This could have been written about karate. But not football. (There's a reaso football is on the PE curriculum in EVERY school - anyone can play it). Any sport that requires discipline, manners, a certain deportment and conduct. In karate, you bow to your opponent, and the judges, bow at the end and shake hands. Arrogance is frowned upon, grace in victory and also in defeat is desired. It also requires talent to reach the highest levels competitively but anyone can have a go at Open level. Hard work and dedication will take you a long way.
It is the curse of those who have natural talent, or to have things come easily to them, to sabotage themselves. Our species was built for struggle. Remove the struggle, and we create it.
I used to follow Wimbledon religiously in the days of Connors and McEnroe, and into the Bjorn Borg era (it seemed he could never lose on grass). Even in to the era of Federer, though I think once Djokovic kind of became THE guy I sort of drifted away from tennis and all sport in general.
It's interesting that sport remains the one place where a true meritocracy exists; the scoreboard, as it were, does not lie. And individual sports like tennis, or boxing, or weight lifting, or even golf are the purest form of meritocracy. You're either good enough, or your not, and there's no hiding your lack of ability behind that of a teammate.
This idea of that true meritocracy is the promise of the Enlightenment-influenced liberal order. Some have great talent and squander it; some over-achieve through hard work and effort. Everyone has a shot at success (hey, no good at tennis? Try golf, or wrestling, or a host of other endeavors).
The point is you have to try. It seems these days the idea of having to try has fallen into disfavor, maybe? And then there's the people who argue that it's a rigged game, and not everybody gets a fair shot at success...which is true to some extent, but you can't punish those who succeeded in the arena just because some were excluded from competing...you have to fix how people get in the arena in the first place.
I dunno, there's a lot in this article to think about.
I feel that with Djokovic. He's great... but seems too... quantitative.
Yes, Ernie. When I was a kid, I often heard the brutal truism that 'life isn't fair.' It's harsh. But it's true. And always will be. It doesn't mean you can't do something about it. There's even a clamour now to pretend that genius doesn't exist. The usual suspects claim it so. But they'd never claim the same about sports. We accept God-given ability in sports only.
Enlightenment values aren't perfect, but they're more likely than any other system to permit human flourishing. I think a huge part of our problem is status. Too few can attain a decent life and the status that comes with it. (A theme in my dissertation.)
Try to catch the final this Sunday. Alcaraz, provided he gets past the wonderfully named Taylor Fritz, will put on a show.
Taylor Fritz? Sounds like an honorary..."and now...The Tailor, Fritz..."😂
Yes, it's really a status thing, isn't it? Those who have it, cling to it like washed up celebrities doing the game show circuit to stay in the public eye (bad press is better than no press, right?). Here in the U.S. it used to be a college degree got you status but as more and more people went to college it had less and less prestige, so those with invented new ways to separate themselves from those without. Those without it tried to assert their credentials ever more, baffled that it didn't give them the status they thought they'd receive. There are many more examples, I'm sure.
The thing that upsets me the most is that your British society, once one of the most class-stratified on the face of the earth, now has more upward mobility than the U.S. Here in my country that's the thing that really needs to change.
Probably because I'm a geriatric (but not yet completely demented despite the relentless efforts of our so-called government to blame us pensioners for all the ills of the world as they thrash us into paying more tax to sustain the ahem so-called migrant victims), I still remember what I always think about when I think about tennis and Wimbledon. That's the 1980 match between John Youcannotbrserious McEnroe and that German chap who ended up in jail for - I'm not sure exactly what it was, now, because of my aforementioned geriatric status - hmm embezzlement? Bank robbery? Serial adultery?
Oh how I wish it was still 1980. No Internet, no skunk crazed homeless people with or without machetes, no pro hamas chanting cretins, no forcefeeding of enumbers in fake food, no deep fake, no dark web, no Pakistani raping gangs.
If there is a Hod, please will he beam me back now...
