Everybody Wins!

[Pete]

Does anyone else see a problem with this ongoing trend with children today?

My girlfriend has a nephew who was playing with little race car toys, doing a little mock race on his toy track. When he decided the race was over, he exclaimed that both drivers won, much to the father's dismay, as well as my own. My girlfriend thought it was adorable.

My question is, does anyone else see something seriously wrong with children not being taught about winning and losing, and the merits of doing your best, as opposed to just being awarded something for showing up?

I've heard of children's sports teams playing games that don't keep score, because it's deemed more important to just have fun, and that losing may hurt the self esteem of the losing team. Now, what's wrong with motivation, and wanting to win for the sake of one's pride?

Even when I was four, playing T-ball, we never had games that didn't keep score. The team who won, won, and the losing team didn't. We were taught values like sportsmanship, and shaking the loser's hands or hi-fiving them and saying "good game." When we got older, we would play for trophies and the opportunity to play for travelling teams, where our leagues best would play the best from other leagues.

Now, I'm hearing that some leagues are doing without trophies at all, or giving everyone the same sized trophy, just for participating. Along with this, some leagues are doing away with all star games and travelling teams because they exclude the players who aren't as good.

I see a huge problem with this. I feel like this is taking things way too far, and that we're sacrificing feelings like motivation and trying harder to be better for next time, for things to simply placate those who aren't as good, so that nobody's feelings are hurt, and that everyone has the same self esteem.

Your thoughts?

[che]

If I was just having fun with everything, I wonder if I wouldn't strive to get better at all. I can't really say, because I instantly think of another way to "win". Beating a person goal, striving for creativity, etc. Either way no matter what, my goal is to win.

My theory has always been that if you're doing something you better be good at it. If you aren't good at it why waste your time? I was always good at soccer, but I sucked at basketball. I didn't feel like a loser when other people got their trophies, I looked up to the players who could play well in that sport. It wasn't that I just wasn't athletic, because I was good in other sports, but my heart wasn't into learning basketball as a game.

I would like to say this is part of the pussification of America. The same menality as "oh shit you ****ed up my chicken nuggets I'm suing you because I deserve something.

The problem I have lies within the education system of America where it's based on a certain system, and if you're bad at the system, you're a "loser".

[Victoria]

I highly agree with you on this matter. When I was younger and in the few sports I was in, the team that won, won, and the team that lost cried and got over it the next day.

I hate the mindset of people who are like "aw that's so adorable" when they see a kid saying everyone wins.

Fuck that. It's not adorable, it's sad and misleading.

Experiencing loss is an important part of growing stronger. You get motivated to improve your faults and hopefully win the next time. Which is a good thing.

There's nothing wrong with wanting to win at all.

Now, I've heard of children's leagues doing this, but... other leagues as well? Like, professional leagues too? Or... up to Highschool or what?

[Pete]

It's mostly children's leagues, where kids are still developing. My problem is exactly that. If a kid is developing and continually learns that sucking and failing will yield you the same things are the people that bust their asses and win, they'll expect the same thing in the future.

As far as I know, high schools haven't done thing, and I'd be disgusted if they did.

I played baseball as a kid, and when I lost, I'd get pissed off or sad for the time being, and when the next season would roll around, I'd remember seeing the other teams picking up their massive trophies. That would motivate me to try harder at practice, and to really work on being better, so that maybe that season, we'd win a few more games.

It's one thing though, to want to win it all, and another to be obsessed with winning, and to be willing to put yourself or others in danger to do so. I'm all for the healthy desire to win, because I think it's natural. Likewise, I think it's quite unnatural to be okay with losing. Even if you fully know your team is going to get destroyed, you should still play the game to the best of your abilities, even if just to say you played your best against a much better team.

[LocoColt04]

Pussification. Ha.

I can understand the IDEA behind this whole "let's celebrate everyone's participation" but not the LOGIC. The problem, as previously mentioned, is that it generates this atmosphere of mediocrity. I'm not going to sit in this chair and tell you that it's important for five year olds playing T-Ball to strive to kick the utter shit out of the other team, buuuuut I will say that it is an important part of both individual and group development to experience loss.

What happens to these kids that never lose because everyone wins? What happens when they get into middle and high school sports, or club athletics, and lose a match and DON'T get praised for it? Will they break down mentally? Physically? Will they even understand what happened?

