Most Interesting sport to watch?

Kumar · Post by **Kumar** » Sun May 02, 2004 6:30 am

I thought a debate to spruce up things here in the OTHER SPORTS!!! With Kentucky derby today, I was thinking about the exciting sports to watch!!!! We have lot of sports to choose from !!!! Which do you think is most exciting sports to watch. I have left out American sports (baseball, football, icehockey).

Here is my list of top 10 sports to watch ( in some events, I have picked events specifically like 100m)

1) Athletics - 100m/4X100M ?
2) Soccer
3) Hockey - India Vs Pakistan. Even a 0-0 draw is exciting
4) ODI Cricket - India Vs Pakistan ?? No list is complete without this sport right!!!!!
5) Tennis
6) Basketball
7) Kabaddi
8) Golf
9) Horse Racing - I haven't watched a whole lot of horse racing, but any racing should be exciting right!!!!
10) Car Racing - Same with Car racing - haven't watched a lot of them, but I bet lot of the members are interested!!!

Other sports that I considered were Volleyball, Shuttle, TT and Boxing, but didn't include them!!! End game in chess can be exciting to lot of people or the SPELLBEE competition (which is televised by sports channel in US)

To me 100 m Athletics symbolises the most exciting event in sports !!! May be based on the responses, we could shortlist it to top three and add a poll question to get the most exciting sport /event as per the esteemed forum members

PKBasu · Post by **PKBasu** » Sun May 02, 2004 3:16 pm

Let me be the contrarian (picking my dozen favourites):

1. India vs Australia test cricket -- supreme aesthetic pleasure
2. Leander Paes playing Davis Cup/Olympic tennis, or MxD with Martina
3. Leander Paes-Mahesh Bhupathi at the peak of their doubles powers
4. Brazil vs England - WorldCup 2002 (Ronaldinho's wizardry especially)
5. Dhanraj Pillay and India's hockey team at the 1998 Asiad
6. Gavaskar's 29th century: Ferozshah Kotla 1983 (vs Marshall, Garner, Holding)
7. PT Usha in the semifinals of the 1984 Olympics 400m hurdles
8. ODI cricket: Kapil's 175 at Tunbridge Wells, Siva mesmerizing Pakistan at the MCG 1985, Binny/Madanlal/Amarnath bowling at Lord's 25/6/83, Ganguly's century in the 2003 WC semifinal and 183 vs SL in 1999.
9. Basketball: Jordan flying through the air, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar's sky-hook, Magic Johnson's mastery of the floor, Charles Barkley being himself
10. Pete Sampras and Bjorn Borg at Wimbledon.
11. Carl Lewis winning 4 golds at one Olympics.
12. Sriram Singh in the semifinals of the 1976 Olympics 800m

BSharma · Post by **BSharma** » Sun May 02, 2004 7:42 pm

Kumar and PKB,

Can both of you make one point clear so that I can choose my favorites.

Are we selecting the top ten sports to watch (e.g., tennis, football, car racing, etc) or are we going to vote for top ten exciting specific matches (e.g., Borg versus McEnroe Wimbledon finals (18-16 in tiebreaker), Indian hockey team's final match to win the 1975 World Cup, etc) or specific match series (e.g., India versus Pakistan in hockey, India versus Australia in cricket, Leander in Davis Cup, etc.)

Kumar, outstanding poll question!

Should Dhruv put it in the Poll category so that this thread does not get lost in this section?

Kumar · Post by **Kumar** » Mon May 03, 2004 4:39 am

you know bhushan, i started it off sports, may be we can start another thread for the most exciting sports event to have ever happened (in past) or for the exciting sports rivalries..
But I would like to stick with the sports (tennis, car racing, etc)!!!! REason I had the India / Pakistan hockey rivalry included was there is nothing greater in hockey than a india hockey match, but we can exclude the rivalries, in which case hockey would probably slip up a little.
Or we can pick an exciting event/tournament in an sports, say for example Davis Cup in tennis or Wimbledon in tennis or World Cup Cricket or Majors in Golf, like that. I hope you get my drift.

david · Post by **david** » Mon May 03, 2004 6:13 am

Formula One
Gymnastics
Football
Hockey
ODI cricket
figure/ice skating
Wind surfing
athletics
motocross
tennis

joyray · Post by **joyray** » Mon May 03, 2004 7:15 am

1. ODI Cricket
2. Football
3. Hockey
4. Tennis
5. Test Cricket
6. Athletics
7. Swimming
8. Gymnastics
9. Basketball
10. Table Tennis

PKBasu · Post by **PKBasu** » Tue May 04, 2004 9:45 am

OK, a quick surrender from me. Here's my list of most exciting sports (a very personal opinion, admittedly likely to be pilloried by most members of the forum).

