January 17, 2007
U.S. Wrestlers in Iran
The U.S. National Wrestling Team just arrived in Iran to compete in the Persian Gulf cup. If the reception by the Iranian people is anything like the last time the team was in Iran in 1998, it should be quite an event.
Although they were in a country where Marg bar Amrika!( “Death to America”) is prominently displayed on many government buildings, the first American athletes to step foot in the country since the hostage crisis of the late 1970’s were welcomed with open arms by the Iranian people. The crowd’s support of the Americans was one of the most moving moments in sports I’d ever seen.
Here is a recap from the LA Times in 1998:
I have never before attended a defining sporting event, such as a World Cup final or a World Series won by a ninth-inning home run. For me, the final of the Takhti Cup wrestling tournament in Tehran on Feb. 20 was such an event.
There were 13,000 spectators packed into the 12,000-seat Azadi arena. The crowd clearly came out to see the Americans. Whenever a U.S. wrestler competed, the place became electric. The crowd was torn between wanting Iranians to win and wanting to show approval of the American guests. So the fans cheered for both. They roared when Zeke Jones won a silver medal and waved the Iranian flag. There was a moment of disappointment when Kevin Jackson defeated an Iranian opponent, but that was followed by a huge ovation when the two wrestlers shared a long embrace. And the fans loved it when Jackson took a victory lap around the arena, high-fiving spectators as he ran.
Posted by Peter Mork at 9:13 AM | Comments | TrackBack
February 20, 2005
Hopkins over Eastman
Bernard Hopkins beat Howard Eastman tonight adding one more notch to my belt of incorrect predictions. While Hopkins isn't the most exciting fighter, how this guy can continue to perform like he did tonight at the age of 40 is beyond me. Credit where credit is due. His next move should be up to light-heavyweight to fight Tarver because he has more or less cleared out the middleweight division.
Posted by Peter Mork at 1:54 AM | Comments | TrackBack
February 15, 2005
NHL Lockout and Boxing
It looks like the NHL season is about to be canceled. I can't say I'll shed any tears if the season is called off. Not only would this be a plus as NBA highlights on SportsCenter won't have to compete with their NHL counterparts, but it looks like it's helping out another of my favorite sports: boxing.
All across North America, arenas that normally host NHL hockey remain empty. And if a deal isn't struck by this afternoon, there is a good chance that the NHL could be on ice for the rest of the season.
And with this, the business of boxing could be the biggest benefactor.
This Saturday night at the Staples Center in Los Angeles, Bernard Hopkins will defend his middleweight championship against Howard Eastman. If the Los Angeles Kings were in action, this fight would be taking place somewhere else, as would have the December 18th light heavyweight showdown between Glen Johnson and Antonio Tarver.
Dates that were once reserved for hockey are now vacant and more and more they are being filled with boxing events.
Also, you heard it here first: Howard Eastman (the boxer pictured above) will upset Bernard Hopkins this Saturday. I haven't seen Eastman fight in a few years but he is younger, quicker, and most important... cocky. Should make for a good fight.
A quick disclaimer before you rush off to Vegas to bet on the underdog. Some of my other guaranteed upset predictions have been Golota over Tyson, Tyson over Lewis, Gatti over De la Hoya, De la Hoya over Hopkins, and I could keep going. I figure one of these times I have to get one right.
Posted by Peter Mork at 9:18 PM | Comments | TrackBack
January 14, 2005
Sports, Jealousy, and Economics
In his first post over at The Sports Economist, Prof. John Palmer catches me in a bit of a slipup within my last post. He asks: "Why does it matter how wealthy they are?" referencing my quote that "millionaire players and billionaire owners feel the need to take money from everyday people to fund their lines of work."
He makes a good point. For even if Alex Spanos (the owner of the Chargers) didn’t have a dime to his name, it still wouldn’t justify forcing taxpayers to fund his stadium against their will.
