What do you think of the word choices of some writers when signifying victory in wrestling... (or any sport)?
Back when my journalism career started (in the 1970s), in high school and in college we were told to keep it simple: "Iowa beat Iowa State" "Hahn topped Trenge 4-3" "New England got a 38-35 victory over the NY Giants" "Gotch defeated Hackenschmidt."
Nowadays, these verbs don't seem powerful enough, at least to many sportswriters. Instead of merely winning, the victors "kill" "obliterate" "aniliate" "demolish" "trounce" "creamed" "slaughtered" -- you get the idea.
I'm especially sensitive about this in wrestling coverage.
Now, there are cases where a writer may need a more powerful word to denote the intensity of the battle, or the lopsidedness of the win: "Mocco destroys Palmer with a major decision in 14 seconds." But, to my way of thinking, a wrestler doesn't destroy an opponent with a 4-3 win (unless the winner was so dominating in terms of how he wrestled, but for some reason that wasn't reflected in the score. Then the writer needs to somehow make that clear in describing the match action.)
Does any of this make sense? Am I showing my age?
Weigh in, please. And, whatever you do, don't "crucify" "aniliate" or otherwise "destroy" me. ;-)