Thread: Olympics 2014 Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=026720
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on
:
The Olympics are to start rather soon in Sochi, Russia. I find some aspects of the Olympic movement troubling: the excess focus on competition and winning, the expenses of the games, corporate sponsorship of everything related. Sports being pretty well a replacement for religion it seems, but only as performance. Few participate.
Being not so sure myself, I ask: are the Olympics justifiable at all in your opinion?
Posted by Desert Daughter (# 13635) on
:
the original Olympic idea certainly is quite noble. What the modern media-driven, sensationalist world has made out of it is another question.
I don't have any problem with Olympic Games per se, I quite enjoy watching people strive for perfection in their disciplines.
What I do have a problem with are these particular Olympics, the whole story of the way Russia forced them upon Sochi, the utter disregard for inhabitants and workers and the environment, the way Putin instrumentalises the Games for his own agenda. The latter is not new, though. We already had this back in 1936...
Ideally, the Games should only be held in nations that are up to the "Olympic Ideal" of fairness and international goodwill.
But commercial interests and "realpolitik" will make sure this won't happen too often ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
Sports being pretty well a replacement for religion it seems, but only as performance.
What do you mean "replacement"? The Olympics started out as a religious ritual.
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on
:
There is the stated ideal of the "Olympic movement" and the reality of what it is- a two week window where a bunch of sports host their respective biggest competition of the year in one location. If you are just not that into sports, no one forces you to watch. There are these things called books, after all.
For the sports fans among us, it is a great opportunity to see the best in the world in sports that get less publicity (which is why they need corporate sponsors- freestyle skiing doesn't pay well) competing in the event they have been working towards for their entire lives. It's fun. While I think the expenses of hosting are quite silly, beyond that, I don't see why the idea of a high-level world wide athletic competition needs justification.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
How venues are chosen
No doubt some attention is paid to geopolitical acceptability but I would think ability to pay, plus a sound plan to deliver the venues and necessary infrastructure on time matter more than "sensitivities".
Personally, I prefer the summer Olympics, but in general I agree with Og. And I do enjoy the curling. Clever, subtle team game and very good to watch on TV.
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on
:
I can't think too much attention is paid to geopolitical good sense when Sochi, Russia is first choice and Pyongyang was the runner-up!
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
I can't think too much attention is paid to geopolitical good sense when Sochi, Russia is first choice and Pyongyang was the runner-up!
The runner up was Pyeongchang, in South Korea. Pyeongchang will host the 2018 Winter Olympics and Paralympics.
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on
:
My bad. Thanks for catching that. I was reading something else about North Korea at the same time. Still, my point holds. Actually North Korea almost might seem safer to me, because if the event was actually in NK, they would have no incentive to disrupt it. Any event that is SK's event, they have every incentive to disrupt.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
I find some aspects of the Olympic movement troubling: the excess focus on competition and winning
It's sport. Playing to win is the whole POINT.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Desert Daughter:
Ideally, the Games should only be held in nations that are up to the "Olympic Ideal" of fairness and international goodwill.
But this in itself would be a controversial idea. I can't see how objective choices could be made, or who would make them. Every nation has its detractors.
Moreover, Russia is hardly getting a free ride; the upcoming Olympic games are providing a perfect opportunity for critics of the Russian govt to publicise their displeasure internationally.
Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
My bad. Thanks for catching that. I was reading something else about North Korea at the same time. Still, my point holds. Actually North Korea almost might seem safer to me, because if the event was actually in NK, they would have no incentive to disrupt it. Any event that is SK's event, they have every incentive to disrupt.
They didn't disrupt the 1988 Seoul Olympics, so this round should be OK.
Posted by Chocoholic (# 4655) on
:
I was rather lacking in enthusiasm for 2012, thought it was a lot of money, when the country was facing huge financial pressures, and with millions invested in a few individuals to try to get them to win medals (and once they had they got big advertising deals). I do still believe this but it did give more of a lift to the country than I had given it credit for initially and there was huge excitement as our medal haul increased. But more than that, it bought countries together even where there were political and social issues or contentions, and who knows, it could help in steps towards reconciliation and mutual respect.
Let us hope that this games can also help to build on this.
Posted by bib (# 13074) on
:
I would like to see the Olympics return to a much more simple format. The exorbitant spending by host cities is obscene and the opening and closing ceremonies are often ridiculous. Maybe there should be one permanent site agreed on(?Athens) and all participating countries then contribute to its upkeep.
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
I find some aspects of the Olympic movement troubling: the excess focus on competition and winning
It's sport. Playing to win is the whole POINT.
Completely disagree, unless you're a spectator, which is one of the problems I'm identifying. I play in an over 50 fun soccer league, curl in a master's league, ski in loppets. These are all about activities with other people, with friendly competition and participation the emphasis. We have no referees and we regulate ourselves. Does no one participate in sports that are not just about winning? Pity if not.
I also ride a bicycle for commuting, and canoe and sail for recreation. Are these not sports? I think the excessive focus on competition makes most people take themselves out of sports entirely by the time they're in their midteens. They drink "sports drinks" as an aid to their development of diabetes and becoming fat. Pity there too.
Posted by Egeria (# 4517) on
:
As the Olympics are staged by human beings, it is inevitable that there will be mistakes in planning and organization, occasional cheating, and occasional displays of poor sportsmanship (cue that silver medalist in gymnastics from 2012). There will also be awe-inspiring displays of speed, power, grace, and all-round excellence. Displays of courage and fortitude, often by athletes who have no chance of winning a medal and are soon forgotten (the last finishers in any distance event, for example). Displays of good sportsmanship, too. (Journalists, wallowing in their nasty professional cynicism, often don't care about such things, but sports fans do.)
So the Olympic Games sometimes fall short of the ideal. What human endeavor does not? Overall, however, the ideal is more often realized than not.
And if sport is all about winning, only a handful of athletes would participate in the Olympics. Think about all the hundreds of athletes who know that only a miracle will get them anywhere near the medal stand--or even the top ten--or the top one hundred in some events! I had the privilege of having an Olympic athlete as a strength training instructor. He said that it was indeed a great thrill to be there and to participate--living proof of what Baron de Courbetin said.
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
I also ride a bicycle for commuting, and canoe and sail for recreation. Are these not sports?
Not that anyone would want to watch on TV. Once again, if competitive sports on TV aren't your thing, read a book. I'll watch the best in the world drive each other to be better than they would be without the competition.
I like to ski. I love watching mogul skiing because I know exactly how hard it is to even connect two turns in a mogul field, and am in awe of anyone who can do 20+ in a row with jumps in the middle. It has never made me want to quit. And the notion that televised competitive sports generally inspire people to quit sports seems a little silly.
Posted by Galloping Granny (# 13814) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by bib:
I would like to see the Olympics return to a much more simple format. The exorbitant spending by host cities is obscene and the opening and closing ceremonies are often ridiculous. Maybe there should be one permanent site agreed on(?Athens) and all participating countries then contribute to its upkeep.
It's the competitive element in hosting that sticks in my craw. Each country has to outdo the previous one, so the expense escalates. It takes some of the attention away from the real competition among athletes.
At the risk of sounding a total spoilsport, I never watch a major fireworks display without thinking 'There goes enough money to feed a small African country for a year'. Of course I watch the Olympic opening ceremonies, but with a small shadow at the heart.
GG
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
I'm not sure it's possible to revert to 'simpler' with 200 nations taking part. I guess there's merit in seeking to tone down the opening and closing ceremonies, though, expensive as they are, the cost is probably a drop in the bucket compared with the costs of venues, secure accommodation for participants, support admin including overall security for the crowds as well as participants, media access, transport costs etc etc.
It's going to be a big, expensive, job even without some of the excessive razzmatazz.
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Galloping Granny:
I never watch a major fireworks display without thinking 'There goes enough money to feed a small African country for a year'. Of course I watch the Olympic opening ceremonies, but with a small shadow at the heart.
GG
Except I don't think that's what it would go on.
Given some of the things public money is spent on (nuclear weapons - defence procurement in general - vanity infrastructure, failed IT projects, consultancies, top people's bonuses) a bit of sporting bread and circuses is relatively benign.
But then, as I have often remarked, all art is redundant, all fashion, all gastronomy, everything over and above the utilitarian. It just happens that the superfluous is what makes it all bearable.
[ 28. January 2014, 08:24: Message edited by: Firenze ]
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Galloping Granny:
It's the competitive element in hosting that sticks in my craw. Each country has to outdo the previous one, so the expense escalates. It takes some of the attention away from the real competition among athletes.
Is that always the case? I don't know how much Peking's Olympic Opening Ceremony cost in 2008, but I suspect it cost an awful lot more than London's four years later.
Posted by passer (# 13329) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
They didn't disrupt the 1988 Seoul Olympics, so this round should be OK.
Your faith in the little doughball currently dictating in North Korea (if not intended to be sarcastic) is touching. The increasing desperation of this forsaken hell-hole's ruling élite makes me less than fully convinced that they'll sit quietly by and watch the South earn plaudits for a well-run enterprise. My guess is that they'll sabotage the events location quite late in the day and then magnanimously step in to offer up their recently-constructed ski-resort as an alternative. Or perhaps threaten to disrupt the event unless their location is included.
quote:
Originally posted by chocoholic:
But more than that, it bought countries together
(my italics)
Love it.
▲
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
Completely disagree, unless you're a spectator, which is one of the problems I'm identifying. I play in an over 50 fun soccer league, curl in a master's league, ski in loppets. These are all about activities with other people, with friendly competition and participation the emphasis. We have no referees and we regulate ourselves. Does no one participate in sports that are not just about winning? Pity if not.
If the object isn't to win, why keep score?
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by bib:
Maybe there should be one permanent site agreed on(?Athens) and all participating countries then contribute to its upkeep.
I think that's a great idea.
But the construction of these sites does bring lots of jobs, tourism etc etc.
Barcelona's stadium is still included on the tourist route.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
Completely disagree, unless you're a spectator, which is one of the problems I'm identifying. I play in an over 50 fun soccer league, curl in a master's league, ski in loppets. These are all about activities with other people, with friendly competition and participation the emphasis. We have no referees and we regulate ourselves. Does no one participate in sports that are not just about winning? Pity if not.
If the object isn't to win, why keep score?
If that's all it is, why bother when you know you stand no chance? I should thank you, Marv - you've identified why compulsory school sports should be abandoned forthwith.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
If that's all it is, why bother when you know you stand no chance?
