Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: 19h 30m 43.3s, +27° 57' 3
Do You Follow the Players, or the Game?
There have been a lot of discussions here about how to fix what is perceived to be an ailing sport. One of the tactics discussed is to market the players better, so that the public gets to know them better-- and will be more inclined to follow them-- as individuals.
Lately, the discussions involve (in part) getting players healthy and making them honor their commitments, so that tournaments don't get slammed when players pull out. The damage is done, ironically, when the popular players-- the ones the public knows-- don't play; ticket sales can fall off if the top two players in a tournament don't make it (for whatever reason) or even show up and lose early. It's only natural for the public to want to see the big-name players; we do it ourselves here on the forum. How often have posters commented that they're no longer interested in a tournament because their favorite players lost or didn't play?
So here's the question: if all of the players you follow closely skip a tournament or lose early, do you still follow the results of that tournament? (I'm not talking about Tier XVI tournaments; I'm talking about, say, Tier III and up.) Does the game interest you even when the players who do so aren't in it?
(There are only two choices for a reason. Be honest.)
"If you practice for ten years, you may begin to please yourself, after 20 years you may become a performer and please the audience, after 30 years you may please even your guru, but you must practice for many more years before you finally become a true artist—then you may please even God." --Ali Akbar Khan, 1922-2009