Loss is something that everyone needs to experience, and the younger they do, the better it will be for them. Otherwise, overly sore losers will be created once that experience finally does happen. Not teaching a child the merits of winning and losing and how to learn from it and move on should be branded a crime against development.



And what happens to the winners when they see everyone else getting the same rewards? Will they lose their drive to become better performers? Better athletes? Better PEOPLE?

[OceanEyes28]

I mean, yeah, I don't think someone who loses at something should be berated, but that's bad sportsmanship anyway on the part of the winner. People should learn to win AND lose gracefully. ****ing up and doing better next time is just a growth experience. It helps you learn to be a good goddamn person.

Can't wait to meet the next generation dickheads that don't know how to fail without wanting to kill themselves.

I heard about this little league team here in Arkansas that won all of their games, but didn't get to play in the championship... because people were afraid they'd win.

Excellence should be celebrated. Wtf.

[SOLDIER #819]

Then again, it's just sports with little kids. Most parents/teachers probably ended up agreeing that potentially hurting feelings over a trophy was a lot worse than possibly motivating others to "do their best." Competition has its good sides, but it can also do harm. Weighing the pros and cons and knowing when it is appropriate to award kids and how to award them is important too.

Even if adults don't keep score, it won't be long before kids start making distinctions between themselves. Recess never gave out trophies. They'll pick the best players to be on their team, exclude the ones who aren't, and generally do what they need to do to win just like any of us do. They WILL learn about life regardless of whether we teach it to them or not. Organizing tournament teams and handing out medals, for all the good that it may do, can just end up reinforcing some really shitty philosophies on life in a rather overt manner.

This whole thing is only ridiculous if a fuss is raised about it. It's a different generation in an ever-changing society and yet another way to cope with it all. And previous generations will ALWAYS be complaining about how the new ones are all wrong. Life's tough, so as long as kids have an average (or not so average) family and school there will always be things to knock them down a peg. If it's not sports, it'll be something else.

[Unknown Entity]

SOLDIER said it all for me.

I don't see the harm in playing for fun, especially when it's younger children. Children don't care about the score when they're all out playing whatever game they're playing - they care about the enjoyment they gain from it. Unless you explain to a child that winning is good and losing is bad, they'll get butt hurt if they lose. Eventually, they'll just pick it for themselves, which to me is better for them because they're used to the thrill of the game.

Pushing kids to get better is good. But telling them that they suck because they don't have a trophy is another - they're just kids.

[LocoColt04]

I don't think Pete or anyone else here is saying that we need to tell them that they're "bad" for losing; I just think the removal of score in a competitive sport is counter-productive.

[Unknown Entity]

I don't think Pete or anyone else here is saying that we need to tell them that they're "bad" for losing; I just think the removal of score in a competitive sport is counter-productive.

I didn't say anyone did.

Nuttin' wrong with being competitive. But younger kids will think losing is bad if it's put on them at a young age to win. I'd rather my kids, if I have any, leave a game with a smile on their face if they won or not. My heart would swell just seeing their happy faces playing a game they enjoyed - that's adorable to me.

I think that's what I was getting at, but it's late and I can't type very fast so I'm keeping things short and sweet.

[Sasquatch]

I think it's hilarious that nobody here has brought up the obvious connection between this and Socialism.

It's just about the same thing. And it's not starting with kids -- no, definitely not. It's getting down to the kids. We're starting to devolve into a society that refuses to reward hard work with a higher salary, and some of us are just starting to complain because children are learning that hard work doesn't get them anything special?

This started in the '90s, with games being "outlawed". Anybody else remember that? First it was dodgeball. It was too "violent". Then tag. The game of tag only made some kids feel bad because they were slower than others, so it was "unfair". I say good, let the little fatties know so they start taking care of themselves.

And now there's a movement to reward everybody equally, despite how hard they worked, their natural skill, and all of the extra time they've spent practicing. (Sound familiar?) My first question is: Why are some people only noticing or only having a problem with this when it comes to children's games, not when it has already started happening to people's money and livelihoods?

EDIT: Of course, there's nothing wrong with playing just to have fun, or teaching your kids that "winning isn't everything". But if you start teaching them that no matter how hard they work, they will be rewarded the same as everybody else, they will learn quickly.