That's rarely the case, especially when talking about the Olympics. Even the slowest of Olympic runners must have won a shedload of races just to get there in the first place.
quote:
I should thank you, Marv - you've identified why compulsory school sports should be abandoned forthwith.
Yeah, because competition is the worst thing ever and no child should ever have to experience the horror of being defeated in a sporting contest.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
If that's all it is, why bother when you know you stand no chance?
That's rarely the case, especially when talking about the Olympics. Even the slowest of Olympic runners must have won a shedload of races just to get there in the first place.
What about that African guy who ran in minutes behind everyone else, while everyone cheered? But even in the less extreme cases there are those likely to win and those very unlikely to even get bronze.
quote:
quote:
I should thank you, Marv - you've identified why compulsory school sports should be abandoned forthwith.
Yeah, because competition is the worst thing ever and no child should ever have to experience the horror of being defeated in a sporting contest.
No, but because it's about winning and therefore pointless for those who have no chance of doing so. Having said that, I do think that no-one should have to experience the horror of losing every fucking time for twelve fucking years to the jeering of the entire school and made to feel like a useless piece of shit every fucking week for those twelve fucking years.
Some of us still haven't finished with therapy after decades. ![[Mad]](angryfire.gif)
[ 28. January 2014, 12:17: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
What about that African guy who ran in minutes behind everyone else, while everyone cheered? But even in the less extreme cases there are those likely to win and those very unlikely to even get bronze.
Eric "The Eel" Moussambani? One of the greatest swimmers Equatorial Guinea has ever produced? You do realise that he set a new national record in that race, don't you?
quote:
No, but because it's about winning and therefore pointless for those who have no chance of doing so.
People just need to find the right sport for them. There were plenty of school sports that I wasn't very good at (basketball, cross country, athletics, tennis, rugby, etc), so I focused my efforts on the ones where I was (cricket and hockey).
quote:
Having said that, I do think that no-one should have to experience the horror of losing every fucking time for twelve fucking years to the jeering of the entire school and made to feel like a useless piece of shit every fucking week for those twelve fucking years.
Some of us still haven't finished with therapy after decades.
I firmly believe that there's a sport for everyone. The problem with sport in schools is that they don't offer enough variety.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
No, it was some runner. I forget the details because they don't particularly interest me.
They say there's a sport for everyone, but I never found one. Our school offered lots of sports, but I sucked at every last one of them.
Posted by moonlitdoor (# 11707) on
:
I went to see the men's marathon at the 2012 Olympics and I was on the part of the course just opposite the water station for the Andorran runner. Most of the crowd standing there gave him a cheer when he came past, and I think most people were doing so as a bit of a sympathy vote, but I cheered because I do quite a bit of running, and know just what an exceptional runner you still have to be to do a marathon 15 minutes slower than the winner.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
Anyway, we're getting away from my point, which was that if (a) it's all about winning, and (b) you suck utterly, it's entirely pointless competing, and we should let people who suck do something with more point, rather than just act as foils for sportsmen to feel better than.
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
Completely disagree, unless you're a spectator, which is one of the problems I'm identifying. I play in an over 50 fun soccer league, curl in a master's league, ski in loppets. These are all about activities with other people, with friendly competition and participation the emphasis. We have no referees and we regulate ourselves. Does no one participate in sports that are not just about winning? Pity if not.
If the object isn't to win, why keep score?
We don't always. And never with golf. Your statement could be reversed: if you don't win, why play?
I take it you're quite a competitor Marvin. Keep at it Karl, you're on to the issue I think.
[ 28. January 2014, 13:40: Message edited by: no prophet ]
Posted by deano (# 12063) on
:
So if left to Karl and NP, the kid who wasn't very good academically but had a real talent for say football or athletics, wouldn't be able to use their skill and talent to make a decent living.
And the rest of us can watch the teminally mediocre, providing they're all having a good time!
Well Karl, at least you learn't how to deal with losing and dissapointment - even if that meant therapy.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
So if left to Karl and NP, the kid who wasn't very good academically but had a real talent for say football or athletics, wouldn't be able to use their skill and talent to make a decent living.
How'd you work that out? If it were up to me it wouldn't be compulsory. I didn't say it'd be forbidden.
quote:
And the rest of us can watch the teminally mediocre, providing they're all having a good time!
No, see above.
quote:
Well Karl, at least you learn't how to deal with losing and dissapointment - even if that meant therapy.
Actually, no, I learnt that it's perfectly acceptable to mock and assault the less talented at sports. You know that in my internal lexicon "bully" and "sportsman" are virtually synonyms, because IME they were all the same people.
[ 28. January 2014, 14:02: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
Posted by deano (# 12063) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
You know that in my internal lexicon "bully" and "sportsman" are virtually synonyms, because IME they were all the same people.
Oh, okay. Substitute "sportsman" for "socialist" and we could be talking about me.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
You know that in my internal lexicon "bully" and "sportsman" are virtually synonyms, because IME they were all the same people.
Oh, okay. Substitute "sportsman" for "socialist" and we could be talking about me.
It's like the Daily Mail in here; some people have to turn anything into a political swipe.
Posted by deano (# 12063) on
:
Yeah, right! Because calling for taking competitive sports out of schools is not now, nor has ever been, a political subject with a clear left/right split.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
Yeah, right! Because calling for taking competitive sports out of schools is not now, nor has ever been, a political subject with a clear left/right split.
Except no-one's calling for their being taken out of school. Just made non-compulsory. If that's lefty, well tough titty, I still think it's a damned good idea. How about arguing against it on its own merits or lack thereof, rather than trying the thought-free approach of "Is Socialist. Is Bad." Tell me exactly why making children endure losing every week to the derision of their peers is good for them. Do you think you'd benefit from being whipped with a towel, beaten up and having "wanker" gestures aimed at you all afternoon?
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
So if left to Karl and NP, the kid who wasn't very good academically but had a real talent for say football or athletics, wouldn't be able to use their skill and talent to make a decent living.
And the rest of us can watch the teminally mediocre, providing they're all having a good time!
Well Karl, at least you learn't how to deal with losing and dissapointment - even if that meant therapy.
There's probably a bit of sour grapes for those of us whose talents lie somewhere other than athletics. You're right, it's great that someone who isn't academically inclined but is athletically talented can use those gifts to possibly great (depending on the sport) financial success and be cheered on by a huge crowd of supporters. I guess the rest of us just wish that those opportunities were available to kids with other kinds of gifts. It would be awesome if the arts received that sort of financial and community support. And one can't even imagine what sort of massive social paradigm shifting would have to take place for the mathletes to receive that kind of funding and enthusiastic support. Can one imagine a crowd of enthusiastic supporters cheering the nation's top teachers as they surmount a gauntlet of political, social, and economic challenges to successfully teach a young child to read, or the top nurses caring for some elderly patients? So yeah, sour grapes, but perhaps understandably so.
[ 28. January 2014, 14:42: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
Can you imagine if we made chess compulsory? We'd be asked about people who don't like chess, and aren't interested in it. Why do we want to make them play chess?
Yet put a sport in the place of chess there, and everyone thinks it's wonderful. Bollocks to it.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Can you imagine if we made chess compulsory?
Or better still, have it as another option alongside football, rugby, cricket and the like during games periods. Have school chess teams competing against one another. That would be awesome.
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on
:
I think it depends on what you think schools teach sport for, if it is to keep children fit and healthy and help them create a lifetime habit - I think there are better ways to do that than *solely* competitive games.
I found in adulthood that I was much more motivated by karate and weightlifitng than I ever was in lacrosse or basketball.
Learning to do them, and do them regularly, in childhood - would probably have had a substantial effect on my long term health.
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on
:
Where I went to school, sports were compulsory, but they had different teams or activities with different objectives. Some were about giving people a foundation for a lifetime of fitness and a lesson in teamwork, others were about competing for state titles.
Arts were the same way. Compulsory, although there were advanced groups for people who wanted to perform and excel, and then a big choir or general art class where you might get a little appreciation for the arts.
Academics were, in fact, the same way. We had advanced classes, and those people who were in those advanced classes and who were accepted into some pretty impressive schools were recognized and actually admired by the other students (seriously, no nostalgia covering things up here). But for the rest of us, there were middle and remedial level classes, with the objective of getting the kid to excel at the level he or she was capable of.
So maybe that is why the Olympics don't rub me the wrong way- I was taught from an early age that the key is to drive to be the best that you can in whatever you do, be it art, sport, or academics,to know that there are people out there for whom excellence looks quite different one way or the other, and to recognize and admire greatness when you saw it, even if it was in a field that you would never achieve such greatness.
(It is also healthy to admit that you might be good at something that might be really not that interesting for someone else to watch. Nothing wrong with that- no one wants to watch me practice bankruptcy law or prepare my income tax return, and it's no hair off my back that they would rather get the adrenaline rush that comes with watching a good football game.)
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Can you imagine if we made chess compulsory?
Or better still, have it as another option alongside football, rugby, cricket and the like during games periods. Have school chess teams competing against one another. That would be awesome.
I would have liked it as a voluntary option. Love the game.
My old school made various firms of sweaty exercise compulsory, but unfortunately not the one we spent most of our time fantasising about.
I guess I could have coped with that option, provided a bit of privacy was provided. Doubt whether it will ever make it onto the Olympic Games schedule. Nigel Kneale was a great playwright but he probably got that wrong. (Translation available on request).
Posted by Spike (# 36) on
:
So if a child were an under achiever at maths, for instance, would it be acceptable for the teacher to shout at him and to humiliate him in front of his classmates? Would it be acceptable for the teacher to encourage the rest of the class to take the piss? Somehow I doubt it. So why is acceptable for PE/Games teachers to behave like that?
[ 28. January 2014, 16:58: Message edited by: Spike ]
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on
:
The thing I enjoy now, so many years after school, is that all those boys who mocked, hit and otherwise bullied me are fat, bald and married to ugly women* who hate them.
*I went to an all boys boarding school, so I can't speak to the Mean Girls™ or Heathers™ like experience of the smarter gender.
[ 28. January 2014, 17:04: Message edited by: no prophet ]
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Spike:
So why is acceptable for PE/Games teachers to behave like that?
It's not.
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
The thing I enjoy now, so many years after school, is that all those boys who mocked, hit and otherwise bullied me are fat, bald and married to ugly women* who hate them.
*I went to an all boys boarding school, so I can't speak to the Mean Girls™ or Heathers™ like experience of the smarter gender.
So is this all there is to this thread? Is this why the Olympics are not justified? Because people who were good at sports at school were mean to you?
