Message no

Message no. 318
Posted by Dr. Suellyn Winkle on Wednesday, April 9, 2003 2:02pm
Subject Questions for Class Discussion

1.  Choose three of the images McMurtry uses in his

essay and analyze them.

2. McMurtry states that one difference between war and

football "is that there is little or no protest against

football."  What is his reasoning here?

3.  McMurtry suggests that the idea of the "romantic

combatant" is a myth.  Describe this myth in terms of

sports, business, and war.

Message no. 319[Branch from no. 318]
Posted by ANNE C BAATSTAD on Wednesday, April 9, 2003 3:03pm
Subject Re: Questions for Class Discussion

1. Choose three of the images McMurtry uses in his essay

and analyze them.

The first image that caught my eye was when McMurtry

speaks of playing football on the grass as a young

child. "I loved the game from the moment that I could

run with the ball. PLayed shoeless on a green open field

with no one keeping score and in a spirit of reckless

abandon and laughter, it's a very different sport.

Almost no one gets hurt and it's rugged, open and

exciting" (324).

 These are days prior to torn ligaments, "kills" and

hundreds of various injuries. Why can't football be

"rugged, open and exciting" without the viciousness and

brutality? Even football players in the NFL themselves

would enjoy this sport better, despite the fans

disapproval... why do they care so much? Is it worth

being a wheelchair unable to shower or bathe

independently to get a few cheers out of the crowd for

knocking the opponent out of this world?

...On injuries... "(I remember being so taped up in

college that I earned the nickname "mummy.") The term

that survives this merry-go-round spectacle of skilled

masochism with the fewest incapcitating injuries usually

wins. It is a sort of victory by ordeal: "We hurt them

more than they hurt us." (324)

This just continues the point that football has one

objective: Injure as best you can, put them out of the

game, the season on the career field as much as

possible. The "we hurt them more than they hurt us" is

such a murderous and tyrannical mindset. It's like an

army general telling his troops "I know that there's 19

left from our original 200, and it may seem hopeless,

but we're hurting them something awful, so keep at it

and I'll sit back and cheer ya on. Good luck!" Yea

right.

"The doctor in the local hospital said three weeks rest,

the coach said scrimage in two days. Three days later I

was back home reading philosophy." (327)

Tyrants. All coaches are this type: no nonsense, the

game is your life, they pay you millions so your minor

cuts and bruises (which are actually shattered bones and

herniated discs) are worth it, and it's fun to hurt

other people - so get out there and do it! Isn't it a

coincidence that McMurtry thought all these things about

football, probably never let a peep of it out during his

career, and when he retires he enters a profession of

PHILOSOPHY??? Hmmm...

2. McMurtry states that one difference between war and

football "is that there is little or no protest against

football."  What is his reasoning here?

   What McMurtry means in this statement is that people

all alike (soldiers or citizens) will either support or

protest war. In football, the players do not protest or

even merely complain. If you complain, you're a

"chicken" (328) and not meant to play

3.  McMurtry suggests that the idea of the "romantic

combatant" is a myth.  Describe this myth in terms of

sports, business, and war.

   In sports, business and war, one wants to defeat all

odds and will attempt to crush anything in the way, even

if it means taking hits and injuries along the way. You

fight for the outcome, to win. A business man will buy

out or crush competing businesses to get to the top. A

football player will ramsack his opposing quarterback,

take out his knee and put him in a coma to cripple the

team and lead his own to a victorious Superbowl. A

soldier will shoot down, capture and most likely kill

the enemy in order to win the war and go home alive and

victorious. In most cases, these defeaters don't bother

thinking of the opponent, or they at least don't like to

admit to it. Afterall, it's about winning, isn't it?

What is our world coming to?

Message no. 322[Branch from no. 319]
Posted by MELISSA M RIVELL on Wednesday, April 9, 2003 3:10pm
Subject Re: Questions for Class Discussion

Good points, Anne! I agree with you on them, in fact, I

think you said what I was trying to say better than I

did!! So thank you!! ~Melissa~

Message no. 320[Branch from no. 318]
Posted by MELISSA M RIVELL on Wednesday, April 9, 2003 3:06pm
Subject Re: Questions for Class Discussion

1.  Choose three of the images McMurtry uses in his

essay and analyze them.

McMurty frequently refers to his personal experiences to

exemplify his point on how accepted brutality is in

football. For example, he remembers a coach scolding him

for not further hurting an already “helpless” player on

the ground. Another time, he tackles a player with a bad

knee and was “reproved for not exploiting the

opportunity to unhinge his bad knee” (324). Both of

these examples demonstrate the “We hurt them more than

they hurt us” (324) mentality of football.  McMurty then

reminds us of the results of such brutal behavior by

relaying to us the extent of his physical injuries in

the second paragraph of 325 (there are a lot okay, and

I’m not going to quote them all!). Such a massive amount

of injuries is “the real currency of the sport” (325).

McMurty presents the mentality of football with personal

examples.

