What is sports violence? The distinction between unacceptable viciousness and a game's normal rough-and-tumble (混战) is impossible to make, or so the argument runs. This position may appeal to our inclination for legalism, but the truth is.most of us know quite well when an act of needless savagery has been committed, and sports are little different from countless other activities of life. The distinction is as apparent as that between a deliberately aimed blow and the arm hailing of an athlete losing his balance. When a player balls his hand into a fist, when he drives his helmet into an unsuspecting opponent in shorts, when he crosses the boundary between playing hard and playing to hurt he can only intend an act of violence.
Admittedly, rough acts in sports are difficult to police. But here, too, we find reflected the conditions of everyday life. Ambiguities in the law, confusion at the scene, and the reluctance of witnesses cloud almost any routine assault case. Such uncertainties, however, have not prevented society from arresting people who strike their fellow, citizens on the street.
Perhaps our troubles stem not from the games we play but rather from how we play them. The 1979 meeting between hockey (曲棍球) stars from the Soviet Union and the National Hockey League provided a direct test of two approaches to sport the emphasis on skill, grace, and finesse (技巧) by the Russians and the stress on brutality and violence by the NHL. In a startling upset, the Russians embarrassed their rough-playing opponents and exploded a long-standing myth: that success in certain sports requires excessive violence.
Violence apologists cite two additional arguments. First, they say, sports always have been rough; today things are no different: But arguments in America's Old West were settled on Main Street with six guns, and early cave-dwellers chose their women with a club. Civilizing influences ended those practices; yet we are told sports violence should be tolerated. The second contention is that athletes accept risk as part of the game, and, in the case of professionals, are paid handsomely to do so. But can anyone seriously argue that being an athlete should require the acceptance of unnecessary physical abuse? And, exaggerated as it may seem, the pay of professional athletes presumably reflects their abilities, not a payment against combat injuries.
"Clearly we are in deep trouble," says perplexed former football player AL DeRogais. "But how and why has it gotten so bad?"
52. According to the author, the distinction between violent acts and non-violent ones in sports is
[ A ] impossible to make
[ B ] not very clear in any circumstances
[ C ] too obvious to escape observation
[ D ] not very difficult to make if enough attention is paid to
53. A sports violence "apologist" probably thinks that
[ A ] violence in sports is a rare occurrence
[ B ] violence in sports is not necessary
[ C ] athletes are paid ,enough for their injuries
[ D] professional athletes enjoy violence
54. In the last paragraph the author indicates that
[ A ] nothing can be done about violence in sports
[ B ] football players are concerned about violence in sports
[ C ] violence in sports is worse now than it ever was
[ D ] athletes are confused about what should be permitted in sports
55. According to the author,
[ A ] the personalities of athletes produce violent confrontations
[ B ] athletes should not have to accept unnecessary physical abuse
[ C ] athletes salaries are already too high
[ D ] athletes need higher salaries to compensate for their injuries
56. In the author's opinion
[ A ] violence in sports is illegal
[ B ] finesse is more important than aggression
[ C ] violence in sports is inevitable
[ D ] violence in sports is not necessary
【结构剖析】议论文。本文首先提出了球场暴力的问题，接下来分析了球场暴力的特点及其产生的根源。
责任编辑：sealion1986
您现在的位置：