The Avengers: Valuable Movies

The Avengers is one of the most popular superhero movies ever created, and even considered by some to be the best of the MCU (Marvel Cinematic Universe) movies. When it first came out, I admit that I had fun and enjoyed seeing this superhero team in action. However, I also considered the movie to be average in terms of plot and thought. Even when the movie tries to surprise me, I found myself predicting what the characters were going to do next. Also many of the stakes are low when you know that none of these heroes are at the risk of death.

So, I often considered The Avengers to be overrated and not as great as everyone else seems to make it out to be. I wanted to give it another chance (or should I say, a 4th or 5th chance) and watched it again recently to see just how 'good' or 'great' The Avengers really is. These ratings are now higher than what they would have been in my initial viewings when the movie first came out.

Artistic Value (Rating: 4)

The MCU movies are made so that fictional illustrations can become reality, and indeed The Avengers succeeds in doing that. Whether it is seeing Iron Man fly around or Captain America fighting off the bad guys or even seeing the Hulk crashing through a tunnel, it all looks as realistic as possible. Even with the fantastical elements involved with Thor and Loki, or the alien invasion army, the movie is made in such a way that it looks like it really could happen if we walk outside.

The color palette is also bright and diverse. Between the reds, the blues, and the greens in the team's appearance, you get a lot more vivid colors happening here compared to the DC movies or even some of the MCU movies later on, which tone down the brightness and diversity a little. The choice to stay away from Hawkeye's classic purple suit took me out of the movie a bit at first, but then once I realized his character was essentially a black ops military agent, then his all black attire made more sense.

The technology inside the movie is also well crafted. It is meant to look fancy, expensive, and just a little beyond our current capabilities, all while still seeming possible. The movie also gives the new technology good reason for acting the way it does. The floating fortress helicarrier of S.H.I.E.L.D. uses cloaking technology, but the cloaking comes from using mirrors to refract light instead of just saying 'We pressed a button and now we're invisible'. Iron Man's latest suit can attach to his whole body even when he is falling through the air, but it shows that he has to wear specific devices and the suit has to scan his body before it can fit him.

I went back and forth on whether to rate the value at 4 or 5. Part of the problem is most of my criticisms are nitpicking, but there's enough collective nitpicks plus some minor peeves to keep this movie from being close to artistically perfect. Most people have pointed out how unrealistic it was for the heroes to be communicating to each other without actual earpieces and microphones. Another detractor from the realism is Bruce Banner's random ability to control his transformation in the Hulk for the New York battle. If he could control this ability, why couldn't he stop himself from transforming on the helicarrier or why was he worried about being around people? Banner's conflict comes from his inability to control the Hulk transformations and when the script decides to take that away just for the sake of cool fighting scenes. This movie shoots for ultra-realism, but this minor communication feature is a major flaw in realism. Even with some cool slow-mo punches and a cool extended-take action scene during the New York battle, most of the actual fights were choppy and cut up. I take off some points for some of the make-up that didn't work, such as Loki's appearance in the beginning when he transports into S.H.I.E.L.D's base. These nitpicks are what make the Artistic Value a 4.

Moral Value (Rating: 3)

Here is the tricky part involved with any superhero movie. Are the superheroes the justifiable good guys? Are these role models for kids, and for adults even, to look up to? Some of these more ethical based questions get examined in future movies, but here the lines are just kind of generically established about who fights for good and who fights for evil. Loki is the definitive bad guy, as are the aliens that he works with, while the Avengers just kind of take the hero mantle since they are Loki's oppoinents. These lines are pretty blurry though, when one of the members of the Avengers, Hawkeye, spends 2/3s of the movie brainwashed into working for the villain and also when S.H.I.E.L.D's Phase 2 secrets become revealed.

When it comes to the final battle in New York, the good guys take some questionable actions to do what they need to do. For one thing, the council in charge of S.H.I.E.L.D has a nuclear missile fired upon the city, claiming that destroying the city is for the greater good of stopping the alien army, even if it means killing many innocent civilians. The other thing is the Avengers willingly destroy much of the city's buildings and property in order to defeat their opponents, again trying to save the world but also putting innocent lives at risk with the rubble and destruction. It's frustrating that people give DC so much trouble for all of the destruction that Superman causes, especially in Man of Steel, but I've never really heard any complaints about the destruction from the Avengers.

The PG-13 rating is warranted based on the level of action and violence involved, as well as some references made especially by Tony Stark. The violence wants to be realistic (Loki kills a whole bunch of nameless soldiers right out of the gate) but since it is a movie aimed at a wide age range, it does not have the guts to show...the guts and gore involved in killing. This is perhaps the least realistic part of the movie. It wants to pretend to be a fictional cartoon to get away with the violence even though it otherwise wants as much realism on display as possible.

Tony Stark is a problematic superhero role model because he shouldn't really be a role model based on his characteristics. He has not really seemed to turn away from the alcoholic, playboy lifestyle that was established for him in Iron Man. His snarky, selfish attitude is not really something for kids to emulate, even though our internet-age young adults seem magnetized to that kind of person as influential. Yet, the character arc given to Tony allows him to make up for this character flaw by being willing to sacrifice himself when the nuclear missile threatens New York.

I think one of the positive moral factors in this movie is Hawkeye's story of redemption. I do not think people give him enough credit for being a knowledgeable and skillful member of the Avengers team just because he does not have anything comparatively extraordinary about him. However, while under the control of Loki, Hawkeye is able to come up with plans just as well as Loki does on how to distract or take out the Avengers . He is able to infiltrate the S.H.I.E.L.D helicarrier and successfully lead men into defeating the team. After his encounter with Black Widow, the mind control is lost. Hawkeye knows he helped the villain and hindered the protagonists. He seeks revenge on Loki in the New York battle, but in doing so he helps make up for his mistakes throughout the movie. His skills may not be as heavy-hitting or as flashy as the others, but he is still able to give the team visual guidance and use his skills as an archer to take out as many enemies as possible. Heck, he almost snipes Loki and had he not been a super-powered magical alien, Loki would have died.

So yeah, the confusing imbalance between the complexity and simplicity of the characters' ethical trait detracts from the morality rating. While this is ultimately a good versus evil story, it's not necessarily a light versus darkness story, which is where some of the latter movies improve on.

Voice on Movies: Interview with Steve Donahue

Today I want to talk about somebody else with other ideas than my own. So may I introduce you to one of my best friends, Steve Donahue. Steve and I first met in high school when we were cast in a one-act play together. Steve has remained a steady and good friend throughout the years and is one of the few people from high school that I spend time with as often as possible. Even when I've been out of town on some crazy adventure in the west or even after he became married to his lovely wife Madalyn, Steve and I make an effort to catch up, eat food, have a laugh, and continue to be in each other's lives. A fellow Christian as well as movie fan, Steve has exercised his writing craftsmanship this past year by creating a movie review blog. Below are some questions I had for Steve at our most recent get-together and his responses.

