Defending Football ?
Posted: Wed Dec 09, 2015 5:00 pm
This post belongs in the book review section, but since other members are perhaps like me and rarely look in that section I will post it here.
James Freeman, in todays WSJ, gives a favorable review to Gregg Easterbrook's book on the NFL subtitled "In Defense of Football." The review, without criticism, quotes Easterbrook waxing lyrical about the virtues of football, as "aesthetically beautiful" and "the last bastion...where manhood can be celebrated." Many British were similarly romantic about the virtues of cricket, which Churchill once skewered, with a quote I cannot find but remember as, "pursuing a rolling ball teaches nothing but how to pursue a rolling ball."
On the controversy of concussion risk Easterbrook concludes, regarding NFL players, "Players know the risks and are well compensated." This frequently made argument I once attempted to skewer in this forum along the lines: voluntary consent does not make said argument just.
In regards to kids playing tackle football the reviewer cites evidence from Easterbrook that riding bicycles and skateboards cause more hospital ER visits than football. The reviewer does not ask the basic question: how many more kids ride bicycles and skateboards than play football?
In his last paragraph Freeman argues "that Easterbrook's analysis suggests that the [NFL] is becoming safer even as it becomes more compelling and competitive."
Perhaps the book is better than the review, but I doubt it.
James Freeman, in todays WSJ, gives a favorable review to Gregg Easterbrook's book on the NFL subtitled "In Defense of Football." The review, without criticism, quotes Easterbrook waxing lyrical about the virtues of football, as "aesthetically beautiful" and "the last bastion...where manhood can be celebrated." Many British were similarly romantic about the virtues of cricket, which Churchill once skewered, with a quote I cannot find but remember as, "pursuing a rolling ball teaches nothing but how to pursue a rolling ball."
On the controversy of concussion risk Easterbrook concludes, regarding NFL players, "Players know the risks and are well compensated." This frequently made argument I once attempted to skewer in this forum along the lines: voluntary consent does not make said argument just.
In regards to kids playing tackle football the reviewer cites evidence from Easterbrook that riding bicycles and skateboards cause more hospital ER visits than football. The reviewer does not ask the basic question: how many more kids ride bicycles and skateboards than play football?
In his last paragraph Freeman argues "that Easterbrook's analysis suggests that the [NFL] is becoming safer even as it becomes more compelling and competitive."
Perhaps the book is better than the review, but I doubt it.