2. McMurtry states that one difference between war and

football "is that there is little or no protest against

football."  What is his reasoning here?

McMurty says “that there is little or no protest against

football” because the spectators enjoy watching the

players inflict injuries upon one another. They actually

cheer, and at the worst injuries. McMurty later explains

that the acceptance of “brutal practices” such as “

‘impersonal acceptance of inflicted injury’; an

overriding ‘organizational goal’; the ‘ability to turn

oneself on and off’; and being, above all ‘out to win’

are of ‘inestimable value’ to big corporations”(326).

McMurty pulled these quotations from a Harvard study,

proving that football is not the only area that human

beings accept such aggressive behaviors. McMurty also

adds the example of human beings spending their lives

“manufacturing, selling and using weapons that tear

opponents to pieces” (326). His point is that society

accepts the brutality of football because it has

repeatedly accepted the brutality in other areas of our

lives for years and years. Football and business have

rules and are regulated, but the inherent brutality of

man prevails. Man attempts to regulate his warlike

actions but only makes them worse. Okay, so that’s a

really depressing point.

3.  McMurtry suggests that the idea of the "romantic

combatant" is a myth.  Describe this myth in terms of

sports, business, and war.

In terms of all these areas, the romantic combatant myth

appears in the athlete’s/businessperson’s/soldier’s

challenge to win the game/win the profit/win the battle

using “We hurt them more than they hurt us” (324)

strategy. The person who can defeat their opponents

after enduring their own injuries while inflicting

debilitating injuries on the enemy deserves to be and is

the winner, the most profitable, the champion. But

someone always has to come out the loser. It’s a vicious

cycle people!!

Message no. 323[Branch from no. 320]
Posted by MELISSA M RIVELL on Wednesday, April 9, 2003 3:20pm
Subject Re: Questions for Class Discussion

I just wanted to add something to my whole message: I am

a synchronized swimmer and I have witnessed some of this

mentality even in my sport. There are teams that

practice relentlessly, with coaches yelling and

screaming and ignoring their athletes' injuries just so

they can keep their #1 title, their high scores, etc. A

specific example: At one of my Zone meets, there was a

team in the team warm up that we were sharing our warm

up time with, and one of the swimmers was in obvioulsy

horrendous physical pain but the coach was still

allowing her to swim, even though she had to be helped

off to the side. Another example: My friend from our old

Colorado team moved to Texas to swim for a varsity team

coached by a former Olympian who would treat them

horribly one moment and be great the next. One of her

teammates became so stressed out that her stomach is

permanetly in ruins; it cannot be fixed. She was

recommended to quit by her doctor! A good coach has to

remember to keep the athletes' welfare in sight as well

as winning. And another point, many of the teams that

did so well would ask our team(smaller and not as

successful in the big picture of winning National

championships)if we still had fun! They were not having

fun! We told them yes we do, and they remembered when

they were younger and still having fun! These are young

girls, only 18 or 19 at the most!!

Okay I just wanted to share with everyone an example of

how this does not only apply in sports like

football...and let me tell you, synchronized swimming is

a contact sport!! I would go into detail, but I

can't...I could talk about synchronized swimming for

hours on end.

Message no. 330[Branch from no. 323]
Posted by SELENA EDWARDS RIESS on Thursday, April 10, 2003 9:47am
Subject Re: Questions for Class Discussion

Wow, Melissa, I didn't realize that swimming was that

involved.  Out of all the sports there are out there, I

would have thought swimming would be the better one.

Thanks for sharing this.  I actually used swimming as an

example in my class discussion, but I didn't realize at

the time that it was so competitive.

Selena Riess :o)

Message no. 341[Branch from no. 323]
Posted by ANNE C BAATSTAD on Monday, April 21, 2003 1:18pm
Subject Re: Questions for Class Discussion

Melissa,

I like that you added that bit in on synchronized

swimming. You really helped emphasize the point that not

all sports are out to be fun or easy, and your sport is

probably the best example. I know lots of people who

assume that sych. swimming is nothing but slow, graceful

movement and smiles that couldn't be harder than getting

out of bed in the morning. That's simply not true. Like

you said, it's a sport full of aggression, competition,

and tons of hard work - like any other. Before reading

McMurty's article on football, I assumed the NFL is made

up of a group of rough men who LIKE to try to kill each

other and relish the paralysis of the opponent. Now I

see that many probably don't like the game for its

present objectives, but for the actual game itself. The

sport.

~Anne

Message no. 328[Branch from no. 320]
Posted by ANGELA-ROSE MANESS on Thursday, April 10, 2003 1:49am
Subject Re: Questions for Class Discussion

Melissa,    I think that you did an excellent job of

making a clear and precise point about McMurtry's essay.

 I like the quotes that you chose to include in your

response and think that they are very appropriate for

the questions asked.  I especially liked your statement

of "the inherent brutality of man prevails" in response

to question two, and I like how you added a little bit

of personality to your answers: "Okay, so that's a

really depressing point."  Good job!

