I'm not sure why I don't enjoy photographing sports. Maybe it's because I haven't practiced enough. Maybe it's because I don't have the right equipment (I need a better camera - as far as shot rate - and better lenses - like ones that can have an aperture of 1.4 or 2.8 and can zoom 200-300mm.). It could be that I don't really have any desire to shoot sports - which isn't a bad thing since there are plenty of people who love covering sports. And maybe it's because it just doesn't seem - with the exception of pictures like the one above (Kerri Strug) - stories of something meaningful beyond 'being a winner.'
Why did I think about this? I came across this article on Summer Olympics Top 10 Most Winning Moments.
Of the 10, the only one I don't remember is the one that happened in 1972: Mark Spitz winning 7 gold medals. Of the list of 10, the one I don't think should be included is the basketball "Dream Team" in 1992, the year they changed the rules so that professionals could participate in the Olympics and players like Charles Barkley, Larry Bird, Patrick Ewing, Magic Johnson, Michael Jordan, Karl Malone, and Scottie Pippen were on it. How is that fair? It might have been before Jordan or Bird turned pro, but after? I don't care if other countries pay amateur athletes' expenses like rent and food, etc., it still doesn't seem right. And it cheapens those events for me, too (which is why I wasn't impressed). How is it any different than watching a pro game? (It's not.) Wow, they get to play on a different team for a little while... And it cheapens the achievements of all those US Olympians who *were* true amateurs and still won medals.
Like these guys.
