Bahati being deliberately taken out in a race
Comments
-
I think you will find there are still plenty of cyclists here who enjoy going out for group rides for the social aspect of it. Perhaps you are confusing that with the fact that many you have encountered might now prefer the company of their powermeter to that of an old Communist windbag?Le Blaireau (1)0
-
Many of which are vets reliving the 'old days'. Whichever way you look at it, the old 'club scene' I can recall - proper club runs ending with sandwiches, cakes and drinks back at the clubroom, club nights, pie and pea suppers, slide-shows, dances. 'the social season' and all the rest - are now a rarity, rather then the norm. Again, think back to Beryl Burton's book when she recalls the time the BBAR dinner was held in places like Albert Hall with over 4000 cyclists attending. Fact is people are much less 'social' than they used to be, and the cycling scene reflect this change.DaveyL wrote:I think you will find there are still plenty of cyclists here who enjoy going out for group rides for the social aspect of it.
So, anyone critical of any aspects of the right-wing, 'dog eat dog' 'society' we live in is, in your view, by definition a 'communist'? You seem to be making at least three logical errors here - making an Ad Hominem attack, setting up a straw man and trying to establish a false dichotomy...DaveyL wrote:Perhaps you are confusing that with the fact that many you have encountered might now prefer the company of their powermeter to that of an old Communist windbag?0 -
BikingBernie wrote:So, anyone critical of any aspects of the right-wing, 'dog eat dog' 'society' we live in is, in your view, by definition a 'communist'?
No and not "anyone". I'm sure you define your politics by what you believe in, not what you don't believe in so it seems an odd way to try and attribute intentions to me that don't exist - especially when you then go on to try and say I've made some errors in my argument...
Perhaps you should go back and look at the massive sweeping generalisations in your previous posts, about "the French", "the Americans" and the British bike scene.
Society has changed over time, so what? Happens everywhere. Is it down to an increasing leaning towards "the right" in our country? People in general have become much less active in the last few decades, for various reasons, and so numbers have dropped in many participation sports. Nonetheless there is still a vibrant social scene for cyclists in this country and many younger people are getting into the sport via, e.g. triathlon, which also has many positive social aspects as well as being more "modern" and inclusive.Le Blaireau (1)0 -
BikingBernie wrote:
Wasn't that Vince Lombardi the American football player / coach?dennisn wrote:as a famous football coach once put it "Winning isn't everything, it's the only thing".
In contrast here are the views of a Frenchman called Pierre de Coubertin:
“The most important thing in the Olympic Games is not winning but taking part; the essential thing in life is not conquering but fighting well.”
I think that the obvious difference in attitude here is still evident today in cycle sport today, with 'The French' admiring someone who rides with 'panache' and courage but doesn't win more than someone who does win but does so in a mechanical and calculated way. Unfortunately, many Americans inevitably see cycling, and especially events like the Tour, through 'American eyes' and assume that riders and spectators in France have the same attitudes as they do. Hence all the nonsense that one sees about 'The French' 'hating' anyone who wins the Tour who isn't French and so on. What they actually mean is that if the Tour were an American event Americans would hate anyone who won it who wasn't an American!
In my experience 'The French' are also far less 'tribal' when it comes to sport than 'Anglo-Saxons' tend to be. I watched the World Cup at a party organised by some of my neighbours in the village where I live and although they were obviously rooting for France, they still acknowledged the skill of the Italians. Most telling was when people said things like 'What a pity but they played well'. 'They played well'. A Brit or American would probably say 'We played well'.
I'm not defending coach Lombardi. Far from it. I'm with you as far as the played well and give it all you have idea. He does however bring up a point in PRO sports that if you don't win, you don't get to play. As evidenced by poor attendance at losing teams games(at least here in the states). I think you're also right about "tribal" over here. People pick a team , support it, cheer for it, and hate the rest of them(so to speak). I would, however, bring up the issue of football violence in Europe. Fans do a pretty good job of that, over there, on occasion. As for the "we" played well thing, that has always made me wonder.