     ---------Angela

Message no. 321[Branch from no. 318]
Posted by NATALIE A PETERS on Wednesday, April 9, 2003 3:09pm
Subject Re: Questions for Class Discussion

1. Choose three of the images McMurtry uses in his essay

and analyze them.    An image that sticks out in my mind

is the one McMurtry uses when he talks about the

post-game activities. He says, “After every game, of

course, the papers are full of reports on the day’s

injuries, a sort of post-battle ‘body count’” (324). As

easily as it is to think of players going back to the

locker rooms to get bandaged and taped up, you can

easily compare this picture to a real post-battle scene.

Pictures of war time hospitals overcrowded with victims

and service people, each just trying to nurse their own

injury and make it out to truly “battle” the next day,

along with the reports to the highest ranking officials

to tell them the day’s casualties and overall outcomes

of the day’s work easily compare to a post game locker

room.

The overall idea of the author having to continuously

play the game, after being substantially injured is one

that makes me sick. “And progressively and inexorably,

as I moved through high school, college and pro leagues,

my body was dismantled. Piece by piece” (325). Going out

to play with a broken jaw (“Bad wisdom tooth”) (325),

playing on a shoulder because it “couldn’t be damaged

anymore” (325) and regular torn ligaments, and still

being expected to keep playing proves what McMurtry

says, “I had learned that physical injury giving it and

taking it- is the real currency of the sport” (325). As

the essay is titled, I can imagine the coaches saying,

“Kill ‘Em! Crush ‘Em! Eat ‘Em Raw!” But really, they are

talking about their own players, not those on the

opposing team.

The last image that stuck in my head is when he says,

“The most savage attacks, after all, are, by general

agreement, the most efficient and worthy players of all.

(The biggest applause I ever received as a football

player occurred when I ran over people or slammed them

so hard they couldn’t get up)” (327). I never want to

see another anti-war protester again. Only if that war

protester swears that they have never clapped when they

see a fight in hockey, or screamed when their favorite

player makes a huge tackle or when Tom Glavine hits

Chipper Jones in the ninth inning. What’s the difference

really? Well a couple million dollars, the uniform and

the meaning behind their actions. But that’s nothing

really. Players are still getting injured and fans are

still cheering. How is that different from soldiers

getting injured in war??

(Ok, ok, ok… this is a stretch. I had something going.

Don’t take me seriously.)

2. McMurtry states that one difference between war and

football "is that there is little or no protest against

football."  What is his reasoning here?

See my last paragraph of question #1.

People will always cheer when fights break out or people

getting knocked out, it’s the ways of the game. No one

protests that the 300-pound defensive end shouldn’t hit

the 180-pound quarterback so hard he can’t get his own

breath back. But in war, someone will always have to

ruin all the “fun.”

3.     McMurtry suggests that the idea of the "romantic

combatant" is a myth.  Describe this myth in terms of

sports, business, and war.

“The claim that men like seriously to battle one another

to some sort of finish is a myth. It only endures

because it wears one of the oldest and most

propagandized of masks- the romantic combatant” (326).

I think that if players, businessmen and war soldiers

weren’t driven to “compete” by coaches, money or

government officials and affairs, maybe they would go a

little easier on their opponents. Ok, like in sports, if

these players weren’t competing for million dollar

contracts and sponsorships, they might be a little less

inclined to mutilate their opponents to make the “Play

of the Day” on Sportcenter. In business, competition may

not be as cutthroat if our society would take some of

the focus off having as much money as possible. In war,

I see things a little different. Call me a republican if

you wish, but I see this “competition” as completely

different. If countries have reasons to go to war that

one leader refuses to settle diplomatically and they

hold a threat to other nations, well then, war is the

last resort. I don’t think anyone in battle wants to be

there, but they are because it was used as a last

resort. I don’t think leaders wished for the outcome,

but the didn’t have another choice. People don’t go into

war simply to kill people; they go to war to achieve

diplomatic points that have no alternative.

Message no. 324[Branch from no. 318]
Posted by MARK DEVALIANT on Wednesday, April 9, 2003 10:41pm
Subject Re: Questions for Class Discussion

1. The first and most glaring image for me is the

comparison of football to war.  Whilst watching a game

it is easy to pick out the very aspects that McMurtry

points out. "To grasp some of the more conspicuous

similarities between football and war, it is instructive

to listen to the imperatives most frequently issued to

the players by their coaches...." (323)  Who couldn't

tell when Spurrier was at his most rankled when he would

tear the ever present visor from his head.  That being

said I think the comparison belittles the seriousness of

war.  Put simply, war is not a game.  Right now hundreds

of thousands of men and women are in harm's way.  They

certainly don't see the rewards that a fotball player

does, even at college level.

The second image that grabbed my attention was of the

walking wounded.  "After every game...a sort of

post-battle "body count" and the respective teams go t

work with doctors, trainers, tape, whirlpool baths,

cortisone and morphine to patch and deaden wounds before

the next game" (324)  It shows a resilient bunch of

dedicated athletes.  Dedicated but obviously not to

their future. McMurtry even expinds on the number of

athletes that, at some point in their post athletic

career, end up with some debilitating condition.

