This was posted on HN a while back:

https://mako.cc/copyrighteous/cultivated-disinterest-in-prof...

I'm a nerd and I'm not big into the NBA (although I am into other sports) and I think if you can't figure out what is impressive about Lebron James then I think you're maybe not really trying to.

I don't see the claim that Lebron James is not impressive, but I have no problem with imagining someone having little idea of who he is. Besides, he's nothing compared to Michael Jordan and if you don't know about him then you're just not alive.

>Besides, he's nothing compared to Michael Jordan

He's about to be. He just signed a lifetime deal with Nike[0] which will undoubtedly make him a billionaire, in a similar vein to what Jordan did with the "Air Jordan" brand.

[0] http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2596728-lebron-james-nike...

Nah, not good enough.

On the other hand, no industry shields more rapists and abusers than major sports franchises.

I'm almost certain that that is false. They may be high-profile, but there's only about 2000 players on NFL rosters, 500 on NBA rosters, 750 on MLB rosters, and another 750 on NHL rosters. In the grand scheme of things, that's not that many possible rapists and abusers, compared with the legions of, say, prison guards, or police officers, or lawyers, or soldiers, Catholic priests, or investment bankers.

But they get shielded like no other. See:

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/nfl-controversy/still-playi...

http://www.ranker.com/list/famous-athletes-convicted-of-sexu...

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/nfl/arrests/

The main difference between prison guards, LEO, lawyers, soldiers, is that these people are famous celebrities. They're looked up to as role models.

And for them to be allowed to continue to play after these acts perpetuates a culture of rape and violence.

It's a different kind of entertainment. There's a social aspect to it - it's more fun when you're watching with friends - as well as an attachment kind of thing, when you identify with a team. We all have our own tribalism.

Remember that just because both your passion and someone else's passion are vaguely related to "sports" does not mean they're the same. There are other things people get out of it.

As another example, no one can quite explain the allure behind "Let's Play" videos, for example. Why would someone watch someone else playing videogames?! But they're still growing in popularity.

A beauty of the outdoors is that the outdoors can be whatever you need them to be. Alpinism can be risky, but it needn't be risky nor scary. For many, the right friends, the right view, the right goal, or the right sunrise might define success.

The one thing that does differentiate the mountains from organized sport is that there are situations, both obvious and subtle, that will harm or kill the uninformed without warning or recourse.

Steck and Honnold are absolutely getting paid; they're under intense social and fiscal pressure to perform. I hope they're both still climbing thirty years from now.

Alex Lowe's, 'The best mountaineer in the world is the one having the most fun,' is still true today. At some point, perhaps after an injury or losing a friend, risk for risk's sake loses its appeal, and the search for sustainable joy begins.

But, to reach my real point, if you stroll past a church-league softball game, you'll discover the soul of American sport. It's fun.

It seems like (at least in the US) that there's no overlap between the spectator sports, where people just watch the game and almost never play them casually, and the participation sports, which have almost no spectator component. What are the exceptions—basketball, golf, tennis? Maybe soccer outside the US?

Rugby and cricket do well on the spectator side and pretty healthy participation levels.