[HPforGrownups] fairness of Quiddich (WAS: Is the anything that bothers you about HP ...)

[Ladi lyndi]

No: HPFGUIDX 56637

--- ing wrote:
> However ...
> 
> They are starting from a weaker position.  For
> instance (as in my 
> previous example with Harry and Cho), if Cho
> and Harry saw the 
> snitch at the same time, all Harry would have
> to do is go after it.  
> As long as he did that, and it came down to a
> race for the snitch, 
> he would win, no matter how good a flyer Cho
> is.  Now Cho 
> could use a lot of tactics to keep Harry from
> getting the snitch.  
> She could block him - as described in the book.
>  But the thing is, 
> Harry would never have to worry about this kind
> of manoeuvre.  
> He would never have to block Cho since she is
> not a threat in a 
> race.  He doesn't have to work as hard.  Cho
> would have to race 
> for the snitch AND block Harry.  Cho has an
> extra burden.  She 
> has to use more complex tactics.
> 
> My point is not that Quiddich is _inherently_
> unfair.  Its just that it 
> may be _more_ fair if they played on standard
> issue brooms 
> rather than allowing some to be inherently
> faster than others.

Me:

I don't think the argument regarding Cho and
Harry is correct at all.  Look at the World Cup. 
Lynch is on a Firebolt and he sees the snitch
first and goes after it.  By the Cho/Harry
argument, Lynch should have easily gotten the
snitch since it was all a matter of racing.  He
didn't.  Krum got the snitch and I don't believe
Krum was riding a Firebolt since such a point was
made of what type of broom Ireland was using with
no mention of the type of broom that Bulgaria was
using.

Equipment can be important.  I seriously doubt
that Lance Armstrong would have won the Tour de
France 4 times on a stingray bike with a banana
seat.  Yes, his bike is important.  Yes, he can
afford to buy the best there is for him.  So?  It
would mean nothing if he didn't have the athletic
ability to take advantage of it.  Personally, I
don't think it comes down to the cost of the
equipment as much as it does to the type of
equipment that fits the athlete.

Basketball has standard equipment with the
exception of the shoes.  Are you going to tell
the players they all have to wear the same type
of sneaker since one brand may be better for one
athlete over another?  I certainly have a
preference for which sneaker I prefer and think I
do much better with that brand than another just
due to the comfort factor.  

Take swimming, talk about unfair advantage when
they put the fastest swimmers in the middle of
the pool instead of the outside of the pool.  If
fairness were a factor, the fastest swimmers
would be where the wake of the other swimmers
would give the slower swimmers a better chance.

Unfair?  Well, then no more home court advantage
to any team, let them all be away games.  But
then, make sure you find some place where those
used to warm weather aren't in cold weather and
those from cold places aren't having to play in
the heat - that gives a team an unfair advantage
from the start.  No more playing in Denver since
the thinner air would unfairly advantage those
who play in areas where the air is a lot denser. 
No more fans at games either since if one team
has more fans or more vocal fans it puts the
other team at a disadvantage.

Do we tell Michael Jordan he can't dunk because
his physical capability puts someone who can't
jump as high at a disadvantage?  Should we
standardize the height of athletes in some sports
where height can be an influencing factor?  An
athlete's body is his equipment as well.

No matter how you look at it,
situations/equipment/physical makeup put some
athletes in a weaker position while giving others
an advantage.  That's is life and if Quidditch is
unfair, so is every other sport I've ever
watched.

Lynn

=====
For the international news that's fit to print
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cnnworldnewsq-a

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com