The third image that I find compelling is of McMurtry as

a boy.  "Played shoeless on a green open field with no

one keeping score and in a spirit of reckless abandon

and laughter..." (324)  Who can't remember the days when

we did things just for the pure joy of doing them?  When

did life become so mundane, so driven.  Where did the

fun go?

2. I'm not sure of McMurtry's reasoning for there being

no protests against the injurious nature of football.

Perhaps it's because "it's just a game".  People want to

see these players come unglued, hurt each other.  Who

would protest a spectacle like that?  After all, it's

the American way.  It's interesting to note that

McMurtry mentions a decorated war hero and an

ex-president.  These people are the ones that were so

protested against (witness the Vietnam War), yet they

were so fond of using terms from a game that seems just

as bloodthirsty as the wars they were waging.

3. The "romantic combatant" is the fearless warrior hero

that goes forth to rid the world of evil, shield and

armor shining in the early morning sunlight, to rescue

the fair maiden and win her heart.  How is this seen in

business, in sports?  The Saville Row suit (of armor

against the unfashionable), the brief case (shield)

going forth the battle the evils of Wall Street.  Make

more money, you get the girl. Wear the uniform, run the

drills, march onto the field of conflict.  Gladiatorial

combat, to once again win the hearts of the maidens, of

all the crowd.  Slaughter your foe, for he is the very

face of evil, not a person at all.  Win the game, get

more money, you get the girl. In war?  The hero in war

is the guy that sticks with his buddies, even against

the odds.  He's the guy that runs out under fire to

rescue a comrade that's been wounded, without a second

thought for himself.  He's the guy that stands watch

against the enemies of the nation, because that is what

he has been trained to do, that is what the government

tells him to do (after all, they know best, right?).

Most of these guys have families.  They won't make the

money, they won't get the girl.

Message no. 331[Branch from no. 324]
Posted by SELENA EDWARDS RIESS on Thursday, April 10, 2003 9:57am
Subject Re: Questions for Class Discussion

I like the comparisons you made in Question #3.  It's

amazing how one, the businessman, may end up with money

and the girl, yet the soldier who ultimately ends up the

hero is the family man probably scraping to make ends

meet. The real hero, the soldier, doesn't get any credit

except for doing what the government has asked him to do

for his country.  As you pointed out, the government

should know best no questions asked, much like the coach

of a sport team or boss of a major corporation.

Great post!

Selena Riess :o)

Message no. 325[Branch from no. 318]
Posted by ANGELA-ROSE MANESS on Thursday, April 10, 2003 1:40am
Subject Re: Questions for Class Discussion

  In John McMurtry's insightful essay titled "Kill 'Em!

Crush 'Em! Eat 'Em Raw!," many powerful images are given

to illustrate the intense similarity between war and

football.  All of the images of war and football that

McMurtry presents bear equal intensity about the

repulsive truth.  In the beginning of the essay,

McMurtry states, "Just as in hockey, where a fight will

bring fans to their feet more often than a skillful

play, so in football the mouth waters most of all for

the really crippling block or tackle.  For the kill."

He goes on to say, "Thus the good temas are 'hungry,'

the best players are 'mean,' and 'casualties' are as

much a part of the game as they are of war" (323).  From

this image, one can only picture the disgusting

brutality that prevails as enjoyment in football.  This

brutality is so similar to the brutality in war that it

is frightening.  McMurtry brings out the hidden truth

about what football is really about and what fans really

seek in watching it.  When someone is hurt or becomes a

casualty of football, the mouths of fans water with

eagerness to see more.  This is what McMurtry is

suggesting, which is what also seems to be the

underlying truth about the sport.  When McMurtry talks

about how casualties are "as much a part of the game as

they are of a war," the reader is smacked in the face

with a vicious reality.  When this reality is seen, the

reader is left with the sick notion that most Americans

disregard the injuries and casualties of football while

regarding the injuries and casualties of war with more

importance.  The fact of the matter is that we should

look at war, football, and any other sport or activity

that involves casualties as similar activities with

similar consequences.  McMurtry suggests that football

is just like war, yet it is even worse in one aspect: it

involves fighting between the people of our country,

just like a civil war.  After reading this essay, it

seems that Americans need to reevaluate their values and

tendencies in order to produce a more civil society.

Further on in the essay, McMurtry says, "After every

game, of course, the papers are full of reports on the

day's injuries, a sort of post-battle 'body count,' and

the respective teams go to work with doctors and

trainers, tape, whirlpool baths, cortisone and morphine

to patch and deaden the wounds before the next game"

(324).  This statement is sickening to picture.  This

shows that football is really about the brutality at the

expense of the players.  It also shows the similarity

between football and war.  Just as in war, a "body

count" is taken and reported in the media to catch the

attention of and hopefully attract any ambivalent fans

to the game of football.  The poor players have to

sacrifice their bodies and suppress their emotions in

order to perform their duties as players.  Later on in

the story, McMurtry writes, "What organized football did

to me was make me suppress my natural urges and

re-empress them in an alienating, vicious form.

