Penn & Teller on Cheerleaders

[TraneWreck]

But you are claiming that they need to add dangerous acrobatic instead of more moderate acrobatics to qualify as a sport.

Ah, I see, I wasn't clear about that. I'm not arguing that they need to add dangerous acrobatics, I'm arguing that they have.

And it isn't like people designing cheerleading competitions thought, "How can we make sure this crushes as many spinal cords as possible?"

The lifts and tosses grew out of things cheerleaders were already doing, but making them more "athletic" made them far more dangerous. The danger wasn't fully understood until recent studies.

It's plausible that they could have developed a non-dangerous way of competing, but they didn't. And it was the pressure to be more athletic that led to what we see now.

I don't see that being classed as a sport leads it to being dangerous. I can see plenty of other reasons for them to be competitive, how does being classes as a sport make it so dangerous? What about it does this?

It's not a necessary connection. The necessary connection is that whatever activity wants to be dubbed a "sport" need to become more athletic. In a certain sense, bodies moving faster with more energy will necessarily lead to an increase in injury, but, to pick one example, basketball hasn't become prohibitively dangerous as it's become more athletic over the years.

It just happened that the way cheerleading grew was in a very dangerous way. It was an unintended consequence of attempting to ramp up the athleticism.

I have no conceptual problem with cheerleading as a sport, but it needs to change a great deal. It's not like the genesis of all sport needs to be pure. There's nothing wrong with chicks in tiny skirts figuring out how to do something athletically valid.

Look at the change in skateboarding now compared to when title IX was passed, seems much more risky as they are doing crazy stunts. So clearly title IX made skateboarders motivated to do crazy stunts.

Well, this is sort of silly. First of all, until very recently skateboarding was male-dominated, so I'm not sure how you think Title IX would have affected the endeavor in say, 1989. And secondly, no schools have skateboarding programs (at least as far as I know--certainly the NCAA doesn't recognize the sport).

Again, Title IX affected cheerleading in a unique way because athletic departments were already spending money on cheerleading. THey weren't spending money on skateboarders.

It's also curious that you've chosen skateboarding because like cheerleading, the faster, higher, farther (ie--more athletic) the sport becomes, the more severe injuries result.

 

[BPScooter]

ZirconBlue, I must emphasize that I have respect, admiration, and just a little bit of understanding about the DCI, DCA, and other competitive drum corps "world." I only balk a little because, as private organizations, they have every right to organize and conduct their events. But... when high school band directors take their groups in a "corps" direction, and emphasize competition, it's my experience that they go overboard and neglect the other aspects of the program that conform more fully with the spirit of arts education as outlined by thinkers in the area. While appealing to many students and their parents, it equally shuts off other aspects. I also question the move by MENC to begin to partner with Disney World and the inter-school athletics people to further the competitions by sponsoring them, training judges, putting out glossy magazines, and other things. The private and for-profit sector has made a big move on what used to be a matter of local and definitely non-profit pursuit. Thats just my opinion, though, and I suppose one could imagine a super-competitive, elite corps of musicians that trains year round and is a "sport" in parallel with a comprehensive, standards-based music program. This happens at most big universities in the US, where the marching band is funded, housed, and staffed independent of the academic department of music.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Ah, I see, I wasn't clear about that. I'm not arguing that they need to add dangerous acrobatics, I'm arguing that they have.

That is not an argument though, more of an observation. An argument is that you have seemed to be attributing those dangerous acrobatics too the classification as a sport. That is what I am not sure is supportable.

And it isn't like people designing cheerleading competitions thought, "How can we make sure this crushes as many spinal cords as possible?"

Isn't that what the inventers of ski cross thought though? "Hmm, skiing is just not dangerous enough for todays youth, we need to make it XTREME in some fashion so why not let them all ski at once to increase accidents?"