When someone says that my mind always thinks. We, who is this WE you're talking about. You didn't play? This kind of attiude is sort or common with college fans. You find people who have never set foot on any campus, let alone actually graduate from that school, as some of the biggest and most vocal supporters of "their" team. Now, that I just don't understand. I have a friend who never went to college and thinks college grad's are way overated(to say the least), yet he and his wife are avid supporters of Ohio State U. football.. They have all kinds of OSU stuff all over their house. Even OSU wallpaper. Go figure.0 -
You seem to be all over the place there. Bottom line is you tried to dismiss what I was arguing by claiming that I was a 'communist' , which was both a stupid thing to do and wrong.DaveyL wrote:I'm sure you define your politics by what you believe in, not what you don't believe in so it seems an odd way to try and attribute intentions to me that don't exist - especially when you then go on to try and say I've made some errors in my argument...
Obviously, as with all generalisations, there will be exceptions. However, I would argue that what I have said is 'generally true' and that there are real cultural differences in the way 'Americans' and 'The French' view sport. To back this point of view up I could quote from many credible sources ranging from the likes of the American academic Christoper Thompson through to no less than Lance Armstrong who said back in November 2008:DaveyL wrote:Perhaps you should go back and look at the massive sweeping generalisations in your previous posts, about "the French", "the Americans" and the British bike scene.
The way I race the Tour, even stuff like I'm doing here today, the thought and methodical approach, and the robotic approach to racing, not showing emotion, not showing suffering or pain, is not a popular style of racing in France. To them panache is the guy who suffers and is swinging all over his bike and looks like he's about to fall off.
As to the British club scene, I have a feeling that your experience doesn't go far enough back to allow you to know what you are talking about.0 -
You were "arguing" about something? Here was me thinking it was just a load of sweeping generalisations and a couple of anecdotes. What exactly *is* your point? That some unspecified percentage of Americans might have a different attitutde to sport than some unspecified percentage of French?
As to the British club scene - yes, my experience doesn't go back as far as yours does. However I don't see how that invalidates:
"Society has changed over time, so what? Happens everywhere. Is it down to an increasing leaning towards "the right" in our country? People in general have become much less active in the last few decades, for various reasons, and so numbers have dropped in many participation sports. Nonetheless there is still a vibrant social scene for cyclists in this country and many younger people are getting into the sport via, e.g. triathlon, which also has many positive social aspects as well as being more "modern" and inclusive."
What are your reasons for the way things have changed then?Le Blaireau (1)0 -
BikingBernie wrote:
Wasn't that Vince Lombardi the American football player / coach?dennisn wrote:as a famous football coach once put it "Winning isn't everything, it's the only thing".
In contrast here are the views of a Frenchman called Pierre de Coubertin:
“The most important thing in the Olympic Games is not winning but taking part; the essential thing in life is not conquering but fighting well.”
I think that the obvious difference in attitude here is still evident today in cycle sport today, with 'The French' admiring someone who rides with 'panache' and courage but doesn't win more than someone who does win but does so in a mechanical and calculated way. Unfortunately, many Americans inevitably see cycling, and especially events like the Tour, through 'American eyes' and assume that riders and spectators in France have the same attitudes as they do. Hence all the nonsense that one sees about 'The French' 'hating' anyone who wins the Tour who isn't French and so on. What they actually mean is that if the Tour were an American event Americans would hate anyone who won it who wasn't an American!
In my experience 'The French' are also far less 'tribal' when it comes to sport than 'Anglo-Saxons' tend to be. I watched the World Cup at a party organised by some of my neighbours in the village where I live and although they were obviously rooting for France, they still acknowledged the skill of the Italians. Most telling was when people said things like 'What a pity but they played well'. 'They played well'. A Brit or American would probably say 'We played well'.
Surely it's a little more simple than that?
If you're good enough to win, and are favourite to do so, then winning should be the only concern. If you're not then naturally, taking part, and doing your best is more likely to get the best out of you.
Also, when you're in a binary one team against another, it requires a dfferent mentality, to say, a bike race, where there are 189 people who won't win.0 -
Some interesting reading in your posts BB as usual.Contador is the Greatest0
-
BikingBernie wrote:
As to the British club scene, I have a feeling that your experience doesn't go far enough back to allow you to know what you are talking about.
