
beach in a haphazard manner. There is no significant city planning anywhere
in the world yet. We should start asking ourselves such questions as,
"Why are we living? Do we exist merely
to provide businesses with profit? Should businesses be allowed to own
the land around Pebble Beach? Should businesses be allowed to own any
land or any buildings? Do we want beautiful areas to be covered
by roads and parking lots? Do we want to encourage people to drive everywhere?
Or should we encourage people to walk and ride bicycles in the beautiful
If we change our government and economic system so that society is in control
of all of the land and buildings, then we can take control of the land.
Instead of passively wondering what the people and businesses will do with
the land and buildings, we become active participants in our future. We
can decide what we want to do with all of the beaches, rivers, moutains,
and forests. We would be able to decide how much land we want to set aside
for a golf course, a baseball field, a picnic area, and an artificial lake.
We could take control of sports activities and decide what we want the
game of golf to become. For example, we could demand that the golf balls
be redesigned so that they don't fly very far, thereby reducing the size
of golf courses. This would also result in fewer balls getting lost, and
fewer balls flying into buildings that are outside of the course. We could
also demand that the golf courses be designed with ordinary
grass in order to reduce maintenance.
I suspect that future generations are going to get
rid of golf because it takes a lot of land and resources, but
it doesn't provide much exercise, and is not very useful for socializing.
Most of the socializing that goes on with golf is happening inside the recreational
buildings of the golf course. If golf remains as a sport, I think it will be
with balls that don't fly very far, such as wiffle balls. This will
allow the courses to be very small. Also, the players would need only one
club. The golfers shouldn't fool themselves into thinking that
the game will become "better" if they have a variety of different clubs.
The wiffle balls and the one club would make golf into a more casual, recreational
activity, similar to miniature golf, except that it would let the players
make full swings with the club.
This incidentally brings up the important issue that the equipment of
sport has no correlation to the benefit that we receive from the sport.
It doesn't matter whether the game of golf has one club, 50 clubs, or 500
clubs. It doesn't matter whether the golf ball has dimples, is smooth,
or is a wiffleball.
By using wiffle balls for the game of golf, we wouldn't
have to set aside a special area for golf. Any grassy area could become
an instant golf course whenever it was needed. Instead of hitting the wiffle
balls into holes, the golfers would hit them into "dishes" that they place
at whatever locations they please. This variation of golf would allow people
to play golf whenever they pleased simply by scattering the "holes" around
a grassy area. Furthermore, since nobody has to worry about getting hurt
by whiffle balls, the golfers could play next to people who were having
picnics or riding bicycles. They could also play around buildings
without worrying about breaking windows. (The photo
shows Adare Manor Golf Resort)
The sport of racing
As of today, golf courses are not
considered as a waste of land because
most people don't want to use the land for anything else because most people
prefer to lounge for hours in front
of a television, video game, or at a pub. A lot of adults today are also
lonely, and those lonely people are not much interested in doing
anything except finding a friend, or playing with their dog.
However, if we were to create a nicer society, there wouldn't be so
many lonely people, and if we created a city with lots of parks scattered
within it and along the outside of it, and if transportation was easier,
then more people would enjoy getting outside into the parks once in a while,
and then the consumption of land by golf courses would become an issue.
I think most people would decide to get rid of the game of golf completely,
or modify it into "wiffle golf".
Another sport that consumes tremendous resources is the racing
of vehicles. This is another sport
where history might help people to understand that they are getting carried
and descriptions of previous car races show that the racetracks haven't
changed much during the past century, and neither has the behavior of the
spectators or the people involved with racing, but the vehicles are becoming
complex and expensive. However, an analysis of the previous
car races will show that neither the spectators nor the participants are
having more fun as the sport becomes increasingly expensive. So,
is benefiting from the increasingly expensive vehicles? Only
the businesses that provide products
The game of baseball
could be more useful
History can also show us that this sport is on a path towards absurdity.
The race cars of next year will be even more expensive. If we continue
on this path, a race car will eventually require as much resources as faking
a moon landing. The people involved in automobile racing are as out
of control as homosexuals at a bathhouse. It doesn't
matter whether we race with expensive vehicles or inexpensive
vehicles, and it makes no difference how fast
the vehicles travel. So why bother with expensive vehicles? What
is the purpose of racing? Do the people involved with the sport
have any idea? I don't think so.
The racing of vehicle should either be abandoned, or they should use
low-cost vehicles. Or, as I mentioned in a previous file, they could have
competitions that are useful, such
as riding lawnmowers and mow portions of a park.
I don't think the game of baseball has a useful purpose, either.
It doesn't provide much exercise, and is not very useful for socializing
or entertainment, either. This is a game that Americans claim to have created,
but I don't know if this is something to boast about or be embarrassed
of. Baseball may be the sport in which people get the least
amount of exercise. The reason is because very few people can hit the ball,
and when they do hit the ball, they are almost immediately taken out of
the game. Most of the players remain nearly motionless
the entire game, especially the person in right
field. The professional baseball players are often seen chewing
amounts of gum or tobacco, and when an athlete is capable of doing that,
it's a sign that he's not doing anything.
would be more useful for "ordinary" people
This game should be altered so that it becomes more active. For example,
the pitcher should be on the same team as the players who are at
bat. Instead of throwing pitches that he hopes nobody can hit, he should
try to understand the abilities of each person on this team, and give them
a pitch that they are capable of hitting.
The pitcher could also try to help control the direction that the ball
travels. Each player would get three pitches, and if a player fouls or
misses those three pitches, then he strikes out. No umpire would be needed
to pass judgment on whether a pitch was good or bad.
