Hyperbolic Hyperbole
As an annual rite of spring, I am off the grid today as softball season (finally) started. It's been a long winter without the crack of the bats, the sound of a glove snapping as a ball hits the pocket, and the chatter and laughter on the field. I was coaching today under mostly sunny skies as the women's team I'm involved with is looking to get a jump on the season by participating in a season kick-off tournament. There were some new players to work into the lineup while the veteran players came out to bang off the winter rust, and hope was in the air that the tournament would go well without too many season-ending injuries on Day One. In any case, I was off the grid for the majority of the day.
I got sunburned all to hell despite wearing sunblock, so I'm not feeling like writing a long entry, but I want to offer something up to the general media who seem to use hyperbolic terms anytime someone does something slightly athletic on the ice. Specifically, I'm talking about the move that Connor McDavid put on Sami Vatanen that was, undoubtedly, athletic, but it certainly wasn't some "CONNOR MCJESUS BURNS VATANEN WITH BEST. MOVE. EVER."-type play. It was nice, but it's not going to win any awards.
The play in question is as follows.
The cut-back on Vatanen was nice. The goal wasn't particularly amazing aside from being a hard wrist shot. In tandem, it was an athletic play. Yet I have seen the following words used to describe McDavid's goal: breathtaking, filthy, ridiculous, tremendous, splendid. Ok, the last work might work when describing this goal, but "breathtaking"? "Filthy"? C'mon, media.
The athletic cut-back was the move. Had Gibson made the glove save or had Shea Theodore moved in front of McDavid to block the shot, would we even be talking about this? I'm guessing no. And this isn't a rip on McDavid either as the cut-back, as stated above, was impressive. It's about the media's obsession with hyperbole and how a simple cut-back - a move seen a number of times per game - is suddenly a life-altering move in the sports universe.
I'll give McDavid his credit - nice move, great shot, good goal. Was it "ridiculous"? No. Was it "breathtaking"? Not even close. So in the future, let's just tone it down with the idolization of Connor McDavid a little, media. Everyone will be better off for it.
Until next time, keep your sticks on the ice!
I got sunburned all to hell despite wearing sunblock, so I'm not feeling like writing a long entry, but I want to offer something up to the general media who seem to use hyperbolic terms anytime someone does something slightly athletic on the ice. Specifically, I'm talking about the move that Connor McDavid put on Sami Vatanen that was, undoubtedly, athletic, but it certainly wasn't some "CONNOR MCJESUS BURNS VATANEN WITH BEST. MOVE. EVER."-type play. It was nice, but it's not going to win any awards.
The play in question is as follows.
The cut-back on Vatanen was nice. The goal wasn't particularly amazing aside from being a hard wrist shot. In tandem, it was an athletic play. Yet I have seen the following words used to describe McDavid's goal: breathtaking, filthy, ridiculous, tremendous, splendid. Ok, the last work might work when describing this goal, but "breathtaking"? "Filthy"? C'mon, media.
The athletic cut-back was the move. Had Gibson made the glove save or had Shea Theodore moved in front of McDavid to block the shot, would we even be talking about this? I'm guessing no. And this isn't a rip on McDavid either as the cut-back, as stated above, was impressive. It's about the media's obsession with hyperbole and how a simple cut-back - a move seen a number of times per game - is suddenly a life-altering move in the sports universe.
I'll give McDavid his credit - nice move, great shot, good goal. Was it "ridiculous"? No. Was it "breathtaking"? Not even close. So in the future, let's just tone it down with the idolization of Connor McDavid a little, media. Everyone will be better off for it.
Until next time, keep your sticks on the ice!
No comments:
Post a Comment