This could have been written about karate. But not football. (There's a reaso football is on the PE curriculum in EVERY school - anyone can play it). Any sport that requires discipline, manners, a certain deportment and conduct. In karate, you bow to your opponent, and the judges, bow at the end and shake hands. Arrogance is frowned upon, grace in victory and also in defeat is desired. It also requires talent to reach the highest levels competitively but anyone can have a go at Open level. Hard work and dedication will take you a long way.
It is the curse of those who have natural talent, or to have things come easily to them, to sabotage themselves. Our species was built for struggle. Remove the struggle, and we create it.
YES. Tennessee Williams wrote a masterful essay on this theme, The Catastrophe of Success. Hunt it down.
I used to follow Wimbledon religiously in the days of Connors and McEnroe, and into the Bjorn Borg era (it seemed he could never lose on grass). Even in to the era of Federer, though I think once Djokovic kind of became THE guy I sort of drifted away from tennis and all sport in general.
It's interesting that sport remains the one place where a true meritocracy exists; the scoreboard, as it were, does not lie. And individual sports like tennis, or boxing, or weight lifting, or even golf are the purest form of meritocracy. You're either good enough, or your not, and there's no hiding your lack of ability behind that of a teammate.
This idea of that true meritocracy is the promise of the Enlightenment-influenced liberal order. Some have great talent and squander it; some over-achieve through hard work and effort. Everyone has a shot at success (hey, no good at tennis? Try golf, or wrestling, or a host of other endeavors).
The point is you have to try. It seems these days the idea of having to try has fallen into disfavor, maybe? And then there's the people who argue that it's a rigged game, and not everybody gets a fair shot at success...which is true to some extent, but you can't punish those who succeeded in the arena just because some were excluded from competing...you have to fix how people get in the arena in the first place.
I dunno, there's a lot in this article to think about.
I feel that with Djokovic. He's great... but seems too... quantitative.
Yes, Ernie. When I was a kid, I often heard the brutal truism that 'life isn't fair.' It's harsh. But it's true. And always will be. It doesn't mean you can't do something about it. There's even a clamour now to pretend that genius doesn't exist. The usual suspects claim it so. But they'd never claim the same about sports. We accept God-given ability in sports only.
Enlightenment values aren't perfect, but they're more likely than any other system to permit human flourishing. I think a huge part of our problem is status. Too few can attain a decent life and the status that comes with it. (A theme in my dissertation.)
Try to catch the final this Sunday. Alcaraz, provided he gets past the wonderfully named Taylor Fritz, will put on a show.
Taylor Fritz? Sounds like an honorary..."and now...The Tailor, Fritz..."😂
Yes, it's really a status thing, isn't it? Those who have it, cling to it like washed up celebrities doing the game show circuit to stay in the public eye (bad press is better than no press, right?). Here in the U.S. it used to be a college degree got you status but as more and more people went to college it had less and less prestige, so those with invented new ways to separate themselves from those without. Those without it tried to assert their credentials ever more, baffled that it didn't give them the status they thought they'd receive. There are many more examples, I'm sure.
The thing that upsets me the most is that your British society, once one of the most class-stratified on the face of the earth, now has more upward mobility than the U.S. Here in my country that's the thing that really needs to change.
Probably because I'm a geriatric (but not yet completely demented despite the relentless efforts of our so-called government to blame us pensioners for all the ills of the world as they thrash us into paying more tax to sustain the ahem so-called migrant victims), I still remember what I always think about when I think about tennis and Wimbledon. That's the 1980 match between John Youcannotbrserious McEnroe and that German chap who ended up in jail for - I'm not sure exactly what it was, now, because of my aforementioned geriatric status - hmm embezzlement? Bank robbery? Serial adultery?
Oh how I wish it was still 1980. No Internet, no skunk crazed homeless people with or without machetes, no pro hamas chanting cretins, no forcefeeding of enumbers in fake food, no deep fake, no dark web, no Pakistani raping gangs.
If there is a Hod, please will he beam me back now...