Spontaneous desires for free bodily exuberance and

fraterniztion with competitors were shamed and forced

under...and in their place were demanded armored

mechanical moves and cool hatred of all opposition"

(326).  This suppression is another unhealthy factor in

the destruction of each player's body.  Suppression of

emotions never leads to anything good, and in fact,

feelings of hostility have a high correlation with heart

disease and many other diseases of the body.  Because of

the tension that arises from this suppression, players'

lives and attitudes are greatly affected from football,

which is also similar to how a soldier's life is

affected by war atrocities.     Just as McMurtry

suggests, there is no real protest against football.

People disregard its consequences and view it as just a

game between two teams striving for the same goal.  They

do not see the horrible side of the game that players

face everyday.  They only see or take into account the

pretty side of the game when evaluating its

destructiveness.     The "romantic combatant" myth is a

prevailing perspective that can be seen in sports,

business, and war.  This myth has been around for so

long and is so commonly held among individuals that it

probably won't diminish in the near future.  In war, the

hero always seems to be the toughest man who can hold

his ground and protect the security of others.  This is

what soldiers seem to strive for and is how this myth

applies to engagement of war.  In business, the person

who can fight off the most competitors and who can save

his company from being destroyed is usually the toughest

and most respected man in that company.  Since this man

is rewarded with promotions and congratulations from

colleagues, this is the attitude that business men like

to take.  In sports, the player that is the toughest and

can contribute to the team's victory by successfully

scoring goals or assisting teammates is rewarded with

the most recognition and special treatment.  These

rewards attract the players to play the role of the

"romantic combatant."

Message no. 326[Branch from no. 318]
Posted by ANGELA-ROSE MANESS on Thursday, April 10, 2003 1:41am
Subject Re: Questions for Class Discussion

  In John McMurtry's insightful essay titled "Kill 'Em!

Crush 'Em! Eat 'Em Raw!," many powerful images are given

to illustrate the intense similarity between war and

football.  All of the images of war and football that

McMurtry presents bear equal intensity about the

repulsive truth.  In the beginning of the essay,

McMurtry states, "Just as in hockey, where a fight will

bring fans to their feet more often than a skillful

play, so in football the mouth waters most of all for

the really crippling block or tackle.  For the kill."

He goes on to say, "Thus the good temas are 'hungry,'

the best players are 'mean,' and 'casualties' are as

much a part of the game as they are of war" (323).  From

this image, one can only picture the disgusting

brutality that prevails as enjoyment in football.  This

brutality is so similar to the brutality in war that it

is frightening.  McMurtry brings out the hidden truth

about what football is really about and what fans really

seek in watching it.  When someone is hurt or becomes a

casualty of football, the mouths of fans water with

eagerness to see more.  This is what McMurtry is

suggesting, which is what also seems to be the

underlying truth about the sport.  When McMurtry talks

about how casualties are "as much a part of the game as

they are of a war," the reader is smacked in the face

with a vicious reality.  When this reality is seen, the

reader is left with the sick notion that most Americans

disregard the injuries and casualties of football while

regarding the injuries and casualties of war with more

importance.  The fact of the matter is that we should

look at war, football, and any other sport or activity

that involves casualties as similar activities with

similar consequences.  McMurtry suggests that football

is just like war, yet it is even worse in one aspect: it

involves fighting between the people of our country,

just like a civil war.  After reading this essay, it

seems that Americans need to reevaluate their values and

tendencies in order to produce a more civil society.

Further on in the essay, McMurtry says, "After every

game, of course, the papers are full of reports on the

day's injuries, a sort of post-battle 'body count,' and

the respective teams go to work with doctors and

trainers, tape, whirlpool baths, cortisone and morphine

to patch and deaden the wounds before the next game"

(324).  This statement is sickening to picture.  This

shows that football is really about the brutality at the

expense of the players.  It also shows the similarity

between football and war.  Just as in war, a "body

count" is taken and reported in the media to catch the

attention of and hopefully attract any ambivalent fans

to the game of football.  The poor players have to

sacrifice their bodies and suppress their emotions in

order to perform their duties as players.  Later on in

the story, McMurtry writes, "What organized football did

to me was make me suppress my natural urges and

re-empress them in an alienating, vicious form.

Spontaneous desires for free bodily exuberance and

fraterniztion with competitors were shamed and forced

under...and in their place were demanded armored

mechanical moves and cool hatred of all opposition"

(326).  This suppression is another unhealthy factor in

the destruction of each player's body.  Suppression of

emotions never leads to anything good, and in fact,

feelings of hostility have a high correlation with heart

disease and many other diseases of the body.  Because of

the tension that arises from this suppression, players'

lives and attitudes are greatly affected from football,

which is also similar to how a soldier's life is

affected by war atrocities.     Just as McMurtry

suggests, there is no real protest against football.

