[impossiblefork]

But it wouldn't be fun. It wouldn't be a good sport to participate. It would just be blood entertainment for the viewers.

Sports should be for those doing them, and then if people end up caring and commercial competitions end up viable, then that's a bonus but we shouldn't design them for entertainment of the audience.

Customization of equipment should always be fine unless it increases injury risk or completely destroys the game.

[dylan604]

Professional sports are all about entertaining the fans. If they can live a gladiator's life and ask "are you not entertained" and want to die in the lions den, then might as well let them.

Amateur sports like colleges or olympics could continue to have the traditional rules to keep things "competitive", but might as well let the pro-sports just go full tilt.

[impossiblefork]

If it's really about entertainment, then it has no appeal. Then you end up with professional wrestling. Professional sports are interesting because there's something fundamental, something challenging where someone's skill can shine.

[dylan604]

> If it's really about entertainment, then it has no appeal. Then you end up with professional wrestling.

Do you not see the contradiction here? Professional wrestling is huge. It has very loyal fans. The fans pay for pay-per-view and live event sales. They buy merch. Nobody attends a WWE event expecting Greco-Roman style wrestling. They all know exactly what they are getting.

[impossiblefork]

Only among certain kinds of people. But a European PM doesn't go watch professional wrestling, but if his country is doing well enough in association football and there's nothing incredibly important going on he will go to the match.

This is because winning in this game is seen as an achievement, and a natural and reasonable achievement-- after all, there are many world records that nobody cares about.

[dylan604]

Well, if we're limiting the rules of sports in any country based on what a European PM does...

[impossiblefork]

The point is more that a different kind of person can be interested in something where it's not entertainment per se.

There's a reason someone might prefer a sport over seeing a circus performance.

[next_xibalba]

I suspect you've never known anyone who participates in the elite levels of popular sports. They are very rarely having fun.

All the major sports alter their rules every year to increase their entertainment value. Here is a short, non-exhaustive list off the top of my head: NBA flopping penalties, NBA player resting policy, MLB base stealing rule changes, MLB free base runners, MLB pitch clocks, NFL changing overtime rules almost every year, NFL challenges and reviews, etc.

There is nothing wrong with not having much knowledge of sports, but it might be worth reconsidering your strident opinions if that's the case.

[impossiblefork]

I've actually even played sports against ex-elite players in the sports they were once among the best in the world in, although it was pretty obvious I had no chance. I've also played other sports with friends who were professional ice hockey players and professional association football players. I think what characterizes them is that they once at a time really hated losing, and you can question whether that is 'having fun' but I do think they were having fun at one point too.

But I agree that sports at the elite level aren't about health. It's not unusual to be doing things that at least risk injury.

I think these kinds of rule changes are destructive though. They certainly are in tennis.