Sportsmanship Or Political Correctness

[38superman]

When I was growing up I was involved in several competitive sports.

Not the least of which was football.

Played the game from eight years old up through high school.

One of the values that was instilled in me by my parents, teachers and coaches was the concept of fair play and sportsmanship.

"Its important to be a good loser and even more important to be a good winner" I was told.

Be gracious and humble in victory, thank your opponent for a good match and wish him better luck next time.

In defeat, offer sincere congratulations to your opponent and respect the skill and effort that allowed him to prevail.

These are the things I was taught but I was also taught to play to win.

It is an insult to your competition to give them anything but your best effort.

Has that now become politically incorrect?

It has come to my attention that some kids are being told that "You are not here to try to beat anybody".

You are here to have a good time and do your best.

Is that the right message or the wrong message?

Am I there to have a good time, ... you bet.

Will I play to win?..... Absolutely.

If that is wrong you'll have to forgive me.

It's just a flaw in my upbringing.

Tls

[XRe]

The answer, I think, is that it depends The pendulum has swung too far in the other direction...

Remember when being there to win meant so much that you totally sucked if you got beaten?? Even if you gave 110%, were in the game the whole time, made zero mistakes - and the other guy just plain old was better??? That's a bad message, too...

The flip side is what happens when what you describe goes too far. You're there to have fun - and if you have the mentality that the only way you can succeed is to beat the other guy, you're mentally renting him space... but you're there to win, too... Usually, if you do your absolute best, and you have fun, you've won at some level, even if you get beaten. Losing sight of that is a mistake. But, at the same time, using that as an excuse to be lazy and not make your best effort and train hard and all that is the opposite mistake...

Just my thoughts...

[mactiger]

Is that the right message or the wrong message?

Am I there to have a good time, ... you bet.

Will I play to win?..... Absolutely.

If that is wrong you'll have to forgive me.

It's just a flaw in my upbringing.

Tls

It's the wrong message, by far, IMO. The values you grew up with, I grew up with. It wasn't winning at any cost--it was doing your best to win, and graciously accepting defeat if you didn't. That's what character and self-esteem are all about.

Troy

[MikeFoley]

In life's contests, we all face wins, losses, and ties, good sportsmen and bad sportsmen, difficult tasks and simple ones. The desire to win is a good thing, but it should be on par with the desire to be a good sport toward others, it is all a part of the package.

I recall playing little league baseball...after the game both teams lined up and shook hands, every kid, every coach. The verbal exchange was often "Good game" to both winners and losers. The winners sometimes got pizza, the losers focused on their deficiencies on the ride home and at the next practice.

[Catfish]

My father, who was my coach growing up (I'm 37) is getting to do it all over again with my 16 year old little brother. He has told me on numerous occasions that he finds it nearly impossible to motivate the kids to work harder, to put out what it takes to win, etc.

Says they just don't care if they lose.

You could safely assume that I hate losing more than I hate just about anything else. It's only through losing that you truly appreciate winning; and it was only through the pain of losing that I learned what it takes to be a winner.

I remember when I was in college as an Education major - one of the classes consisted of making games for the classroom. Our instructor was emphatic about creating games that don't have winners. Because if you have winners, other children will be losers and children just can't handle losing without destroying their fragile self image. As a 19 year old kid in class, that struck me as very odd, but I wasn't going to stand up in class and call bullsh!t. I shudder to think what I would say now.

[boo radley]

[....]

Says they just don't care if they lose.

With all due respect, I'm not sure I've seen any evidence, empirical or otherwise, that this is so.

"Kids today just aren't competitive..." I place this into the same category as a bunch of old men sitting around the barber shop, complaining about that "Elvis outrage! Our young 'uns is listening to that NEGRO music!"

I'm told that colleges are becoming increasingly selective in admissions. Certainly revenue-generating college atheletics are hitting new highs (or lows) in recruitment efforts, and competitive selection, with scouts looking at *grade*-school players...At a very young age, countless suburban children are exposed to soccer leagues, Little League, etc. etc, and so it goes.

Same as it ever was.

On an individual and personal basis, I think wanting to win is an excellent and commendable goal, provided the competitor conduct his or herself with dignity and class. That said, I'm struck by something someone said in another thread here, about "a fine line between having fun and optimum performance," and I"m starting to get intrigued with the idea of bringing as little emotional baggage to a match, as possible, and concentrating on having fun, and simply...shooting. At least that's my "thought of the day."

[AlamoShooter]

When I get beat...I want to know that the winner had to work at it.

[38superman]

I think that kids are basically a blank slate when they come into the world.