People disregard its consequences and view it as just a

game between two teams striving for the same goal.  They

do not see the horrible side of the game that players

face everyday.  They only see or take into account the

pretty side of the game when evaluating its

destructiveness.     The "romantic combatant" myth is a

prevailing perspective that can be seen in sports,

business, and war.  This myth has been around for so

long and is so commonly held among individuals that it

probably won't diminish in the near future.  In war, the

hero always seems to be the toughest man who can hold

his ground and protect the security of others.  This is

what soldiers seem to strive for and is how this myth

applies to engagement of war.  In business, the person

who can fight off the most competitors and who can save

his company from being destroyed is usually the toughest

and most respected man in that company.  Since this man

is rewarded with promotions and congratulations from

colleagues, this is the attitude that business men like

to take.  In sports, the player that is the toughest and

can contribute to the team's victory by successfully

scoring goals or assisting teammates is rewarded with

the most recognition and special treatment.  These

rewards attract the players to play the role of the

"romantic combatant."

Message no. 327[Branch from no. 326]
Posted by ANGELA-ROSE MANESS on Thursday, April 10, 2003 1:43am
Subject Re: Questions for Class Discussion

My bad.  I posted my response twice since I thought that

it didn't go through the first time.

       Sorry ------Angela

Message no. 329[Branch from no. 318]
Posted by SELENA EDWARDS RIESS on Thursday, April 10, 2003 9:40am
Subject Re: Questions for Class Discussion

1)  McMurtry refers to football as “a sport in which

body wreckage is one of the leading conventions” (323).

This brings to mind a picture of a junkyard filled with

wrecked, mangled cars stacked on top of one another,

with little or no use left in them anymore.  In a sense,

a football player receives numerous injuries, and when

the coaches or owners decide that player is no longer of

use to them, they trade him or force him into early

retirement.  “The real currency of the sport” (325)

alludes to money and its relation to football, not

“physical injury” (325).  In essence, a player’s market

value is based on how well that particular player is

able to tackle an opposing player and avoid injury, not

how well that particular player may play the game.  Just

the thought "that body shattering is the very point of

football" (323) makes one shudder with the idea that a

body can be broken into millions of little pieces, much

like a mirror shatters when dropped.  The body is more

fragile than we want to believe it to be. It seems that

the fans who enjoy watching football, the coaches, and

even the players tend to forget this while in the midst

of the game, cheering and urging on those great plays

and tackles.

2)  McMurtry reasons “that there is little or no protest

against football” (324) since it evokes excitement in

the fans, “not concern” (324) to witness such a

“systematic infliction of injuries” (324).  If this same

system of injury were to be put in a different

environment, like a music concert or even another sport

such as swimming, then there wouldn’t be such “a

collective rejoicing and euphoria” (324).  I've seen

this excitement, as I'm sure most of us have, at high

school football games.  I don't know how many times I've

watched my son and his friends jump up from a great

tackle and "high five" each other for bringing the

opposing player down as the coaches pat them on their

helmets for a job well done.  Even the crowd, yes, I'm

guilty too, stands up, cheering at the top of their

lungs and are especially loud if it results in a

touchdown for our team. McMurtry even refers to football

as a “spectacle”(324), which brings to mind a type of

performance similar to a circus act or play, or some

similar type of production.  Whenever there is a Friday

night home game for the Trenton Tigers, it seems like

the whole town of Trenton turns out to watch what they

hope will be an exciting game.  If one thinks about it,

football is boosted constantly during the season with

various ads and commercials that add to a slow, growing

excitement for fans so they can get ready for the game

of all games, “Super Bowl.”

3)  I'm not really sure, but to me a "romantic

combatant" brings to mind some type of warrior or hero

that fights till the end for a cause.  Essentially, in

sports the players give it their all, winning or losing,

with or without injuries, in order to come out on top to

win a coveted title, SEC, NCAA, or Super Bowl champs.

Likewise, in war the soldiers fight and defend their

country with the hope of toppling the opposing country's

monarchy or government in order to rule that country,

not taking into consideration the lives that are taken.

A businessman seeks to be number one in a business,

working his way up the ladder, sometimes not giving a

second thought to the people that helped him, or may

have been in his way, as he climbed to reach that top

rung.  How he runs his business will be determined by

the struggle he fought to get there.

Message no. 332[Branch from no. 318]
Posted by MARK DEVALIANT on Thursday, April 10, 2003 11:00am
Subject Re: Questions for Class Discussion

It has occurred to me that the simliarities between the

language of sports and the language of war may not be

happenstance.

What if people use those words to describe sports just

to lend weight to their words, to give them authority,

clarity, importance, impetus.  No-one would deny that

war is a serious business, wouldn't that lend credence

to a sporting event?  A unfortunate natural side effect

of war are casualties.  If one were in the frame of mind

to refer to sport in a warlike manner, would it then be

such an outlandish notion to accept the casualties of

sport?

