This thread explains why I like the Packers.
-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
-
Congrats to the winners of the 2023 Smog Awards!
Why do you root for the underdog, the humble, the weak, and the helpless?
- Thread starter Bakachild
- Start date
Much like when the Packers won against Dallas.
I root for the underdog because more often than not, the 'overdog' is a massive dirty word and doesn't need/deserve the support and attention, while the underdog does. There.
andrea
/me cresselias
I think that the underdog seems to deserve the glory and accomplishment more. For example, who would really care about the show 'Extreme Makeover Home Edition' if they only made more extravagant homes for the wealthy? No one wants to watch that- they prefer seeing a person who has gone through difficult times to get an amazing gift.
There is a difference between rooting for the underdog and wishful thinking.
Just sayin'
And just cause I feel like counter-pointing:
Society admires success. Kobe Bryant can be a huge asshole to everyone and he will still have legions of fans who support not only the Lakers, but Kobe Bryant personally. There are plenty of teams with humility who have it because in every appearance they are humbled (read: destroyed) by their competitive superiors.Drakhun said:
Arguably though, the strong and the smart get more recognition because they pull more weight. Leadership is the key to making a group work together, and without a strong or smart leader to follow, the motivation necessary to be productive is lacking in all other team members.
And Rome crucified them, repeatedly. As well as the vast majority of the continent now known as Europe and even parts of Africa. Everyone loves a "Mighty Ducks" storyline, but in the world outside the movies the reigning champion is not there necessarily because of a their bad attitude and penchant for getting away with rule violations, but because they have in fact been superior in their field without any malfeasance whatsoever. The underdog isn't a concept until there is an "overdog," a dominating force as it were.
The pack of wolves is nothing without their singular alpha to make the decisions. If they lose that "star player" then they fight among themselves, and instead of fighting deer they are staving off other wolves, a far more dangerous prospect. If you kill the queen in an ant hill, the entire colony dies. When you are as large and powerful as a bear, you don't need to share with other adult bears, as there is never enough to go around for both of you.
Groupthink is far more lethal to any organization because 10 people can make decisions so foolish that it amazes each one individually how they could collectively be so stupid. Groups have the capacity to be more dysfunctional, and the bigger the group the greater the propensity for dysfunction. Life requires that there be people who will stand up to errant groups making terrible decisions by committee. Without each individual in a successful team holding themselves accountable the group will fail. How many NFL players don't have Super Bowl rings? It is larger than both of your groups because their teams are either entirely dysfunctional or their individuals lack the performance necessary and rely on "the team" to win, not realizing a team is only as strong as its weakest link. It is almost impossible to drive a lone cow off a cliff, but send a hundred and watch the bodies pile up.
when i do its either cuz i like them more or becouse id like to see the underdog win and blow ppls minds!
Interesting question, but easily answered. If the superior wins, it is just same old same old. When the New York Giants won the super bowl, all hell broke loose and all those cocky fans of the "better" team who had been bragging all year were smashed in the face and shown they werent all that. That satisfaction is what drives many people to root for the better team. Modest champions I can deal with, but many strong teams are far from that.
Just as some commentary on Rome:
After the Punic wars, the Roman legions' light infantry were open to non-citizens, the heavy infantry were open to any citizens, and only the officers were exclusively what we think of as Romans (read upper class roman citizens).
This meant that Roman legions were actually one of the most diverse militaries for quite some time, if we exclude mercenary forces / allied auxiliaries of other militaries. So in terms of underdogs being the person who was the most like ourselves. The Roman legions actually fit the bill. Whereas the goths were simply homogeneous tribal groups that would go and occasionally get their act together and be able to sack Rome.
After all, Rome didn't fall due to outside causes, it fell because it self-destructed and was weak enough that it was vulnerable.
Furthermore, just to disagree with Deck Knight (sorry, but I don't want to agree with you :P), a large chunk of the time, Rome conquered through diplomacy. If the king would appoint Rome as his heir, then the empire wouldn't give him trouble for his reign and there would be a peaceful transition to Rome control. However, it's the military conquests that get the attention, simply because the Roman legions were powerful.
Not really sure what this had to do with the underdog discussion, but I just wanted to point that out.
