In fact, being good at a profession does NOT automatically make you good at describing it, or (if the profession fits) figuring out the odds. Those things are ALSO professions.
As many end up in broadcasting after they retire from their pro sports career, I suppose communications is an option. Not everyone is destined for law, medicine or engineering.
Many early sports broadcasters played but many of those who didn’t had such a love of a sport, they became its most ardent supporters. They defended the players, but also chided them when they went off the sportsmanship path. They were the defenders and the critics. Their personal styles kept listeners coming back game after game. They were almost as famous as the best players and teams. They are missed.
It’s our fault for being so enamored with “top 10” lists and other rankings. These are easy stories to do, and people love them. Who’s not going to check out the occasional “best XXX of 2021” story this month?
Similarly, articles (and barroom discussions) about G.O.A.T.s. Who’s better? LeBron James or Michael Jordan? We’ll never know. All we do know is (1) if there was a time machine both LeBron and Michael, incredibly competitive guys, would want to find out for themselves, and (2) we’d all want to watch.
Communications and other fuzzy subjects are still the go-to paths for a degree for the majority of athletes (and, to be fair, many others as well) where the key to success is parroting the professors’ worldview.
Wonderful to see such self-awareness in our precocious little eight year old, who spends most days passing judgment on his teachers, despite having the life experience of a gnat.
Gee, Caulfield would NEVER do that kind of thing. (By the way, the FULL saying is "Those who can, do. Those who can’t, teach. Those who can’t teach become administrators.’
While the comic may be overgeneralizing some things, I have to agree with Caulfield on one aspect of this. “Presumptuous”, perhaps, is a bit far reaching since some may indeed have sports experience. But to me, “Unnecessary” would be a better word. Western culture in general has become so dependent on others to tell them what to like, dislike, think, feel, and why. Or to listen to these others to define which “sides” there are to pick from, for them. I’ve never seen the need for literary/drama/sports/film/editorial/political/anything-that-isn’t-a-legit-safety-or-health-concern critics, to tell us why we should like or dislike something. There are well-meaning critics out there, I’m sure, but a lot of times the impression is given that all these jobs seem to be for is to allow predominantly negatively-minded people to air their love of finding things wrong with things. And since this started with theatre critics back in the day, we’re conditioned to think we need this kind of stuff just by sheer herd mentality. Why can’t people just be given facts and then left to decide what they like/who’s their favorite/who they think is best, on their own? I mean, I get statistics of performance for a player, but the grading thing is at the bottom still subjective because you can have multiple players good at the same stuff. And you can have someone who’s fantastic but just not fun to watch play for some people while others who are less skilled are just fun to watch anyway. Same goes with movies. At the very least, the public should be allowed a week to view the video BEFORE critics do, and form their own opinions. Critics shouldn’t go first and put preconceived notions in people’s heads. I NEVER read reviews of books or movies or editorial columns or stuff like that before I consume the product, personally.
Bilan over 2 years ago
Those who can, do. Those who can’t, teach … or critique.
Concretionist over 2 years ago
In fact, being good at a profession does NOT automatically make you good at describing it, or (if the profession fits) figuring out the odds. Those things are ALSO professions.
Sanspareil over 2 years ago
In Seattle there was a saying:
Those who can .. do!
Those who can’t .. teach!
Those who can’t do either of those things
Work for Boeing!
bittenbyknittin over 2 years ago
Those who can’t do criticize.
trainnut1956 over 2 years ago
Only because most colleges have dumped Elementary Basket Weaving…
cervelo over 2 years ago
As many end up in broadcasting after they retire from their pro sports career, I suppose communications is an option. Not everyone is destined for law, medicine or engineering.
sandpiper over 2 years ago
Many early sports broadcasters played but many of those who didn’t had such a love of a sport, they became its most ardent supporters. They defended the players, but also chided them when they went off the sportsmanship path. They were the defenders and the critics. Their personal styles kept listeners coming back game after game. They were almost as famous as the best players and teams. They are missed.
Ignatz Premium Member over 2 years ago
Since they’re performing for an audience, it’s completely legitimate for that audience to have an opinion about the quality.
goboboyd over 2 years ago
Yet both have managed to monetize their weaknesses. I’m jealous.
Tallguy over 2 years ago
Nobody should write about movies unless they’ve made a movie either. Just keep extrapolating that out.
mourdac Premium Member over 2 years ago
I’m not quite sure why broadcasters/announcers wears coats/ties. Should be wearing Hawaiian shirts and talking around a BBQ pit.
ZBicyclist Premium Member over 2 years ago
It’s our fault for being so enamored with “top 10” lists and other rankings. These are easy stories to do, and people love them. Who’s not going to check out the occasional “best XXX of 2021” story this month?
Similarly, articles (and barroom discussions) about G.O.A.T.s. Who’s better? LeBron James or Michael Jordan? We’ll never know. All we do know is (1) if there was a time machine both LeBron and Michael, incredibly competitive guys, would want to find out for themselves, and (2) we’d all want to watch.
Nick Danger over 2 years ago
Communications and other fuzzy subjects are still the go-to paths for a degree for the majority of athletes (and, to be fair, many others as well) where the key to success is parroting the professors’ worldview.
Moonkey Premium Member over 2 years ago
Don’t confuse a journalism degree with a communications degree.
Ubermick over 2 years ago
Wonderful to see such self-awareness in our precocious little eight year old, who spends most days passing judgment on his teachers, despite having the life experience of a gnat.
The Orange Mailman over 2 years ago
When you critique those who critique…
Mary McNeil Premium Member over 2 years ago
Gee, Caulfield would NEVER do that kind of thing. (By the way, the FULL saying is "Those who can, do. Those who can’t, teach. Those who can’t teach become administrators.’
Dean Nelson Premium Member over 2 years ago
Joseph Fielding wrote, you don’t have to be a carpenter to recognize a poorly built table.
Emily the Church Pianist over 2 years ago
While the comic may be overgeneralizing some things, I have to agree with Caulfield on one aspect of this. “Presumptuous”, perhaps, is a bit far reaching since some may indeed have sports experience. But to me, “Unnecessary” would be a better word. Western culture in general has become so dependent on others to tell them what to like, dislike, think, feel, and why. Or to listen to these others to define which “sides” there are to pick from, for them. I’ve never seen the need for literary/drama/sports/film/editorial/political/anything-that-isn’t-a-legit-safety-or-health-concern critics, to tell us why we should like or dislike something. There are well-meaning critics out there, I’m sure, but a lot of times the impression is given that all these jobs seem to be for is to allow predominantly negatively-minded people to air their love of finding things wrong with things. And since this started with theatre critics back in the day, we’re conditioned to think we need this kind of stuff just by sheer herd mentality. Why can’t people just be given facts and then left to decide what they like/who’s their favorite/who they think is best, on their own? I mean, I get statistics of performance for a player, but the grading thing is at the bottom still subjective because you can have multiple players good at the same stuff. And you can have someone who’s fantastic but just not fun to watch play for some people while others who are less skilled are just fun to watch anyway. Same goes with movies. At the very least, the public should be allowed a week to view the video BEFORE critics do, and form their own opinions. Critics shouldn’t go first and put preconceived notions in people’s heads. I NEVER read reviews of books or movies or editorial columns or stuff like that before I consume the product, personally.