Hacker News Reader

Comment by Zigurd | Hacker News Reader

Red Bull athletes list: https://www.redbull.com/us-en/athletes

The dead ones appear to have been removed from the list, and from all other mentions on the website. Quickly, too. Somebody's got that in their job description.

I no longer find it entertaining to watch sports where there is such a high risk of death, or lifelong impairment, from brain injuries, for example. I used to love ski movies. But too many of the people in the credits are dead now.

Apart from things like unconscionable contracts, I wouldn't restrain people from extreme sports. I'm sure a lot of of them die in their beds. I just don't find it entertaining to watch.

View on HN

I feel that Penn explained this incredibly well in one of my favourite magic tricks:

https://youtu.be/Jko5BGhc-Ys?si=Uz6jvQ5voEYAxg8W

We have such a weird relationship with the spectacle of risk. As he says, a tightrope act is just as difficult at any height. The only need to make it dangerous is because the audience wants the circus.

And I think somewhat implicit in the point he’s making is that he believes that while the audience wants the spectacle, the performers have a responsibility not to give it to them.

> a tightrope act is just as difficult at any height

Well, sort of. But surely part of the feat is overcoming the natural fear of heights.

That’s true. But I don’t think anyone in the audience is being wowed by that detail.

That's exactly what they're wowed by. The general audience cares about the risk-taking, the bravery and daring aspect of it, and maybe the visual flashiness. It's the psychology that's interesting to a general audience because that's what they relate to. Technical excellence is always something peers are more interested in than spectators, your ordinary viewer isn't invested in the technical proficiency of tightrope footwork.

There's 3 distinct things:

A) The ability of walking a tightrope

B) The ability of overcoming your fears to the extent of being able to walk a tightrope at a dangerous height

C) The risk of falling

I would argue that the audience cares about A and C. The audience doesn't care so much for B.

I think the audience largely just cares about C.

I would not be surprised if most lay people don't know why or how it's even that hard, or what goes into training. "Oh, it's just someone who has good balance" vs an awareness of the technical details of physical fitness.

Having watched a few of Cirque du Soleil's shows, I can confirm that A is much more impressive and exciting than C.

Sure, there's risk, but seeing how effortless they make it look is amazing. The skill to do it fearlessly is far more impressive than the fact that something bad didn't happen. Audience members expect that it won't happen. There's a visceral reaction, of course, but that's it.

Completely agreed. I think the first time you go with some friends to an olympic diving board, it's the exact same thing. When you look at it from the ground it's "only" 10m, it doesn't feel so scary. But when you get up there and look down, zomg is 10m friggin high! Oh and the climb up there... It's high enough that by the time you reach the platform you've completely dried off.

It's completely safe and trivial to do, but awesome nonetheless, and a show for your friends, just because it's really scary the first time you do it!

This reminded me of an old Dave Chappelle joke about the Siegfried & Roy tiger show (around 1:10 min mark): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kth0UOU5a_M

> As he says, a tightrope act is just as difficult at any height. The only need to make it dangerous is because the audience wants the circus.

Tho, only a few of the people who engage in these dangerous sports are famous or earn money on that. As in, if you look at those sports, there are always people who seek the danger and possible self destruction. They do it, because they want to do them. Not because of the audience.

Personally I much prefer watching a tightrope act when I’m not constantly worried about the performers dying.

There's a level of economic coercion involved though as well - "going pro" is only possible by pushing for riskier and riskier stunts. If you want to get paid to ski, skateboard, etc you need to be doing increasingly extreme things to risk your own health and safety. The companies do lots of risk mitigation once you're filming a TV spot, but to get to that level you already had to be putting your body on the line for years.

The ethical thing is to refuse to be complicit by refusing to watch.

Everyone knows the risk. Especially if you get to the level of Redbull Athlete. We all accept it. We'd rather live a full life doing what we want vs the inverse. You dont have to support it but don't demean the people that choose that path. Everyone is the manifest of their own destiny. These folks are stewards of the sports and the potential that is there.

Money affects these decisions. Same as it does for prostitutes. Regulate accordingly.

There is way less money in this sport than you think there is.

> We'd rather live a full life doing what we want vs the inverse

Except these people have families that care about them, you could even say kids need a parent in their life.

The day Honnold falls to his death the world will applaud all his achievements but his kid probably wish his dad never climbed at all.

The day I became a father is the day I stopped riding a motorbike.

Does MMA or boxing count to you? They are violent sports with risk of brain damage.

Risk? Are there are known professional fighters without brain damage at the end of their carrier?

Afaik not even bob-racers have that luxury

I don't know. Because even in training they take lots of punches to the head.

I guess some leave the fighting game with more pronounced damage than others.

Boxing should be illegal. There are fighting arts that don't include full contact much less knocking your opponent out or otherwise damaging them, often leaving residual permanent damage. I've never found boxing entertaining at all.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com