As I read through the paper I was surprised to see
”
Cheerleader
”
in the title and felt compelled to read the article. I thought
that the article would be an informed argument about the worthiness
of cheerleading as a sport.
Editor,
As I read through the paper I was surprised to see “Cheerleader” in the title and felt compelled to read the article. I thought that the article would be an informed argument about the worthiness of cheerleading as a sport.
As usual, I found that the article was a poor showing for any argument.
I have sat through many classes at San Jose State University and argued the point of what makes a sport a “sport.” Sitting in classes such as philosophy of sport and psychology of coaching with professors that have written articles for Sports Illustrated and many professional journals, I was expecting an educated and well-researched argument.
Unfortunately, after reading the article I was not only upset but disappointed that an article would be published for communities such as Hollister, Morgan Hill and Gilroy.
It is the individual’s right to have an opinion of what is or is not a sport. But making a joke of a situation, as well as making a joke about a group of people, is not only rude but on the verge of being discriminating. What is next? Will you argue the worth of female to male sports? Do you have any knowledge of Title IX?
You have stated that the “Athlete of the Year” was based on the “five simple rules that determine what is, and what isn’t, a sport.”
Rule one, the shoe rule: Cheerleaders have special shoes. In fact most major shoe companies all make shoes for cheerleaders. These companies have shoes for the flyer and the bases just like the difference in a shoe you would buy to run a sprint race or a long distance run.
Rule two, the fat guy ratio rule shouldn’t have ever seen ink. If someone is going to categorize a sport in this manner, you should know the biomechanics of the skill movement, skill level, skill ability and the comparison of body mass to muscle mass to perform the skill for the sport. Baseball players around the county should be upset by your comments.
Rule three, Hollywood rule: believe it or not there are a few movies about cheerleading, such as “Bring it On.”
Rule four is the jurisprudence rule. Now you have offended the wrestlers, boxers, divers, X Games, equestrian events and rodeo. I am sure that any of these athletes would challenge you to give their sport a try.
Rule five, the self-sufficiency rule. I realize that you have not done your research because there are cheerleading club squads; in fact they have their own show on ESPN. Hollister, Morgan Hill and Gilroy have their own gyms with competing squads that I am sure have found your words upsetting.
I am proud to say I was a cheerleader. I was on the Live Oak Cheerleading squad from 1990-1993 and won nationals every time we competed.
Not only did we win the Co-Ed division, but I won individual crowd leader for Santa Clara County. I am happy to run into the guys and girls I use to cheer with and reminisce about being on ESPN.
The guys on our cheerleading squad were also on the football team. They like to point out that this was the only time in their lives they were on ESPN. I can say that most cheerleaders are athletes. I challenge you to walk a day in those cheerleaders’ shoes and I will join you.
I would ask the readers of this area, what makes a sports editor a sports editor?
Missy Madrigal-Walters member of
Live Oak Cheer Squad 1990-1993