But this quote from the post troubles me slightly:
The question of whether taxpayers should support professional sports is a valid one. If it is efficient to support them, if there is a net social gain to supporting them, then it should not matter how well-off the owners and players are, unless we openly acknowledge that we would be happy to sacrifice some economic efficiency just to keep rich franchise owners and highly paid players from becoming richer.
Now, it’s clear that what Dr. Palmer is saying over the entire post is that I should not resort to relying on people’s jealously to make my point, for there are many reasons that stadiums should not be funded with taxpayers’ dollars on efficiency grounds alone. Yet jealousy aside, by pointing out the net worth of the players and owners, it’s clear they would have the collateral to get a loan to fund their stadium if it really was such a good deal.
But even more importantly, I am always bothered by arguments that we should or should not pursue a certain course of action justified solely on economic efficiency. That’s an arbitrary standard in my opinion. When dealing with economic models there are just too many unknown variables to predict the value to society of a given project. You could very well imagine a situation where Economist A says that her calculations predict a stadium would not be economically efficient, while Economist B’s calculations predict it would. Voters could then justify their support or opposition to such a plan by picking their preferred economist, while in truth it may have more to do with the teams winning or losing record.
What is needed instead is a standard of right and wrong that must be applied to all such situations. The standard I use, and that I try to convey to others when debating such a topic, is that individuals should not be coerced into paying for something that they do not support. The fact that a majority of people want a stadium doesn’t justify confiscating the minority’s hard earned cash. Now, that has far reaching implications, but I do think it’s a basic standard that many of us agree upon.
Most of the time we won't find out if a project such as a stadium is economically efficient until years after it is completed. The fans, players, and owners might be right that a new stadium will be a boon to the city of San Diego. What better way to get it build but to have them put their money where their mouths are and fund it themselves?
Update: My friend Dan emails to point out that I grouped players and owners together when there really should be a distinction. Why should players be asked to fund a new stadium he asks? He points out not only the fact that players are contract employees who could be traded to another teams and never get to play in the stadium, but also that if the players did help fund the stadium they should get a paid to do so just like any other investor. In short, even though players do have lots of money, in no way should they be obligated to pay for the stadium simply because they might be working there.
Point taken and I stand corrected.
Posted by Peter Mork at 3:25 PM | Comments | TrackBack
January 9, 2005
The Importance of a 40-Yard Field Goal
Man, you had to feel bad for Nate Kaeding last night. After the 22-year-old rookie missed a game winning field that would have sent the Chargers into the second round of the playoffs, images of him on the sideline with a depressed look on his face had to make your heart sink. Granted, he gets paid the big bucks to come through in those situations, but I don't think I could handle that kind of pressure.
The second thought that was running through my head though was what did that missed field goal do to the future of the Chargers in San Diego? After a nine year stretch of not making it to the post-season, and a 4-12 record last year, the people of San Diego where ready to send the Chargers packing. The majority of the community was going to have no part in helping to finance a new stadium with tax dollars that the Charges demanded if the city wanted to keep the team in San Diego.
But it is amazing what flipping that record to 12-4 did to public opinion this year. Even though the city is in the middle of a pension fund crisis, public opinion changed and a recent poll showed that a majority of San Diegans now favor keeping the team in the city. A current proposal that had the city donating the land for the stadium (land that could be sold to help fill the depleted city coffers) would have no doubt passed with ease if on the ballot last week.
Whether Nate's field goal attempt that drifted a couple yards to the right will swing public opinion in the other direction remains to be seen. But one things clear, a great playoff run by the Chargers would have all but guaranteed that they would have remained in the city. It also would have all but guaranteed taxpayers of San Diego would have been the losers.
It always shocks me that millionaire players and billionaire owners feel the need to take money from everyday people to fund their line of work. You would think it would be commonsense that if these stadiums were such great deals, they could finance them on their own and wouldn't need taxpayers subsidies. Unfortunately, the excitement of your home team winning is a powerful thing and can override this sentiment.