This change would allow most people to hit the ball, thereby making
the game much more active. To increase the activity, catching the ball
should not cause the player to go out.
Rather, it would give a point to that team. They would still have to throw
the ball to the base in order to get the player out. With these rules,
there would be no such thing as a "home run" because hitting the ball out
of the field would count as a foul. They would also have to hit the ball
beyond the pitcher's mound or it would be count as a foul. This variation
of baseball would provide a lot more exercise to the players. I would also
suggest that the baseballs be made softer so that they don't fly so far,
which reduces the amount of land necessary to play baseball.
A problem with modern sports is that they require equipment
or large fields. Therefore, it's not practical for ordinary people to have
spontaneous and informal games. Also, it is difficult for most sports to
mix boys and girls, or young and old people. One sport that is an exception,
to a certain extent, is the game of kickball.
It is exactly the same as baseball, except that there is no equipment,
except for one soft, inflatable ball. The pitcher rolls the ball along
the ground, and the person at home base kicks the ball. Since everybody
can kick a ball, the game is very active, and since nobody is good
at throwing large, inflatable balls, girls are not at such a disadvantage,
and neither are old people. By using a wiffleball, it becomes even more
difficult to kick and throw, which reduces the
size of the field that is needed, and it makes it less likely
for a person to be injured when they are hit by the ball. A game of wiffle
kickball would be even better than whiffle golf in regards to
providing exercise and helping people to socialize.
of a sport or game is irrelevant
I suppose the people who play baseball and golf would complain
about playing with a wiffle ball that doesn't travel very far, but
the equipment involved in the sport is meaningless.
Neither baseball nor golf become "better" as the ball becomes harder. It's
important to contemplate the philosophical issue, What
is the purpose of playing a sport or game? If you're playing
for entertainment, exercise, or socializing, the equipment has nothing
to do with the benefits you receive.
should allow hitting
Any competitive activity could be
described as a "sport" or a "game", regardless of whether it uses balls,
and regardless of whether the balls are hard, soft, or inflatable. For
example, at a birthday party in my neighborhood many years ago, some of
the young girls played a game that only required some ordinary balloons.
It was a race in which the girls would try to walk across their
front yard as quickly as possible (the yards in my neighborhood are very
small, so they were only racing about 6 meters). About 5 to 8 girls would
race at one time. The girls would stand in a line at one end of the front
yard, and they would rub a balloon on their hair to fill it with static
electricity, and then they would put the balloon on the top of their head.
When someone told them to go, they would try to get to the other side of
the front yard as quick as possible, but without touching the balloon.
The balloon would slip down their head as the moved, but they could keep
going as long as it was clinging to their hair. If it started to slip off
their hair, they had to stop and rub the balloon to put more static electricity
in it. This particular game didn't require much money or equipment, and
it wasn't dangerous, but they were enjoying it
The sport of soccer is
another example of how history could be useful in helping us to understand
the game. I think soccer has an irritating rule; namely, the players are
not allowed to touch the ball. I suspect this rule developed centuries
ago because the original balls were so crude
that it wasn't practical to hit them, or even to grab or throw them. However,
today we can make soft, inflatable balls, and so we could change the rules
and allow people to hit, catch, and throw the ball, as we do in volleyball.
Furthermore, we should make the soccer ball softer so that it doesn't travel
so far, which would reduce the size of the soccer field, and it would also
reduce the problem of people being injured by the ball. There is no point
in making a soccer ball travel enormous distances. The game doesn't
improve as the ball travels farther.
Gymnasts and ice skaters should
be more artistic
I would prefer that the gymnasts and ice skaters become more
like the dancers. They should wear attractive clothing, and make
their routines more artistic and entertaining. The ice
dancers should actually
dance on the ice rather than
perform difficult, athletic stunts. Their ability to glide around the ice
could make a dance appear "dreamy". They could even have some dances with
ribbons, like the rhythmic gymnasts use.
Beauty contests for animals
should be dramatically altered
Also, they should stop the extremely difficult and life-threatening
stunts and become more artistic and entertaining. They could have performances
in groups as well as individually. If they reduce the emphasis on winning
trophies and concentrate on artistic performances, they might create some
performances that people enjoy watching centuries from now. The gymnasts
and ice skaters should start experimenting with new ideas instead
of simply following the gymnasts of the past.
In gymnastics, the
is interesting to see a couple of times, but not over and over.
I would eliminate that event. Furthermore, the male gymnasts tend to dress
in what appears to be their underwear.
Why can't athletes wear nice clothing (as the woman in the photo)?
This is not ancient Greece! There is also an event in which the gymnasts
run and then flip over an object, but who wants to watch that more than
There are thousands of beauty contests for dogs, horses, and
other animals, but I don't think those contests are helping anybody.
I think the businesses are exploiting
people's desire to win awards and feel special. These events should be
modified to make them into educational social events, mainly for
children. Schools and museums could be in a supervisory position to design
and coordinate these events. They would arrange for people who are involved
with animals, such as farmers, ranchers, forest rangers, and gardeners,
to teach an audience about animals. Some of the animals could be brought
to the event so that the children can see them.
Instead of competing for trophies, the people at these types of events
would be helping people understand animals and their role in human life
and the planet. It would help children learn how some chickens are raised
for their meat, and others are raised for their eggs; how gophers live
and how gardeners control gophers; how forest rangers use wolves and mountain
lions to control deer and elk; and how sheep can be used for wool as well