[Josh_R]

In High School I played football, and every year they would do awards. It was bullshit cause everyone got one. F*ck that shit. I led the league in tackles, and was the number one ranked Linebacker in KY 1A football. Why should the 2nd string MLB get a trophy for his role when he didn't do shit.

Playing without a score just so everyone wins, and no one feels bad is ridiculous. How are players supposed to get certain values they will need in higher level athletics if they are not taught them.

Now I think playing for fun is all good, and everything, but no winner, or loser. That just seems stupid. Myself even as a child I didn't show up for everyone to win. The best team won, and loser lost. You lose you go back, and look at what you did, and improve on those aspects. If no one loses then how are you to improve.

The whole thing just seems silly to me.

[Jin]

I think it's hilarious that nobody here has brought up the obvious connection between this and Socialism.

Why do we need to? We've come to expect you to do it for us. There's some irony.

It's mostly children's leagues

This is an important thing to remember. Not all kids join these leagues by choice. A lot of these kids are forced to join up by their parents who have expectations of them they can't possibly meet. That's a recipe for a psychological problem right there. I think that these play for fun things are just as much meant to teach the parents something as it is to teach the kids, if not more so. I'm not saying I totally agree with the extent to which it's gone, but I completely see the reasoning behind it. It's great to teach kids about hard work and all that jazz, but likewise, that kind of ideology often goes way too far, especially when it comes to some parents.

[rJ floW]

I heard about this little league team here in Arkansas that won all of their games, but didn't get to play in the championship... because people were afraid they'd win.

Excellence should be celebrated. Wtf.

I think that may be the team that would run up games and dominate, like winning by 80 points every game and their coach refused to take the foot off the peddle...but what do you expect with sports in the durty south? They are crazy down there. Varsity Blues anyone??

Wheres my whip cream!

[SOLDIER #819]

I figured that parallel would be drawn, Sasquatch. However this differs a bit from economic policy. You can measure currencies and how much you put into something (and arguably the effects), but matters of hard work and pride aren't as tangible. No doubt there are some people who take a page abstracted from socialist-esque philosophies and use it with kids, but there are other reasons that people will come to the exact same decision.

Not to mention, again, that this is just a matter of children's sports in school. Personally, if I look at it as a branch of academic activities (PE), it seems like they're just diverting emphasis from one thing to another in a less than noticeable way. Competition in academic fields is about as bad (or worse) than it was in previous generations. I don't know how most kids actually view their own performance in those types of things at that age, but as a form of competition it gets pretty involved between getting them involved in accelerated programs, into better schools, etc. Just because it isn't labeled as "competitive sport" doesn't mean it isn't competitive.

Lots of kids are pretty innocent, but that says nothing about what they'll be like when they grow up. In general I don't think most people take losing gracefully, regardless of era. People like winning, whether we're told we're getting something out of it or not. The incentive is almost inherent in itself. Give them a few years and they'll be getting teabagging and getting corpse humped in Halo with no problems.

I just think the removal of score in a competitive sport is counter-productive.

Counter-productive to what purpose, I wonder. It's called a competitive sport, but theoretically anything can be made competitive. Anything can be played "just for fun" too.

[Maridia]

In T-Ball at oh 4 we ALWAYS had ties and we were all pissed about it. Nothing more rewarding than winning a game and nothing more enraging than losing. But if you step to the plate then that's life. People need to learn to win and lose.

My coworker talked about when you had to slap hands and say good game to kids after baseball. He'd always spit onto his hand, and slap hands with the others hahaha. Sore loser, but he accepted defeat no less!

Tell you what lets make Super Bowl rings with all 32 teams on them...ahh **** it lets add the CFL, and the dead teams like the Oilers. Cause in the end we're all winners! :-D

[loaf]

What if they change it to everyone loses?

When I grew up playing sports, my dad always told me to do my best, but also did what he could to try and make me even better at what sport I was playing. Mainly bowling and baseball. Since I played them the most. Football was a couple years, I did my thing we won. We were always pushed to win, more wins meant more rewards for us in the end. Even the losing teams got rewards. Hey you know what? You tried, you played, you had some fun, you get a reward. That's how the leagues here did it most of the time.

