Colby Cosh is one of the most interesting writers around today. Here's a lengthy post that looks at some of the sociological, psychological and biological aspects of sports. (He cites Steve Sailer, a writer with whom I differ on some key issues like immigration. That said, there's no doubt that Sailer's use of data and numbers is admirable, that he takes science seriously and that people, including me, have a lot to learn from his writing.)

I particularly enjoyed Colby's discussion of fighting in hockey:

... I would also ask you to consider that the self-regulating ethos of Canadian-style hockey, the idea that not all disputes are appropriately settled by reference to the authorities, will protect the place of individualistic Americans and Canadians within the game, and especially the former. When two guys fight on the ice they're saying "We're not going to take our problems to the sheriff--we're going to settle them according to a shared, non-legislated code of fair play." (Sometimes, as with the famous Lights Out brawl at the World Juniors, the message of a fight is "the sheriff is an a-hole; we're taking matters into our own hands.") Why is there so little fighting in the European game? Maybe it's presumptuous to say this, but have you noticed that the Europeans are a little weaker in their grasp of the whole "personal responsibility" thing? That their societies (with exceptions) are organized to minimize the importance and the permissibility of self-defence? That when a European player feels molested on the ice (warning: Don Cherry-style generalization), his instinctive response is to take a dive, appealing to the magistrate with elaborate theatrics?

Brilliant stuff.