This post was not in reply to anyone particularly.  It

seems that this discussion has evoked some fairly strong

opinion/emotion in me.

Message no. 336[Branch from no. 332]
Posted by JOSHUA DANIEL COWAN on Monday, April 14, 2003 2:24pm
Subject Re: Questions for Class Discussion

Indeed.  Although the modicum of outdated language and

ideas rather ired me(in the essay).  I played football.

A lot.  While I must say there are still remnants of the

"Kill 'em, Crush 'em, Eat 'em Raw!" generation(my high

school coach was one of them:-\), coaches and teams and

I would say the sport has drastically since the 1970's.

Guys are penalized for helmet-to-helmet hits, and the

strive is for more personal and team excellence than for

the butalization of another human being.  Taking out

another guys' knees in no longer considered something to

cheer for, but the last resort of a coward and the sign

of an inferior player.  However, the game by no means

has lost it's macho culture or the primative means by

which it comes.  It's just evolved.

Message no. 333[Branch from no. 318]
Posted by KELLY ANNE PURCELL on Thursday, April 10, 2003 3:02pm
Subject Re: Questions for Class Discussion

1.In the first two paragraphs, McMurtry describes his

hospital stay after realizing that he had acute

herniation.  The images that this short story put in my

head are very real, as a family member has had similar

problems.  McMurtry stated, "So I spent my Christmas

holidays in the hospital in heavy traction and much of

the next three months with my neck in brace." (323).

These are pretty heavy injuries, very painful as well,

and were caused by his career in football.

"I started off with torn ligaments in my knee at 13."

(325). McMurtry goes on to describe multiple injuries

that he sustained throughout his game days.  I am

surprised he can even move.  It is amazing that these

men are even allowed to continue on after so much

dismemberment!

"In the United States, for example, the game results in

15 to 20 deaths a year and about 50,000 major operations

on knees alone." (323)  This seems unreal to me, because

how many football players are there in the NFL?  I mean,

all the players would be having knee surgery every year!

 No wonder a players career is so short.  Maybe that's

one reason their contracts are so big, in case they

cannot move to do anything a few years down the road.

Oh yeah, and medical bills.

2. There is no protest to football, there is protest for

war, and they are very similar activities.  It is really

a bit hipocritical, but in all reality fatal casualties

are much less in the game of football as compared to

war.  Football and war are a lot alike in that their

employees choose to work, neither are required of

anyone, employees in both professions get paid, and they

all know the risks involved.

I understand from the reding that McMurtry believes that

football is as violent as war, and if one is protested,

so should be the other.  I must say that I disgaree in

that they are both as violent as one another.

1."The claim that men like seriousley to battle one

another to some sort of finish is a myth." (326).  In

terms of many genres of sports, this idea is not a myth.

 For instance, does not football involve serious,

destructive battle in order to bear a champion, "[... a

warrior game with a warrior ethos[...]" (325).

The media sure can stake claim and bank in on this myth,

especially on Superbowl Sunday.  Business can be related

in the money made on the romantic combatant sports.

There is a more up front idea involving business though,

the stock exchange for example.  A stockbroker fights to

the death almost everyday, battling hundreds of other

brokers, trying to make the biggest buck.  I am not

sure, but it seems to me that a career in stocks and

bonds would be highly, highly stressful, to the point of

physical breakdown.

War is literally men battling each other and one always

comes out a winner.

I definitely do not agree with McMurtry that this idea

is a myth.  I do agree that regulation could help in

stopping a lot of the violence on the streets.  Men have

it rough because of that 'bad boy' expectancy.

Message no. 335[Branch from no. 318]
Posted by JOSHUA DANIEL COWAN on Thursday, April 10, 2003 7:40pm
Subject Re: Questions for Class Discussion

1.  Images abound in this piece.  Three that come to

mind are words he uses to describe the plays that are

most enthusiastically applauded by fans, "smeared",

"broken in two" and "crucified".  The first gives the

reader a sense that a player has just been hit and

spread over the field like jam over bread.  Thinly

spread.  The second renders the vision of a board of

some sort or perhaps a pencil being obliterated into two

pieces by means of brute force.  The third comes with a

religious meaning, of one being hung up on a cross, and

usually unjustly and without cause, as Jesus was in the

Bible.  All three of these images when analyzed give

emotional steam to McMurtry's arguement that football is

a needlessly and overly violent sport perpetrated

uselessly for the sole purpose of entertainment at the

detrement of the players.

2.There is no little or no protest against football

because, as McMurtry reasons, "...the game has a life of

its own.  Everyone grows up inside it, accepts it and

fulfills it dictates as obediently as helots...The

choice is made straightfoward.  Either you, too, do your

very utmost to efficiently smash and be smashed, or you

admit incompetence or cowardice and quit."  Humans, by

nature, wish to be part of a group, and to be ostracized

because of your beliefs takes more courage than most of

us have.  This is why so many blindly follow without

thinking.  Whether it be pro-football or anti-war,

people don't want to be left out.  Some might not see it

this way, but I believe that this is the underlying

reasoning behind his entire arguement.

