Philosophy of Sport class

This class overall was somewhat interesting but also not always the most productive in discsussion because there is so much bias that comes with the subject of sports. The point was made in class that maybe there are not so many philosophers of sport because those who study sport work actively in the sports field, coaching, writing, commentating, being part of a program, or are athletes themselves. I would agree with this and add to this that everyone has grown up with their favorite sport and their dispositions and much of the philosophy of sport is just opinion based on experience. Learning about play in general and thinking about how people act in sports was interesting and hearing other people's opinions on basic things that never really get discussed (like cheating, spoilsports, athletes as heroes etc) was valuable. To be forced to think about something that is so much a part of everyday culture and take it apart was a good thing, but again many discussions ended up being circular because people had set opinions that were biased by their feelings about a sport (people said they did not believe race car driving was a sport because they didnt like it). All in all, I am glad I got to think about sport in a more detailed context and I feel it will help me as an athlete, a spectator, and a thinker along the way.

Huizinga: We all need play

It is comforting to get some acknowledgement that play is an “interlude in life,” but it is also “integral to life.[1]” I completely agree that everyone needs play in their life, the interruption of daily life and the real world that is not so nice all of the time. No matter how grown up someone is, play is so necessary in maintaining sanity, especially in this day and age. We live in a society obsessed with work and money and business and material wealth, when really, what makes people most happy is going to that baseball game one time a year or playing with a small child in a park....Huizinga notes that play is completely seperate from other areas of life, but it is just as important. It is not a component of survival, like food or water, but is something that all humans experience,and inherently do. I want to always know that it is ok to play, and that even in graduating college and going out to work, that the real world is not the only thing I have to look forward to.

---

[1] Huizinga, J. “Nature and Significance of Play,” 8

The Stance of Sport

HYLAND:

THE STANCE OF SPORT, Pages 73-78

In Hyland’s chapter he discusses four main components of “play” and why people play. These four ideas are what he calls “responsive openness,” finitude, possibility and freedom. He speaks to what sports offer us as humans, and what parts of ourselves we offer when we play. His main thesis seems to be that we use our “responsive openness” when we play within a combination of finitude and possibility that culminates in a kind of freedom. The anti-thesis to this could be that these dynamics Hyland uses to try to dissect why we play are not unique to sports, but are just different dynamics in life.

Responsive Openness

Hyland explains that there is a certain stance of play that we maintain while we are playing a game. He calls this “responsive openness.” The term is derived from being open but also being responsive. The need to be open and aware when playing a game is so important as games are inherently thematic, says Hyland. It would not be enough, though, to be open to what is going on around because this would allow for passive openness. When one is in their stance of play, they must also be responsive in their openness and be able to react. To engage in play we must be able to respond as well as be open. Hyland says that responsive openness is an essential part of sports and games but he acknowledges that it is not exclusive to them. It is also not his definition of sports or games because this would be far too broad.

Finitude

In life humans are always trying to avoid finitude—the limitations of everything around us, whether it be the finitude of time, space or abilities. Hyland points out that in play, finitude becomes a positive and is brought to the forefront. Sports are completely based on rules and people but these rules are embraced because it is what makes play fun. There are still the temporal, spatial limitations and finitude based on ability but Hyland claims that people acknowledge them as integral to play and not as a hindrance. The meaning of the game is derived from the finitude.

Possibility

The contrary of finitude is possibility. Hyland connects them, however, in that in order for there to be the most possibility in play, there has to be finitude. The openness and responsiveness also has to be focused within the boundaries of the finitude. To play is to have responsive openness within a context. “Humans need focus, which is to say, humans need finitude.” I did not agree with his strong linking of possibility and finitude. What he seemed to be proving was just that finitude gives meaning to play, but not necessarily that this creates possibility.