The only thing that they bring with them are their basic instincts.

After many generations of competing for food, territory, power, etc., the need to excel is probably hard wired into them.

What they don't bring to the party is a value system.

IMHO the whole purpose in organized sports for kids is to build character.

Sports teach the value of teamwork, how to deal with adversity, and above all to never quit.

If you teach them that winning is not important I think you undermine all that.

I will be the first to agree that if you become obsessive about the scoreboard that is unhealthy.

Becoming fanatical about anything is never useful.

However, I agree with fomeister.

Teaching kids to keep their perspective is part of the package.

Tls

Edited April 17, 2006 by tlshores

[boo radley]

I think that kids are basically a blank slate when they come into the world.

If you teach them that winning is not important I think you undermine all that.

Tls

I think there are two points here -- the first is a "kids today" kinda thing, where we can agree to disagree. I don't see children OR adults being less competitive than in the past, but I don't have children, either.

The second issue, though, fascinates me -- the mental state and focus towards winning, when entering a competition.

I have a good friend of mine, I used to play golf with, back when I was playing golf. This person is one of those genuinely "tough" mental people at least with sport -- the kind you'd never want to get in a ring with, etc. We all know people like that - maybe some of you ARE those individuals who truly refuse to lose in any kind of sport or physical encounter. That said, my buddy found golf infuriating -- he was never able to get over the hurdle of not simply being able to *want* to win badly enough, being enough, if that makes any sense. It wasn't a matter of digging down inside and running faster, or hitting harder, because you don't have that in golf. Tiger Woods' "workout" program aside, golf ain't exactly like doing dead-lifts....

[JFD]

My daughter is only 9, but I'm noticing a trend in pretty much everything she's involved with that winners and losers are equally rewarded and the losers may get a bit more attention than the winners. Just an observation at this point, as I raise her the way Troy describes.

Sort of like a match with a random drawing instead of a placement-based prize table. I have little interest in "winning" anything in a random drawing, but used primers would give me a thrill as long as I "earned" them.

[JD45]

I believe that the way a winner or loser should feel, or be treated, depends on the sport or disipline.

For example, the greatest football coach(or any coach) that I have played under was our 8th grade Jr. high coach. He pushed everyone like they were going to be a Navy Seal. On the ride to a game you sat with your helmet on your lap and keep your mouth shut. You could here a pin drop. If you lost, you did the same on the trip home.

And you new what was coming at the next practice. At the end of the next practice you would be doing what he called "The Super-Sundown". It could go on forever, and even kids in great shape thought they were going to die.

At the next game, you almost had pity on the opposing team. Everyone remembered what they had gone through for losing, and were now trying to rip people in half.

If you won a game, and the coach thought you played well, all hell broke loose on the ride home. He didn't care if we tore the bus apart.

But I don't think that individual uncoached sports like shooting can be treated the same.

If I had a son that was a competitive shooter, I would teach him just like we teach each other on this forum. You practice and train, then do what you know on match day. If you lose you keep training, and if you win you keep training. It makes no difference. You still strive to improve.

[richardschennberg]

"Political Correctness" was invented by Joseph Stalin. All Stalinist political correctness teaches egalitarian language for the purpose of promoting communism and socialism. However, the version promulgated by the KGB in the United States also promotes pacifism and defeatism and was intended to turn Americans from winners into losers. I personally only know two tenured political science professors at a major state university who maintained close contact with their KGB handlers and made regular trips to the USSR. Although the USSR is no more and the KGB, lacking state support, is a mere remnant of its former self, these professors continue to promote the Stalinist agenda in the United States.

From the wierd politics eminating from universities on the east and left coast, it appears that many American institutions of "higher learning" base their politics on "Uncle Joe." Anyone not a communist and not a current citizen of Russia (not the subjugated lands) should take great offense that so-called educators obey this madman even decades after his death. The Stalinists massacred 20 million people in Ukrane alone, and countless millions over the rest of our planet. Liberal is much too kind a word to bestow on his present-day followers, but I am currently at a loss to find a term more descriptive and more current than Stalinist.

Edited April 17, 2006 by richardschennberg

[bayoupirate]

+1 to Troy.

As a current high school teacher and former Football player at the same high school.