Steve, thank you very much for sitting down for this chit-chat on movies. Thank you, Steve, for your friendship.

P.S.-I have added links at the end to some of Steve's articles as well as some of my own articles regarding movies for additional food for thought. There are multiple references in this interview to reviews that Steve has written and are worth checking out.

What inspired you to review movies?

There was an extreme need that I had to start writing again; everyone told me that I need to keep practicing writing because I was good at it. But I never practiced it.

I've been watching Youtube reviewers for over half a decade now, so I decided to combine both of those things because I like writing about movies and writing in general. I decided that was something I could focus on.

Where does your love and enjoyment of movies come from?

Part of it does come from actually watching movie reviews and enjoying analyzing the movies. I'm very fond of the idea of seeing movies as an art form and a form of storytelling.

I think movies are more interesting than reading a book. I know that's not the popular opinion.

It's also less time consuming than reading or playing videogames… and watching TV shows for that matter even though I do review some TV shows.

For your reviews, you grade movies on a 1-10 scale, with 1 being the worst, 5 being average, and 10 being the best. Why do you use that scale instead of a letter grading system or smaller number scale like 1-5?

In regards to how I think about movies being rated, I think certain rating systems are too generalized because they don't have enough ratings. Then there's ones that are so diluted by so many ratings that it almost loses meaning. There's some reviewers I respect that use 4 or 5 star ratings.

Everybody that I know of that uses the letter grading system suffers from dilution. What comes to mind is especially Chris Stuckmann [a Youtube movie reviewer]. He reviewed three separate movies and it seemed like he had equally negative things to say about all of them and he gave one a D+, one a C-, and one a B-, and I was like "I don't know what your rating system means, man".

I think the 1-10 system is a perfect mixture of generalization and specificness. There's some people, my brother included, that uses the 1-10 system but adds 0.5s like 6.5 and I think that causes dilution...I wonder if dilution is the right word…If you have too many ratings, things start getting confusing.

On top of that, my favorite reviewer also uses 1-10.

Do you know what your favorite movie of 2016 so far?

So far it's Swiss Army Man. I think the movie is so well performed that it successfully made me feel almost every single emotion. The emotional connection for me came from just relating to the characters as well. I mean, I didn't just rate it a 10/10 cause I could relate to the characters but because the performances were great. The soundtrack was done in a very unique way. There was a lot of stuff that was thought provoking about [the movie]. I wouldn't even say I agree with all the messages that Swiss Army Man even had, but I just enjoyed it so much and I thought the movie was satisfying enough to merit that rating, and there hasn't been a rating that's come closer to that yet. It's funny...I've talked to a few people who have tried Swiss Army Man and they either really really love it or they turn it off after 20 minutes because they totally didn't get it so I wouldn't call it a perfect movie for everybody.

How does your Christian faith influence the way you watch and review movies?

I think the way that my faith affects it the most is that my faith affects my worldview, and my worldview affects how I view truth, and so a lot of times...really the biggest way it affects how I view movies is based on what message is being sent because of the movie. Aside from that though, I try not to make my beliefs color the way I see a movie. There's an article I wrote and part of it I talk about how there's some moral beliefs in every movie that I've disagreed with that fall on almost every single rating. I've given a 1/10 to a movie I morally disagree with, and I think Swiss Army Man is a movie that, in some ways, I morally disagree with. So judging a movie for me means being as objective as I can and as fair to a movie as I can. So if I don't like what a movie is saying I don't immediately discredit it [unless there’s other things I have problems with].

A lot of the Christian movies I review, I try to review on the quality of the film-making and not just on the message. Otherwise, I’d probably give it a higher rating. A vast majority of Christian movies I've seen aren't good.

Are there any Christian movies made in the past 10-20 years that you like or recommend?

Typically if it's a [recommendable] Christian movie, it has Christian undertones. I would argue that Lord of the Rings is one of those kinds of movies that has those distinct influences. It's not 10-20 years ago, but I did enjoy Ben-Hur. Not the 2016 Ben-Hur, I thought that one sucked, but the Charlton Heston one. I mean, it was a bit overly long and some of the parts could've been cut out and it would've made a much more tighter movie but the overall performances of the movie were good… I don't know if it's because I'm used to seeing movies in the 2000s but it was a very unique experience. 

The Book of Eli would be on that list since it's technically sort of about the Bible. Is there anything that's come out that was actually a Christian movie? I can't think of anything.

[I forgot Risen. That movie was pretty good.]

There are many movies that you have reviewed and given a 2 or a 3, something low. Do you ever feel like you're torturing yourself watching some of these disasters? Like a bad comedy is the schoolyard bully and it makes you punch yourself in the head while it taunts 'Stop hitting yourself'?

[Laughs] The most torturous movies are the 1 out of 10s. I can truly say that almost every 1/10 was a torturous experience. 2 out of 10s...I think Turbo Kid was extremely painful. I don't know if I'd say Batman v Superman was a torturous experience, I was extraordinarily wowed by just how bad it was. Like my mouth was ajar and I wondered "How in the world are they doing so bad at this?". I guess I wouldn't say 3 out of 10s are normally torturous, but I’d call them more obnoxious. They're not the schoolyard bully, they're more like the kid that just won't leave you alone.

Do you think there's any appeal in movies that are "so bad they're good"?

Absolutely. At the end of my review for Sleeping Beauty (2014), I said I simultaneously loved and hated that movie because it was so bad but I was laughing so hard because it was really funny. Another movie was Gods of Egypt...the amount of boring parts in Gods of Egypt far surpass the unintentional humor but I still thought it was fun to watch.

[What makes moves that are "so bad they're good" fun to watch] is because of the unintentional comedy. Usually when they say it's so bad it's good, they're talking about how the movie's hilarious but it wasn't their intention to be funny. Aside from that, the only other movies I can think of, I wouldn't call them "so bad they're good", they were terrible despite being entertaining are The Purge: Election Year, which was an awful, unsubtle movie but it was a lot of fun, and Independence Day: Resurgence had probably one of the cheesiest scripts I've seen in awhile, but explosions are fun.

What is your favorite thing about going to the movie theater?

This is hard because I wouldn't say "Oh, there's a community" because I usually go to movie theaters alone by myself. Honestly the best thing about going to the movie theater is that it provides me material for something to write about. The primary reason why I see so many movies is so I can write about it because I think I'm good at it.

