The Continuing Wussifcation of American Kids

[skyin' brian]

I'm sure I've brought this up on similar threads, but in chess, it is considered poor sportsmanship to NOT resign when you are in an obviously losing position.

Sometimes enough is enough!

[TN1965]

Individuals should always strive to do their best. There is no 'humiliation' in that. If one tennis player, one golfer, one bowler, one swimmer, one track athlete, etc. wins by a wide margin, the victor is judged by the quality of the individual effort. There is no shame is winning 6-love, 6 love; or by 20 strokes, or by 2 hours in a marathon. But . . . in a team sport - football, baseball, basketball, soccer - humiliation is a very real prospect, because of the group-effort nature of the end result. It's a sociological construct. And that is PRECISELY why so many people (a clear majority) don't like lop-sided games in team sports, but love a dominating individual effort.

No, the difference is not between individual and team sports. When a runner, a swimmer or a golfer wins by a huge margin, it is not the runner-up who is humiliated. The runner-up is still better than the rest. And whether the winner lets up or not has no relevance for the potential humiliation at the end of the pack. Tennis is an individual sport, by winning a match by 6-0, 6-0 can be frowned upon by the same people who take issues with lopsided team scores. (Remember Zvereva in the French Open final?)

And this is a culturally specific concept. I find it more humiliating if my opponent intentionally let up in order to make my team look "less bad." It is like saying "you don't deserve our honest effort, because you are so bad." Quite honestly, if anyone cannot stomach the humiliation of lopsided defeat, they should not engage in competitive sports. There are many activities better for your fitness than those team sports.

[Dutra5]

Even sport-writers, who LOVE displays of raw competitiveness and superiority, often decry the lack of sportsmanship in a 91-0 beat-down.

Sportmanship is indeed a figment of human imagination. Nature does not abhor a lion who plays with its prey before tearing it limb-from-limb. But humans have an innate sense of decency, of fair play, that forbids such boorish displays of disdain.

I probably listen to and read too much sports information and opinion and I can't say I've read very many opinions, if any at all, that the 91-0 game was all that much of a problem. The main question seems to be why did they play at all which is explained by the fact that it was a district match.

[Marlow]

I'll rephrase my question. Where did you get those numbers?

From where the sun don't shine! :twisted:
My 'proof' is in all the newspaper, magazine and blogs that bemoan the eroding sportsmanship in America, which result in 91-0 games.
In the 10 years that I coached HS soccer we were usually on the winning side of one-sided games, which is why I really appreciated the 8-0 mercy rule. If you stretch out 8 goals over 80 minutes (HS rules), the 'drubbing' doesn't seem so bad, and no one had an issue with it. But . . . since you had to complete a half for it to count as a game, some teams would try to score as many as possible by half, 12 goals sometimes, by half to pad their kids' stats. I never did that, nor did I allow one kid to score more than 3 goals a game, which twice cost my son the city scoring title.
On the other hand, we once lost a game 8-0 (with a minute to play!) against the eventual state champions, and we were proud to extend the game that long. We certainly didn't feel bad losing that badly. But, if they had try to run it up, and beaten us 12-0 at half, yeah, I would have thought the other coach a jerk - I didn't do that, so I expect others not to either.

[jazzcyclist]

Sportmanship is indeed a figment of human imagination. Nature does not abhor a lion who plays with its prey before tearing it limb-from-limb. But humans have an innate sense of decency, of fair play, that forbids such boorish displays of disdain.

All you have to do is look at the history books to know that humans aren't much better than lions when it comes to the treatment of other humans, and that applies to Americans too, but since I don't want to hijack my own thread, I won't both to give you examples, which you're already aware of anyway.

[TN1965]

Was Australia criticized for this match?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia_ ... ican_Samoa

[Marlow]

Was Australia criticized for this match?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia_ ... ican_Samoa

Here's your answer:

"The Samoan team was not feeling downhearted after the game, and even embraced and sang to the audience as the game finished."

Same as my 0-8 drubbing above. It all depends on the circumstances.

[Pego]

My 'proof' is in all the newspaper, magazine and blogs that bemoan the eroding sportsmanship in America, which result in 91-0 games.

Yes, pontificating talking heads. I have witnessed plenty of drubbings of opposition in this country (football, soccer, basketball) in high school and college competition and not once did I hear anybody in the audience voicing displeasure with the drubbing. Yes, you took your numbers from where you indicate :wink: . 75%, my ass :twisted: .

[jazzcyclist]

A clear majority? Of Americans? Where did you learn that? It clearly is not the case in Europe, I had never heard of the concept prior to arriving to USA.
Some clearly do, but with a blanket statement that the majority wants to play fair I would respectfully disagree.

Yes, a clear majority. I didn't know it was an 'American thing', but if it is, then another reason I'm proud to be a Murkan! :wink:
You look at any huge lop-sided team sport score and you will find that most people (OK, 90% women, 60% of the men = 75% total :P ) will see a lack of sportsmanship.

I'll rephrase my question. Where did you get those numbers? And, yes, this is purely a Murkan phenomenon. Look at toyracer's post above.

This may be an American thing, but it's a nouveau American thing, not a historically American thing. When Ali beat Ernie Terrell in a 15-round decision, he was crucified by the media for allowing Terrell to survive 15 rounds rather than knocking him out, which he could have easily done in the round of his choosing. Here's the title and intro to the Sports Illustrated article about that fight 46 years ago:

• Cruel Ali With All The Skills
  A vindictive champion punished Ernie Terrell through 15 brutal rounds. He convinced remaining doubters that he is king of the heavies
  
  Muhammad Ali, who has grown from a cheerful, ingenuous boy into a cruel man, proved beyond any question that he is the heavyweight champion of the world when he destroyed Ernie Terrell in Houston's Astrodome Monday night. He fought with ?lan and power and with a consummate sense of timing and distance, and when the fight was over he had punished Terrell unmercifully.
  
  It was a wonderful demonstration of boxing skill and a barbarous display of cruelty.
  
  "I want to torture him," Ali said two days before the fight. "I want to give him the Patterson humiliation and punish him. A clean knockout is too good for him."

[TN1965]

According to this Wiki article, it is also a Canadian thing. Can any Canadian on this board comment on this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Running_up ... nerated1-7