I can say that it is my experience that the "Kids of today" syndrome is not an imagined thing. I too had a coach like JD45. I had him as a teacher for the last period of the day and I was one of his Star students. Within the time it took me to leave the classroom, get to the fieldhouse and get dressed, roles were changed and he was a demanding hardnose cuss who no one could please. I have often told this story to our current players and usually they are brutally honest. They say that if someone scream at them, said something that made them feel unworth to wear the uniform, threatened to run them until someone dropped out, or forced them to skip water breaks if they weren't giving it enough effort, THEY WOULD QUIT!!! That it. They have better equipment, training, facilites, coaches and staff, but most of them (NOT ALL) lack the Heart, the desire, the committment to be the best at what they are trying to accomplish. Coaches aren't hard on players like in the past because they want to have players to coach and they don't want to deal with parents, lawyers and administrators hassling them about hurting a child's self-esteem.

I was taught that you bring it all to the field and leave it all on the field. If you have prepared and worked with all you have and give everything you can on the field without flaw you will be victorious. If the scoreboard says differently, Your opponet is better than you are and deserved to be sincerely appreciated for their performance. If the loss is due to lack of preparation, or mistakes you have made. You are responsible for your defeat, and may have been bested by an inferior team. Still they are deserving of your appreciation for showing you your weaknesses.

BUT what do we see in America. Everyone wants to point to someone else to blame for a loss. The officials are most often the object of the losers wrath. And the pros are the worst role models for young people in the world. I just once want to hear one say, "I get paid millions of dollars to perform my job, but today I really made alot of mistakes and caused us to lose the game, I'm sorry I let everyone down."

Today Kids feel that anything is Okay, as long as it helps them to win, and I mean anything.

Cheating, Inelligible Players, Drugs, Illegal Practices, Prefferential treatment of star players, anything.

One misguided tract that educators and coaches have been down is Self-Esteem education.

Somewhere along the way we decided that kids should feel really good about themselves and everyone should try to help them to develop positive self-images. We've done a great job of this. Kids today are convinced that they are the best, brightest and most dominant beings to ever walk the face of the earth. They believe that they are special and that the world somehow owes them everything. They are filled with self-esteem that is based in Nothing. They have all the self-esteem in the world, but no effort, no skills and no desire to gain any, because they need any. Just feeling good about themselves is enough.

Why do I go off in that direction, because that is at the root of this "win at all cost" attitude.

One really big way to affirm this misguided belief that they are the greatest idea is to win over an opponet. Kids today, and very sadly many parents and coaches, believe that beating another person or team makes you better than that person. If a team of 15 year old all-stars played a practice game against 12 year old kids that they picked up off the street and beat them, they'd celebrate and add one to the Win column on the end of season t-shirt.

While many of us learned alot and grew as people by playing as a team, winning and losing. Today Winners taunt the defeated and Losers blame others.

Character education is now the catch phrase. Most of today's youth don't need Character education, they need Character Re-education. Parental and family influences have been replaced by pop icons, materalism, and Television and Movie celebrities as Role Models of right and wrong.

If you Coach, measure your success by the true life lessons you give to your team, not by the scoreboard. For one kids a base hit may mean more to another's 10th homerun. Recognize that. If you've been outcoached and your preparation of the team or bad judgements have caused the team to loose, be an adut, admit it and give your team credit for doing just what you've asked.

If you're a parent, DO NOT tolerate unsportsmanlike behavior from your child or any child on the team or any parent in the stands or any coach on the field. If the league your in doesn't support you on this stance. GET OUT! Your children are learning the wrong life lessons there.

I shoot to win, but as an A class shooter I don't expect to take a match with 2 or 3 GM's shooting. A stage win is a huge moral victory for me. The only things I control are my speed, precision, and decision making running a stage. It's me against the stage.

As Carlos Rubio told me at nationals when I said, " Oh man, you're shooting in B Class, I have to shoot against you?" He said, "The only person you have to shoot against is you."

So Far I've been really beating myself pretty regularly.

But If I ever get all of my mistakes corrected, Look out GM's.

[Jim Norman]

Ray,

I might just print out your post and pass it around.

Jim

[Ron Ankeny]

Self-Esteem education.

Ummm...kind of reminds me of our classification system.

[tightloop]

When we grew up there were not two sets of rules...just one..You went to a birthday party taking gifts, not expecting anything; you played ball of any kind as hard and the best you could, if you got beaten, you tried harder the next time...

Kids need to learn early in life that some things are not fair to everyone...just the way it is...and they will be on the short end of the stick sometimes....hard lesson to learn, but valuable down the line...

Young people are more tolerant than us old folks, more addaptable to change, more liable to soothe the wounded feelings of kids..and in the long run, it hurts them...they expect everyone to treat them the same way their parents did, and it ain't going to happen...another lesson learned early on that will help them...