And the inevitable follow-up question: What is your least favorite thing about going to the movie theater?

Dealing with the employees. You can tell they're being paid minimum wage because none of them care. I think I did a tweet about how ticket rippers have the easiest job in the world but they always manage to screw it up. I collect movie ticket stubs and there's probably a bunch in there that aren't perfectly ripped. I mean it's not so bad I wouldn’t go to Wehrenberg Chesterfield ever again but I mean I've reviewed 90 movies in the theater so far. I don’t remember any of the people there and none of them remember me, they always seem so disinterested. Honestly if there was a movie theater that charged a little bit more but had a more pleasant experience I would probably go, and I'm one who loves cheap movie tickets. I dislike terrible employees more than I dislike terrible movies because at least with terrible movies, I have something to write about.

Do you have any movie favorites at the moment? Favorite director, favorite actor, favorite genre, etc?

I haven't really seen anybody that's been consistently awesome. One person that I did want to search into more, because everyone says I should search into him more, is Wes Anderson. I think Moonrise Kingdom is one of the best movies that you could watch on Netflix right now. I've heard great things about Fantastic Mr. Fox, I've heard great things about The Grand Budapest Hotel, and I want to see all of them but I haven't given myself time to find them out. Besides that...I mean, there's some actors that give me a reason to think that the movie will be better. Bryan Cranston is one of them, even though he's going to be in a comedy with James Franco and it doesn't look good at all. To be quite honest, man, there hasn't been an actor or a director or genre that has consistently been good with me. I think every single one, except for those few classic directors, have the propensity to suck at one point or another or at least not be very exceptional.

If you had the power to stop Hollywood movies from using one terrible cliché, which would it be?

Only one?! Oh my goodness....Let me think...

One of them I'm getting a little tired of is every single movie demanding some of sort of strong-independent-female-character. It's almost becoming a meme because I think the vast majority of movies I've seen you have at least one female character whose sole defining trait is that she doesn't need any man's help and she'll prove it at one point in the movie. It's not that I hate that cliché [character]. In fact I think it's good, but they're using it so much that it's almost becoming meaningless. I can think of so many movies that have done this and some of them have become worse because they did it. Now You See Me 2, Warcraft has a little bit of that in it, I mean obviously Ghostbusters, Star Trek Beyond had it, The Purge: Election Year, The Legend of Tarzan, Independence Day: Resurgence had a little bit of it, Alice Through the Looking Glass...do you want more?...It's super forced.

I don't know how political I want to get, but you can tell there's a very strong influence that modern third wave feminism is having on culture because that’s the only reason I can think of why it almost seems like it has to appear in every movie.

I feel bad that I have this criticism because I don't want it to seem like this character type is a bad thing to have in your movie. It's just becoming overused to the point where it's not special anymore.

Must See Relevant Blog Posts

Steve's Blog

Our Conversation on 'Sicario'

Things Steve Hates in Movies (Part 1)

Swiss Army Man Review

My Blog

10 Catholic Movies

Movies with Value

My 5 Favorite Disney Movies

Valuable Movies Series Intro & Hail, Caesar!

Here is hopefully the start of another series of blog posts, in an attempt to get me to write on a more regular basis. My focus of these posts will be movies (and sometimes TV shows) because I love visual entertainment. My hope is to take a movie (generally a popular one) and rate it by examining the artistic and moral values found in it. I wrote a couple of posts a while back explaining the necessity for movies with value and the need to spend our time watching good movies (which have high artistic and moral standards). By looking at popular movie and TV selections, I hope to give an accurate rating as to whether we are really spending our time on good entertainment. While my examination of artistic and moral value will be flexible, I will be trying to follow these questions:

"Artistic value can be judged based on the following questions: Does it look good aesthetically, whether it is an animated movie or because of the direction and cinematography? Does the theme say something honest or truthful about the human condition? Does it have a good reason for existing?

Moral value can be evaluated based on these levels: Can this/ should this be seen by families? Is there a sensible reason for it to be made for adults or teens only? If religious, does it present spiritual truths well? Does the movie uphold natural understanding of what is good, true, and beautiful in the world? If there is a focus on a negative subject, does the positive good overcome in the end?"

What will my rating system be? I want to try to be unique enough but I also want to use something that's easy to understand in a visual form. Steven D. Greydanus, perhaps my favorite film critic and creator of the Decent Films movie review website, has multiple levels to his rating system. For the overall grade, he uses the letter grading system. He too grades movies based on Artistic/Entertainment Value and Moral/Spiritual Value and I am sure that is part of where my  rating system and definitions comes from. For the Artistic Value he uses a 5 star rating system and for the Moral Value he uses a +/- number system. My friend Steve Donahue, who also reviews popular movies, uses a 1-10 system, but perhaps that is too big for something like this. 

So, I think I will use a 0-5 system, with 0 being the worst, 5 being the best, and with 2.5 being average as well as the only time I use a .5 in my ratings.

I wanted to do a quick examination to provide an example of this series idea. So I will rate the values of Hail, Caesar!, the latest Coen Brothers release. While not really a popular movie, I did rewatch it recently and the Coen Bros are a popular enough team, so this gives me something to work on.

Artistic Value (Rating: 3) 

Hail, Caesar! is a very sharp, bright movie. All of the colors and textures pop off the screen. There is also a wonderful recreation of 1950s Hollywood. From the costumes, the cars, and especially the dialogue, this place in the past is brought to reality. Hail, Caesar! examines what life in Hollywood was like for the people who created entertaining media and it also provides the Coen Brothers an opportunity to examine their own life in Hollywood today. People gave this movie trouble for feeling disjointed because it features vignettes or scenes of stories that quickly cut back from one focus to another. However, we have to remember that a single day of our lives can be disjointed, broken up into odd little moments that may not directly connect from one event to another, but they tell a full story of our experience for that day.

Multiple genres are represented in this movie, from biblical epics to westerns to musicals. While each presentation is a caricature of the genre, the atmosphere, pacing, and acting style unique to each genre are all brought out well. It's fun to see everything happening on set, whether it is how the actors move and perform dialogue or whether it is all the camera and microphone people rolling around just a few feet away. It's not often for us to see what is happening off screen while cameras are rolling, and again this is all done with proper representation of the time period.