1. Test cricket (the modern variety, as played by Australia, India, SL, etc).
2. Tennis
3. ODI cricket
4. Hockey
5. Track & field
6. Football (soccer)
7. Gymnastics
8. Basketball
9. Swimming
10. Badminton (just ahead of table tennis)

Post by **Dhruv** » Tue May 04, 2004 10:44 am

Hmm surprising no-one picked volleyball which is quite a fun sport to watch in my opinion. Is this on TV or live. There is big difference in the two. Ofcourse I am assuming this is when the top 5-10 teams are playing. (ofcourse in cricket that is obvious

)

BSharma · Post by **BSharma** » Tue May 04, 2004 4:51 pm

My list is based on watching the various sports live rather than watching them on TV. Hence the crowd factor also comes into play in my choices.

1. Football (soccer). 80,000+ fans cheering for their team is a sight by itself. Action is continuous and exciting.

2. Basketball. The awesome talent of NBA stars and many US college players is unbelievable. Even the US college basket ball is very exciting, and perhaps more than NBA if you are an alumnus of an university with good basketball tradition and are watching a great rivalry.

3. Field hockey. Similar to soccer (at the international level).

4. Figure/Ice skating. (gymnastics on ice!). I have trouble walking on ice, and ice skaters make it look so easy.

5. Badminton. Power, touch and quick reflexes mixed into one.

6. Gymnastics. Strength, beauty of movement and poise.

7. Track - 100 meter dash and the 4x100 meter relay especially.

8. Women's tennis. (Men's tennis is becoming boring by the day with most top players trying to prove who can hit the ball harder. There are few exceptions, however e.g., Federer. The only exciting men's tennis for me is when Leander plays Davis Cup for India. I will get into trouble with most of the forum members for saying it but I do not find men's doubles very exciting to watch because there are few long rallies. Many of the forum members would have agreed with me if LP and MB were not such great doubles players and we did not bring our bias and emotions into the equation. Mixed doubles is the worst form of tennis to watch and should be scrapped).

9. ODI cricket

10. Motocross (more exciting than car racing)

PKBasu · Post by **PKBasu** » Wed May 05, 2004 3:30 am

Bhushan, I have to disagree with you about Mixed Doubles. I watched last year's Wimbledon Mixed Doubles final -- and it was one of the most wonderful pieces of sporting action I've ever seen. The crowd was on its feet as well...and thoroughly enjoyed the match. So little MxD is played these days internationally that tournaments simply don't promote it. But MxD is an integral part of the sport (as played informally around the world) and can be very exciting to watch. It is ignored not because it is unexciting but because nobody promotes it.
As for men's tennis, I would strongly disagree with your contention too. Not enough of it is shown on TV, but when it is (as, say, during the Slams -- especially AO and Wimbledon which we get to see a lot of here in Asia) men's tennis can be enthralling. If you actually are at Wimbledon, the US Open, Roland Garros or the AO, it is VERY exciting to watch in person. The finesse and all-court ability of Federer, the counter-punching of Hewitt, the power of Safin (when in the mood), Philippoussis and Roddick, the relentlessness of Ferrero -- men's tennis is thriving.

BSharma · Post by **BSharma** » Wed May 05, 2004 5:06 am

Many people enjoyed the mixed doubles at Wimbledon because Martina was playing in the finals and Leander has many fans also. Take away these two players and see how many people will show up for a mixed doubles match. You will see more people at a women's doubles match than at a mixed doubles match or men's doubles match.