I didn't get to play in some special league, never wanted to.

But the idea of having no score? and really no winner? In my opinion, why even have sports and competition anymore? That's like having a Halo Match and both teams win even though Red got 50 kills and Blue got 40.

[Sasquatch]

Why do we need to? We've come to expect you to do it for us. There's some irony.

Yes, it's quite ironic that ignorant people would bitch about this idea but praise it on a larger economic scale. Though, it's not surprising.

This is an important thing to remember. Not all kids join these leagues by choice. A lot of these kids are forced to join up by their parents who have expectations of them they can't possibly meet. That's a recipe for a psychological problem right there.

Then why not do the same thing with grades? Isn't it unfair to expect children with different levels of intellectual aptitude to have the same chance to receive good grades? Why can't we give everybody C's -- hell, let's make it better and give everybody B's, or even better (everybody's a winner!) and give everybody A's? Because if one kid gets an A on their test, and another gets a D on their test, wouldn't the kid that got a D feel bad? Maybe really bad? What if it caused a "psychological problem", because the kid constantly felt inadequate? I mean, we can't push this kid to work harder, study more, or do more homework, because that would have their feelings hurt. And oh, we can't hurt the little underachiever's feelings, can we?

Or we could just get away from this nanny-state idea that expecting people to work to succeed causes "psychological problems". Kids have been spanked and punished and put through regular childhood shit since the beginning of time, we need to stop blaming problems on how somebody was raised and how their parents are evil, and start blaming problems on the person who has problems. Life sucks, grab a helmet.

I'm pretty sure that this thread was its most useful throughout the first six posts.

[Tiffany]

I think it depends on the age of the children we're talking about here. I do believe at some point sportsmanship, being the bigger person, sore loser/winners life lessons need to be introduced, however I don't think it needs to be introduced at Timbit Soccer (where the kids are 3 or 4 years old).

Solider and Jin summed up mostly what I was going to say about it. I have my daughter and I'm not going to encourage her at a young age that winning is better than losing... she'll get those life lessons in spades later on, and not just from playing sports. Trying out for various school programs (school plays, etc).

I think too at least from my generation is its the parents that really ruined things. As (I think?) Jin mentioned how there are kids who's parents try to live vicariously through them... they get pushed into sports and get berated for not "winning". My Dad was one of them, he'd yell so much while my bother played Basketball that he was actually escorted out of the gymnasium. So to remove the aspect of "winning" from the equation means parents can't freakout on their kids.

I dunno. I personally think you can take the "winning" out of little childrens sports but still be able to teach children about winning/losing. Just because a child's team doesn't win their baseball game doesn't mean that they are doomed to be doormats for the rest of their lives. Its almost going from one extreme to the other imo.

[Unknown Entity]

Then why not do the same thing with grades? Isn't it unfair to expect children with different levels of intellectual aptitude to have the same chance to receive good grades? Why can't we give everybody C's -- hell, let's make it better and give everybody B's, or even better (everybody's a winner!) and give everybody A's? Because if one kid gets an A on their test, and another gets a D on their test, wouldn't the kid that got a D feel bad? Maybe really bad? What if it caused a "psychological problem", because the kid constantly felt inadequate? I mean, we can't push this kid to work harder, study more, or do more homework, because that would have their feelings hurt. And oh, we can't hurt the little underachiever's feelings, can we?

There's a difference. Sports are optional and grades are mandatory. I'd like to think any parent with a sane bone in their bodies would push their child to do better with their grades over a sport, which on the larger scale of things really does mean shit on their resume that they'll write ten years later (unless they're signing up to major league whatever you have over there... even so, grades are more important if that doesn't work out). It's two completely different things in my opinion.

I used to play football for my local girls team and I dropped that because I needed the two nights a week that I trained to study for my GCSEs, and I got some good grades. My friend didn't drop it, and failed her GCSEs but won a tournament. Which means absolute shit, because she couldn't get into college with that.

On that note, our coach was a strong believer that it was all in the having fun that counted, and that he'd be proud of us if we won or not. In the best tournament I was in, we got to the semi-finals before we finally got kicked. We were happy anyway because we'd gotten that far, and all celebrated by going out to get some chips (all we could afford with our "pay check" - we were just kids). Few weeks later at training, a box of medals had turned up for us - completely unexpected. We got them for getting as far as we did. Still, getting a medal despite not winning was still a testament for what I was able to achieve at the time.