My caveats or critiques of the artistic value of this movie does go back to the different movie genres. While Hail, Caesar! does try to recreate the different look of past movies, they still look brand new. Even when the footage is in black and white or grainy, it still looks too crisp for the time period. Modern technology offers us the opportunity to not just recreate a style like an homage, but also to really create the style again as if we are using the same cameras from 60 years ago. The other detractor for me involves the secretive group known as 'The Future'. These scenes tend to slow down the movie and drag for me. This is probably because there is so much philosophical, high intellectual jargon being thrown around that it's hard to fully comprehend everything. The biggest problem is that 'The Future' is supposed to be the main conflict and also where a lot of the thematic ideas come from but it is the least interesting thing in the movie to me.

Moral Value (Rating: 2.5)

There is a reason for this movie to be rated PG-13, but ultimately that's because the ideas, the setting, and the topics of conversation would really confuse and bore anyone that wasn't at least in high school or college age, and even then those things can still be confusing. The MPAA rated the movie PG-13 for Some Sexual Content, and this movie does involve dialogue that is either specifically sexual or at least an innuendo, or rather there is one extended innuendo in the dancing number. The PG-13 was also given for Smoking, but I've never really considered that a reason to keep a movie away from the kids because a lot of older movies and cartoons featured smoking and I don't think those were heavy factors in current smoking habits. 

This movie acts like all major Hollywood stars during its Golden Age were sexually immoral drunkards and while I don't know enough about the real stars and the real Hollywood back during the 40s and 50s, I doubt that this can fully apply to each big movie star during this time period. Also, there is a brief discussion of theology between different Christian leaders, as well as a Rabbi, in the first quarter of the movie, which provides some humor, but can also cause some confusion for viewers that are not either Christian or Jewish or perhaps just do not have a lot of understanding of both theologies.

The biggest place Moral Value comes in to play is the main character Eddie Mannix (Josh Brolin). On the one hand, the man slaps a woman early on in the movie, he purposefully lies or covers the truth multiple times in order to protect the movie studio, the actors, and himself, and even though he says he wants to be a family man, he is hardly at home and we never see him with the kids when they are awake. This is a deceitful man who easily states big lies, even if he does mean well. On the other hand, he is a Catholic man striving for a solid moral life. He is repentant enough to receive the Sacrament of Reconciliation two times in about the span of one day, he prays with his rosary when he is in most need, he protects the studio actors and directors from public ridicule and scandal, and he really does know what is going on in his family's life and he genuinely cares enough about the welfare of his family to ask questions when he needs to know something.

The way that the character of Eddie Mannix is written is perhaps what rubs me the wrong way and this is big. He is supposed to be a Catholic, and we're inclined to believe he has more devotion than what we might consider a cafeteria Catholic today, but when a Catholic priest refers to Jesus Christ as 'The Son of God' and Mannix replies 'Not sure I follow, padre', that confuses me. This Catholic man is all too willing to devote himself to a life of lies and deceits in order to fix problems at the studio, even if he does have good intentions. Aside from the confusion with Eddie Mannix and the aforementioned theology discussion,the film's handling of religious topics and imagery actually provides some nice food for thought as well as some laughter when you realize what movies, stories, and scenarios it is referring to.

Golf is Fun to Watch

Sometimes movies of the past become more relevant as time goes on. This seems to be true even of movies about golf. I'm talking specifically about Caddyshack and Happy Gilmore. While both of these comedies brought an Average Joe approach to the modern bourgeois sport of golf, Caddyshack seemed to examine the snobbishness found in the elite class while Happy Gilmore specifically focused more on the clash between white collar and blue collar. However, both movies were good indications that golf in America would become more accessible to the middle class and that the sport's elitist atmosphere would begin to fade.

Caddyshack also predicted that golfers would star wearing ridiculous color combos and sleeveless shirts.

Now, even today, golf is not a cheap hobby. Between the price of clubs, course rates of play, and even the cost of getting new golf balls and other equipment, the total value of golf is definitely more than most middle and lower class people can afford on a regular basis. For me, playing a game of golf is a rare treat, even at the cheapest courses. Still, there are golf courses littered across this country, and people, especially men, of all classes are constantly out there driving from the tee boxes and putting on the greens. So golf is not just a sport for the rich elites to play, but even for the common man, and perhaps this is also showing up on the PGA tour.

Over the past couple of years I have gotten more into watching golf on the weekends. I grew up with an extended family of golfers and whenever we got together for special occasions, the day's golf match would always be on the TV in the background. Now, it is a part of my Sunday experience when I rest and relax with my immediate family. I find that playing the sport actually makes it more thrilling to watch because I can relate more to what the players are doing. I have actually seen the number of spectators, the people physically present at the tournament, grow over time. More people are crowding around the side of the course, whether it is fans sitting at stands set up at the greens and tee boxes or whether there is a massive rush to gather around a sliced drive.

That drive went behind that tree 30 yards wide of the fairway. Quick, let's race to stand on top of it!

A couple of weekends ago (9/30-10/2) was the 2016 Ryder Cup, a competition held every two years between the best golf players in the United States and the top players from across Europe. It was fun watching the back and forth between some of the greatest golfers alive today and it was especially nice to see the Americans hoist the trophy in the end. This Ryder Cup brought a high number of spectators to the course, more than 50,000 people, and it showed on TV. Aside from physically seeing the people on TV, you could hear the people clearly. There was plenty of chanting and cheering and even some heckling.

Though would you want anything less from a crowd that looked like this?

The European fans on Twitter could not stop complaining about the crowd. All of the 'Yanks' were being loud, obnoxious, and classless, they said. Now I will be fair to the Europeans and agree to an extent. On occasion you could hear the crowd cheering whenever the European team made a terrible shot or someone would mock a player as they prepared to strike the ball or even in a couple of cases say some stupid insults crossed the line. Yes, there were a few bad apples in the bunch that deserved to be removed from the crowd. However, some of the European fans were just complaining because the audience enjoyed chanting "USA! USA!" and screamed loudly whenever the US players made a great shot. You can tell some of these Twitter fans haven't watched many PGA events before if they're surprised that some dork yelled 'Get in the hole!' or 'Bababooey!' at every hole. If that's the majority of what they had to complain about, then that is just a minor annoyance they need to get used to.

Because seriously, just look at these guys. This kind of stuff is anticipated, really.

These are the kind of frat boys you expect to shout 'Get in the hole!'

It's all about striking the right balance for watching golf in the contemporary time. Most people today who do not watch golf say that one of their main reasons is it's boring to watch. I think these people do not realize how much golf has in common with other popular professional sports you enjoy spectating at home. It has the same stop and start gameplay you find in football and baseball. It's got great narratives with underdog stories and colorful characters like you see being promoted in the NBA and the NFL. It even has all of the product placement and endorsement deals people enjoy in NASCAR and the NFL. Just because players have to take their time to travel to the ball and calculate their shots does not mean golf is that much slower than baseball and America loves watching baseball, whether at the stadium or on the couch.