(And this is always the story you hear, but I still keep up with a number of people who were good at sports in school, and a number of them have gone on to be quite successful in life. And once again, it's no hair off my back when they are successful.)
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
So is this all there is to this thread?
Okay, I apologise for trying to be funny. There are a host of reasons the Olympics are questionable, as other responses, including mine have noted. I think the under-mentioned one that has come up on this thread is that the pursuit of excellence and winning being the most important think has immense impact on public health via the nonparticipation in activity by the majority of the population. There are other influences too, including the rise of electronic entertainment.
But I will return to your comment, where you used the word "mean". "Mean" doesn't describe the level of bullying and violence experienced in my generation by the jocks. Which included medical attention requiring physical injuries.
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on
:
quote:
I think the under-mentioned one that has come up on this thread is that the pursuit of excellence and winning being the most important think has immense impact on public health via the nonparticipation in activity by the majority of the population.
There are far more productive ways to get people to exercise than ending the Olympics. You have stated up thread that you have found ways to participate in sports that do not emphasize winning at all costs- let's focus on teaching kids who don't have raw talent that. Do what my parents did- explain that not everyone is destined to be an Olympic athlete (this is especially true of me, about as clumsy of a person as you can find), and then explain that you can still have fun even if you compete or participate at a far lower level. Then sit back and admire the people who do have raw talent, with the appreciation that only comes from participating in the same sport at a much lower level.
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
quote:
I think the under-mentioned one that has come up on this thread is that the pursuit of excellence and winning being the most important think has immense impact on public health via the nonparticipation in activity by the majority of the population.
There are far more productive ways to get people to exercise than ending the Olympics. You have stated up thread that you have found ways to participate in sports that do not emphasize winning at all costs- let's focus on teaching kids who don't have raw talent that. Do what my parents did- explain that not everyone is destined to be an Olympic athlete (this is especially true of me, about as clumsy of a person as you can find), and then explain that you can still have fun even if you compete or participate at a far lower level. Then sit back and admire the people who do have raw talent, with the appreciation that only comes from participating in the same sport at a much lower level.
You miss the point. The Olympics are the crown jewel, the pinnacle of the issue. You are correct that I personally am very active, but I am not in the majority.
We haven't even mentioned performance enhancing drugs and other shortcuts yet.
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
You miss the point. The Olympics are the crown jewel, the pinnacle of the issue.
Yeah, I'm obviously missing some point you are trying to make. The crown jewel and pinnacle of what issue exactly?
Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on
:
High fashion according to the Norwegian curling team.
[ 28. January 2014, 19:51: Message edited by: Ian Climacus ]
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on
:
Of hyper-competitiveness and absurd emphasis on winning at all costs. Not sure where the connection misses for you.
Thinking of alpine skiing events where the winner and the top 5 or 7 may all be within less than 1 or 2 seconds of each other and a few hundredths between the gold and silver and bronze.
Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on
:
Similar to you Karl my experiences of school sport are ones I try to repress; though your expriences sound worse.
That said, I enjoy the Olympics. Winter Olympics particularly as, as I think it was Og who said it, I get to see sports I usually do not. And I liked Firenze's It just happens that the superfluous is what makes it all bearable.
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ian Climacus:
High fashion according to the Norwegian curling team.
Strangely at the recent TSN Skins in Las Vegas they wore plain black pants. Ulsrud is "colourful" character.
Curling is still one sport where nearly anyone can compete. Unique I think presently. I attended the Canadian Olympic Trials in Winnipeg in Dec.
Posted by Garasu (# 17152) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
Curling is still one sport where nearly anyone can compete. Unique I think presently.
My father used to defend golf on the same grounds...
(For the record, I think golf was invented to make cricket look interesting...)
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
Arts were the same way. Compulsory, although there were advanced groups for people who wanted to perform and excel, and then a big choir or general art class where you might get a little appreciation for the arts...
So maybe that is why the Olympics don't rub me the wrong way- I was taught from an early age that the key is to drive to be the best that you can in whatever you do, be it art, sport, or academics,to know that there are people out there for whom excellence looks quite different one way or the other, and to recognize and admire greatness when you saw it, even if it was in a field that you would never achieve such greatness.
Would that the sort of access to the arts that you enjoyed was widely available. Sadly, in most parts of the US, arts of any sort are not even an elective option. Competitive sports, otoh, continue to swallow up an ever-increasing proportion of our public education dollars. Which may explain why it's a lot harder for non-athletically inclined Americans to to share your admirably even-handed generosity toward sports in general or the Olympics in particular.
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ian Climacus:
High fashion according to the Norwegian curling team.
It's as if the Seventies never went away.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
quote:
Originally posted by Ian Climacus:
High fashion according to the Norwegian curling team.
It's as if the Seventies never went away.
See what happens when sports are compulsory and the arts get cut? Ugliness ensues.
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
Of hyper-competitiveness and absurd emphasis on winning at all costs. Not sure where the connection misses for you.
Thinking of alpine skiing events where the winner and the top 5 or 7 may all be within less than 1 or 2 seconds of each other and a few hundredths between the gold and silver and bronze.
There really are two forms of sport. One where competition exists, and one where it doesn't. There are people like you and me who prefer the non-competitive end and who might drop out if competition became too serious. There are others who would get board and drop out if they weren't keeping score. The Olympics are the highest form of one kind of sport, the competitive form. I find it exciting to watch that form (especially when it comes down to seconds between first and fifth place), even though I don't like to participate in it. It just requires a little perspective of why you personally like to participate in sports. Now there are kids out there who are forced to compete by parents and coaches, and that is a bad thing. But the Olympics aren't the problem, the coaches and parents who can't see that the Olympics are just one form or sports are. We would be a lot better off if everyone could recognize that some people like to compete, some people just want to have fun, and that both groups should be allowed to participate in their own way.
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on
:
It's also spectacle: that it's a competitive sport is almost incidental. I am thinking particularly of the various snowboarding events that have appeared of late years - and which do rather outshine the traditional sloping cross country on skis for 20 miles or so.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
I find it hard to take seriously as "sport" something that requires judges.
Anyone can see who threw the object the furthest, ran the fastest, jumped the highest and so on. It is well-defined.
But if it requires a panel of experts to decide whether my form was prettier than yours? Even though it might require just as much (or more) athleticism, it's not the same kind of competition.
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on
:
Where the judging includes a call for 'artistic impression' I'm inclined to agree. But there are others (eg gymnastics, diving) where it is, AIUI, about the technical correctness/difficulty of certain defined moves.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Can you imagine if we made chess compulsory?
Or better still, have it as another option alongside football, rugby, cricket and the like during games periods. Have school chess teams competing against one another. That would be awesome.
Yes it would. If it means that the KLBs of this world can play chess instead of a physical sport.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
Of hyper-competitiveness and absurd emphasis on winning at all costs. Not sure where the connection misses for you.
Thinking of alpine skiing events where the winner and the top 5 or 7 may all be within less than 1 or 2 seconds of each other and a few hundredths between the gold and silver and bronze.
There really are two forms of sport. One where competition exists, and one where it doesn't. There are people like you and me who prefer the non-competitive end and who might drop out if competition became too serious. There are others who would get board and drop out if they weren't keeping score. The Olympics are the highest form of one kind of sport, the competitive form. I find it exciting to watch that form (especially when it comes down to seconds between first and fifth place), even though I don't like to participate in it. It just requires a little perspective of why you personally like to participate in sports. Now there are kids out there who are forced to compete by parents and coaches, and that is a bad thing. But the Olympics aren't the problem, the coaches and parents who can't see that the Olympics are just one form or sports are. We would be a lot better off if everyone could recognize that some people like to compete, some people just want to have fun, and that both groups should be allowed to participate in their own way.
I approve this message, although there might be a semantic point here - I enjoy cycling, but I don't consider it a sport - I'm pretty slow comparatively, can hardly keep up with the 'B' group in my local club, and would rather eat the contents of my left earhole than race. Is it still a sport? Matter of definition, I suppose. It seems to me there are three categories here:
1. Competitive sport - two individuals or teams play, they keep score, winning matters
2. Non-competitive sport - two individuals or teams play, they may or may not keep score, winning is relatively unimportant
3. Non-sporting physical activity - fell walking, many types of dance, leisure cycling - no competing, hard to see how you'd keep score even if you tried, there are no winners.
I think the problem is that advocates of competitive team sports point to the benefits that any of the above categories can give and use that as an argument for specifically the first. Because that's what they like doing.
[ 29. January 2014, 08:30: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
Competitive sports are essentially the practice of (ancient) warfare skills: mock duels, mock battles and establishing a physical hierarchy of prowess. That's where it originates in, see in particular also the ancient Olympics. That's what it still is like today, just with a dollop of civilisation on top. Take a look at say cricket, it really is pure caveman: throw a stone fast and with precision at a target, run quickly to cover throwing distance when there is an opening, take out incoming fast object with a club strike. Or take the usual scenes in team sport with its tribal groupings in their colors chanting battle songs at each other while their heroes battle on the pitch. Competing teams are squad size, have a "captain" to rally the troops, a commander making tactical decisions from the sidelines... And indeed take international competitions like the Olympics, which become a canvas for patriotic sentiments (what is your country's ranking in the medals?). Yes, there is synchronised swimming, but with people once you abstract things they invariably take on a life of their own and turn weird.
I would say the world would be a much better place if all physical warfare were turned into competitive sports. I would prefer Federer to swing a tennis racket over a battle axe. The real problem we face is just the same as that of the old Olympics. We still go to war.
As for the modern Olympics specifically: if it didn't exist as it is, it would get invented. Of course it is a terrible mix of sports, national interests and commercial exploitation. What would you expect the virtual battle ground of the world to be like? We should be happy that there are "Olympic ideals" which do limit somewhat just how nasty this can get. In the end, there's plenty of good there mixed in with the bad.
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on
:
Some thoughts:
1. Physical exercise is generally regarded as a good thing. It helps keep one fit and healthy and is something to be encouraged.
2. Education, amongst other things, is designed to give children a wide variety of experiences and also to equip them with some of the skills for life.
3. If education is supposed to do this, and if physical exercise is important, then some form of physical exercise is necessary for children. Not all children have the opportunity to experience sport in their life outside of school. Team sports can also help promote team bonding, etc. These are, I think, generally agreed to be good things to promote amongst children.
4. Bullying is a bad thing. It ought to be condemned. But sport is not synonymous with bullying. If someone is bullied because he's not good at sport then sport isn't to blame - the bully is.