It's not a necessary connection. The necessary connection is that whatever activity wants to be dubbed a "sport" need to become more athletic. In a certain sense, bodies moving faster with more energy will necessarily lead to an increase in injury, but, to pick one example, basketball hasn't become prohibitively dangerous as it's become more athletic over the years.

How has basketball changed to become more athletic? And at least in the olympics there are many sports that are not that athletic, say Curling or shooting.

Well, this is sort of silly. First of all, until very recently skateboarding was male-dominated, so I'm not sure how you think Title IX would have affected the endeavor in say, 1989. And secondly, no schools have skateboarding programs (at least as far as I know--certainly the NCAA doesn't recognize the sport).

Why does the sex matter when it comes to dangerous sports? It was intended to illustrate how individuals involved can push a sport to be more and more dangerous.

It's also curious that you've chosen skateboarding because like cheerleading, the faster, higher, farther (ie--more athletic) the sport becomes, the more severe injuries result.

And yet it did it with out being pushed by Title IX so it seems that being classed as a high school sport and subject to Title IX funding issues are not the only things pushing activities to be more dangerous.

 

[ZirconBlue]

ZirconBlue, I must emphasize that I have respect, admiration, and just a little bit of understanding about the DCI, DCA, and other competitive drum corps "world." I only balk a little because, as private organizations, they have every right to organize and conduct their events. But... when high school band directors take their groups in a "corps" direction, and emphasize competition, it's my experience that they go overboard and neglect the other aspects of the program that conform more fully with the spirit of arts education as outlined by thinkers in the area. While appealing to many students and their parents, it equally shuts off other aspects. I also question the move by MENC to begin to partner with Disney World and the inter-school athletics people to further the competitions by sponsoring them, training judges, putting out glossy magazines, and other things. The private and for-profit sector has made a big move on what used to be a matter of local and definitely non-profit pursuit. Thats just my opinion, though, and I suppose one could imagine a super-competitive, elite corps of musicians that trains year round and is a "sport" in parallel with a comprehensive, standards-based music program. This happens at most big universities in the US, where the marching band is funded, housed, and staffed independent of the academic department of music.

Well, my experience with a non-competative University marching band (funded by the athletic department) is that, without the competative aspects, no one really works very hard to make a good show. I think, if you just want to have a band program for the sake of the arts, then there's no reason for the "marching" aspect. But, even in the competive arenas like DCI/DCA, you can't win without committing to the artistic aspects of the competition.

 

[TraneWreck]

That is not an argument though, more of an observation. An argument is that you have seemed to be attributing those dangerous acrobatics too the classification as a sport. That is what I am not sure is supportable.

Let's try to avoid descending into semantics, please.

The argument concerned the evolution of cheerleading from people standing on the sidelines of football games yelling to the very dangerous, gymnastic-esque sport that exists now.

There is no natural law that forced it to develop the way it did, but the pressure to make the sport more athletic has directly led to a very dangerous competition.

Isn't that what the inventers of ski cross thought though? "Hmm, skiing is just not dangerous enough for todays youth, we need to make it XTREME in some fashion so why not let them all ski at once to increase accidents?"

Sure, some people get off on the danger. X-Games folks are pretty upfront about it. Once the studies about the dangers of cheerleading came in, however, all of the effort has gone towards making it safer. I'd be curious if you could point to someone defending the current state of the sport because they like the danger element. I've never seen such a position.

How has basketball changed to become more athletic? And at least in the olympics there are many sports that are not that athletic, say Curling or shooting.

Again, I have to ask, are you just bringing this stuff up for the sake of arguing?

How has basketball become more athletic, let's see. Here's the greatests star of the 50's:



Here's today's best player (I would have gone with Kobe but for the 6-24 in game 7):



Here's the greatest ever:



Mikan, by the way, was 7' tall. LeBron is 6'9" and Jordan is 6'6". Notice how much higher the latter two tend to get. Jumping higher=more athletic, among other factors.

