1/26/05: The Lumbergh Effect

I assume you've all seen Office Space.  Even if you haven't, I'm sure you're intimately familiar with the condescending boss Lumbergh, played by Gary Cole.  In fact, you know just about each and every one of his lines, because some asshole in your office just can't get enough of quoting that movie.  I admit it, it's pretty quotable.  I've done it myself around 700 times.  But it gets annoying after awhile.  The point is, with its successful lampooning of Office Life in general and smarmy bosses in particular, Office Space has actually made Office Life more unbearable on a certain level. Because now you've got thousands of schmucky workers running around spewing annoying dialogue.  The good thing is that the movie is so effective and its annoying legions of quoting disciples are so widespread, even the least self-aware bosses have probably overheard the Lumberghisms and are now chekkity-checking themselves.  So the net effect on a universal level may be zero: Lumbergh might have straightened out a few bosses, but he's made us worker bees a more annoying bunch at the same time.

A while back, I made a list of what makes a sport legitimate, what separates real sports from fun little games. Like most of the stuff I say on here, it was poorly thought out but said with a sense of real authority.  It went something like this:

10 Things That Make a Sport Legit:

1. Is it fun to play? Would you do it for free? Does it feel good in and of itself (smashing a baseball, dunking a basketball) or only when you win (running)?
2. Is it fun to watch? Is there something inherently pleasing about watching the sport performed well? Does it have a rhythm?
3. Is skill (practiced moves, intellectual creativity, etc.) as important (or almost as important) a factor in success at the sport as God-given physicality? I like God-given physicality, too, but watching a small man beat a big one always stirs my drink. And as I get older, I identify with the broken-down codgers who still get it done (Agassi).
4. Is there room for genius, meaning do some athletes in the sport (McEnroe, Jordan, Barry Sanders) paint a vastly more beautiful and intriguing picture than others, or does everybody sort of look the same while playing (Mark Spitz, Lance Armstrong, Laffit Pincay, Jr.)?
5. Is the sport accessible to and embraced by all people? Or is it largely made up of wealthy white dudes (golf) or dumb white dudes (Nascar)? Are the athletes in this sport really the best at it, or are they the only ones interested/well-connected enough to participate? Does the sport have an international appeal, bringing in the best the world has to offer?
6. Is the sport so deeply flawed or outdated in concept (boxing, bullfighting) that no amount of arguing about its "purity" or "simplicity" can justify it in my mind?
7. Does an athlete's physical conditioning have next to zero role in his or her success (billiards, golf, bowling, yachting)? This has nothing to do with how much I like the activity, but it does make me question its claim to sport-hood.
8. If you started practicing right now, could you theoretically be a professional within two years? If so, major demerits.
9. Are people who are good at the sport good at sports in general (Deion Sanders, Dave DeBusschere), or are they specialists who have only mastered their one particular craft (Tara Lipinsky, Tony Hawk)?
10. How ridiculous would you look trash-talking in the particular sport?

Sort of holds up. Anyway, I was flipping through the channels this weekend waiting for the football games to come on, and there was a little PBA bowling on. I love bowling.  Who doesn't? Of course, its claim to sport status is somewhat dubious, using the above list or just your own gut instinct.  In fact, I would add two more items to the list, further weakening bowling's case for calling itself a sport. 

11. Do most of the people who play the sport recreationally do it while intoxicated? If so, does this measurably diminish their skill level?  (bowling loses points with the answers of "yes" and "not a bit")
12. Is there any strategy involved?

It was while watching the bowling the other day that I pondered this.  As far as I can tell, bowling is completely devoid of strategy.  Every time you go down the lane, your goal is the same: knock down all the pins.  There's never a time when you try to hit 7 pins to set up a spare or anything.  Nope.  Just knock down the fucking pins. There's also no art to it (at least at the professional level).  You never see a guy go up there and do a behind-the-back shot or a no-look.  Same damn thing every time.  The conditions don't really change much, either.  They never widen the lane or move the pins further away. Nope. I'm sure some lanes are greasier than others, but pretty much you just go up there and do the same thing every single time.  In fact, bowling at the amateur level is somewhat more entertaining than the pros because the conditions DO change and people do try to spice up their game a bit.  Hey, look at Ron -- he's so shit-housed he's bowling with his feet!

I know the pro bowlers try to liven up the viewing experience for fans by being very demonstrative after a big shot. Screaming, pointing, dancing, pulling out the Butch Johnson six-guns. But I think you have to be pretty stupid not to realize that all the guy did was knock down the pins.  Nothing special.  He'll probably do it again with his next ball. 

Anyway, right as I was having these thoughts, one of the bowlers, who had a big lead over the other bowler, went up to roll his ball with a chance to really put the match out of reach.  Here's the announcer's presumably straight-faced call.