3.  The romantic combatant is one that pervades every

society.  In ancient Rome they hailed the gladiators as

as celebrities, champions, and sport heroes.  Yet

outside the colesseum they were ostracized for what they

were-slaves, ex-soldiers and criminals who killed for a

living.  In business, there is the ruthless wall street

"shark".  His business ehtics are nowhere to be found,

and he will go around over, under, or through anyone who

gets between him and the top.  He is heralded as

"ambitious" or a "go-getter".  He is depicted as a tall,

handsome, suave gentleman, when more than likely, his

personal ethics are just as corrupt as his business

ones.  The sports hero is no better.  Case-in-point:

O.J. Simpson.  Need I really say more about him??  The

war hero is the worst most most heart-wrenching.  "G.I.

Johnny"- coming back home to his all-american apple-pie

girl who has been waiting for him patiently while he was

away doing his part for "Uncle Sam" to rid the world of

the "commie scum", and they live happily ever after.

More than likely, "G.I. Johnny" comes home to a

married-with-children girl who just couldn't wait and

spends the rest of his homeless, sleepless nights trying

in vain to forget the images of all the faces that were

killed-no matter the side they were on, while the rest

of America that heralded as this hero only a few short

years before now wants nothing to do with him.  The only

solace he gets is from sleeping under the names of those

he knew until he is shuffled off by some cop as "just

another bum".  This has to be the worst case of the

"romantic combatant", as the reality is at the disparate

end of the spectrum from the myth.  And nobody cares.

Message no. 339[Branch from no. 318]
Posted by DANIEL T TOTEV on Thursday, April 17, 2003 11:47am
Subject Re: Questions for Class Discussion

1.  “It [football] is a sport in which body wreckage is

one of the leading conventions” /323/. “Body wreckage”

is one of the central images in John McMurty’s “Kill

‘Em! Crush ‘Em! Eat ‘Em Raw!” When McMurty became a

football player, he thought that this game was made for

showing and using skills. Unfortunately, both fans and

coaches encouraged players to be mean rather than to

show good technique: “a fight will bring fans to their

feet more often than a skillful play” /323/. “The most

savage attackers, after all, are, by general agreement,

the most efficient and worthy players of all (the

biggest applause I ever received as a football player

occurred hen I ran over people or slammed them so hard

they couldn’t get up)” /327/. McMurty reproaches

people’s desire for “body shuttering”. It seems that

most of the audience is not aware what sits behind all

the images used in football: “field general,” “long

bomb,” “blitz,” “front line”; they are not aware what

comes after a the “crippling block and tackle” in this

game which original purpose was not to take lives away.

They seem not to care about all the players suffering

“acute herniation”, “crumpled” disks and bones, and they

don’t seem to be aware of that “the game results in 15

to 20 deaths a year and about 50,000 major operations on

knees” /323/.

2. McMurty reproaches the cruelty and destruction in

football, but what he most loathes is the fact that

there is no protest against this brutality and

obliteration. How can people protest against war and

nobody oppose the malice coming from this game? The

consequences of wars and football are the same: we have

maimed people and we have casualties. Even they both use

the same terminology. I think the answer has to do with

men’s personality and the norms created by our society.

Our society has its basic requirements for men: they

have to be brave and tough, and they must be able to

handle anything. If you don’t comply with the norms, you

are rejected. And here comes the ego of men, which keeps

them doing things that can get them killed. The fear

from being mocked at is enough for them to be

“sacrificed”. The fear that people would call him

“chicken” or “coward,” kept McMurtry himself in

football, despite “acute heniation” and the fact that he

had so many injuries that he came up with the nickname

“mummy”.

3. “The claim that men like seriously to battle one

another to some sort of finish is a myth. It only

endures because it wears one of the oldest and most

propagandized of masks – the romantic combatant” /326/.

According to me, “the romantic combatant” is a warrior

who possesses superpowers or a man whose physical and

mental qualities are closest to this perfect warrior.

People feel insecure: they may worry about the safety of

their family, they might be afraid about their country

being attacked by another; or they are anxious that they

might get fired. This insecurity can be found

everywhere. As a result, one tiny part of all humans

will long for this warrior who can protect their family,

their country, or who can guarantee that they won’t be

fired. But this warrior is an illusion and people look

for the person who is most like this warrior.

Unfortunately, they mostly encourage one quality taken

from “the romantic combatant” and that is meanness.

Message no. 340[Branch from no. 339]
Posted by ANNE C BAATSTAD on Monday, April 21, 2003 1:13pm
Subject Re: Questions for Class Discussion

Daniel,

I wanted to commend you on your eloquent abilities. I

assume that English is your second language, but you put

us all to shame! I especially liked your response the

the first question. Overall, great job!!

~Anne