Now again, just because golf should not be boring does not mean it should be boorish. There is a time and place for people to be quiet and they should be respectful enough to not heckle a player when they are attempting to swing the club. Vocalization and audience interaction is possible outside of standard etiquette moments. One of the things that made this year's Ryder Cup fun to watch was seeing the players interact with the crowd whenever they made a great play. On Day 2, Patrick Reed made a spectacular wedge shot to eagle a hole and was cheerfully getting the already roaring audience pumped up by shouting 'Come On!' to them.

Kinda like a Cam Newton of the PGA if you will.

Not to be outdone, Rory McIlroy also brought some heat and flare in his interaction with the crowd. He took the brunt of a lot of hate and noise from the spectators and instead of just crying about it, Rory would make spectacular putts and roar at the audience. Sometimes he even brought some hand signals into the mix just to taunt the audience even more, letting them know their noise and hatred only made him stronger.

Also kind of a Cam Newton of the PGA

The duel between Patrick Reed and Rory McIlroy was some of the best golf seen on TV, not just because they were playing spectacularly well, but also because they would taunt and tease each other in celebratory fashion, similar to a touchdown dance or some other cheesy self-congratulatory behavior from NFL players (I guess what I'm saying is that pro golf and pro football are the same really...wait...). A lot of people speculated online that Reed and McIlroy would eventually get into a fight before the end of their round. However, just like immature drunken yelling, fisticuffs have no place in the world of golf.

Then again....

Now, let's bring back the idea of elitists versus the common man, rich and poor. Before, the stereotype was that golf is mainly for the rich snobs who could afford to do it on a regular basis. This meant that players and crowds were much more proper, gentlemanly, and rigid. The 'golf clap' became a symbol of the quiet elegance found in snobby bourgeois golf. Today, you see plenty of middle and lower class people not only playing the sport, but watching from the sidelines as well. These people come from a different set of rules and lifestyle where it's okay to be vocal and loose. This does not mean that they do not have any class, it's just that they fully understand that having fun doesn't mean having to be stiff.

It seems like perhaps there is just a traditional view on golf that is slowly adapting to new conditions. On the one hand, golf should not remain locked into this stereotype that you have to be completely silent, stiff, prim and proper at all times, whether you're a fan or a player. On the other hand, golf is still a more elegant and gentlemanly sport compared to others like football or hockey, so the crowd should not be getting drunk, screaming at every little thing, and generally acting without any common decency. Golf does not have to be boring to watch, but it doesn't have to be some crazy rave either. Players should be allowed to respectfully taunt and the crowds should be able to do some chants and cheering at appropriate moments. This upcoming weekend is the Safeway Open, the start of a new PGA tour season, and with Tiger Woods playing once again, you can bet there will be spectators in the audience chanting and cheering loudly. And I will gladly watch this entertaining spectacle if I can.

Music Series: New Person, Same Old Mistakes

Here I will examine the lyrics of a known secular song to digest it from a Catholic Christian perspective. Of course, this is all just interpretation and perspective from one angle. This is essentially me making connections that the songwriter may or may not have been trying to make, but it still fits the perspective nonetheless. It's all just fun and games at the end of the day.

Tame Impala is a psychedelic rock band from Australia. Filled with multi-instrument, multi-band musicians and a lead singer known for his high falsetto, Tame Impala have steadily grown in popularity over the years. Their most recent album, Currents, has taken more of an electronica tone in the psychedelic rock realm, which makes the tunes all the more catchier and accessible to people who prefer the electronic to the rock. One of that album's hits, New Person, Same Old Mistakes, has garnered popularity in part due to being covered by Rihanna and for being used in promotions for the new FX series Atlanta. With a groovy bass and soft falsetto echoes, New Person, Same Old Mistakes is musically attractive and top notch. Yet, obviously it's the lyrics that concern us here.

To me, New Person,Same Old Mistakes could be talking about a recent convert, someone who has just recently turned away from a life dedicated to sin in order to turn towards a life of discipleship for Jesus Christ. There is essentially one main character, that I'm naming Tommy.This man Tommy is trying to inform his old friends about his conversion. These old friends are not convinced about the Christian life and faith in God. So the fear of the friends telling Tommy to drop Christianity and return to life without God gives Tommy pause. Here are the opening lyrics:

"I can just hear them now

'How could you let us down?'

But they don't know what I found

Or see it from this way around"

Tommy understands his friends, understands them very well. The friends almost feel betrayed by this conversion, seeing it as an act of stupidity. They would view the conversion as stupidity because they do not understand the point of Christianity and their view of Christianity/ God cannot allow them to understand. Yet, Tommy does understand, he does see the point of Christianity, which is why he converted. Of course, since this is still a new way of life and the life of a Christian disciple is a hard one, Tommy has to struggle, both with himself and with the people around them.

"Two sides of me can't agree...

Going with what I always longed for"

Tommy has two sides because he has two approaches on how to proceed in life. He could either revert back to his old way of life, ignoring time to pray, serve the needy, attend church, or any other activity that brings Christians closer to God. Or, he could choose to do those acts of discipleship despite any challenges or hardships he may have to face along the way. These two ways of life do not match up and cannot agree because they both have different purposes. Yet, we hear Tommy choose to go for what he has 'always longed for', which makes us think that he chose the right path, the harder path. Perhaps he has always longed for truth, understanding, God, or a lifestyle of ethics and morals that makes right and wrong more clearly defined.

"Feel like a brand new person

(But you make the same old mistakes)

I don’t care I’m in love

(Stop before it’s too late)"

Tommy feels like a new person. Maybe he was recently baptized or confirmed in his faith. Maybe this new Christian way of life is so different from the previous way of life that Tommy has truly transfigured who he is and what he stands for. He is new creation in Christ now and he understands that something is different. He is so new, however, that not every action he takes differs from the actions in his past. Whether it is in the back of his mind or something that his friends have said previously, there is something telling Tommy he is not different enough, that he is still doing things that he used to do before the conversion. The convert fights back with a counterargument that he is 'in love'. He has fallen in love with God and has chosen to pursue Him despite the setbacks and criticisms.

"I finally know what is love

(You don’t have what it takes)

(Stop before it’s not too late)

(I know there’s too much at stake)

(Making the same mistakes)"

Here is something that sounds Scriptural in this particular context. The first letter of St. John tells the reader that God is love. Tommy, through this conversion experience, has discovered God and knows that God is love. However, these repeated mistakes and the criticisms are still in the back of Tommy's mind. Perhaps even some of these lines, like 'too much at stake' and 'same mistakes' are coming from Tommy specifically, bringing back the two sides not agreeing. Either way, it is a duel and struggle, where Tommy believes he is on the right path, but there is still some resistance from outside as well as inside for him to be fully convicted.