5. Chess is a nice game. People enjoy it. But it's not the same thing as physical sport. A fat person won't lose weight by playing chess. It's presumably also possible to be bullied over one's chess prowess. "You don't know the en passant rule? I'm not playing with you, you peasant."
(I write this as someone who was terrible at sport, never enjoyed it, stopped doing it as soon as I could, and was always picked last or near to last in team games.)
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Some thoughts:
1. Physical exercise is generally regarded as a good thing. It helps keep one fit and healthy and is something to be encouraged.
Indeed. And not discouraged by making the experience unpleasant.
quote:
2. Education, amongst other things, is designed to give children a wide variety of experiences and also to equip them with some of the skills for life.
3. If education is supposed to do this, and if physical exercise is important, then some form of physical exercise is necessary for children. Not all children have the opportunity to experience sport in their life outside of school. Team sports can also help promote team bonding, etc. These are, I think, generally agreed to be good things to promote amongst children.
Only amongst those who are at least tolerably good at them. For people like me, it promoted division and separation. There's no team bonding if you're so useless that passing the ball to you is the same as passing it straight to the opposition, and therefore you spend the entire match running around but never actually contributing in any way, partly because you are too incompetent to do so, and partly because no-one lets you.
quote:
4. Bullying is a bad thing. It ought to be condemned. But sport is not synonymous with bullying. If someone is bullied because he's not good at sport then sport isn't to blame - the bully is.
But if you have a bunch of kids playing a competitive sport for 40 minutes at the end of which one team loses, the fact that they know they lost because KLB was so useless they were playing with 10 men guarantees unpleasantness. And when that's routine, it becomes bullying. I think it's virtually inevitable, unless the crappy one fortunately is very popular otherwise for some reason. If he's a bit weird, a bit geeky or whatever anyway, then he's doomed.
quote:
5. Chess is a nice game. People enjoy it. But it's not the same thing as physical sport. A fat person won't lose weight by playing chess. It's presumably also possible to be bullied over one's chess prowess. "You don't know the en passant rule? I'm not playing with you, you peasant." [/qb]
Possible, but not something I've ever actually seen.
Thing is, though, the fat and unfit kids don't get any less fat or fitter through competitive sports either. I was weedy and unfit when I was 11, and I was still weedy and unfit at 17, because sports were so unpleasant that I made avoiding actually participating into an art form. Participation and effort was futile; if you can increase your throw of a cricket ball from 3 metres to 4 by dint of great effort, when everyone else is throwing 20+, what is the point? None whatsoever; the jeering derision and an afternoon spent having people emulate your poor style whilst making dickhead gestures at you will be exactly the same.
quote:
(I write this as someone who was terrible at sport, never enjoyed it, stopped doing it as soon as I could, and was always picked last or near to last in team games.)
And did it make you fit? Improve your health? Provide any of the supposed benefits? Set you up for a lifetime of healthy physical activity?
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
There's no team bonding if you're so useless that passing the ball to you is the same as passing it straight to the opposition, and therefore you spend the entire match running around but never actually contributing in any way, partly because you are too incompetent to do so, and partly because no-one lets you.
Pretty much sounds like my attempts at football.
One abiding memory I have is having the ball kicked to me. I was so surprised by this that I stood for a second with my foot on top of the ball while thinking what to do with it. While thinking someone from the opposing team came along and kicked it from under my feet. That didn't go down well with my team mates.
quote:
But if you have a bunch of kids playing a competitive sport for 40 minutes at the end of which one team loses, the fact that they know they lost because KLB was so useless they were playing with 10 men guarantees unpleasantness. And when that's routine, it becomes bullying. I think it's virtually inevitable, unless the crappy one fortunately is very popular otherwise for some reason. If he's a bit weird, a bit geeky or whatever anyway, then he's doomed.
I'm sorry that that's been your experience, but I don't see it as axiomatic. As I say, I was hopeless at sports (aside from basketball, where my height gave me a very slight advantage) but I don't feel emotionally scarred by the experience. In fact, I don't feel that my experiences trying (and failing) at PE were that much worse than my struggles with mathematics, which I found embarrassing at the time (and still do). I wouldn't want mathematics to be voluntary either.
quote:
[W]hat is the point? None whatsoever; the jeering derision and an afternoon spent having people emulate your poor style whilst making dickhead gestures at you will be exactly the same.
As I say, it sounds like you had a very bad time of it. I'm sorry to hear that. I don't think that's necessarily a universal experience though.
quote:
quote:
(I write this as someone who was terrible at sport, never enjoyed it, stopped doing it as soon as I could, and was always picked last or near to last in team games.)
And did it make you fit? Improve your health? Provide any of the supposed benefits? Set you up for a lifetime of healthy physical activity?
Well if nothing else doing sport for an hour a week at school meant that I was getting an hour's exercise that I probably wouldn't otherwise had. PE didn't set me up for a lifetime of healthy physical activity - quite the opposite - but I blame myself for that, not the education I received.
But I also know not to stand with my foot on the ball if it's passed to me.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
My experiences may not be universal, but a quick perusal of the web shows that they're also not uncommon. But we could achieve the fitness outcome with non-competitive physical activity, couldn't we? And we'd be more successful in leaving students with a positive attitude towards exercise that they could carry on into their adult lives by not giving them unnecessary bad experiences of competitive sports. I'd be in favour of compulsory PE, but competitive sports being voluntary. Those who don't want to do them can do something else active. Dance, swimming, cycling, running, aerobics - these can all be done non-competitively.
[ 29. January 2014, 10:15: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on
:
Compulsory PE with non-compulsory team sports seems to leave open the possibility of schoolyard bullying in a new form. "Not even trying out at football, Karl? Can't hack it? Playing with the girls in the dance class instead?", etc.
The sports you've outlined appear to be largely solitary pursuits, rather than team-based sports. I'm not sure whether promoting that at an early age is necessarily a good thing (even if it's abandoned later in life). Would an employer, for example, view a candidate who has rejected team sports at every opportunity favourably?
And I know this will appear rather Deano-esque, but the alternative you've proposed seems to me to give into the 'all must have prizes' culture that I think has a rather corrosive effect on children.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Compulsory PE with non-compulsory team sports seems to leave open the possibility of schoolyard bullying in a new form. "Not even trying out at football, Karl? Can't hack it? Playing with the girls in the dance class instead?", etc.
It could indeed. But that's because we've still got this ridiculous idea of "team sports = manly", "non-team sports = poofy" which is what needs tackling.
quote:
The sports you've outlined appear to be largely solitary pursuits, rather than team-based sports. I'm not sure whether promoting that at an early age is necessarily a good thing (even if it's abandoned later in life). Would an employer, for example, view a candidate who has rejected team sports at every opportunity favourably?
And I know this will appear rather Deano-esque, but the alternative you've proposed seems to me to give into the 'all must have prizes' culture that I think has a rather corrosive effect on children.
I've never mentioned team sports to an employer. It's never been on my CV. Why would an employer care if I'd played football? I don't get that at all. Personally, if I did see that someone had rejected team sports all along the line I'd think (a) a fellow traveller, and (b) someone who knows their own mind - a positive.
Given that all schools do do competitive sports, I don't think this "all must have prizes" culture exists and I do not know what this "corrosive effect" you refer to is, but I'm very familiar with the corrosive effect of the current setup, and I know I'm not alone.
[code]
[ 29. January 2014, 11:04: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
{argh - code fail - someone help!]
[my bill is in the post]
[ 29. January 2014, 11:05: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
School as a whole is not non-competitive, at least certainly not secondary school. Schools mark performance, and yes, that is a good thing. Competitive sports are obviously easier to mark than "fitness training", given that there are easily measurable goals. School as a whole is also not decoupled from society. The game of football, for example, is big in society and there is no good reason why a school should not teach basic skills concerning this game. Finally, schools already heavily focuses on "mental" skills. One should not take away one of the few parts of school where those with "physical" talents can outcompete those with "mental" talents.
All this spoken as someone who more suffered than enjoyed school sports. It would certainly have suited me fine if the competition in school was all about brains and none about brawn. But the world does not exclusively revolve around what would be good for me. The school hierarchy among pupils, perhaps particularly among boys, sure as heck has to do with physical attributes and aggression. But to assume that this would get better if school sports became all non-competitive is naive. If at all, I would expect that a geek would become more of a target for harassment if there is nothing left in the curriculum where other talents can shine brighter.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
IngoB - that's a counsel of despair. It means that the crap at sports boy is doomed to a rotten school experience either way. I'm not willing to leave it at that. It doesn't have to be that way, surely?
Perhaps schools should be helping people understand that sports are just games, and ultimately they AREN'T THAT IMPORTANT. That's the only way I survived school - reminding myself that being good at rugby was of no importance, whatever the idiotic jocks and teachers thought.
I know football is big in society. I think society would be a lot healthier if those of us who couldn't give a damn about it were more accepted. I have to accept that most people aren't interested in the things I'm interested in - we should be encouraging reciprocation of that, not encouraging the "everyone loves football" crap.
[ 29. January 2014, 11:06: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
And again, can I add that I'm not advocating removing competitive sports? I'm advocating having them for those whose talents lie in that direction. The sportsmen can still shine; they can just do it without tramping the less physically talented into the mud.
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
School sports will remain a trial for these not interested in the high-profile team sports unless and until schools widen the choices available.
My august institution insisted that everyone continue with some form of PE even through the sixth form. However, what was deemed to be "sport" was incredibly wide: as well as the usual team sports of hockey, lacrosse, football, rugby, cricket, etc, you could add: tennis, croquet, fencing, ballroom dancing, trampolining, swimming, rounders, volleyball, keep fit, athletics and gym games (shipwreck and the like).
Since it was possible to gain qualifications in dance you could get school colours for that as well as the more usual sports.
And the competition on the croquet side could be very intense...
Posted by Garasu (# 17152) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
The game of football, for example, is big in society and there is no good reason why a school should not teach basic skills concerning this game.
Except that I can't recall anyone at school ever teaching me those basic skills in football.
We did, in fairness, get quite a bit of skills training for rugby, badminton, basketball... but cricket, football and tennis: nothing. (I do wonder if it was because the teacher for those three was really a gymnast).
With the ludicrous result that the tennis lessons literally consisted of each of us picking up a racket and ball and going out to the tennis courts. Some of us would have a go at lobbing the ball about then, after failing to get it over the net for a bit, we'd sit down and chat for the remainder of the lesson.
Posted by Spike (# 36) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Perhaps schools should be helping people understand that sports are just games, and ultimately they AREN'T THAT IMPORTANT. That's the only way I survived school - reminding myself that being good at rugby was of no importance, whatever the idiotic jocks and teachers thought.
