My vote is golf for the former, and wrestling for the latter

    • queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      you can imagine people whacking things around the land with a stick prior to the enclosure of the common land and subsequently formal development of golf.

      Not really? Having acres of land growing an unproductive crop like grass is immensely wasteful, and without being able to mow the grass that sport seems basically impossible anyway since animals aren’t going to keep the grass short enough for golf and they’ll shit all over. It certainly couldn’t be more than a novelty, only possible under very specific circumstances.

      • Carl [he/him]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        1 year ago

        People have been playing games similar to modern golf since the iron age. The modern version uses a lot of landscaping because they’re trying to recreate the golf that was played in Scotland in the middle ages, instead of adapting the sport to local conditions.

        That’s why frisbee golf is the modern proletarian take on the sport. No landscaping necessary, just put up some baskets in any given park and play.

    • AssortedBiscuits [they/them]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      The obvious answer is that sports are generally not characterisable as capitalist or proletarian on their own - you can imagine people whacking things around the land with a stick prior to the enclosure of the common land and subsequently formal development of golf.

      Counterexample: Foxhunting where inbred Anglo nobles on horseback follow a bunch of dogs tearing a fox to shreds will always be reactionary.