As for the rule changes, where do we begin? They've altered the traveling rules to allow players to buid up speed, they've changed the dribbiling rules to allow the cross-over, they put restrictions on defenders ability to stand in the paint and wait for offensive players, forcing them to become quicker, they've eliminated hand-checking to give the advantage to fast perimeter athletes...it goes on and on.

I don't understand the world you live in where you would seriously try to argue that basketball hasn't become a more athletic game over the years.

Why does the sex matter when it comes to dangerous sports? It was intended to illustrate how individuals involved can push a sport to be more and more dangerous.

You're trying to generalize a point that was very specific. Gender matters in the case of cheerleading because Title IX is about gender equality. Title IX won't affect skateboarding because it's male-dominated.

And yet it did it with out being pushed by Title IX so it seems that being classed as a high school sport and subject to Title IX funding issues are not the only things pushing activities to be more dangerous.

Ok, where did I argue that only through Title IX could a sport become more dangerous?

Once again you're trying to generalize something that was very specific. Cheerleading is a unique example because it wasn't a sport before Title IX, it was an activity paid for by athletic departments. There's no other similar example since no one tried to turn marching band into a sport.

 

[ZirconBlue]

Let's try to avoid descending into semantics, please.

Yeah. Good luck with that.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Let's try to avoid descending into semantics, please.

One of the principle things at issue here is, is cheerleading a sport. Semanitics are part of the debate at its core.

The argument concerned the evolution of cheerleading from people standing on the sidelines of football games yelling to the very dangerous, gymnastic-esque sport that exists now.

There is no natural law that forced it to develop the way it did, but the pressure to make the sport more athletic has directly led to a very dangerous competition.

And nothing forced skateboarding to change from cruising down roads into insane flips on the half pipe.

I don't understand the world you live in where you would seriously try to argue that basketball hasn't become a more athletic game over the years.

You assume I follow basketball. As I don't I was unaware of the changes you mention.

Ok, where did I argue that only through Title IX could a sport become more dangerous?

It just shows that you need more than a post hoc ergo proptor hoc argument to create the connection.

 

[OneEyedFatMan]

Sports

Sorry, but I don't regard any activity, no matter how spectacular, a sport if it requires a panel of judges to decide who the winner is.

I also do not consider anything with 'motor' in the title as a sport.

In my opinion the purest of all true sports is long track speed skating. There are no 'heats' in this, and it is completely up to you win, as it is only your time that counts.

In long track you might set a new world record as the first contestant, and then have to watch as every skater who comes after you takes a shot at beating your time.

 

[TraneWreck]

One of the principle things at issue here is, is cheerleading a sport. Semanitics are part of the debate at its core.

Except that we aren't arguing about whether it's a sport. It's not the point at issue, nor was it the subject of the semantic complaint to which I was refering.

And nothing forced skateboarding to change from cruising down roads into insane flips on the half pipe.

Uh, ok. So what?

Me: "The dinosaurs were killed by a meteor."
You: "Yeah, but Dodos were killed by humans."
Me: "Uh, ok. So what?"

There are many ways a sport could potentially develop. I have been discussng the unique progression of American Cheerleading as a sport.

You assume I follow basketball. As I don't I was unaware of the changes you mention.

Fair enough, I should have supposed that your question was an earnest one, not a means of petty argument. I apologize.

It just shows that you need more than a post hoc ergo proptor hoc argument to create the connection.

I've shown much more than just two events following each other in time. You can keep saying this and hope the latin phrase is sufficient to establish your point, but as of yet you've avoided dealing with both my argument and the factual support I gave. You just bring up an irrelevant non-sequitor, skateboarding.

 

[CynicalSkeptic]

Sorry, but the show is rapidly becoming nothing but a platform for Penn to push his Libertarian viewpoint.

Funny that this episode seemed to do exactly the opposite. Calling for more state regulation and railing against a monopoly for-profit business.