Unfortunately I can't see that changing. It seems to me that many people who enjoy participating in sport and are good at it genuinely can't comprehend that there there are some who don't enjoy it and/or are crap at it. Of course, because they enjoy it and are good at it, these are the people who teach it!
quote:
I know football is big in society. I think society would be a lot healthier if those of us who couldn't give a damn about it were more accepted. I have to accept that most people aren't interested in the things I'm interested in - we should be encouraging reciprocation of that, not encouraging the "everyone loves football" crap.
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Garasu:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
The game of football, for example, is big in society and there is no good reason why a school should not teach basic skills concerning this game.
Except that I can't recall anyone at school ever teaching me those basic skills in football.
We did, in fairness, get quite a bit of skills training for rugby, badminton, basketball... but cricket, football and tennis: nothing. (I do wonder if it was because the teacher for those three was really a gymnast).
With the ludicrous result that the tennis lessons literally consisted of each of us picking up a racket and ball and going out to the tennis courts. Some of us would have a go at lobbing the ball about then, after failing to get it over the net for a bit, we'd sit down and chat for the remainder of the lesson.
We weren't even taught the rules. I played (well, ran around on a field whilst other people played) rugby for six years, and did not then, nor do now, know the rules. I remember there were things like lineouts and scrums and stuff, but I have no idea under what circumstances those happened. I remember sometimes you were allowed to kick the ball and sometimes not, and people would say things like "knock on!" and "offside!" but it could have been in Swahili for all I knew. All a bit pointless really, not helped by the fact I'm -4 dioptres in both eyes with astigmatism and can't wear contact lenses because of sensitive corneas, so I never had a clue where the ball was.
If they're going to have these wretched team sports I wish they'd pick something a bit more suitable for all abilities. This doesn't include rounders, btw - I have never successfully hit a ball with a rounders bat. I've occasionally sent one straight into the ground or vertically up in the air, but I missed about 95% of balls. I'm not sure what benefits are meant to be gained by swinging wildly at the air three times then walking to first base. The sporty ones can still win and have their prizes and what not, but it'd be nice to occasionally actually score a run or a goal or a try or a Fennel or whatever it is. Just once or twice, as opposed to never.
[ 29. January 2014, 11:30: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Spike:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Perhaps schools should be helping people understand that sports are just games, and ultimately they AREN'T THAT IMPORTANT. That's the only way I survived school - reminding myself that being good at rugby was of no importance, whatever the idiotic jocks and teachers thought.
Unfortunately I can't see that changing. It seems to me that many people who enjoy participating in sport and are good at it genuinely can't comprehend that there there are some who don't enjoy it and/or are crap at it. Of course, because they enjoy it and are good at it, these are the people who teach it!
Too true. They view the non-sports fans in their classes as deficient and see it as their job to force them to see the light. Or at least to make it absolutely clear to them how unacceptably deviant they are.
[ 29. January 2014, 11:34: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
Posted by moonlitdoor (# 11707) on
:
quote:
posted by Karl liberal backslider
The sportsmen can still shine; they can just do it without tramping the less physically talented into the mud.
I just wanted to point out that you can sometimes have competitive sports without any kind of trampling.
I am in a running group at work. We are a variety of standards ( none very good ) but we are all competitive to some extent as each of us takes part in a few races a year. For example I am doing a half marathon in a couple of weeks. But we are all very supportive of each other's aspirations, whether the other person's targets would be easy for us or impossible.
The leader of the group has helped me quite a bit with my training for the half marathon, although my target time would be trivially easy for him.
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
IngoB - that's a counsel of despair. It means that the crap at sports boy is doomed to a rotten school experience either way. I'm not willing to leave it at that. It doesn't have to be that way, surely?
There's plenty of "counsel of despair" for the academically inept in school. Perhaps you can suck up this one heading your way? At least retroactively... Count the number of hours in class where your skill sets were being affirmed (by the official curriculum, not by your peers), and compare to what those with less smarts had to take. And yes, in an ideal world we would all be accommodated in our skill sets and nobody would have to compete with anybody else on unequal grounds. This is not an ideal world though, and secondary school is bringing children up to speed to the adult world. School succeeded for you, since it taught you to try earning your money outside of professional sports and related pursuits because other people are way better at that than you. Why bitch and moan about that now? Again, that your ego got trampled on by your peers on a regular basis at school is indeed an experience that you share with many, including yours truly (though it got better in the final years for me). But sports was merely an occasion for this, it was not the cause. And at least in class there is a measure of control over the outcome. Read "Lord of the Flies" and count yourself lucky.
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Perhaps schools should be helping people understand that sports are just games, and ultimately they AREN'T THAT IMPORTANT. That's the only way I survived school - reminding myself that being good at rugby was of no importance, whatever the idiotic jocks and teachers thought.
Well, I'm happy for you that you were able to use delusion to cope. But of course the truth is that they are very important. As are a number of other things I'm not particularly good at, like singing and dancing in a fancy dress. Or lying to the public while negotiating for power behind the scenes. Or making lots of money out of little money. Plus lots of other strange stuff people get up to. Importance is a social construct. And society likes to have some scientists and engineers and that sort of people, but it sure like to have singers and politicians and bankers and sportsmen as well. Truth to be told, it likes to have the latter a lot more.
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I know football is big in society. I think society would be a lot healthier if those of us who couldn't give a damn about it were more accepted. I have to accept that most people aren't interested in the things I'm interested in - we should be encouraging reciprocation of that, not encouraging the "everyone loves football" crap.
Personally, I tend to pick my battles and deal pragmatically with the world as it is the rest of the time. Also, people are people. Take away football, and say hello to some other anchor point for social interaction and status.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
No delusion. A sport is a game. It's not very important. Really it isn't. So England did badly in Australia. Bit disappointing. Doesn't make any real difference to anyone'd life though, unless they want it to.
I have no problem football being some people's passion. I do object to being considered some kind of deviant for not being one of them, though. As a nation I think we need a sense of perspective.
And the point about my experiences is that they were utterly unnecessary. I did not need to be made to play rugby. It wouldn't have harmed me in the slightest if I'd not done it. I see no value in making people suffer when there's diddly squat benefit to anyone in it. If I'm now bitter, twisted and deluded, well, that's the fruit of your precious compulsory competitive games.
And I object to your calling it "having my ego trampled on". No, I was routinely beaten up, made to feel worth shit and utterly ostracised. I do not like having that belittled as if it's something I should easily be able to shrug off.
[ 29. January 2014, 12:19: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on
:
IngoB: quote:
There's plenty of "counsel of despair" for the academically inept in school.
No, actually there isn't. There's a lot of hand-wringing over Driving Up Standards. Specially tailored lessons to help them get to where they're supposed to be. Classroom assistants providing individual tuition. Questions asked in Parliament every time the PISA results come out.
In PE lessons the teachers spend most of their time working with the people who are good already, instead of trying to coach the ones who need extra help (unless holding them up to ridicule in front of the rest of the class counts as coaching, which I seriously doubt). In any other subject this would be totally unacceptable.
I hated PE at school too, because like Karl I was useless at team games. However, I do enjoy dancing, aerobics, weight training and cycling, so I am reasonably fit for a middle-aged office worker. None of these activities were taught in school PE, though we had a brief introduction to ballroom dancing in the sixth form (not led by a PE teacher) which was fairly useless to anyone who didn't already know how to waltz.
The aim of PE should be to enable children to find some kind of physical activity that they enjoy well enough to keep on doing when there are no sadistic PE teachers around to force them into it. Football and cricket may do it for some people, but not for everyone.
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
And the point about my experiences is that they were utterly unnecessary. I did not need to be made to play rugby. It wouldn't have harmed me in the slightest if I'd not done it. I see no value in making people suffer when there's diddly squat benefit to anyone in it. If I'm now bitter, twisted and deluded, well, that's the fruit of your precious compulsory competitive games.
This could be said of a lot of things. By the age of 11 I knew my times table and could do long division with pencil and paper. On going to comprehensive school I was allowed to use a calculator and quickly became dependent on it. I now struggle with my times table and wouldn't know where to start with long division without electronic help.
I learnt a lot of things in mathematics at secondary school. Things like quadratic equations and algebra, none of which I've used since I finished studying maths at 16. Indeed, all the maths teaching I required effectively ended at age 11 and I'm sure that's the same for most people. I hated maths. I struggled at it, it consumed a lot of (completely wasted) time as a teenager and if it wasn't for the dumbing down of GCSEs I doubt I'd have got a decent grade in it.
Given that this can't be an uncommon experience, one could advance the argument that compulsory mathematics education should be abolished in secondary schools.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
If the maths education we're giving to everyone is of no use to them, we should indeed be re-evaluating the content of the maths curriculum.
[ 29. January 2014, 13:06: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on
:
I was allowed to drop PE after my third year at secondary school because I was studying two languages. Best reason for studying foreign languages ever, I thought at the time.
Having considered the question as an adult, I now think that PE should be compulsory at least to the age of 16 but a wider range of activities should be offered and key skills should be explicitly taught. Everyone should learn to swim, but I don't see why everyone should have to play football if they'd rather do yoga or trampolining instead.
Perhaps the problem with school PE is not that we take it too seriously, but that we don't take it seriously enough. Maths is compulsory because everyone needs to be numerate. PE is compulsory because a certain amount of physical activity is good for your health. It should be made fun for everyone, not just the brilliant athletes.
Of course, teaching PE in small groups differentiated by ability would be considerably more expensive than handing the class a football and telling them to divide themselves into two teams and get on with it.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
This, basically. We take sport too seriously, and physical education not seriously enough.
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
The problem with school sports in the UK starts in primary schools where, in the state sector at least, there is little chance of being taught by a specialist so it all comes down to the class teacher.
Parents could help by trying to ensure that small children learn basic skills before they start school - such as encouraging good hand-eve co-ordination by rolling, then bouncing a ball so they learn to catch and throw properly.
But schools need to grasp that physical agility is important and treat PE seriously by employing specialists at primary level: by the time children start secondary school many have acquired a distaste for PE that is unshakeable.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
The problem with school sports in the UK starts in primary schools where, in the state sector at least, there is little chance of being taught by a specialist so it all comes down to the class teacher.
Parents could help by trying to ensure that small children learn basic skills before they start school - such as encouraging good hand-eve co-ordination by rolling, then bouncing a ball so they learn to catch and throw properly.
