|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Olympics 2014
|
Og, King of Bashan
Ship's giant Amorite
# 9562
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
"I like to eat crawfish and drink beer. That's despair?" ― Walker Percy
Posts: 3259 | From: Denver, Colorado, USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ian Climacus
Liturgical Slattern
# 944
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 7800 | From: On the border | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Garasu
Shipmate
# 17152
|
Posted
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...)
--------------------
"Could I believe in the doctrine without believing in the deity?". - Modesitt, L. E., Jr., 1943- Imager.
Posts: 889 | From: Surrey Heath (England) | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Og, King of Bashan
Ship's giant Amorite
# 9562
|
Posted
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 like to eat crawfish and drink beer. That's despair?" ― Walker Percy
Posts: 3259 | From: Denver, Colorado, USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Firenze
Ordinary decent pagan
# 619
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 17302 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Firenze
Ordinary decent pagan
# 619
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 17302 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
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 ]
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
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.)
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
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 ]
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
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 ]
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
{argh - code fail - someone help!]
[my bill is in the post]
[ 29. January 2014, 11:05: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
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 ]
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
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...
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Garasu
Shipmate
# 17152
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"Could I believe in the doctrine without believing in the deity?". - Modesitt, L. E., Jr., 1943- Imager.
Posts: 889 | From: Surrey Heath (England) | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spike
Mostly Harmless
# 36
|
Posted
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)
--------------------
"May you get to heaven before the devil knows you're dead" - Irish blessing
Posts: 12860 | From: The Valley of Crocuses | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
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 ]
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
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 ]
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
moonlitdoor
Shipmate
# 11707
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
We've evolved to being strange monkeys, but in the next life he'll help us be something more worthwhile - Gwai
Posts: 2210 | From: london | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
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 ]
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
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 ]
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
This, basically. We take sport too seriously, and physical education not seriously enough.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
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 ]
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
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 ]
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
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 ]
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
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 ]
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sleepwalker
Shipmate
# 15343
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 267 | From: somewhere other than here | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sleepwalker
Shipmate
# 15343
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 267 | From: somewhere other than here | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sleepwalker
Shipmate
# 15343
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 267 | From: somewhere other than here | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