Is this one of those ad hominems you speak of?Le Blaireau (1)0 -
frenchfighter wrote:Some interesting reading in your posts BB as usual.
Why don't you ask him what he thinks of your hero?Le Blaireau (1)0 -
Firstly, I don't have heros in this or other sports. I'm not that type of person.
Secondly, BB's opinions on Contador (I assume you are referring to him), good or bad, wont make me think differently about what he posts on other subjects. On the contrary, I would be interested to know what he does think...one thing is is for sure, it will be expressed clearly, be interesting and backed up where necesaary with quotes.Contador is the Greatest0 -
C'mon guys, having all these personal spats crowds out people who are adding to the discussion rather than the personal attacks.0
-
Yes, football violence exist in Europe, and historically the British have the worst reputation for this, and we all know how Britain - or 'Airstrip One' as Orwell saw it - mirrors US 'values' more than any other country in Europe. That said, the highly partisan nature of Italian fans is interesting in that it doesn't fit in with this model. I must do some research into this some time.dennisn wrote:I think you're also right about "tribal" over here. People pick a team , support it, cheer for it, and hate the rest of them(so to speak). I would, however, bring up the issue of football violence in Europe. Fans do a pretty good job of that, over there, on occasion. As for the "we" played well thing, that has always made me wonder.
Returning to the cultural differences between the 'Anglo Saxon' countries and France. an article in The Guardian at the time of the football world cup said this:
Similar observations have been made in relation to other fields like mountaineering. The American John Krakauer in his book Eiger Dreams wrote:As Michel Platini once remarked to an English journalist: "You have fans. We have supporters."
Even that isn't strictly true. French supporters are only prepared to rise above the role of mere spectators when their side is playing à la française , producing du beau jeu - which is to say playing with style, wit, talent and imagination.
"The French are too cold; they don't get behind their teams," says Patrick Mignon, an academic and author of La Passion du Football. "They are more ironic spectators than supporters. If they're playing well, they'll cheer them. If not, it's scorn and derision if you're lucky - and if you're not, complete indifference."
... Tellingly, French football supporters talk about their national or even their home-side using the third person plural. It is always "They were wonderful" or "They were pathetic", never "We".
This difference in attitude probably goes some way to explaining why, historically at least, 'The French' have been attracted to sports like cycling, Alpinism and so forth, whilst the 'tribal' Brits went in for team sports that were intended to breed the 'spirit' needed to further Britain's Empire building, hence the old saying "The battle of Waterloo was won on the playing fields of Eton".The French, when it comes right down to it, look at risky sports - and sports in general- in a fundamentally different way than Americans do. We go in for team sports...The French, in marked contrast, are notorious individualists with a fondness for the sensation deed, the stylish twist, the dramatic solitary act.0 -
I can assure you that nothing I have posted was written with Contador in mind!frenchfighter wrote:BB's opinions on Contador (I assume you are referring to him), good or bad, wont make me think differently about what he posts on other subjects.0 -
BikingBernie wrote:Yes, football violence exist in Europe, and historically the British have the worst reputation for this, and we all know how Britain - or 'Airstrip One' as Orwell saw it - mirrors US 'values' more than any other country in Europe. That said, the highly partisan nature of Italian fans is interesting in that it doesn't fit in with this model. I must do some research into this some time.
That is putting it mildly - incidents that are commonplace even today in Italian football would make headline news in the UK and probably would bring the game to a halt - fans laying siege to teams' dressing rooms and training grounds, homemade "bombs" being thrown on the pitch. The "ultra" is definitely very much a part of Italian football.
