i completely understand how tech it is, and how hard it is to do some of the stuff the pros do. the thing i don't understand is why people can say that it is just as extreme or more extreme than something where people are risking their life's trying things instead of risking a swollen ankle for a week. now this brings me to my next food for thought. the bigger things that skateboarders do (mega ramps ect.) seem to, for the most part, let pros bail without much harm if need be. they can slide down on their knees and be ok. i don't think anyone hitting the JOSS jumps last week could have bail half way through a trick and been ok with landing on their knees.
i think my problem may be that i think tat the size or sheer risk makes whatever it is a lot more impressive. this is probably why my argument is the way it is, but it is also the way the action sports genre should be because there every sport requires technical difficulty to be good at to succeed in it. so I guess thats what i think should distinguish us from the rest or sports.
i know i will get hate for this, and I'm willing to receive it as long as you can back your points up with logical explanations. i would also like people who agree to post and say why, or to back me up so i know I'm not the only one with these thoughts.
MOST IMPORTANTLY i would never be saying any of this if skateboarding was a smaller sport than any of the other ones i have named. but the fact is, i think its probably the biggest action sport (4 famous teen types: skater, geek, jock, gangster imo), so it kind of represents our culture. so basically what I'm saying is, is this really the right sport to represent us?
SPARKNOTED: the defining attribute of action sports should be risk because every sport requires talent, but not always risk. so why is skateboarding at the forefront of the our genre of sports if most of the stuff done is only a risk on injury (like every sport has) but not necessarily in a serious way or death?