Lots of child rearing things today I do not accept or approve of, but it takes a generation or two to see if they will work as well as the old tried and true ways we OLD folks remember and admire...sad to say, most of them have been a bunch of bullsh*t....Like when your son gets into his first confrontation at school and a fight seems certain and your son tells the other kid "...time out...." I want to be a fly on the wall when Mr. Time Out get the daylights whipped out of him...bet he doesn't say it but once...lol

Edited April 17, 2006 by tightloop

[boo radley]

Self-Esteem education.

Ummm...kind of reminds me of our classification system.

I smiled when I saw this, because a couple posts ago I wondered about the difference in being a "Winner" and getting recognition for 3rd 'C', Open Division, 48th overall -- as an example -- vs. a school system rewarding mediocre performance, as part of a more pervasive message of tolerance, political correctness, and other values-undermining practices from a liberal agenda.

I do, however, think there is a difference. IMO, the USPSA classification system is more about "fun" than an attempt to assuage egos. I don't see, either, how it's materially different from any other sport or recreation, in this approach.

Like playing baseball? The New York Yankees don't support a roster of 1,384,583 bench-warmers. Instead there are other major league teams, then there are minor league teams (of different levels), and local non-professional teams, and then there's softball, but not one softball league, but several, from the hyper-competitive, to mixed-sex "C" leagues....Etc, etc.

[38superman]

This might seem like a slight thread drift but bear with me.

Many people have asked why we should recognize as winners those who really can't yet compete at a high level.

Consider this:

Take the handful of top shooters in any division at a major match such as nationals.

The winner beat everyone on the roster but only a handful that really have equal skills.

If a shooter wins B or C class in that same tournament, that person had to beat maybe 40 other competitors with roughly the same skill level.

The GM that beat a few elite challengers (and a host of others with no chance) to win HOA deserves our respect.

They are what we all aspire to be.

However, a shooter that places in a field of 30 or 40 of his peers, also deserves recognition.

It's not rewarding mediocrity, its acknowledging a great performance.

Only 20 percent of classified shooters are "A" or above.

Most will spend their entire career in competitve shooting and never rise that high.

There's a whopping big difference in celebrating achievement in the ranks and coddling a child to build unearned self-esteem.

Tls

Edited April 18, 2006 by tlshores

[tightloop]

I am not saying that the different class winners should not be rewarded and celebrated for their achievements, they should, but the BIG NODS go to HOA...that is the way is has been in the past and the way it should be in the future...Can you tell me who was the runnerup in Super Bowl XXVI....quick now..no, did not think so...

Well Washing defeated Buffalo... Can you tell me who won the World Shoot the last two times in Open...Eric G, but who was runner up? did not think so... Rest my case..

[bayoupirate]

Boo you're right. The thing that works about our classification system is that is allows our sport to include all of those different levels into one event. I'm sure many of High School Stand out has wondered just what they could have done against a Big League Pitcher. By allowing everyone to shoot the exact same courses, it's like getting to play in the big league. Who hasn't compared their time on a stage or raw points to one of the GM's. I know I have.

TL is right too. The guys sluging it out in A-D need to be recognized. I know that winning a couple of state matches in C class was an important motivator to keep pushing myself to attain a higher classification.

Not sure how all matches are run, but at most matches I've been to, shooters get their turn at the prize table in order of finish. The "Big Leaguers" get most the the big league prizes from the table and usually everyone gets something.

Now for the dark side of our classification system.

I find it funny that my best stages any many of my stage wins are classifiers.

Seems some shooters are horrific SANDBAGGERS when it come to shooting for classification. They like where they are and would rather be the big fish in that pond than be a smaller fish in the next class up.

I've also seen shooters abuse the classification system's rule of assigning a class one class below the highest for any unclassified divisions. Strong A class Limited shooters who'll shoot in L10 as a B only for major matches. They win. Sportsman-like conduct? it's not illegal? I think these shooters may be in the Win at any cost mode.

Have y'all seen the same kind of conduct at your ranges???

[38superman]

I've also seen shooters abuse the classification system's rule of assigning a class one class below the highest for any unclassified divisions. Strong A class Limited shooters who'll shoot in L10 as a B only for major matches. They win. Sportsman-like conduct? it's not illegal? I think these shooters may be in the Win at any cost mode.

Have y'all seen the same kind of conduct at your ranges???

There is a simple fix for that.

Forget "one class below".

Your highest classification in any division carries over to all other divisions.

Tls

[Ron Ankeny]

My remarks about the classification system were made in response to the previous poster's remark about self esteem education. Some would argue ability grouping in education is one of the greatest contributors to the "dumbing down" of America.

