Sportsmanship vs success. Which do you value more and why?

[Coffer]

Personally I believe the latter is more important, and I do not understand why some people place so much importance on the former that they would rather lose gracefully than win by "cheating" (which I also feel is a poor argument as a lot of people make the definition out to be much broader than it really is).

EDIT: By "cheating" I am referring to the breaking of moral, 'unwritten' rules as opposed to the real, written ones.

[Cthulhu 2020]

Because those who follow the rules and are held to their restrictions and STILL win or succeed look way better than someone who took the easy way out. That and if you get caught, you face punishment and removal of everything you got.

But there will always be people who don't care how they look, just so long as they get ahead.

[ripponesan]

Always sportsmanship.
Beeing a good personality is way harder than having success. Also to have success you need to act quite egoistic at times which is despise.

[Coffer]

But there will always be people who don't care how they look, just so long as they get ahead.

That's the thing though - why is having a good public image important?

[Crissi]

That's the thing though - why is having a good public image important?

Its not if you're selfish, although it could lead to a sudden drop of sponsors, which means drop ins cash.

Teams could also drop you as being more trouble than you're worth despite your talant.

[Catta]

Always sportsmanship.
Beeing a good personality is way harder than having success. Also to have success you need to act quite egoistic at times which is despise.

I remember hearing most of the people knowing Michael Phelps say he is a douchebag. He doesnt even HAVE to be egoistic - like in teamsports where you want to standout. He is just a jerk.

[Coffer]

Its not if you're selfish, although it could lead to a sudden drop of sponsors, which means drop ins cash.

Sponsors ought to be the last people on Earth to favor behavior over results. Why would they associate themselves with someone who isn't as good?

Teams could also drop you as being more trouble than you're worth despite your talant.

Their loss, your gain as you wouldn't have to deal with them and their overall performance would drop.

[Tzalix]

That's the thing though - why is having a good public image important?

It's a matter of honor. In a competition you give your opponents a fair chance, and they do the same for you. What's the point of competing if somebody is cheating?

[Crissi]

Sponsors ought to be the last people on Earth to favor behavior over results. Why would they associate themselves with someone who isn't as good?



Their loss, your gain as you wouldn't have to deal with them and their overall performance would drop.

Money. Sponsors want money, and if tons of people start boycotting them because of their dislike of who they are sponsoring, they WILL drop them.

Same thing with teams. If your coach is spending more time managing a trouble player instead of coaching, your team is collectively better without him.

[Coffer]

It's a matter of honor. In a competition you give your opponents a fair chance, and they do the same for you.

What's the point of competing if, for the sake of this 'honor', you have to perform at less than 100%?

What's the point of competing if somebody is cheating?

The only thing I'm taking into account is the breaking of so-called 'unwritten' rules. Breaking the real ones should be punished accordingly.

[ripponesan]

That's the thing though - why is having a good public image important?

Well times ahve changed and it saddens me to admit that you are right. Today it is not important anymore for most parts what other do think of you. But in former times where you might had the bad luck to rely on the help of others to get back on track a image was very important as people tend to help more/better/more willing if they like you.

Tho today if you go for social help it is not important if people think you are cool or not.

[Coffer]

Money. Sponsors want money, and if tons of people start boycotting them because of their dislike of who they are sponsoring, they WILL drop them.

Then doesn't that, in most cases, put the people at fault? You can't lose something without gaining something in return, and the fanbase gained through your results should make up for the part of the fanbase lost due to your behavior. At least I would assume that's the case, unless more people value emotion or subjectiveness rather than logic or objectiveness, which would be sad.

Same thing with teams. If your coach is spending more time managing a trouble player instead of coaching, your team is collectively better without him.

Once again, why is the player at fault here? Synergy or the lack of it isn't necessarily due to one of the parts being ruly or unruly.

Also no, if anything the rest of the team would only be better off spiritually (as in they would feel more at ease without said player being on the team), and imo if you have too many of those then you have a weak and easily malleable team.

[Tzalix]

What's the point of competing if, for the sake of this 'honor', you have to perform at less than 100%?

100% is the best you can do, without any performance-enhancement. If you do the best you can do within the limitations of the competition, you have performed 100%.

[Coffer]

100% is the best you can do, without any performance-enhancement. If you do the best you can do within the limitations of the competition, you have performed 100%.

Read above. I'm pretty sure you're missing the point.

[Crissi]

Then doesn't that, in most cases, put the people at fault? You can't lose something without gaining something in return, and the fanbase gained through your results should make up for the part of the fanbase lost due to your behavior. At least I would assume that's the case, unless more people value emotion or subjectiveness rather than logic or objectiveness, which would be sad.



Once again, why is the player at fault here? Synergy or the lack of it isn't necessarily due to one of the parts being ruly or unruly.

Also no, if anything the rest of the team would only be better off spiritually (as in they would feel more at ease without said player being on the team), and imo if you have too many of those then you have a weak and easily malleable team.

Yeah, i do think the majoority would put a guy donating time and money into a kids cancer research more important than acting like a fool at a club or stealing the opposing team's playbook,

You clearly dont have a good understanding on how teams work then if you think getting rid of a troublesome player only affects them "spiritually". This goes beyond the sports field and into the real world such a school projects and buisnesses.

[Tzalix]

Read above. I'm pretty sure you're missing the point.

I've read every post here, I don't know what point it is your talking about? You're saying that success is more important than sportsmanship, that you'd rather win by cheating than lose gracefully. I'm saying that a competition is pointless if somebody is gonna cheat. The point of having a competition is to see who performs better under equal circumstances.

[Coffer]

I've read every post here, I don't know what point it is your talking about? You're saying that success is more important than sportsmanship, that you'd rather win by cheating than lose gracefully. I'm saying that a competition is pointless if somebody is gonna cheat. The point of having a competition is to see who performs better under equal circumstances.

The only thing I'm taking into account is the breaking of so-called 'unwritten' rules. Breaking the real ones should be punished accordingly.

That's the point you're missing. Your definition of 'cheating' is too broad, if not downright wrong.

[Crissi]

That's the point you're missing. Your definition of 'cheating' is too broad, if not downright wrong.

exactly what kind of rules are you talking about that you CANT get into major trouble for?

[Tzalix]

That's the point you're missing. Your definition of 'cheating' is too broad, if not downright wrong.

So what if a rule is unwritten? You still know that it's a rule. You know that you are breaking it. You're just trying to argue around it because you don't want to look at yourself as a cheater, yet you'd knowingly break "unwritten" rules. That's still cheating, doesn't matter if it's unwritten or not.

[Coffer]

So what if a rule is unwritten? You still know that it's a rule.

It's not a rule, that's the thing. It's just something that people expect you to do for the sake of 'manners' or something similar.

You know that you are breaking it. You're just trying to argue around it because you don't want to look at yourself as a cheater, yet you'd knowingly break "unwritten" rules. That's still cheating, doesn't matter if it's unwritten or not.

Once again, your definition of cheating is downright wrong, to the point where I'd gladly be a 'cheater' in your eyes.

---------- Post added 2013-04-12 at 02:30 PM ----------

exactly what kind of rules are you talking about that you CANT get into major trouble for?

Moral and social rules.