Heh. We thought that, and tried with ours, hoping they might avoid their parents' fate. They just weren't interested. They'd have periods when they'd enjoy playing with balls, but it never held their attention. Young kids emulate their parents; since I never almost play with a ball they're not particularly inclined to either. I did make an effort at one point, but they're not stupid, and they could see straight through Dad pretending to want to play with a football.
[ 29. January 2014, 13:30: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on
:
Having specialist teachers doesn't really address the problem of teachers being allowed to get away with ignoring the ones who are struggling, of course. It certainly didn't at my daughter's school.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
Having specialist teachers doesn't really address the problem of teachers being allowed to get away with ignoring the ones who are struggling, of course. It certainly didn't at my daughter's school.
No - indeed, sometimes they're the problem, because they're the ones who were good at sports and often lack empathy and understanding of those students who aren't and have little interest. I still remember my school report from when I was 8:
PE:
Attainment: 5 (lowest)
Effort: E (lowest)
Comment: Shows no interest.
That was about it, really. Probably we do need specialist teachers, but not like some of the ones we have now. We need teachers who'd identify 8 year olds like I was, find out why we're not interested, try to make it a bit more interesting. That's what you'd do in any other subject at that age.
[ 29. January 2014, 13:42: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
No delusion. A sport is a game. It's not very important.
Important is what people find important. If they find a game important, than that game is important. You really have to get over the idea that people function according to some rational production analysis, or whatever you may be using for assigning importance.
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
As a nation I think we need a sense of perspective.
The nation does have a sense of perspective. If you think that you can remove sporting success from it, then you lack a sense of perspective. You will never get rid of that, or something much like it. To bitch about panem et circenses ("bread and circuses") is rather pointless, other than as yet another political spiel of course...
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
And the point about my experiences is that they were utterly unnecessary. I did not need to be made to play rugby. It wouldn't have harmed me in the slightest if I'd not done it. I see no value in making people suffer when there's diddly squat benefit to anyone in it. If I'm now bitter, twisted and deluded, well, that's the fruit of your precious compulsory competitive games.
I'm sure we can rewrite this paragraph with "calculus" instead of "rugby", and we will find many people nodding their head in agreement. School offers a smorgasbord of potentially relevant skills, and there is nobody whose school education has not gone to waste to at least 50%. We used to have a system where you learn only the skills you need - namely from your dad, who would train you in the family trade. For better or worse, we are not living in those times any longer. Furthermore, while it is part of the foundational ideology of our education system to prepare students for life, that does not at all mean that this ideology is the whole truth and nothing but the truth. There are many other reasons we have school, even if they must not be mentioned in polite discourse, and an obvious one is to pre-sort children for career and status. So you were sorted out of the sports side of things, so what? Plenty of people probably got a rougher deal out of their school marks than you did.
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
And I object to your calling it "having my ego trampled on". No, I was routinely beaten up, made to feel worth shit and utterly ostracised. I do not like having that belittled as if it's something I should easily be able to shrug off.
Frankly, my own childhood and early adolescence was too bruised to be particularly impressed by the victim card. Again, the rough time you had from your peers was not because of sports. At least I did not experience my peers as lacking in creativity at other times. But that you were humiliated at sports as such is really not so different from other people having been humiliated at chemistry, or whatever. You could not see the ball, yet you were forced to play. They could not understand redox reactions, yet they were tested on it. People were laughing at you for being inept in sport, I bet you were laughing at some people struggling with "trivial" mental tasks. Or perhaps you have forgotten that you could be quite nasty as a child / teenager, too. Most people do. Admittedly, the school hierarchy is based much more on physical than academic ability, so the people that tend to get on top there tend to be on top in sport, too. But that is not something caused by sport, and just because the bullies player better ball than you does not mean that one should take playing ball away from everybody who liked doing that in school.
This is not a defence of bullies, or indeed of the often merciless youth culture in general. Hardly. I suffered those myself, and nearly killed myself once trying to belong. This is not a defence of crap PE lessons either. Yes, PE teachers should actually teach their students, rather than simply playing game hosts. But to claim PE, or competitive sports in PE, as something particularly horrible about school is simply privileging your own experience over that of all others. I'm sure plenty of people hated all of school except for PE, and competitive sports in PE in particular.
[ 29. January 2014, 14:00: Message edited by: IngoB ]
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
IngoB - I do not particularly want to discuss me, except inasmuch as my experiences shed some light on school PE. I do, however, want to question whether the compulsory competitive sports element of PE as currently taught is a particularly good way of achieving the ends for which it is in the curriculum. My assertion is that it does not, because:
(a) it does not encourage the less able to participate - indeed, it discourages them.
(b) it does not set children up for an active adult life, again, it may indeed inoculate them against any desire to be physically active. It did me, for many years.
(c) it does little or nothing for childhood obesity, as the less able and less fit can largely avoid actually doing anything particularly strenuous whilst the attention is on the ones who can actually hit the ball, score goals etc. etc.
We can do much better PE than this, and leaving the competitive team stuff to those with particular talents in that area, in the same way we don't expect everyone to be in the orchestra, even though we teach music to everyone, would be a step in the right direction.
And finally, make no assumptions about what I was like as a child. Including that I must have been just as much a little shit as the people who made my school life a trial. I wasn't. OK?
[ 29. January 2014, 14:10: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
If the maths education we're giving to everyone is of no use to them, we should indeed be re-evaluating the content of the maths curriculum.
Surely the point is that we know it will only be useful to a handful of kids in their later lives, but we don't know which ones so we teach it to them all.
The same could be said for sports.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
If the maths education we're giving to everyone is of no use to them, we should indeed be re-evaluating the content of the maths curriculum.
Surely the point is that we know it will only be useful to a handful of kids in their later lives, but we don't know which ones so we teach it to them all.
The same could be said for sports.
Probably not, actually. Anyone could have told when I was 8 that my football potential was zero. Certainly you can tell by 11. You certainly don't need to keep making kids with no aptitude for it play football until they're 14 or so in the mistaken belief that they'll suddenly show the potential to be a professional footballer. They won't.
Posted by Sleepwalker (# 15343) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
No, it was some runner. I forget the details because they don't particularly interest me.
They say there's a sport for everyone, but I never found one. Our school offered lots of sports, but I sucked at every last one of them.
But surely that shouldn't mean that everyone is denied their opportunity to shine? What's one man's meat and all that. I wasn't much good at sports in school either but I would hate to think that me being a snail with sparrow's kneecaps for muscles denied those with actual talent from having their chance to use the gifts they were born with.
Posted by Sleepwalker (# 15343) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
If the maths education we're giving to everyone is of no use to them, we should indeed be re-evaluating the content of the maths curriculum.
Most people don't use much of the maths they learned at school once they enter adulthood. Why would they? Unless a person enters into specific employment roles there really isn't much cause for maths beyond fairly basic numeracy on a day to day basis.
Posted by Sleepwalker (# 15343) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
In PE lessons the teachers spend most of their time working with the people who are good already, instead of trying to coach the ones who need extra help (unless holding them up to ridicule in front of the rest of the class counts as coaching, which I seriously doubt). In any other subject this would be totally unacceptable.
As a recently qualified teacher I can confidently state that if any teacher took this approach in any lesson, including PE, they would be seriously reprimanded and possibly failed.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sleepwalker:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
No, it was some runner. I forget the details because they don't particularly interest me.
They say there's a sport for everyone, but I never found one. Our school offered lots of sports, but I sucked at every last one of them.
But surely that shouldn't mean that everyone is denied their opportunity to shine? What's one man's meat and all that. I wasn't much good at sports in school either but I would hate to think that me being a snail with sparrow's kneecaps for muscles denied those with actual talent from having their chance to use the gifts they were born with.
Exactly how many times in this thread am I going to have to say I'm not advocating banning or denying anyone their chance to show their sporting prowess in competitive sports, merely that it shouldn't be compulsory for everyone?
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sleepwalker:
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
In PE lessons the teachers spend most of their time working with the people who are good already, instead of trying to coach the ones who need extra help (unless holding them up to ridicule in front of the rest of the class counts as coaching, which I seriously doubt). In any other subject this would be totally unacceptable.
As a recently qualified teacher I can confidently state that if any teacher took this approach in any lesson, including PE, they would be seriously reprimanded and possibly failed.
JaneR seems to be speaking from recent experience, so I'm afraid I'm not at all confident that it doesn't still happen.
Posted by Egeria (# 4517) on
:
About P.E.--I have always enjoyed watching sports, and I like to play, too, but unfortunately, I'm unathletic, so I had (and still do have) a very frustrating time of it. And I was repeatedly picked last for teams, which disappointed me but did not make me angry. In fact, I remember the great joy of finally being picked fourth for a six-person team. In secondary school, the P.E. teachers were good to excellent, and I remember the senior high faculty with special fondness. Why? Because they appreciated the fact that I was doing my slow, uncoordinated best; they knew I was interested and wanted to improve. We had competitive sports such volleyball, basketball, and soccer; individual sports such as swimming; and general fitness workouts (running and calisthenics). Our faculty was committed to getting us involved in sports that we might pursue for a lifetime, as well as getting us to play games such as soccer that we probably would drop later on. But team games are fun and valuable learning experiences even for people like me! (I miss field hockey in particular.) So I'm 100% in favor of daily required P.E. that includes team and individual activities.
And (at least on the girls' side of the gym) the bullies weren't a problem, because the bullies also tended to be the ones who weren't interested in sports (bullies do seem be to obsessed with harmful and stupid gender stereotypes) and who tried to gravitate to the back of the class, mistakenly thinking the teachers wouldn't notice that they were slacking. They were generally the same obnoxious kids who didn't do well academically either, who thought that it was "cool" to be bored by anything (math, history, biology) that adults thought important.
Several shipmates have already pointed out that sports don't cause bullying--that's down to the culture of the school and to so-called youth "culture" in general. It's also true that kids in groups, whether sports teams, gangs, fraternities, or informal associations, will often engage in antisocial behavior that they wouldn't dream of if they were on their own.
And I don't believe that star athletes are any more likely to be antisocial and mean than stars in any other field, or even losers in any field. Pay some attention and you will see how often varsity athletes turn out for volunteer work (feeding the homeless, working at a veterinary clinic, developing programs for LGBT equity). One of the seniors here at Cal last year was involved with three charitable organizations while winning academic accolades (she wrote a terrific thesis--her faculty supervisor called the athletic department to let them know about it) and starring in basketball.