After the Punic wars, the Roman legions' light infantry were open to non-citizens, the heavy infantry were open to any citizens, and only the officers were exclusively what we think of as Romans (read upper class roman citizens).
This meant that Roman legions were actually one of the most diverse militaries for quite some time, if we exclude mercenary forces / allied auxiliaries of other militaries. So in terms of underdogs being the person who was the most like ourselves. The Roman legions actually fit the bill. Whereas the goths were simply homogeneous tribal groups that would go and occasionally get their act together and be able to sack Rome.
After all, Rome didn't fall due to outside causes, it fell because it self-destructed and was weak enough that it was vulnerable.
Furthermore, just to disagree with Deck Knight (sorry, but I don't want to agree with you :P), a large chunk of the time, Rome conquered through diplomacy. If the king would appoint Rome as his heir, then the empire wouldn't give him trouble for his reign and there would be a peaceful transition to Rome control. However, it's the military conquests that get the attention, simply because the Roman legions were powerful.
Not really sure what this had to do with the underdog discussion, but I just wanted to point that out.
Fishy
tits McGee (๑˃̵ᴗ˂̵)
Nah, I'm not into baldness.
Anyway, people who are ruthless in life to succeed simply aren't attractive socially, in my opinion. It's as simple as that. If everyone in life had the mindset that success is power, and that's all there was to it, we'd be living in a much different world, and would probably ostracize all the weak, flimsy human beings. Maybe even kill them since they'd be such an embarassment. Anyway, it's not even realistic to have a world filled with only the strong. It would eventually implode and destroy itself.
edit: sorry I looked into this way deeper in sports, but I felt the need to do so.
Fishy
tits McGee (๑˃̵ᴗ˂̵)
This would have been a much better post had you spelled everything correctly.
In reality the weak always lose no matter what even in davidvs goliath david had a shitload of advantages over golaith
david
Unsurpassed marksmanship
knowledge of weak points
and lets not forget
a angry all powerful being who wanted to kill golaith on his side
goliath
being really big
yea goliath was fucked
anyone remember the kuntucky durby that mine that bird won by a landslide with 50-1 odds? How many people bet 2$ that it would win? 5 out of 1000 people. Yea when money is involved people dont root for the underdog they root for the surefire winner.
david
Unsurpassed marksmanship
knowledge of weak points
and lets not forget
a angry all powerful being who wanted to kill golaith on his side
goliath
being really big
yea goliath was fucked
anyone remember the kuntucky durby that mine that bird won by a landslide with 50-1 odds? How many people bet 2$ that it would win? 5 out of 1000 people. Yea when money is involved people dont root for the underdog they root for the surefire winner.
I read a great quote somewhere, but can't remember where it was. Probably one of the Ender Shadow books by Orson Scott Card. It was something like:
"Everyone loves the story of David and Goliath. But what they always forget is the hundred guys who stood up before David."
obviously they had no chance to kill goliath
averedge isrealite vs goliath
isrealite vs golaith
sword and sheild sword armor and sheild
fear of being killed cocky knew he would win
around 5'6 about 7'1
weight 125 lbs weight 250 lbs
goliath obviously wins
I root for the underdog, because it's more enjoyable when they win
EX: Detroit Lions
EX: Nascar: ANYONE BUT JIMMIE JOHNSON
Yes, i'm a lions fan. Yes, we would've won had they called that darned false start.
Honestly, Who wants to be "oh, the colts won again. That's nice"
when you can be "THE LIONS BEAT THE CARDINALS!!!! OH YEAH!!!! ROOT BEER ALL AROUND!!!! PARTY!!!! *fires six shooters*
EX: Detroit Lions
EX: Nascar: ANYONE BUT JIMMIE JOHNSON
Yes, i'm a lions fan. Yes, we would've won had they called that darned false start.
Honestly, Who wants to be "oh, the colts won again. That's nice"
when you can be "THE LIONS BEAT THE CARDINALS!!!! OH YEAH!!!! ROOT BEER ALL AROUND!!!! PARTY!!!! *fires six shooters*
after reading that there is one little thing to remember. when the "underdog" uses a superior stratagy they aren't the underdog they are the overdog
I root for underdogs since its so funny to see them win and the overdogs are like so mad and about to cry because they lost to a wimpy team or whatever.