Suppose we were to ability group kids according to ACT test scores (a national classifier). We could have D thru GM classes. Then instead of awarding scholarships from the top down, we could give full ride scholarships to the top couple of GM students, and give tuition and books to third place GM. We could award a full ride scholarship to the top M student, tution and books to second place M, perhaps we could award tuition and books to the top A class student, tuition and books to second place, etc. If your child is number four GM student, he/she will walk away with nothing while those of lesser ability scoop up all the marbles. It's kind of like a prize table in conjunction with a classification system.

I full well understand why schools are grouped according to size for athletic events, why bowling has handicapped leagues, and why USPSA uses a classification system. The sole purpose is not to simply recognize achievement.

[EricW]

If the kids have the incorrect values (I'm not so sure this is the case), look no further than the parents and adults egging them on.

I used to play, referee, then coached soccer, and I've seen it all from the lazy yuppie punks who would stand a watch the ball roll by while mommy clapped to an all-out parents-only soccer riot.

The kids would be fine if adults would stop living vicariously through them.

[bayoupirate]

Ron,

In Louisiana, a Self-Made Multi-Millioniare Oil Man, PAT TAYLOR, created a program that would pay tuition to a public school to any student who graduated with a certain Grade Point Average. That program has been adopted and modified by the state to include criteria for GPA, ACT Score and Students are required to take college prep classes. No getting a 4.0 GPA by taking only PE and Shop Class to qualify. The Tuition Opportunity Program for Students, TOPS awards are pro-rated. Minimum 2.5 GPA and 20 on ACT gets you basic tuition, no student fees, no books, no room and board etc... 3.0 GPA and 25 ACT gets more, and 4.0 GPA & 30+ ACT kids pretty much get a full ride. I shared this with my new South African friends at Nationals and it blew their minds. FREE EDUCATION!!!!!

I went to school in the time of ability grouping, and I thank God for that.

Now it is ILLEGAL to group students by ability, Tracking, Grouping whatever you might call it the Federal Government (Experts on ALL Things as we know) made that decision.

There are of Course Honors Courses, that somehow are allowed to still exist, but the criteria is very lame. Basically if you want your kid in an honors class, they let them in.

If they didn't they might have to tell some parents that thier kids aren't special, spectacular, and great!!! "Little Johnny had a "D" average last year in English I, but if you believe that he'd do better in English II Honors, Ms. Parent lady, We'll go ahead and schedule him for that one."

All of this would be truely AWSOME Socially relevant idea turned into reality.

Unfortunately AGAIN most kids have the desire to reach those goals and attend college, but lack the Drive, Heart, Commitment, and Work Ethic to put in the time and effort it takes to make it happen. Do you realize how insane that is. Only 1 generation ago here, people were forced to quit school and go to work to help support thier families. They didn't want to quit, they had to. Now, we can't give away education.

Then Again, Of what value is an education that I have to work for, if I can just skip alot of school, never really learn to read well, act like an animal instead of a human being, and the federal government will take some of that money, from of the hard working people of America have entrusted them with for later in life, and just give it to me every month. If I then claim that I can't work because I have some falsely created Disability, they'll send me even more money, and food stamps, and give me free health care.

Do Nothing and get free money or Work hard to get and education and work to make money. Which do you think more and more people are choosing. These generations of people are sucking our government dry, but more importantly affirming their ability to get something for nothing is destroying the moral fabric of our nation.

Not that I'm biased or anything, but I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me how sending a check for almost $700 per month to the family of a child with Dyslexia, ADD, ADHD, Unspecified Learning Disabilities, or most other SSI (Crazy) Check excuses, Helps the child. Haven't seen new shoes, clothes, jewelry, ipods, or any of the other things this money is wasted on help a kids learn yet. The money should either go to the child's school or be used to provide services for the child. How many children/Families do you think would take advantage of these services????

[Ron Ankeny]

Ray:

If Brian were to give an award for thread drift, we would be in the running. We both know the older generation has been complaining about the younger generation since Adam and Eve. I have taught school for 30 years and I need to be real careful about being critical of kids through selective memory. I am glad to say our best and brightest are as good as ever. Our better student athletes are as competitive as ever and their drive is unrivaled. Unfortunately, there are a lot (as in a whole lot) of kids today who lack self direction, they are poorly motivated, they have no pride in a job well done, and their attendance is horrible. Schools and parents are to blame. It's not uncommon for a student in my school to miss 30-40 days of school a year just on school sponsored activities. Times are changing.