Spare the Rod and Spoil the Child – Dumbing Down Sport at the expense of competitiveness

A very interesting article in the UK's THE TELEGRAPH entitled 'Must Try Less Hard' about easing the pressure on a winning mentality amongst mini rugby players in the 6-11 age group caught my attention, especially coming so soon after the article on the parent who unsuccessfully sued St Charles College for his son losing his school's 1st XI cricket captaincy on racial grounds (View here).

By Michael Marnewick

Parents living vicariously through the feats and successes of their children sets dangerous precedents in their children's lives. When the only measure of their constitution is success, failure can be a painful and dangerous after-effect in light of high expectations. The consequences for failure have far-reaching effects.

On the flip-side, we have a situation in the UK where there is no success or failure-based outcome placed on participation. Taking part is all that matters. It's like the South African Government's suggestion that a child shouldn't fail more than once in the last three years of school, nor be required to know more than 30% of the content they're taught to pass.

Most of us know it as 'dumbing-down' – that feel-good metaphor for embracing mediocrity. If all effort is rewarded with simply a pass or fail, does it not remove all stimulation to achieve?

It smacks of communism, where each is expected to produce for the state according to his ability and receive from the state what is commensurate with his need (so that a Doctor with seven years' training and a wife and child earns less than a street sweeper, married with ten children).

It is reminiscent of Ayn Rand's 'Atlas Shrugged' and is a dangerous indictment for those of us who view the endeavours of intellectual and sporting greatness in stellar terms. Like Rand who embraced capitalism over Mother Russia's communism, I don't find it fair that the needs of the masses should be prioritised at the expense of worthwhile achievement by the Edisons, Newtons, Shakespeares, da Vincis and Einsteins of the world.

While it may lack sympathy, the argument is based on the notion that capital attracts capital and thus the rich draw the poor into the economically active pool. Rather a great big pool than a small one.

But back to dumbing down sport. It's all about protecting the fragile esteem of the team or individual who might lose if there was a competitive edge about the game. Perhaps it's about avoiding the showboating and high-fiving so redolent in American sports where the focus on winning is perhaps most clearly observed and embraced.

The balance between active participation and the associated pitfalls that losing may bring is important in young children, just as the emphasis on winning can be more harmful than good. But the essence of sport is that it is a contest, and contests infer conquests. There is always a winner and a loser and the good parent or coach understands that and passes that knowledge onto the impressionable child without the associated pressure of winning.

Because sport is vital. Sport teaches us valuable life lessons that can be used in all spheres of life later on: in business, in marriage, in life.

In a competitive environment, sport teaches us about character and commitment, team work and discipline, the value of a strong work ethic and the importance of coaches and leaders to guide us.

But if it's just about participation where there isn't a winner or loser then sport loses meaning beyond playing for fun and physical exercise. And for many, the fun is in the winning.

An interesting dichotomy parents and sporting bodies need to understand.