"I know you don't think it's right

I know that you think it's fake

Maybe fake's what I like

Point is I have the right

I'm thinking in black and white

I'm thinking it's worth the fight"

Here is Tommy's rebuttal to his friends and the criticisms those friends have thrown around. Again, we understand that Tommy understands his friends. To me, Tommy even throws in a witty bit of sarcasm. The third line 'Maybe fake's what I like' can be Tommy's facetious response so that he can tell these old friends that he has faith and trust in his conversion experience. Tommy has the right to choose God or not, both in terms of law and free will, and the old friends cannot stop Tommy from pursuing God. Through this conversion experience, Tommy realizes that he is starting to see the world with a less relativistic mind. Knowing the truth means that things are black and white, right or wrong, in most cases. This new point of view, to Tommy, is worth taking on these doubts and criticisms because of the truth Tommy finds in God.

"Man, I know that it's hard to digest

But baby this story ain’t so different from the rest

And I know it seems wrong to accept

But you've got your demons, and she's got her regrets"

Again, Tommy understands his friends. He knows that since these friends cannot see this conversion and cannot see Christianity from the same perspective that he can, it is challenging for these friends to fully comprehend Tommy's experience. Yet, Tommy knows he is not the only one who has gone through this conversion experience. There are many other people, especially in contemporary Western society, who once ignored or abhorred the Christian faith until life and God led them to a conversion experience where they take on the discipleship of Christianity. Tommy even gets to tell his friends that they have stuff to work on and overcome in a struggle before having a similar conversion experience. Some friends have demons, personal struggles and grudges, that they have to overcome. In one particular case, a female has a past experience that she regrets. Maybe this girl left Christianity or misunderstood or mistreated Christian people in the past.

"A realization is as good as it gets"

At the end of the day, Tommy can only tell his friends so much and try to relate to them so much. If they are still confused as to why Tommy has chosen to convert , the most basic message he can leave them with is that he has come to realize love and truth in the Christian faith. If they cannot accept that, which the rest of the song tells us that they can't at this time, then they will never fully understand and be able to comprehend Tommy's conversion and his new life in God.

In some ways this song reminds me of the parable about the sower and the seed in Scripture. "A sower went out to sow...Some [seed] fell on rocky ground, where it had little soil. It sprang up at once because the soil was not deep and when the sun rose it was scorched, and it withered for lack of roots. Some seed fell among thorns, and the thorns grew up and choked it" (Matthew 13: 3-7, NAB). Tommy could be the seed in the first scenario here, where he is springing up very instantly in his conversion experience. He is having trouble because at the moment he is in shallow soil and lacking deep roots in his faith life. Tommy can also be the seed in the second scenario if he sticks around his friends and lets their words get to him. The friends, being the thorns due to their words and actions, can choke Tommy's faith and relationship with God if he is not too careful.

Music Series: Quality Christian Songs

Sometimes when listening to the radio (or even sometimes at Mass), Christian music can sound dull, repetitive, cheesy, and uninspiring. Sure, Christian radio stations exist for a good reason, which is to share the Gospel in a format appropriate for every member of the family. Rarely does anyone hear a song on a non-Christian radio station that both shares the Gospel and appeals to the whole family. Only recently have some groups like Mumford and Sons managed to provide stuffing in the gaps.

Mumford and Sons-Come Thou Font of Every Blessing

Otherwise, the only other time anyone hears an inspirational Christian song on a non-Christian radio station is during Christmas time (or more appropriately, the time of Advent in preparation for the Christmas season). Even then, in the midst of all the other pop songs about Santa, Frosty, and just talking about the feeling of the season, you get a small handful of traditional hymns that everyone sings in and out of church anyway. Granted, every once and awhile you hear beauty in the mundane.

(One of the few times I will gladly endorse Josh Groban music.)

However, there is more to Christian music than what one hears on the radio or even inside modern church walls. There are centuries of tradition, decades upon decades upon decades of musical styles and sounds from across the globe that have been shaped by the Christian faith. I wanted to share with you samples of Christian music that feature some genre or sound that you may not associate with contemporary Christian music.

Aramaic Chant: Orthodox Priest & Choir

Hard Rock: Flyleaf-Chasm

Irish ballad: The Barra MacNeils-Oh Come Divine Messiah

(I know it's a Christmas song, but when was the last time you heard this on the radio or at Mass?)


Gregorian Chant: Benedictine Monks- Sanctus et Benedictus

Alternative Rock: Mutemath-Chaos

Bluegrass: Doc Watson-We'll Work Til Jesus Comes

Folk: Old Crow Medicine Show-God's Got It

Rap: KB-Church Clap

Note: This final song selection is not an endorsement from me for actual clapping inside of church during Mass. I appreciate the song for the beat and for the message it provides in some of the lyrics, including "Give me that God Almighty, that good old Bible, that old school doctrine" and "We need discernment, check what you be affirming, cause the church could be full of members but empty of conversions".

Hands For Prayer: Devotion at Mass

Whether at Daily Mass or at Sunday Mass, I have noticed something about the other people in the pews around me. To me, it doesn't really look like everyone actually praying or that they're attentive at Mass. Yet, it's the Mass, the time Catholics celebrate the Liturgy of the Word and the Sacrament of the Eucharist. So, it should be a really big deal, a whole time devoted to prayer and glorifying God. Yet, there are people that are just kind of present physically and that's it. Here, I propose one potential solution that I think Catholics in the Norvus Ordo and the Traditional Latin Masses can partake in and appreciate to combat this issue. That solution is: to fold our hands in prayer during the entirety of the Mass.

Exhibit A!

I'll get further into detail on what that means in a moment, but perhaps it's important to provide some background. As I have stated before, but enjoy sharing nonetheless, my conversion from a lazy non-committed Catholic into a discerning Catholic disciple came during college. All of the thanks goes to God, but the people he used to inspire and influence me came from FOCUS (Fellowship of Catholic University Students).

One of the first FOCUS missionaries I met was Lee Brokaw, who is now a deacon on his way to the priesthood in the Diocese of Peoria. Anyway, during Masses, I began to notice that Lee folded his hands across his chest prayerfully. Usually if I spot other guys at Mass, I usually see them with their hands on the pew in front of them or with  their hands in their pockets unless they have their arms folded across their chest.

The arm fold only really works when you're in a robe or habit.