I know I don't have a chance in hell of getting that far in a football tournament now, but goddamnit I have a higher chance of getting a job than those who saw the football as all that was worth it at the time.

[Pete]

The way I look at it, is that winning and losing should be taught, even if from a young age, but that nobody should be berated for a loss, or even a singular bad performance; at least not at childhood. I can understand the concept of playing just for fun, so as to teach kids the fundamentals of a game, but at the same time the point of most athletic competitions and sports is to win, whether it be by skill or luck.

It's one thing to teach kids that winning is good, but also that winning isn't everything, and that sometimes you actually get more from a loss, in terms of moral victories. My dad would coach my baseball teams, and when we lost, he would ask us if we honestly thought we gave it our best. After talking about it, he'd tell us all that it doesn't matter if we win or lose, but that nobody can say shit if we always give it our all.


As for games like tag and dodgeball, it boggles my mind why these were banned. If you're a slower kid, figure out how to hide better, or just keep trying to run faster, or maybe stop having 15 cupcakes at lunch. As for dodgeball, I can't understand why it would be banned. You throw the ball, and you either catch it or get hit with it. Slower kids, and those who can't catch, should stay towards the back, to give themselves more of a shot when the balls are coming in. The only rule our gym teacher had was that you can't go headhunting. If you did that, you sat out the rest of the game.

A lot of it is adaptation and figuring out where you stand. I was a chubby little **** when I was a kid, and I would creep in the middle and back during dodgeball, because I knew I couldn't catch the balls coming from point blank. I also knew I couldn't run faster than the kids in tag, so I'd go for the slower kid than me, or do quick tagbacks.

EDIT: And Unknown, I think what Sasquatch means is that he'd like to see kids be able to excel in both, and that both matters are different, but should be treated in the same manner. Maybe I'm naive with my thinking, but I think most of us would rather have a smart and successful child in the classroom, as opposed to on the field. However, I think that he means he would want to see kids try to put the same effort and emphasis on getting good grades as we do with winning, and that if we went with an "everyone wins" policy, all it would do is hurt children.

Case in point, a lot of children who fail classes, and should be left back a year because they're either dumb as shit, or just not developmentally there, are getting pushed through the system, just because teachers and principals and parents feel that it would be too damaging for a child's self esteem to not advance to the next grade with all of their friends and old classmates. These are the kids who are getting C's D's and F's, and are being treated as if nothing's wrong, just because little Johnny would be devastated if he couldn't be in the same class with all his friends from last year.

Of course, this would further lead to these children lagging behind the rest of their classes, continuing to get their failing grades, simply because nobody ever put their foot down and said that those children are not ready to advance yet. Their failing grades were rewarded with promotion, just to protect the child's self esteem.

[Jin]

Yes, it's quite ironic that ignorant people would bitch about this idea but praise it on a larger economic scale. Though, it's not surprising.

Hmmm? You'll have to expand on that one, it's far too esoteric and I've no idea how it relates to what you quoted.

As for the rest, I'm not going to argue with your reductio ad ridiculum.

[OceanEyes28]

Blah. When I said I thought excellence should be celebrated, I for real just meant excellence. Not douchebaggary. Some shithead who kid wins at something and then acts like an asshole should definitely be checked, imo. Same to the parents. I get what some of you are saying about ridiculous parents, and on that point, we agree. There are parents who put way too much pressure on their kids to win at things and who freak out way too much when they don't. Not for that.

But I think we don't give children enough credit. They are smart enough to lose a baseball game and figure out that it doesn't mean they're worthless. Especially if that's reinforced by adults who treat sports the way they're meant to be treated: as games.

As for everything else... grades, economics.... I don't even...

I'm good to drink Guinness and have sex, I don't know about you. (what?)

[Robbo]

Yeah that's not a problem here in the North UK you participate in a sport or game you lose hell the other team ridicule the losers and no one cares. Whilst this may seem harsh it's either a good life lesson or it teaches that you can bend the rules to get the results, which i think is one of the reasons my area is quite rough.

