wph@ihuxn.UUCP (hentrich) (06/13/85)
> Fellow netters, > . > . > . > I think there is a cultural difference vis-a-vis myself and the Vince > Lombardi-Pete Rose school of "win at all costs". When I look at sports I like > to remember the saying that the Chinese use:"Friendship first, competition > second". Subscription to this philosophy and professional sports in America, > especially America in the '80's, does not mix. Some of you must be thinking > that "this guy is a real wimp, he doesn't want to win, etc." > . > . > . > David Cherson David has touched on a point of view that I have heard about for several years, "win at all costs". I believe in this school of thought for PROFESSIONAL athletes. This is their job. If any player in any professional sport did not try their best to win they would be out of a job. If the hitter were the pitchers best friend and the pitcher were struggling, should the hitter strike out to help his friend when a base hit could win a game? However, I do agree that the "win at all costs" philosophy does hurt the amateur programs at all levels. I have 2 teenage children who have competed on organized teams in many sports. You can see that some of the parents do want their Jonny to win the game regardless of how it is done. I am sure that most spectators at children's sports events have seen a coach or parent scold a player for a mistake in an unnecessary manner. I think that it is the parents responsibility to instill a sense of good sportmanship to their children. Most children are not going to be professional athletes, they do however need to develop a sense of desire to excell at some time. Sports are a good media for this development. David, I do not think that you are a wimp. I just think that the "win at all costs" attitude is a must for a PROFESSIONAL athletes. Warren Hentrich ihuxn!wph
wetcw@pyuxa.UUCP (T C Wheeler) (06/14/85)
I would have to agree that "win at all cost" is fine for a pro team, however, in many situations in amateur sports, this should be discouraged. I have been coaching baseball for 8 years now and have seen both sides of the coin. We just finished a season which had some rather bizzare scores. The team I am coaching is what we call an instructional "Cap League". It is made up of kids form 7 to 10. There are 8 teams in the league. Three of the teams happened to get a large proportion of 7 and 8 year olds. They had a tough season. One of the teams did not win one game. When we played the winless team, I would let our regulars start the game. The first inning would be a disaster. Then, I would send all of the regulars to the far reaches of the outfield where they could not be a factor in any plays (they griped but they went anyway). (Oh, all the kids played, in the field and at bat. Sure looked strange with 7 or 8 outfielders). Our less than average players then made up the infield. Since the other theam had trouble getting the ball out of the innfield, the chances of errors on our part were pretty good. As a result of all of this chicanery, the other team was able to score runs, and in the process, feel a little better about themselves. They looked forward to playing our team as it made the game fun, as it should be for kids. It further, helped the less talented kids on our team by getting them into the action in a big way and they felt better about themselves. On the other side of the coin in our league, there was one team that was a win at all cost team. It was the coaches on this team who were into this sort of thing. They practiced four times as much as the rest of us and generally made fools of themselves. They were even bragging that they had beat the hapless team by 39 to 3. This is not the kind of thing that should be done at the level we are at. Winning for winning sake is something that must be looked at in degrees of sportsmanship. As far as the pro's are concerned, that's their job, short of maiming the other players with a cheap shot. (see Pete Rose and a few others in football and basketball.) When your down at the level of play where I coach, fundamentals and fun are the game. Even the fundamentals should be introduced in stages. You do not teach an 8 year old to slide into second, spikes high (the twit coach for the bad team was teaching this sort of thing). You have to concentrated on the most basic areas of the sport. As time goes by, you can begin to introduce those parts of the sport that enhance the winning edge. In the meantime, it is important that all of the kids on all of the teams learn to have fun playing a game, not that it is a job or effort that will turn many of them off. T. C. Wheeler
david@fisher.UUCP (David Rubin) (06/14/85)
I disagree with Warren's statement that "winning at all costs" is an appropriate attitude for professional atheletes. Now, it is apparent to me that a pro ought to pay a greater cost in an effort to win, but certainly not "all costs". Baseball is, in the final analysis, entertainment, and I am NOT entertained by such things as, say, beanballs. "Winning at all costs" is immoral. David Rubin
jims@hcrvax.UUCP (Jim Sullivan) (06/20/85)
Winning at all costs. Hmmmmm. I expect a professional to perform to his best ability at all times. And, if it takes a 'win regardless' attitude to do this, then fine. However, on the 'amateur' level, when I playing a game, I try to think differently. Yes, I like to win, but I really like to have fun. To this end I work had when I'm playing sports, keeping my eyes open and competing, as we all should. (Try playing squash when one person is not trying, very dull) But, when the game is over, I always shake hands. For me, WIN, but have fun. For pros, win at all costs Jim Sullivan Fencer, Ball Hockey Player, Baseballer, touch football ...