And for anyone who still thinks that winning a medal is all that counts in the Olympics--please look up the stories of Gabrielle Andersson-Schiess and Abdul Baser Wasiqi. They are both champions who triumphed at the Games and never got near the medal stand.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
I don't really see how you can take the 'competition' aspect out of physical activity. It doesn't matter whether you're participating in a sport with a particular scoring system, or doing something that isn't a 'sport'. Physical activity is readily quantifiable. Kids will see that they are faster/slower, or that they went a longer/shorter distance, or that they threw something further/not as far, regardless of whether you get out the tape measure or the stopwatch or some other kind of scorecard.
I also don't see that it's any different to any other subject. We grade things. As a kid you find out all the time that you're better/worse than others at a given task, and that's the case whether the task is maths, reading, physical activity, art, music...
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
You certainly don't need to keep making kids with no aptitude for it play football until they're 14 or so in the mistaken belief that they'll suddenly show the potential to be a professional footballer. They won't.
You don't need to be a professional footballer to use knowledge of sports learned at school. I was pretty useless at school sports, but know that I have an eight year old son, knowing how to take a penalty, pass a rugby ball, bowl an off-spinner and so on are very useful things for me to know. I still can't do any of those things with any degree of proficiency at all, but 30 years on, what my games teachers tried hard to teach me and I could be just about bothered to learn is making a real and beneficial difference to my life.
Sport is important to a lot of people. It's a significant part of our society and culture. Children should learn about it, as they learn about music and history and literature and maths. It's all education. Some of the attempts to teach sport related on this thread sound dire, but the problem there is bad teaching of the subject, not the subject itself.
Posted by Heavenly Anarchist (# 13313) on
:
I think school PE and the teaching of it has changed a lot since my childhood experience of having to do several miles of cross country running in wind and rain, followed by shared observed showers. My eldest is in year 8, second year in high school, and we were very pleased to see that his PE lessons were being streamed so that delicate geek-types like him didn't have to do rugby with the bigger boys. The range of sports is also very varied and changes regularly, from rugby to archery. We were very nervous about him doing rugby as he is tiny but he seems to be quite happy with it. He has developed a love of archery and now does it as an after school activity. Other activities such as trampolining also far more accessible to the non-sporty types.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
You certainly don't need to keep making kids with no aptitude for it play football until they're 14 or so in the mistaken belief that they'll suddenly show the potential to be a professional footballer. They won't.
You don't need to be a professional footballer to use knowledge of sports learned at school. I was pretty useless at school sports, but know that I have an eight year old son, knowing how to take a penalty, pass a rugby ball, bowl an off-spinner and so on are very useful things for me to know. I still can't do any of those things with any degree of proficiency at all, but 30 years on, what my games teachers tried hard to teach me and I could be just about bothered to learn is making a real and beneficial difference to my life.
Sport is important to a lot of people. It's a significant part of our society and culture. Children should learn about it, as they learn about music and history and literature and maths. It's all education. Some of the attempts to teach sport related on this thread sound dire, but the problem there is bad teaching of the subject, not the subject itself.
Music is a good comparison. We teach all children about music, but we don't make all of them join the orchestra, sing in front of the class and shout "Bb boy! Bb! How bloody useless are you B bloody b!"
I have boys of 9 and 7. My lack of sporting ability is no problem because they're not interested either. It' a hobby and an interest; a hobby and interest for lots of people, sure, but not me, and frankly I've had 40 odd years of having this particular hobby and interest forced on me by its fans and I'm sick to the back teeth of it. Sick to the back teeth of being looked at like I've come from Mars because I don't know who was even in last year's FA cup, much less who won the thing. Sick to the back teeth of being accused of "banging on" if I dare enthuse about anything I find interesting, but listening to hours and hours of drivel about this manager or that coach or the other team's prospects in some trophy.
[ 30. January 2014, 08:26: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on
:
Sleepwalker: quote:
As a recently qualified teacher I can confidently state that if any teacher took this approach in any lesson, including PE, they would be seriously reprimanded and possibly failed.
I'm glad to hear that teacher training has improved, but I can assure you that teachers who behave like this are still out there. My daughter has encountered several of them, including one arsehole who made fun of her because she couldn't do PE whilst having a migraine. He seemed to be incapable of grasping the idea that you have to be able to see the ball before you can catch it.
Fortunately the PE specialist they have at the moment is slightly better than that. She is currently shaping up to be the school dodgeball champion, as far as I can make out.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
Sleepwalker: quote:
As a recently qualified teacher I can confidently state that if any teacher took this approach in any lesson, including PE, they would be seriously reprimanded and possibly failed.
I'm glad to hear that teacher training has improved, but I can assure you that teachers who behave like this are still out there. My daughter has encountered several of them, including one arsehole who made fun of her because she couldn't do PE whilst having a migraine. He seemed to be incapable of grasping the idea that you have to be able to see the ball before you can catch it.
Heh. Being able to see the ball didn't generally help me catch the damned thing. Being blind as a bat without glasses didn't exactly help, but I can't hit or catch a ball even when I'm wearing them.
I wonder, having vented my spleen and now in a better mood for rational engagement, whether we need to consider that there are some children, and I was one, who are so uncoordinated that they actually need remedial PE, instead of just following the same scheme of work as their peers? I mean, there's no point putting me in to bat until you've actually got me to a point where I have a reasonable chance of hitting the ball. You wouldn't do quadratic equations with a child who hasn't grasped place value yet; you'd do remedial maths. And to be honest, that's not a bad description of how much worse than everyone else I was.
Someone made mention of "learning to bowl an off-spinner" - that made me laugh in a way, because to me that's as far away as learning to play the Flight of the Bumblebee on clarinet (an instrument I've never touched). I couldn't bowl a cricket ball at all; I made one attempt, it landed on the neighbouring pitch (wish I could get it that far when I was throwing it) and the teacher just said "best you don't bowl". No-one thought actually teaching bowling might be a good idea. I cannot even conceive of being able to bowl a particular type of ball; just getting the movement legal and the ball pitching vaguely in the right place would be a massive achievement. I never successfully served a tennis ball either, unless I did it underarm.
But I'd sooner not have bothered at all. Certainly I didn't learn much fielding on the least likely boundary for the ball to end up, and batting in 11th position in a 14 over game - i.e. not at all.
[ 30. January 2014, 08:41: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
Posted by Heavenly Anarchist (# 13313) on
:
Re: the Olympics, I went to 4 different Paralympic events over 2 days in London and it was fantastic. The atmosphere was friendly and fun, the events were packed out with cheering crowds, everyone was cheered regardless of country or placing. My children learnt a lot about sports that they were not familiar with (judo for the visually impaired? Sitting volley ball?) as well as not judging the capabilities of others. I have an interest in the social aspects of disability, my twin has been partially sighted since birth and I have seen the hurdles he has had to overcome in all aspects of his life. I was so pleased to see that the Paralympics well supported. To me, this alone made hosting the Olympics worthwhile. Yes, I'd like less corruption and corporate sponsorship but it was an amazing experience as a spectator and I can't even begin to imagine what it must be like to compete in either the Olympics or Paralympics.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Sick to the back teeth of being looked at like I've come from Mars because I don't know who was even in last year's FA cup, much less who won the thing.
What you need, Sir, is a sex change.
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on
:
Karl: quote:
I wonder, having vented my spleen and now in a better mood for rational engagement, whether we need to consider that there are some children, and I was one, who are so uncoordinated that they actually need remedial PE, instead of just following the same scheme of work as their peers?
Well, this was the kind of thing I was getting at earlier when I suggested teaching in small groups.
It's also why I like my gym. There are people of all ages and abilities there, from the local football team to a group of students from a nearby special school who come on Wednesday afternoons (with their teachers) to work out on the exercise machines. Everyone works at their own level; all of us are too busy doing the best we can to waste time sneering at anyone else who's not as fit as we are. That's what PE in schools ought to be like.
Posted by Heavenly Anarchist (# 13313) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I wonder, having vented my spleen and now in a better mood for rational engagement, whether we need to consider that there are some children, and I was one, who are so uncoordinated that they actually need remedial PE, instead of just following the same scheme of work as their peers? I mean, there's no point putting me in to bat until you've actually got me to a point where I have a reasonable chance of hitting the ball. You wouldn't do quadratic equations with a child who hasn't grasped place value yet; you'd do remedial maths. And to be honest, that's not a bad description of how much worse than everyone else I was.
Yes, that is why I mentioned streaming PE. PE is the only class my son has underachievement on his report for, he is of a mathematical/scientific nature like his inventor father. By streaming PE as you would maths lessons the child can be taught to their own capabilities and might actually achieve something.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Sick to the back teeth of being looked at like I've come from Mars because I don't know who was even in last year's FA cup, much less who won the thing.
What you need, Sir, is a sex change.
The way some people talk you'd think so.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
Random thought: one of the reasons I loved orienteering as a sport was because it was so good at allowing people to participate at their own level.
You'd have multiple courses at different levels of difficulty, and usually for the higher levels of difficulty you'd have courses of different distances for different levels of fitness/age groups.
At the one event, you could have elites participating at national level, middle-aged folk who decided they would walk rather than run and focus on the navigation challenge without worrying about time, and young kids who'd get terribly distracted by a lizard and spend 5 minutes watching it before remembering to run manically to the next checkpoint.
[ 30. January 2014, 08:57: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on
:
orfeo: quote:
What you need, Sir, is a sex change.
That will only help if Karl likes Day-Glo pink and buying large quantities of high-heeled shoes. What he really needs is some friends who are not interested in conforming to gender stereotypes.
My Other Half isn't interested in football either. He once worked with a group of people where the only football fan was also the only woman.
But you're right... women are allowed to be uninterested in football.
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Music is a good comparison. We teach all children about music, but we don't make all of them join the orchestra, sing in front of the class and shout "Bb boy! Bb! How bloody useless are you B bloody b!"
One of my most embarrassing memories from school is being told by a music teacher in front of the class that I should be quiet and just mouth the words of the songs in a school performance, because I was completely tuneless and spoiling it for everyone else. I never bothered even to try to sing in tune after that. I still can't sing in tune. I've no idea whether better teaching would have changed that.
No games or PE teacher at any school I ever went to ever made me feel like that - that my participation was a joke and that I'd be better off not even trying. I've known since forever that I was no good at sport, but was never made to feel that I was wasting my time at sport.
It's fair to say that the school social hierarchy doesn't rate singing as much as it does football, so my popularity didn't suffer for being a crap singer, so I'll concede that those kids who are humiliated for lack of sporting ability suffer much more than I did. What I'm saying is that it is possible, and completely unnecessary, for hurtful remarks by a teacher to be made about any subject, and that it isn't an inherent part of teaching sport.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
orfeo: quote:
What you need, Sir, is a sex change.