I'm sure I've seen a few other guys fold their hands during Mass before this, but this is one of the first times I clearly remember someone doing this and it having an impact on me. Maybe it was because Lee was a role model of discipleship and strong influence that I remember it well. Anywho, from that point on I began to make an effort to clasp or fold my hands together during Mass.

At first, I just locked my fingers together with my arms hanging down so that I was essentially making a double fist below my gut. Over time (all of this is the span of a couple of years, mind you) I began to work my way up where I lifted my arms higher to my stomach then under my chest then right at chest level and eventually, instead of locking fingers, I began to point my fingers like I've seen priests, deacons, and even some altar servers doing.

Now, why do I think that folding our hands is something helpful to others? Well, of course, I can only base my ideas on my personal experiences and observations. In my life, I have found myself becoming more intentional during the Mass by folding my hands in prayer. What I mean is the words I speak, the actions I do, and my thought process during Mass is much more focused and more purposeful because of this simple act. My time at Mass is not just routine and going through the motions anymore. Folding my hands keeps me in the proper setting. Growing up, I used to let my mind wander all over the place and kept looking around the whole church, even as I became a young adult and started growing in my faith in my early college days. When I began to fold my hands, I noticed I made a more conscious effort to remain mentally present (I still struggle with it sometimes just cause I can get lost in my thoughts) and if I find myself distracted, I will close my heads and bow my head a little and the feeling of my hands folded up close to my face keeps me more aware of being in prayer and being more focused during Mass.

The trick is to make sure people don't think you're actually sleeping instead of praying.

Even something as simple as my talking inside of church has been impacted by folding my hands. When I first enter the church, I clasp my hands together as soon as possible and, unless I need to use them for the Sign of the Cross or the Sign of Peace or something similar, I try to keep them like that until I fully exit the church building. This way, I keep myself mentally aware of where I am which generally helps me avoid speaking inside the church, even at the sending forth when it seems like everyone else is talking and no one else is really praying. All to keep the appropriate atmosphere and attitude of what being in the church is meant for. Silence can be sacred, after all!

I decided to write this post because sometimes I get thoughts in my head based on my observations and instead of bottling it all up, I need to write it down. And my observations are telling me some people are walking and standing in church without much care about what they're doing or why they're doing it. Sometimes whenever I see people moving through church nonchalantly, I remind myself that the church is a special place, a holy environment. Inside this building is a glimpse of Heaven on Earth, specially designed for a large community to come together and celebrate God. At the center is the altar and the tabernacle, all for the Sacrament of the Eucharist as we celebrate in memorial the Passion of Jesus Christ. This is different than walking through any store, strolling on the street, or even just moving about the house. There may be some Christians that tell you that the church building isn't all that important, but yes it is, for all these reasons above and more! And if it is more important than all those regular places outside of the church, then we need to maintain that appropriate important atmosphere in whatever way we can.

I get the feeling that writing something like this means that people are going to assume that I'm saying "All you other Catholics are lazy slackers! I'm better than you!". If I was really saying that, then I'd say it outright without quotation marks, but I'm not cause I'm not. I understand that some people may have good reasons for why they may need to lean against the pew in front of them or else have another good reason for why they are not folding their hands in prayer, such as parents who are trying to maintain order with their children.

Can't get mad at a couple at Mass with more than 2 little kids, that's a huge challenge and blessing really.

I also understand that the Mass is meant to be celebrated in community and some people may see folding hands as a solo act of independence. I think that's why it has become fashionable to hold everyone's hand during the Our Father, it may make people feel like they're coming together as a loving community in this one moment of the Mass (this is just my assumption though). However, it's probably just as important, if not more important, to come together as a community in Mass by singing together, responding at the same tempo, doing both of those things at the same volume, and to intentionally give the Sign of Peace with charity and joy. And we can do all of this in unison while folding our hands in prayer.

Yes, there are many obstacles that the Catholic Church faces today and there are many problems that people are trying to solve within the Church, especially with things revolving around the Mass. You may see articles or hear conversation about ad orientem, receiving Communion on the tongue, or what kind of music to play at Mass. However, this is just one simple idea that every Catholic can utilize without getting in a fuss over it. Catholics on either side (Norvus Ordo and Traditional Latin) can all agree that Mass is important, that the Eucharist is a Sacrament of great importance, and that if you are there to celebrate Mass, it is important to participate with reverence and purpose.

Where I Got My Photos (In Order):
1. clipartix.com
2. rpgorkut.forumeiros.com
3. www.projectinspired.com
4. churchpop.com/ The Jim Gaffigan Show

Blended/ Hybrid Sports Combos Worth Our Time

My goal with my previous sports post (10 International Sports) was to share some new or different sports with you, as well as get more people interested in said sports. Today's post will try to do something similar. This will work as an introduction to some hybrid sports, which I would define as taking the framework of two different sports to combine them into a single, separate game. I will be trying to share different sports than what I used in the previous post to go over as many various sports as possible (cause there's a lot).

My focus will be on sports that feel like their own separate thing rather than just a mesh of two sports. For example, chess boxing (as the name implies) has multiple rounds of guys playing chess before boxing each other and then rinse and repeat. I would only consider putting chess boxing on this list if maybe the boxers were playing wizard's chess while duking it out at the exact same time. This list also excludes sports that are essentially a known sport in a different environment, like Floorball, which is basically indoor hockey with a wiffleball. This list also avoids sports on vehicles like Unicycle Polo or something like that.

First, some older examples of sports that blended rules.

Volata

A shortly lived combination of soccer and rugby. Apparently, the Italian fascists,in the early 20th century, wanted to distance themselves from the English roots of football (soccer). So they developed a substitute for association football and rugby union. In Volata, two teams composed of 8 players each and played on a modified soccer field. The game lasted one hour, divided into three periods of 20 minutes each. Basically the ball could be played by using hands and feet, but for not more than three seconds. Sounds similar to some current variations of football being played today, but we'll get to that in a moment.

Austus

A mix of Aussie Rules Football (see explanatory video here) and American Football, with the name taken from combining the names of the countries (AUST...+U.S.). It was only historically played back in WWII and created in Australia when soldiers from the USA wanted to play football against the Australians.The composite rules consisted of throwing (which is not allowed in Aussie Rules) and kicking (which is rarely used in American Football). They used an American Football since it was designed better for throwing but still a similar shape to the Aussie football.

Now, some modern examples of blended rules sports.