But i played rugby in year 7 and 8 of High school and we kept losing so i practiced over summer i could'nt do runs for anything but i took people down by spearing them actually i'm suprised i didn't break anything cause there are no pads in Rugby. The rewards given out i think were most try's most tackles and something to do with most fearless haha basically someone who charged straight at the person repeatedly. I also played Basketball our team we're horrible but i got most 3 pointers for my school one time.

[Alpha]

Even if adults don't keep score, it won't be long before kids start making distinctions between themselves.

This.

Competition is natural and will always exist.

If this trend really does exist, then I am glad. There is such a thing as a positive-sum game, where it is possible for both 'teams' to come away with something.

The whole, "I win, you lose" (negative-sum) attitude is inherently selfish and unsympathetic.

At the same time, "I win, you lose" will always exist. I'm looking forward to it coming down a peg, however.

EDIT: When I was in secondary school (high school), I coached two junior basketball teams. As in all teams, some players were better than others. Not surprisingly, I favoured them in terms of court time, in order to have a better chance of winning.

However what I rewarded above all else was humility, good manners and sportsmanship. If one of my players, even one of the the best, was rude to or about the opposition, I took them off the court. I couldn't care if it was the last minute of the final, and we were down by a single point -- if they were rude, insensitive or arrogant, they did not deserve to play.

I did have skilled players who I detested for such reasons. The attitude they came equipped with is that winning is all that matters, and that values of compassion, camaraderie, tolerance and, well, kindness, were secondary to winning. I refused to reward that, and that is a principle I intend to instill in my children when the day comes.

[Zargabaath]

I'm going to agree with Pete and Sasquatch on the points that they brought up. I view it a life lesson that is being taught through sports, just as it could be in a children's book. A person could detract from the impact calling both non-important but the activity/action/thing is not important but the message.

Obviously everybody is not of the same mind, but to me - a competitive person - I only have fun if winning; it is a lie to say losing is fun. When I was in a league (the majors) back in the day my team would always be the worst. Our various managers always seemed to get the worst of the draft. Then our team would dissolve because of how bad we were, then a new team would form the next year & repeat. I did get a trophy one year from a bad team however I don't value the trophy. I do value the trophy for my "minor league" team [Truckers] because we were the best team that year and we all had a lot of fun.

There's a difference. Sports are optional and grades are mandatory. I'd like to think any parent with a sane bone in their bodies would push their child to do better with their grades over a sport, which on the larger scale of things really does mean shit on their resume that they'll write ten years later (unless they're signing up to major league whatever you have over there... even so, grades are more important if that doesn't work out). It's two completely different things in my opinion.

Wouldn't grades being mandatory cause worse problems for a child than sports that are optional or at the behest of a parent. Therefore, what Sasquatch said should be done if "teachers"/"adults" are looking out for children. What grades you get can help or hinder what college/university they may go to, if they are even accepted. That's a lot more pressure than a little league game & with wide-range of consequences. With this practice the child's psyche must be protected but adults are forgetting that hardship is a part of growing; once a person leaves the house there is not an "everybody wins" mentality though there are people that are trying to create that type of society. Mediocrity is not too be aimed for, supported, or advocated.

That is why I love baseball - there are always winners and losers. Each game both teams strive to be the best for that day, and in a larger scope the season & hopefully culminating in a World Series Championship.

[Sasquatch]

There's a difference. Sports are optional and grades are mandatory. I'd like to think any parent with a sane bone in their bodies would push their child to do better with their grades over a sport ...

That's exactly my point. Most parents push their child to succeed more in school than they do after school. Which, for those who might not get good grades, could cause even more stress, because they're more pushing for success. Of course grades matter more. But not everybody can -- nor should everybody -- get A's. That means that some kids will end up with the C's and D's that they've earned, not that everybody should be given A's because we don't want to hurt their feelings and because grades are important.

Hmmm? You'll have to expand on that one, it's far too esoteric and I've no idea how it relates to what you quoted.

As for the rest, I'm not going to argue with your reductio ad ridiculum.

Don't worry, I'll dumb it down more for you next time. And I'm not surprised that you make a post containing nothing but insults and shamming out of a coherent response.