Freedom

The last argument stems from finitude and possibility when they are put together. When combined, they produce a freedom that is the motivation for why we play. “Strange paradox, that subjecting oneself to constraints more limiting than those of everyday life should be experienced as freedom, the freedom of exhilarating play,” Hyland explains. Using our bodies to their greatest ability within given boundaries or rules or limitations is freedom. When a sort of alternate play world is made, people function within that world in a completely different way than the real world; the possibilities within the limitations of the game are endless. I think of it in terms of playing make-believe, where we are constrained to a world that is not real, but are in the responsive openness stance of play, seemingly able to do anything. Hyland’s last point in this section is that people would just float along bored in a day to day world, in a game “without an end” if it were not for play. We need this other realm with other rules and finitude to truly have freedom.

When We Were Kings

When We Were Kings was very well done. I had seen the movie "Ali," but it was really fun to see the real deal in this movie. There is really no one like Ali, he seems to embody much of what we have talked about in this class. He has the mental and physical, he is the agon and alea, he definitely has metis, the king of "sledging" and intimidation.
I think he is one of the best examples of the character building that sports give you; he grew so much mentally throughout his career and was able to find the will power to win always. One can see how he took that character building and used it to his advantage in the political world as well. I believe if he had not trained his body so intensly, his mind would not have been as sharp. His footwork seemed to go hand in hand with his quick wit. The way in which he spoke was almost like the way he danced. In my first paper, I talked about one of our first readings which spoke to the idea of "total participation." It emphasized learning through experience. Ali pushed his body so hard that his mind got pushed with it. Boxing is a sport that is so mental because you have to keep your head in it completely and not let pain affect you.
It is interesting that we had just talked about Metis in class and it was argued that it didnt exist because Ali's "rumble in the jungle." It was not just random when he timed out the fight and waited until the seemingly perfect moment to take out Foreman.

LADY WILDCATS get a win!
http://nusports.cstv.com/sports/w-baskbl/recaps/021107aab.html

The art of intimidation....

I thought the discussion we had about haka and intimidation as a form of sport was interesting and worth further thought...I was thinking about other factors that can make a team intimidating and uniforms were something that came to mind. As in anything, appearance defintely matters in sports. My high school basketball team was a poor public school and we used to play huge suburban schools with lots of money. We would walk into their huge beautiful gyms and they would not only have brand new uniforms, but matching bags, shoes, sweatsuits, water bottles etc... and we would immediately feel we were at a disadvantage. I think about us though and we must have looked pretty intimidating to them as well. Besides having a much more diverse team than any of those schools, we looked kind of thrown together and our gym looked kind of rough and tough. What is different can be scary and in sports, teams that have their own special warm up routine or uniform or look to them or do a haka dance can bring their team together and use these things as scare tactics...

Purdue game-- coaching seperating does not equal motivating

This past couple of days I was on the road with the women's basketball team. Being team manager has given me the power of observing the sport from the outside, but from as close to the inside as one can be. I understand the players when they get upset about the little things or have problems with the coach or a game or a bad practice, or can feel it when tension builds or they give up because I have been through all that. What is most interesting to me though, is to hear all of it and be able to look at it in an objective way.
The girls got beat really bad yesterday at Purdue, and I could see it coming. It started with a bad practice in which the coach was yelling at the team and I could see them looking defeated instead of turning it around. The starting five on the team has just been switched and this has completely changed team dynamic. My roommate on the trip was sick and coach was not giving her any alternative options: she would go hard in pre-game and start the game. All of these little things were mounting and Purdue being the #6 team in the country was not going to help.
The coach has been making all of these decisions which change team dynamic, and I have come to realize that if I ever coach, I think that keeping the team together is the most important thing. Instead of seperating the players, everything has to be open and truthful and all adjustments should be explained. The best coach I ever had told the truth about everything. He would sit us down after every game and tell us what we did right and wrong. He always called everyone out individually and would announce to the team when he was going to make changes and why. This made it so the team always knew what was going on and so they were able to stay together through it all.