Why is recorded, non-live sports so boring to watch?

There is a new essay by Chuck Klosterman.  He lists several reasons why watching recorded sports events is such a downer, but he lays heaviest stress on a Bayesian argument:

2. “If this game has already ended and I don’t know anything about what happened, it was probably just a game”: This sentence is so obvious that it’s almost nonsensical, but I suspect it’s the one point that matters most. It’s the central premise behind the entire concept of “liveness,” which is what this whole problem comes down to.

…When you watch an event in real time, anything is possible. Someone could die. Something that has never before happened could spontaneously happen twice. When there are three seconds on the clock, not one person in the world can precisely predict how those seconds will unspool. But if something happens within those three seconds that is authentically astonishing and truly transcendent — well, I’m sure I’ll find out about three minutes after it happens. I’m sure someone will tell me, possibly by accident. You can avoid the news, but you can’t avoid The News. Living in a cave isn’t enough. We’ve beaten the caves. The caves have Wi-Fi.

Do you watch the live, non-recorded performance and enjoy the hope of a Black Swan?  The essay is interesting throughout.  I thank a  loyal MR reader for the pointer.


Comments for this post are closed