When I am writing about men's singles I am not considering the slams only where the atmosphere is different from many other ATP events. Many people show up at US Open to be seen, and watching the action on the court is secondary. Wimbledon has its own tradition. Men's singles used to be exciting but the racket technology has made it a power game. Federer, Hewitt and a few other players are still exciting to watch. I will watch players like Harsh rather than another player who hits 25 aces in a three setter but cannot keep a rally going.

You mentioned, "But MxD is an integral part of the sport (as played informally around the world) and can be very exciting to watch." Your statement is true but many people play men's doubles but they do not watch men's doubles at ATP events. The same goes for mixed doubles. Playing doubles and watching doubles at pro level are two entirely different things. Playing mixed doubles at the club level is a social event. I have been playing doubles every Wednesday noon with the same three friends since 1984 and now I rarely play singles but given a choice I will watch a quarterfinal match in men's singles rather than a men's doubles finals (except if Leander or Mahesh is playing).

Kumar · Post by **Kumar** » Thu May 06, 2004 4:43 am

Dhurv, watching it live is definitely way more exciting, may be we could stick to TV as not everyone here would have watched the wholelot of games live

BSharma · Post by **BSharma** » Thu May 06, 2004 5:57 am

Kumar, I believe most of us have made our choices based on our experience of watching the sports live or on TV. The two experiences are very different, however.

Post by **jayakris** » Thu May 06, 2004 6:20 am

Doubles is too fast for TV, really. It is actually a bit too fast even for live viewing. Too jerky in style for fans to get a sense of what is going on. And you see only half the number of shots from each player and sometimes that also hampers one's ability to get a sense of who is doing well. Serve, volley, YOU-ME screams, movements, dash-doosh-smash, and the point is over, and often you need to look at the scoreboard to see which team is doing better (unlike in singles where you feel who is doing better without a scoreboard). Especially so when you don't know more than one or two of the players playing doubles and lose track of who is doing what - who is on the deuce side who is on the left, who was up at the net, etc etc. [A classic case was when I saw Henman playing doubles with MB at Indian Wells last year. They lost to LP-DR. The other three doubles players probably did more impressive stuff than Henman, but the fans could all remember what Henman did because they had connected what they saw to Henman whom they knew, and they could not do that with MB, LP and DR]

Very often I have found fans walking out saying stuff like "Damn, those guys were good", and impressed with some of the creatine double tennis - but really without a clear idea of who was doing what and not even knowing which team did more of good stuff. In other words, they liked what they saw but don't even know why, what, who. That doesn't help. Doubles will become a true spectator sport only if it is "produced" in much more creative ways, so that it leaves distinct impressions in the viewers making them want to come back looking for a player or a team .. But I digress.

I like watching doubles but it takes some getting used to, even live.

Jay

PKBasu · Post by **PKBasu** » Thu May 06, 2004 11:52 am

I love playing and watching doubles. In fact, I'm convinced that Indians have a special knack for net play, which is a vital skill in doubles. (I find that my mobility, serving and especially forehand play can be highly inconsistent, but the volleying rarely deserts me -- and I've found this with most Indian pros).
I absolutely agree with Jay about the "packaging" of doubles. In the old days, when McEnroe/Fleming were playing doubles, the galleries were always full -- and I remember McEnroe/Stich filling the stands on a Monday at Wimbledon (the day after the men's final) for a delayed doubles final. Sadly for tennis, the one pair that had the potential to fire the imaginations of tennis fans (and did for awhile) after the Woodies was the Indian Express. Their break-up was not only a tragedy for Indian tennis (and especially for members of this forum

) but a catastrophe for doubles as a whole.
I think the idea of known singles faces pairing up with doubles specialists (a la McEnroe/Fleming, Newcombe/Roche, Rosewall/Stolle, Stan Smith/BobLutz, Rafter/partner, Bjorkman/Woodbridge, etc.) is the idea that will work. From that perspective, the fact that LP didn't quite pursue his singles career beyond a point was sad too. But it's very difficult to make it as a pro in BOTH singles and doubles (in the pure pro era). So doubles has always had specialist teams: Hewitt/McMillan (late 60s and 70s), Gottfried/Ramirez (although both pretty good singles players too), Flach/Seguso, Woodies, Eltingh/Haarhuis, etc.