bladderhead
Zen MBB Master
Espresso? Is it legal to use coffee as a performance-inducing drug?
Is wanting to win all that great if you sacrifice your honor?
- Thread starter RojoRacing
- Start date
3bs
whereabouts unknown
honor is honor, and moral codes are both individual and collectively established. in all forms of competition, the moral code is sometimes different than the rules. sometimes trying your hardest at all times is the moral standard, sometimes not. sometimes cheating is within the moral standard of honor. Sometimes strategy is part of the moral code, whether it is running a little less than full blast thru qualifying rounds, or determining what the best bracket is to make it into the finals, or strategizing to be at the bottom of the top bracket or the top of the next bracket.
i used to race cars. a certain amount of technical cheating was well within the moral code, but we all knew when someone "really cheated" as opposed to just "cheatin"
i have three multi sport kids in high school sports, school and club. bracket selection strategy is subtle, but present.
here are three very real examples that demonstrate the quandry:
1. my kid's team had very good players and some average players. if we only played the top players we had a better chance of beating anyone. if we played all of our players, that chance was greatly reduced. we go to a tournament and we see that the losers bracket looked like a better way into the final 4 with a better match up in the semi's. if we played all of our good kids and none of the rest, we would not be in the losers bracket. the coach chooses to let the lower skill kids who would not have played at all play two games a ton, and we lose one, not unexpectedly, and go thru the losers bracket and win the tournament. the kids who don't usually play got to play and loved both playing and winning. the really good kids got to play in the critical games and loved winning. was that sandbagging? was that a moral compromise?
2. my other kids team is classified at the playoff time by win loss record. they were in the bottom of the top or the top of the middle. they have ZERO chance of winning the title if they are in the top class. if they are in the middle, they will be first or second. the difference is one more game in the win column. do you make substitutions on the field that will likely mean you lose a game so that you are sure of being in the middle level?
3. my other kids team was in the top class of his sport. again classing by win loss record. they always played to the max, and as a result never won the title, but usually finished top 5. as top 5 in the top class they often beat every other class title holder. they didn't care at all.
tricky.
i used to race cars. a certain amount of technical cheating was well within the moral code, but we all knew when someone "really cheated" as opposed to just "cheatin"
i have three multi sport kids in high school sports, school and club. bracket selection strategy is subtle, but present.
here are three very real examples that demonstrate the quandry:
1. my kid's team had very good players and some average players. if we only played the top players we had a better chance of beating anyone. if we played all of our players, that chance was greatly reduced. we go to a tournament and we see that the losers bracket looked like a better way into the final 4 with a better match up in the semi's. if we played all of our good kids and none of the rest, we would not be in the losers bracket. the coach chooses to let the lower skill kids who would not have played at all play two games a ton, and we lose one, not unexpectedly, and go thru the losers bracket and win the tournament. the kids who don't usually play got to play and loved both playing and winning. the really good kids got to play in the critical games and loved winning. was that sandbagging? was that a moral compromise?
2. my other kids team is classified at the playoff time by win loss record. they were in the bottom of the top or the top of the middle. they have ZERO chance of winning the title if they are in the top class. if they are in the middle, they will be first or second. the difference is one more game in the win column. do you make substitutions on the field that will likely mean you lose a game so that you are sure of being in the middle level?
3. my other kids team was in the top class of his sport. again classing by win loss record. they always played to the max, and as a result never won the title, but usually finished top 5. as top 5 in the top class they often beat every other class title holder. they didn't care at all.
tricky.
benphyr
Guru-me-not
Some of my 2c.
Life is more complicated than 1+1=2. It is awfully easy to cheat to get an advantage. Intentions can be a good thermometer sometimes. However, the smell test of throwing a game ... If your goal is win at ALL costs whether that is individual games, championships, etc. it is highly unlikely that you will end with honour at the end. You will be willing to hurt another player - take a penalty to strategically make your team better. Using your brain to come up with a better way to do something within the rules can be a fantastic inspiration. Saving your energy for the final is strategy, but sandbagging so that you get a smaller handicap in a golf tourney is definitely misrepresenting - the point of the handicap is to level the field and you are in essence giving yourself a head start.
I think we lose something when we compare kids sports to adult sports, war situations, etc. and with the ideal situation. The ideal situation is free from cheating, perceived, actual, etc. and compares two things objectively recognizing the advantages and disadvantages of each. Real life is way more complex and the situations that arise are likewise complex. The discussion of these challenges stretches us and helps us to grow as individuals and communities.
But which is better - honourable 18th place or slightly dishonourable 3rd place or dishonourable 1st place. I think you win with the first option every time. You may be able to argue your way through the others and in all likelihood most situations are complex enough that they will fall somewhere in the middle with several wins and several losses to every decision.
Well, think on, and on, and on. The worst answer may be to block out all thought.
Life is more complicated than 1+1=2. It is awfully easy to cheat to get an advantage. Intentions can be a good thermometer sometimes. However, the smell test of throwing a game ... If your goal is win at ALL costs whether that is individual games, championships, etc. it is highly unlikely that you will end with honour at the end. You will be willing to hurt another player - take a penalty to strategically make your team better. Using your brain to come up with a better way to do something within the rules can be a fantastic inspiration. Saving your energy for the final is strategy, but sandbagging so that you get a smaller handicap in a golf tourney is definitely misrepresenting - the point of the handicap is to level the field and you are in essence giving yourself a head start.
I think we lose something when we compare kids sports to adult sports, war situations, etc. and with the ideal situation. The ideal situation is free from cheating, perceived, actual, etc. and compares two things objectively recognizing the advantages and disadvantages of each. Real life is way more complex and the situations that arise are likewise complex. The discussion of these challenges stretches us and helps us to grow as individuals and communities.
But which is better - honourable 18th place or slightly dishonourable 3rd place or dishonourable 1st place. I think you win with the first option every time. You may be able to argue your way through the others and in all likelihood most situations are complex enough that they will fall somewhere in the middle with several wins and several losses to every decision.
Well, think on, and on, and on. The worst answer may be to block out all thought.
Bill Wightman
Well-Known Member
Interesting philosophical topic. Two things to remember I think. A bit pithy but "To thine own self be true" always applies as it keeps your thoughts and goals at a deeper, more honest level. So that mostly means do the right thing. So not giving your all and pretending you can ride in a lower category is not being true. The second thing is that you teach by your actions. We must not teach petty ethical corruptions and degradations to our youth. If they are weak for whatever reason, they will in turn pass these ideas on to others. Ethics and Family Values 101.