That will only help if Karl likes Day-Glo pink and buying large quantities of high-heeled shoes. What he really needs is some friends who are not interested in conforming to gender stereotypes.
My Other Half isn't interested in football either. He once worked with a group of people where the only football fan was also the only woman.
But you're right... women are allowed to be uninterested in football.
I have friends who are non sporty - indeed, they're the only type I have because quite apart from the sports element, I find I just don't get on with sporty blokes. It's when I have to socialise more widely that I can struggle. Less of a problem than it used to be; most of my acquaintances these days I meet through work (IT), old friends from university (mostly sciences) or church (a very geeky alternative church); all three I've found ready sources of people who are as uninterested in sports in general and football in particular as I am. I know people'll say I'm being restrictive and insular and need to make the effort to get to know more people, but fuck it, I tried it that way and it didn't work.
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Exactly how many times in this thread am I going to have to say I'm not advocating banning or denying anyone their chance to show their sporting prowess in competitive sports, merely that it shouldn't be compulsory for everyone?
Most of the school curriculum is compulsory for everyone, there is no particular reason why it should be any different for PE. That said, I think that there is more than usual scope in sports for choice of the "like for like" kind. For example, our PE teacher let us vote on which "score-keeping sports" we wanted to focus on. We voted for badminton and basketball, IIRC, instead of say football and hockey. He did not however allow us to vote out track and fields, and that I didn't like the 100 m sprint at all didn't feature in any discussion we had. That's rather similar to the fact that our German teacher didn't care that many of us didn't like analysing 18thC poetry. She made us do it anyway.
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I wonder, having vented my spleen and now in a better mood for rational engagement, whether we need to consider that there are some children, and I was one, who are so uncoordinated that they actually need remedial PE, instead of just following the same scheme of work as their peers? I mean, there's no point putting me in to bat until you've actually got me to a point where I have a reasonable chance of hitting the ball. You wouldn't do quadratic equations with a child who hasn't grasped place value yet; you'd do remedial maths. And to be honest, that's not a bad description of how much worse than everyone else I was.
That's a perfectly fine idea, if the school has the resources to do that. I certainly would support that, it's not as if the goal of school is to torture kids (well, a little, but not too much and hopefully to a good end...). But if the school doesn't have the resources, then that is tough luck.
I should mention here though that just like for any other specific problems a child may have, parents can make a big difference. Just as people sit down with their children or send them to tutors for academic subjects they struggle with, parents can help their children if they struggle with physical activity. For example, after getting relentlessly picked on in primary school, my parents decided to enrol me in judo. It made a lot of difference, not so much immediately but a few years down the track. I slowly started to improve in all base stats (balance, coordination, strength, speed, ...) until in my last year in school I was quite on par if not above average. I also had some specific successes unthinkable without this training. For example, in handball the circle runner has to throw the ball while falling forward on the hard floor. I scored a top mark because unlike the other kids I had no fear of falling. And it gave me at least one physical activity - martial arts - that I have enjoyed doing, on and off, ever since. So we should not delegate all responsibility for bringing kids "up to speed" to the schools, not in academic fields and also not in sports.
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
What you need, Sir, is a sex change.
I hope this was supposed to be funny, which it wasn't. That said, if my social environment was insistent on making the FA cup a matter of group bonding, then I would pragmatically learn enough about that competition to fake interest at the required, typically shallow, level. These kind of things are not really about sports at all, but about one's willingness to engage with the group.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
What you need, Sir, is a sex change.
I hope this was supposed to be funny, which it wasn't.
No, it wasn't supposed to be funny. It was supposed to be, as Jane R correctly picked up, a commentary on social expectations. Women are not expected to show an interest in sport. They're allowed to, but they're not expected to.
The reason that Karl gets shocked looks when he fails to be interested in sport isn't because everybody is presumed to be interested in sport. It's because males are presumed to be interested in sport. If a female indicates she isn't interested in sport no-one makes a big deal out of it.
[ 30. January 2014, 10:08: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Sick to the back teeth of being looked at like I've come from Mars because I don't know who was even in last year's FA cup, much less who won the thing.
What you need, Sir, is a sex change.
Speaking as a man, I have to say this hasn't been my experience at all. I have absolutely no idea who was in last year's FA Cup final, or who won it, but I've never found that to be any kind of social obstacle. I have friends who are very keen on sports but find them to be well-rounded people who have other interests. If I'm talking to them I talk about non-sports related topics, though I can probably bluff my way through a very basic conversation (mainly by trying - and possibly failing - to ask intelligent questions).
The impression created here is rather binary - of sports-mad people who talk about nothing else and non-sports people who can't talk about it at all. I don't think things are so clear cut.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
Thing is, if we say remedial PE can only happen if we can be arsed, I mean, if we have the resources, which is something we wouldn't say about maths or English, then we're saying it isn't that important. In which case my earlier point stands and we can just not bother at all. If it is important, then the resources to provide what is needed must be made available, as they would be in maths or English.
Aware that my children may follow in my footsteps I did try, but they're really not very interested. Boy #1 has even been on a couple of goalkeeping days (his idea) but half the time he tells me he hates football, so he's clearly conflicted. Boy #2 just isn't interested. If we take a ball down the park he'll kick it a couple of times then find something more interesting to play with, like a dead leaf or a caterpillar.
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
KLB : sounds like the kind of sports/PE they've been offered so far isn't to their liking.
Not to worry - so long as they get some exercise - walking to school? - they may in time come to find something they like.
I had one parent who was into sport in a big way, the other could rarely be prised off the settee. My children play do every sport imaginable (except the one I was best at, naturally) and the major problem is where to keep all the equipment and kit... but at least they haven't taken after an aunt and taken up skydiving.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
If they're owt like me, L'Organist, then what happens is any new sport is enjoyed initially, when no-one's much good at it. Then, after a few weeks, when everyone else has got better, and you are still utter shite, it starts to wane. Happened to me in rugby, fencing, cricket... of course some sports are impossible from the very beginning, like tennis, or rounders. How anyone hits a ball squarely with a round bat like that I shall never know. I could no more do it than fly to the moon.
[ 30. January 2014, 12:18: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
BTW - this is brilliant: http://aspectsofaspergers.wordpress.com/2011/03/26/rounders-the-perspective-of-a-7-year-old-with-asperger-syndrome/
That is EXACTLY how I felt. Every bit of it.
Posted by JoannaP (# 4493) on
:
In my 2nd year at secondary school, the whole year did games together and we were split into 3 groups. For some reason, the games teachers insisted that it was not done by ability - it was just chance that all those who played for the school teams were in Group A and those of us who did not know the rules and did not care were in Group C; we were generally looked after by the oldest teacher who did not seem to care any more than we did. It was the only year in which I did not dread hockey (the following year I started Latin, which meant 1 games lesson a fortnight and I could choose what to do and then Latin O level meant no games at all ![[Yipee]](graemlins/spin.gif)
).
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on
:
orfeo: quote:
It was supposed to be, as Jane R correctly picked up, a commentary on social expectations. Women are not expected to show an interest in sport. They're allowed to, but they're not expected to.
It's not all jam being female, y'know - some people expect us to be passionately interested in celebrity gossip and word-perfect on the latest details of Britain's Got (No) Talent.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
orfeo: quote:
It was supposed to be, as Jane R correctly picked up, a commentary on social expectations. Women are not expected to show an interest in sport. They're allowed to, but they're not expected to.
It's not all jam being female, y'know - some people expect us to be passionately interested in celebrity gossip and word-perfect on the latest details of Britain's Got (No) Talent.
Duly noted.
To avoid sport, he could try becoming a gay male instead, but then one is inexplicably expected to understand women's fashion. And to know that the colour of a colleague's outfit is in fact 'fuchsia'.
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
To avoid sport, he could try becoming a gay male instead, but then one is inexplicably expected to understand women's fashion. And to know that the colour of a colleague's outfit is in fact 'fuchsia'.
But isn't there a danger that he might then be expected to watch sport in order to gawp at the burly sportsmen?
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
To avoid sport, he could try becoming a gay male instead, but then one is inexplicably expected to understand women's fashion. And to know that the colour of a colleague's outfit is in fact 'fuchsia'.
But isn't there a danger that he might then be expected to watch sport in order to gawp at the burly sportsmen?
Surprisingly, no. At least, the heterosexuals don't expect us to do it. There are certainly elements of the homosexual community that know full well the value of viewing sport (my own tastes tend toward a little more athletic rather than 'burly'**), but there doesn't seem to be any kind of widespread expectation that one would want to watch.
**I have concrete evidence of the variance of taste among the homosexual male community: if I see one more shared picture of young UK diver Tom Daley, I am going to lose it. It was bad enough before he announced he was dating a guy...
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
if I see one more shared picture of young UK diver Tom Daley, I am going to lose it. It was bad enough before he announced he was dating a guy...
I think Orfeo is a tribal Matthew Mitcham fan, readers. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
[ 31. January 2014, 14:24: Message edited by: Anglican't ]
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
My main concerns are:
--the unreadiness of the Sochi facilities. News reports last night showed visibly-contaminated water from the taps. People have been told not to use it. Many guest rooms aren't even finished. One of the snowboard slopes is too steep, and competitors have already been injured. New roads are still being paved.
--Islamist terrorists. Could make the long-ago attack on the Munich Olympics look like a minor parking infraction.
--Domestic terrorists of the anti-LGBT kind.
![[Votive]](graemlins/votive.gif)
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Random thought: one of the reasons I loved orienteering as a sport was because it was so good at allowing people to participate at their own level.
You'd have multiple courses at different levels of difficulty, and usually for the higher levels of difficulty you'd have courses of different distances for different levels of fitness/age groups.
At the one event, you could have elites participating at national level, middle-aged folk who decided they would walk rather than run and focus on the navigation challenge without worrying about time, and young kids who'd get terribly distracted by a lizard and spend 5 minutes watching it before remembering to run manically to the next checkpoint.
Loppets operate the same way (nordic skiing, XC). There is no mass start, you simply start between the accepted hours for your event. The 40 km usually between 9 and 10 or so, with the short 8 km (or so probably anytime until 2 pm and everything in between. Approximate times to complete, participation is the key, and the idea is to finish and then eat and drink with all the other skiers afterword.
I also like geocaching, which we tend to do casually when on trips. You download the coordinates of caches where you'll be walking.
I would like to try this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skijoring
[ 05. February 2014, 18:45: Message edited by: no prophet ]
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0