This is often on my mind.
I'm a Gamesman, not a Sportsman.
Sportsmen are a different breed & we don't really 'get' each other most of the time. And when the two mindsets do collide there is usually a lot of bad feeling - From my point of view the most un-Sportsman-like 'Body Line' 'scandal' was brilliant Gamesmanship. Very few Sportsmen would agree.
Is it just the old clash between the Chess Club & the Rugger Team ?
Personally, I love Games playing, but never Sports. Sports are just too codified and restrictive for me. All those rules...
Games are much more fun - A far more lively spirit is required and grossly abusing the 'rules' is usually seen as rather witty.
Anybody else with any thoughts on this in this Olympic year?
Which are you?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodyline
Just to extend my thinking on this -
As Cricket was a game long before it became a sport, 'Bodyline' belongs absolutely to the original 'Gentlemanly' ethos of the game.
To go further - Sportsmanship is not 'Gentlemanly'. It's for those who came later. This is like the difference between the Georgian & the Victorian 'Gentleman' - The former was the real deal & the latter was a timid Middle-Class wannabe, as befitted being the subject of our first Middle-Class Queen...
So back to Gamesmanship and to the Devil with the wet legged 'Sportsman' !
Huzzah !
Are you one of those c**nts that goes on the 'Tweed Run'?
No, I don’t want to have it again. I only want you to say clearly, if you will, whether the ball is in or out.
IF THE OPPONENT WEARS, OR ATTEMPTS TO WEAR, CLOTHES CORRECT AND SUITABLE FOR THE GAME, BY AS MUCH AS HIS CLOTHES SUCCEED IN THIS FUNCTION, BY SO MUCH SHOULD THE GAMESMAN'S FAIL.
Last edited by fxh (2012-05-31 14:52:29)
Be honest - Was it the bad shoes that really put you off, Mate ?
I don't like to watch others play with their balls.
yeah mate, it was. Not only are sneakers bad shoos, but they are bloody foul shoos (nothing fouler ever invented). l hate sneakers with a passion; they are white wiff fancy girly-man colours all over them, are made from synthetics, and have thick ugly rubber soles that get dirt in the traction on the soles. l wore sneakers occasonally, but l hated every moment of it as a kid; l always liked wearing proper shoos. Even when l was in primary school (age 6 - 12), l usually wore school shoos during sport.
So many girly-men on t.v wearing white beacons wiff fancy colours on their feet. lt's ridiculous!!!
But as l said....grown men running from one side of an oval to the other side chasing after a silly ball is really silly too. These blokes need to find something better to do. And to think that some dope pays these blokes lots of money to chase a ball simply staggers me at the stupidity of the world. lf l run the world l would tell these silly buggers to get a real job, l wouldn't pay them a cent. lf they want to run after a silly ball, do it after work in their own time...they can run after the stupid ball all night long down the local paddock for whatever l care, just don't get suckers watching and paying them for doing such baloney.
Ehh, it's as good an outlet as any for tribalism.
This thread is as much about cynicism as sports or gamesmanship.
No reference to the activities themselves or the satisfaction in doing them well or watching them being done well.
I see no merit in breaking the rules or getting away with cheating.
Yes sport- along with other things - is used as a distraction but that is a separate issue.
Flashman,Joey Barton and Jardine versus Sir Henry Newbolt, the Duke of Wellington and muscular Christianity
There's a breathless hush in the Close to-night --
Ten to make and the match to win --
A bumping pitch and a blinding light,
An hour to play and the last man in.
And it's not for the sake of a ribboned coat,
Or the selfish hope of a season's fame,
But his Captain's hand on his shoulder smote
"Play up! play up! and play the game!"
The sand of the desert is sodden red, --
Red with the wreck of a square that broke; --
The Gatling's jammed and the colonel dead,
And the regiment blind with dust and smoke.
The river of death has brimmed his banks,
And England's far, and Honour a name,
But the voice of schoolboy rallies the ranks,
"Play up! play up! and play the game!"
This is the word that year by year
While in her place the School is set
Every one of her sons must hear,
And none that hears it dare forget.
This they all with a joyful mind
Bear through life like a torch in flame,
And falling fling to the host behind --
"Play up! play up! and play the game!"
'Playing the game' IS what it's all about. It's a game. It's not serious. The rules are only guidelines. Sport has a different point of view on all of this.
The game is to be played, played well and won, with luck.
Sport has no room for audacity or cheek. Sport is a serious business. Sport is a profession and not a pastime.
I'm all for Gamesmanship & think that we have lost a lot by valuing the later notion of Sportsmanship more.
One plays games quite literally. Sport is also 'played', but they're not really playing are they? They are deadly serious - And over what ?
The winning of games and the winning of wars are very closely linked. The point is to win.
Vietnam was a great example of an army being totally unable to cope with an opposing force who just cheekily popped up out of holes in the ground and shot them in the head. Most unsporting of them. Hadn't they read the rule book ?
Cynicism or realism ?
The gamesman is goal orientated & the sportsman is process orientated. I think that sums it up best.
Sportsmanship is sooooooooooo middle-class....!!!
You can plot the downfall of the British Empire from the ascendancy of sportsmanship over gamesmanship.
Last edited by 4F Hepcat (2012-06-02 13:14:15)
Societies at their peaks tend to have well known codes of conduct that are widely adhered to.
Civilisations in decline usually find the old rules under question. Self interest trumps all and moral relativism is used to excuse what would previously have been condemned.
This thread made me think of the notorious Maradona "hand of God" goal. What's the difference between gamesmanship and cheating?
Merely your point of view !
The end justifies the means I think. If you win, then you're a good Gamesman. If you lose or are detected and sanctioned then you are a bad Gamesman.
At heart, Gamesmanship is really a Jesuit notion.
It's all about end results.
The Sportsman's point of view is less about winning and more about executing certain prescribed behaviours. They hope to win, but they shackle themselves with obstacles (the rules) to achieve that end.
The Gamesman has a clear objective in mind on which he is absolutely focused. His aim is to achieve that and overcome all obstacles, rather than working WITH the obstacles presented to him like a Sportsman would.
Kingstonian - What you say is true, but to produce a society at its peak usually requires the ploys of the Gamesman initially. Once the society is established then the Sportsman's point of view can take over to administer a period of placid stability. The decline that you mention which always follows at some point is in fact the creation of a new society as the Gamesman's point of view kicks into gear again to create something new. It is less to do with the decline of the old society and far more to do with the creation of that new society.
And each new society then has its new rules for the Sportsman to follow.
Gamesmen are creators and Sportsmen are administrators, in a sense.