Blah. When I said I thought excellence should be celebrated, I for real just meant excellence. Not douchebaggary. Some shithead who kid wins at something and then acts like an asshole should definitely be checked, imo. Same to the parents. I get what some of you are saying about ridiculous parents, and on that point, we agree. There are parents who put way too much pressure on their kids to win at things and who freak out way too much when they don't. Not for that.

Exactly. My point in bringing up grades was under the same idea -- some parents will push their children too much to excel in everything. That doesn't mean that it's the fault of the competition or activity that they're involved in, that means that it's the fault of the parents -- for either pushing them too hard, or for not teaching the little bastard the value of sportsmanship.

I'm good to drink Guinness and have sex, I don't know about you. (what?)

So ... you've got eight months until I come home. Start the wedding plans. (Or at least the honeymoon.)

But i played rugby in year 7 and 8 of High school and we kept losing so i practiced over summer ...

So your team lost, so you took it upon yourself to improve yourself? That's precisely the point of competition -- if there are no "losers", nobody "better" or "worse" than anybody else, there are no reasons to improve.

If one of my players, even one of the the best, was rude to or about the opposition, I took them off the court. I couldn't care if it was the last minute of the final, and we were down by a single point -- if they were rude, insensitive or arrogant, they did not deserve to play.

I did have skilled players who I detested for such reasons. The attitude they came equipped with is that winning is all that matters, and that values of compassion, camaraderie, tolerance and, well, kindness, were secondary to winning. I refused to reward that, and that is a principle I intend to instill in my children when the day comes.

That's awesome. I definitely have a lot of respect for that. Nowadays, you see little bastards that are cocky and arrogant as hell, but good at what they do, and they are put on pedistals. Look at Barry Bonds (mister "I don't need steroids, I'm just that good"), Terrell Owens, Chad Johnson/"Ochocinco", Dennis Rodman, Mike Tyson, and their ilk. Sure, they're great at what they do. They're also full of themselves and give their respective sports, and other players, bad names. But these assholes are exalted because of their abilities, and their personalities are ignored. So little kids see them and try to be like them, which just leads to them disrespecting their opponents ... and to some people, unfortunately, everybody they meet falls into the "opponents" category.

[Jin]

Don't worry, I'll dumb it down more for you next time. And I'm not surprised that you make a post containing nothing but insults and shamming out of a coherent response.

Sorry, where exactly did I insult you?

However what I rewarded above all else was humility, good manners and sportsmanship.

This is the most important thing. It's just a shame that so many athletes (amateurs and professionals alike) lack this sort of psycho-emotional education. Combating this, I believe, is one of the purposes of these play for fun policies, regardless of how successful they've been at doing so.

[Heartless Angel]

WHile I think the concept is stupid, I also don't think it really matters to an overwhelming majority of kids. My elementary school was into the bullshit playing=victory mentallity as well. In gym class, our aim was still to kick the shit out of each other. And we always had the occasional fat kid with all the athletic ability of Manuel Uribe who'd say, "We weren't keeping score!", when the guys who owned him celebrated their victory, in an attempt to devalue their achievement to make himself feel better, to which just about alll of us would simply respond, "Maybe YOU weren't." WE still understood the concept, and thought the gym teacher was stupid for not keeping score and discouraging us from celebrating victory when we earned it.

I was a fat kid, I had flat feet and severe asthma attacks all the time, I ran slower than molasses in an igloo, and I was still one of the most competative people in my class. I knew I couldn't shoot a basketball to save my life, and any attempt at doing so would be handing the ball to the other team, so I didn't shoot. I got the ball and gave it to someone who could. People still picked me for their team over more athletic kids, because I knew my limits and how to be a valuable player in spite of them. Dodgeball was probably my favorite game at the time. In spite of my lame physique, I still kicked ass at it. I wasn't the kid hiding in back, I was front and center keeping a ball as a shield and nailing anybody too busy to catch. I was usually one of the first people picked for a team in dodgeball. Encouraging victory doesn't demand that all kid be perfect athletes. Just that they strive to overcome their own limitations to achieve a worthwhile goal. If you lost anyways, you came up with a better plan for the next game and tried harder. That's life. In the real world, you don't get a high salary for showing up to work, you get a high salary for doing your job well, and a higher salary for doing it better than anybody else. The world is competitive, and we all come to realize it whether we've been thrown praise for losing at T-ball before or not.