The question was to someone else, but I don't "judge" disabled sport against anything, it's just that for the most part, I don't want to watch it. The trouble is, how to know, let alone articulate, the reasons for that. Let me try with one example - sprinting. Why do I watch sprinting? Well, for the most part, I don't. But I will watch it at major Championships, and I'll also watch lesser athletics meets if there's nothing else on, on the basis that there's always some better class athlete or two that you've heard of, and there are likely to be plenty of up-and-coming ones for the future that I haven't heard of.

What then of a sprint competition for amputees? Well, for a start, I am in awe of the sheer bloody-mindedness of the human spirit to overcome all sorts of disabilities or mutilations or handicaps,and against the odds, become a true athlete. The mere fact that there are pathways to elite competitions (and of course many more lower level ones) is great. So why don't I want to watch it?

My answer is that as far as I can work it out, I watch sprinting for entertainment. And whilst watching disabled people beating the odds may engender all sorts of emotions, I feel uneasy at watching them sprint for my entertainment, and I am not entertained. Impressed - yes. Humbled - yes. But I don't find it entertaining.

But, it's not as simple as that. I've watched wheelchair rugby, and find it very entertaining. (The fact that not all competitors are necessarily disabled is not, I think, anything to do with it). So why is that different? I struggle to know.


This is a lot easier. I watched a lot of that, and I think it is watchable both because at that level they are actually very skilful, and because the teams are evenly matched, within reason. This is similar to watching rugby league. A game at Batley, or Dudley Hill can be just as entertaining as a much higher quality clash between say Brisbane and Melbourne because the nature of the game is confrontational and you just need to outwit, outmuscle or outplay your opponents, you don't need to be the world's best. But, and just like Batley or Dudley Hill, it is not a mass spectator sport because those not with some connection with the team, club or players can watch far better class sport, or find something else to do. So you may get 10,000 at Odsal, but you can guarantee you won't get 10,000 at Dudley Hill.

People without a personal reason to watch the game are not likely to.

Garth Crooks may well be astonished at the standard of women's football, but everyone knows that any of those teams would be annihilated at so many levels of football, and in the overall context of football, they're not very good at all.


Interesting point. The first problem is that in most major sports men do not compete with women, and this immediately marks the women's version as inferior. Why do practically no women compete at top level? Even in non-contact sports such as golf, or even sport-pastimes such as darts or snooker, the top men are at least a level above the odd top female player.

The reason you don't for the overwhelming majority of events have open competition is because the men would win everything and the women would win nothing. This means that if you want to watch the best, you will be watching the men.

I assume that this is unlikely to change as in contact sports or power sports, predominantly the strongest and biggest will always be males, and in other sports and pastimes, there is just not the sheer weight of numbers at grass roots level who give a toss about playing, so you are unlikely to get any more than the isolated top-class competitor and while that isolated case may be high level, will be highly statistically unlikely to rise to the top level. See Dobromyslova in darts, who qualified for the World Championships twice, but lost in the preliminaries both times (despite once beating Vincent van der Voort, and almost causing Wayne Mardle to pack the game in); or in snooker Reanne Evans, 7 years as Womens World Champion, but finished bottom of the professional rankings and failed to qualify the next year.

And one final remark - are female sports taken that much less seriously by the media than rugby league is? I'm not sure they are.

As I just posted on the other forum, the reason for no female nominations is simple, nobody cares for women's sport, because, in general, its pretty awful, standard-wise, and apart from those involved with the participants, nobody watches.

Its like amateur RL outside the heartlands....People say how the amateur game is flourishing, yet, in reality, its just those who are playing who care for it - Spectator-wise, it barely registers.

No, you're wrong, the reason why there are no women on the list is because everybody in the sporting and journo worlds are just sexist, they hate women, women's sports, and actively spend their lives looking for opportunities to beat down women

True story

Slightly related, this need to include every type of sex colour and religion in ever aspect of life does get on my moobs, it should always be about whoever is the best at what ever it is, and if you don't fit that, welcome to the real world and how nature should be.

Precisely, winners/candidates should be there on merit, same as jobs should be given to applicants based on ability not race/gender/sexuality.

I'd say winning a world championship showed some merit, at least.

Granted, but with SPOTY that's not really what it's about

Especially when compared to a whingeing jock who, at the very best, only manages to come 2nd, more usually 3rd or 4th

You can take this back, perhaps, to the end of Grandstand and the decision within BBC Sport to concentrate coverage on 'crown jewel' events that 'grab the nation's attention' and other such nonsense. While we may have tuned into Grandstand to watch the rugby or whatever other big event, around it you got to see minority stuff - hockey (field and ice), netball, basketball, badminton, judo and the like - now you rarely, if ever, see them on the BBC. I don't believe the odd hockey or basketball match on Sky will drive too many subscriptions their way either.

Now if it's not the 6 Nations or Wimbledon, it's hard to get a look in when the BBC has shoved all it's cash that way. Not rose-tinted spectacles.

Sports Personality, clue's in the title, if you're not in the public eye/conscience how can you be considered a 'personality'?