International Rules Football

An almost annual match of Australia versus Ireland that blends Aussie Rules with Gaelic football. In this match, the players fight over a round ball similarly used in Gaelic. The games are played on a rectangular field, rather than the larger oval of Aussie Rules. A player must touch the ball on the ground once every one meter or six steps. Two bounces per possession are allowed. A free kick will be awarded if a player commits a foul. The Aussies get to tackle, but only between the shoulders and thighs, which is otherwise banned in Gaelic football. The goals are two large posts and two small posts, as in Aussie Rules, though a crossbar and goal net is incorporated as in Gaelic Football. Passing the ball in the goal net received 6 points, over the cross bar 3 points, and between a large post and a small post 1 point. 

Composite Rules (Shinty-Hurling)

Another almost annual match, this time between Ireland and Scotland. In my previous post, I noted that Shinty and Hurling are essentially cousins connected to Field Hockey type sports, and here we get to see their similarities and differences. Often a Hurling ball is used for one half of the game and a Shinty ball in the other. The goals are those used in Hurling, with 3 points awarded for a goal (in the net under the crossbar) and 1 point for a shot over the crossbar. A stationary hit taken straight from the ground and shot over the crossbar scores 2 points. Only goalkeepers may catch the ball and this must be released within three steps. Players may not kick the ball, but can drag the ball with their foot. 

Now that those are explained, time for some contemporary hybrid sports that some people are playing all over the world today.

Footgolf 

As the name might tell you, this is a combo of soccer and golf. According to the About section of the sport's website, the rules largely correspond to the rules of golf and players kick a regulation #5 soccer ball at a golf course facility on shortened holes with 21-inch diameter cups in as few shots as possible. The best news is that there are footgolf courses popping all over the place, mainly around most major metropolitan areas though there are some courses randomly sprinkled throughout the country. It looks like a good way to practice your soccer kick. Since a player is not usually trying to shoot the ball as long as possible or over mounds in soccer and the dynamics of swinging a club in golf is different than kicking, I would consider these to be enough differences to make Footgolf its own thing.

Octopush 

Also called underwater hockey, which gives you a better idea of what it is about. It was invented in the early 1950s by sub-aqua divers in the South Sea who got bored. Players wear the basic equipment of a mask, snorkel, fins, and water polo hat. They hold a small stick, about the size of a spatula, in a gloved hand. The idea of the game is to use the stick to push the puck into the opposing team's goal, which consists of a 3 meter tray at the opposing end of a 25 meter pool. Looks like players need some major lung capacity and stamina in order to be able to play.

Padbol

I made a brief mention of this new Argentinian sport in my last sports post. At first it looks similar to sepak takraw, but the walls surrounding the court make a huge difference in game play, like racquetball/ squash compared to tennis. Also, the net is much lower and the court is marked more specifically for when and where players can touch the ball. The ball bounces on the ground and lateral walls, which gives the game continuity and speed, and players have to serve the ball to the space diagonally across from it, like tennis. The players may use their feet, head, chest, and legs to maneuver the ball like soccer.

Fistball 

A strange punchy mix of volleyball and tennis. The crucial difference in fistball (compared to volleyball) is that the ball is struck with either fist or arm-never with open hands-and the ball is allowed to bounce after each contact. Today's game has five players per side punching the ball over a ribbon instead of a net, though the ribbon is set at a height similar to volleyball.

Polocrosse

A slightly creative name, given that this sport combines polo with lacrosse. In England, polocrosse was an indoor exercise to teach people how to ride a horse. The modern game began in Australia in the 30s. The field can be either grass or dirt and teams score points by throwing the ball through the opposing goal posts while protecting their own goals posts. All players can catch, carry, and throw the ball with their rackets. Since I already talked about Pato before, which I described as a blend of basketball and polo, I figured this other horse sport deserved the spot on this list. 

Kronum

Perhaps the craziest 'sport' on this list. It combines elements of soccer, handball, and basketball. The field consists of three concentric circles, with the outer circle containing the four goals. The front of each goal consists of the Goal Zone, Wedge Zone, Flex Zone, and Long Range Zone, and each zone dictates ball handling and the number of points awarded for scores. The teams are 10 on 10, and each team has two goals to defend. You can’t touch the ball with your hands when you’re in the Wedge Zone, but all parts of your body are legal in all the other zones. No matter where you are, you can only take two steps with the game ball before you have to dribble. If you’re in the Goal Zone and kick the ball into the “chamber” (the goalmouth), that’s 1 point. Dunk the ball in and you get 2 points. From the Wedge Zone, a score into the chamber is worth 2 points. Kick or head the ball into one of the crown rings and your team gets 4 points. From the Flex Zone, a chamber score is worth 3 points, while crown rings are 6 points. Evidently, these are the most common types of scores found in competitive Kronum. Finally, if you’re out in the nether regions of  Long Range Zone, a chamber score nabs you 4 points while a crown ring score gets a whopping 8 points.

My only real complaint against a sport like Kronum is the attitude it has towards all of the stuff it has going on. Kronum's motto is 'a new sport for the modern athlete' and was created to allow a full display of human athleticism. I recently discovered another new sport, Nashball, which also combines elements of three or four other established sports in order to allow the modern athlete to display creativity and utilize their entire body. These sports act like they're the best thing to happen to the sports world ever, but why? Why does the 'modern athlete' need anything new or special to challenge them, to use their body and show creative athleticism? Why does the 'modern athlete' need to play a sport that is really just a hyperactive-overreach of scraps and bits of  multiple other sports that they can already play? Most of these other sports in this post are new and inventive, but they don't act all cool and hip for bringing together different sports. They provide challenge and recreation just by being their own thing, though they acknowledge their roots come from two other established sports. Some of these sports, like fistball or padbol, can really be played by athletes of any shape and size. You don't need to know how to play four other sports or need to be the most in-shape athlete ever in order to play, which feels like the opposite of the message that Kronum and Nashball are sending. Overall, I enjoy learning about these sports that have recently been invented or are just new to my knowledge and I hope to be able to participate in each one some day.

Source Websites:

-Volata: http://www.topendsports.com/sport/extinct/volata.htm

-Austus:  http://www.topendsports.com/sport/extinct/austus.htm

-International Rules: http://www.topendsports.com/sport/more/international-rules.htm

-Composite Rules: http://www.topendsports.com/sport/more/shinty-hurling.htm

-Footgolf: http://www.footgolf.us/about-footgolf

-Octopush: http://www.gbuwh.co.uk/?component=page&id=29

-Padbol: http://www.padbol.com/en/padbol.php?paisregion=-1p-1p2

-Fistball:  http://www.ifa-fistball.com/that-is-fistball/

-Polocrosse: http://www.americanpolocrosse.org/general-info-rules/

-Kronum: http://kronumrecleague.com/learn/field/; http://www.wired.com/2011/04/kronum-unholy-sports-mashup/