posty Posted July 8, 2010 Share Posted July 8, 2010 http://www.mediaite.com/tv/fox-and-friends...ion-of-america/ Fox and Friends had on baseball legend Cal Ripken, Jr. this morning and host Brian Kilmeade bravely asked him the question that others have been too cowardly to ask: is he “concerned about the wussification of America.” Turns out that Ripken doesn’t like it and that he’s opposed to “participation trophies” that reward every kid involved in a sport, instead of just the winners. As a parent of two small boys, I actually agree with both Ripken and Kilmeade, but why does Fox and Friends insist on framing an interesting debate in the most banal of terms? First off, let’s watch the clip which presents the topic in the most the absurdly oversimplified context: There is a great discussion to be had about the role of sports and competition in raising children in today’s day and age – and the concerning trend that many obsessive parents seen to be overly concerned with the negative effects of their child losing in any sort of competition. But focusing on just one aspect of the overall experience overlooks many benefits of participatory sports. Learning how to win and lose (in addition to teamwork and sportsmanship) are all really valuable skills that come from a healthy participation in sports. These are the points that are effectively made by Kilmeade and Ripken. And so, while I actually agree with points made in this segment, in my opinion, the producers of Fox and Friends do themselves a disservice by framing the discussion in such simple terms. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiegie Posted July 8, 2010 Share Posted July 8, 2010 I find it funny that a player whose greatest fame comes from being a participant for the most number of games in a row is the person who is bitching about this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jackass Posted July 8, 2010 Share Posted July 8, 2010 I find it funny that a player whose greatest fame comes from being a participant for the most number of games in a row is the person who is bitching about this. Not really a conflict. He had to be good first - otherwise he wouldn't have played in 1 game in a row. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trots Posted July 8, 2010 Share Posted July 8, 2010 I find it funny that a player whose greatest fame comes from being a participant for the most number of games in a row is the person who is bitching about this. The fact that he showed up to work every day for those 2632 games, while modern day players sit out for hangnails, amuses you? To me, his line of thinking is exactly what made him the player that he was. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiegie Posted July 8, 2010 Share Posted July 8, 2010 Not really a conflict. He had to be good first - otherwise he wouldn't have played in 1 game in a row. so, you are saying that kids shouldn't be allowed to play sports unless they are good? At his level, Ripkin was only a winner once and the rest of the time he was just a participant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dutch Oven Posted July 8, 2010 Share Posted July 8, 2010 so, you are saying that kids shouldn't be allowed to play sports unless they are good? At his level, Ripkin was only a winner once and the rest of the time he was just a participant. No, you only get to play pro sports if you're good. He's one of the best shortstops ever. It's not like they're talking to Rafael Ramirez about it. By your argument, John Stockton couldn't comment on the wussification of basketball and the hand check rules because he never won a championship. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.