@wayne,
Quote:In this situation, are we to consider cheerleading as a performance or an exercise in team support?
There are a great many who consider cheer to be a sport, complete with very challenging flips/throws/catches and the rest. It still is at the college level but due to injury and liability problems in our area cheer teams have reverted back to being chanters/jumpers/pom-pom wavers. Last game I noticed only one cheerleader toss, and she almost got dropped. I submit that one reason this girl with no limbs was able to get onto a cheer team is that we at this period of time are undecided what we want cheerleading to be. It is supposed to be a rigorous athletic performance, or is it supposed to be the the cute girls cheering on the boys as they play?
@hawkeye10,
When I was in high school we had cheerleaders and yell leaders, the yell leaders job was to encourage the spectators to rally, less emphasis on performance.
@wayne,
wayne wrote:
When I was in high school we had cheerleaders and yell leaders, the yell leaders job was to encourage the spectators to rally, less emphasis on performance.
and now the cheerleaders/yellers/pom-pom squad are all merged into one group, at least they are here, which likely accounts for some of the confusion about what it is that they are supposed to be doing.
EDIT: I think what we get is a group of girls who end up not doing any of the three duties very well.
EDIT2...we might be looking at what happens when a lot of the girls decide that they would rather play sports even though almost no one cares to watch girls play rather than support the teams with cheer/yell/pom-pom....I have not seen much in the popular press re this question of why standards for cheer squads have fallen so much.
It puzzles me that anyone 'd want cheering to go on, while he is working,
whether u r a baseball player, golfer, a mathematician, or a watchmaker. Quiet is better.
Truely: I ' d prefer it quiet (tho I acknowledge the rights of people to express themselves).
I can think of NO reason that I 'd want anyone yelling encouragement nor discouragement.
To MY mind, either way: its no better than having LOUD dogs around; mildly irritating.
Yet, some athletes seem to desire it.
I was a little taken aback at hearing a tennis playerette COMPLAIN
that the audience had cheered for her adversary, but not for HER.
She explicitly, publicly requested future audiences to CHEER for her.
It seems to me that she embarrassed herself. She obviously has different, alien values ( or I do ).
David
@hawkeye10,
Good God, you are a ******* bitch. Shame on you! It is hard to imagine a person as fucked up as you.
@kuvasz,
kuvasz wrote:
Good God, you are a ******* bitch. Shame on you! It is hard to imagine a person as fucked up as you.
Demanding that standards be applied and complied with is certainly a radical position in 2011. It was already highly unusual when Alan Bloom did it in 1988 with his work
The Closing of the American Mind. Being weird does does not bother me though, as I shoot for being right, so where ever reality and truth takes me I follow. Now that is VERY weird, I know!
@hawkeye10,
Quote:as I shoot for being right, so where ever reality and truth takes me I follow.
Good dog, now you're a ******* liar, Hawk.
@JTT,
Quote: now you're a ******* liar, Hawk.
What is your evidence for that charge?
@OmSigDAVID,
I just came from a CFL game and the cheerleaders do not cheer while the game is going on. They cheer during time outs, commercials, after the half, etc. In no way do they interfere with the game. I think they're pointless - all they do is dance to canned music. No one around us pays any attention to them. But then again, I'm in Canada, and we don't usually toss our cheerleaders in the air - well, one or two teams do but then Calgary sucks
@JTT,
Quote:as I shoot for being right, so where ever reality and truth takes me I follow.
JTT wrote:Good dog, now you're a ******* liar, Hawk.
HOW do u
know whether Hawkeye is
*******, J?????
R u
spying on him????
R u a voyeur??? A peeping Tom? or a peeping J??
I suspect that
u r lying, in the exercise of your confused
communist mendacity, J.
David
@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDAVID wrote:Use of glasses, at best,
renders the wearer normal, at 20/20; correct me if I 'm rong.
You're wrong. It's quite possible for eyeglasses to improve vision beyond 20/20.
@DrewDad,
Quote: It's quite possible for eyeglasses to improve vision beyond 20/20.
it is quite possible for someone to have better than 20/20 vision with no glasses or corrective surgery...do you have a point?
@hawkeye10,
David asked to be corrected; I did as he asked. Are you capable of reading English?