And further afield, even teams like PSG have massive warring factions within their own support.Le Blaireau (1)0 -
Any idea why this is such an 'Italian' phenomena? (And from what I have seen Italian bike fans aren't that much different!).DaveyL wrote:The "ultra" is definitely very much a part of Italian football.0 -
No idea, though yes, the tifosi do seem to get a bit carried away sometimes on the Giro mountain stages.Le Blaireau (1)0
-
As far as the "we" and the "tribal" aspect of sports goes it all sort of adds up. People wanting other people to know that are a part of something famous, even though they were never really part of the program / team / college at all. They buy all the "stuff" they think they need to look like fans / supporters. T-shirts, warm-up jackets, players jersey's, and the like, yet most of them haven't touched a football or basketball since they were children. Showing off??? Wanting to be known for something, anything??? I can understand children doing this kind of thing. With adults, it's as if they are still children
dreaming that they are a famous athlete or star. Never grew up, in that respect???.
Possibly not satisfied with themselves and what they have done in life???0 -
After a little reading around, here is my take on all this...
Human beings are intrinsically 'tribal' in nature and some societies encourage this trait more strongly than others. For example, the UK is one of the least socially cohesive societies in the developed world, and its age-old divisions of class, wealth and power reflect a society where the formation of 'them and us', in-group and out-group identities is the norm. (As the Transport Research Laboratory have pointed out this is the main reason why cyclists are marginalised in Britain, with cyclists being regarded as members of a low-status ‘out-group’ by the more socially dominant ‘in-group’ formed by the users of motorised vehicles).
This essentially 'right-wing', hierarchical, in-group / out-group mindset often finds expression at a local level in the form of inter-team sporting rivalries, with the 'home' team constituting the 'in-group' and the opposing team the 'out-group'. However, the most powerful expression of such tribalism is nationalism. Combine an in-group/ out-group mindset with a strong sense of national identity, or at least a strong sense of 'otherness' or national superiority, and the outcome is likely to be the strong expression of nationalistic tribalism in situations where symbols of national identity or power are pitted against each other - as at an international football match
I would argue that exactly this situation exists in the UK, and this is why national sporting 'tribalism' seems to be particularly pronounced in the UK, with fans regarding British sporting successes as being 'proof' of the age-old superiority of the British race. After all, It used to be said that "One Englishman is worth three Frenchmen" and even today there is ample evidence that many British people see themselves as being a ‘cut above’ the ‘Cheese-eating surrender monkeys’ and assorted other ‘Johnny Foreigners’ who live in Europe. Similarly, the USA is extremely right-wing in its outlook, and it is clear that many Americans believe that not only is America the 'greatest' country on earth, and all things American are intrinsically superior to anything other cultures might have to offer, they believe they are they are themselves 'Gods' chosen people. Again, success in the sporting arena is held to validate such views.
So how does Italian football tribalism fit in with the above picture? If the above analysis is correct it is to be expected that 'right-wing' , in-group / out-group political attitudes will play an important role. This does seem to be the case. For example, it appears that the Spanish are another nation prone to football fanaticism and the inter-team hostilities this can lead to. Perhaps it is significant that both Italy and Spain have a history of fascist politics, the legacy of which could well be the sort of in-group / out-group mentality that, particularly in Italy, finds its expression in football rivalries. Whatever its origins, there is a strong right-wing aspect to football fanaticism in Italy with the dominant ‘Ultras’ being openly right-wing to the point where it has been claimed they "could be charged with apology of fascism". The situation in Italy is apparently made worse by the fact that:
In other words, the 'hard core' fans crave a powerful, dominant, essentially ‘fascist’ society, but given the absence of this use football rivalries as a means to create their own ‘monopoly of power’.Nothing in that country has a secure position - not the parties which are constantly splitting up and being refounded … not the institutions which pass from the clutches of one party to another, not the church which wants to control domestic politics. Under these circumstances, radical football fans also form a group that, without prospects of winning the big trophies, look for a monopoly of power in their narrow world, which they then want to present to the rest of the country.*
* http://www.spiegel.de/international/ger ... 62,00.html
I have read a couple of American commentators who argue that football violence is rare in the US. This might be true but the reason is fairly obvious. Whilst in Europe right-wing extremism is often channeled into football tribalism, it seems that in the USA the 'fascist minded' don't waste their time on something as trivial as sport. Instead they express their in-group / out-group mentality by joining organisations such as the 'patriot' or right-wing militia movement, with the threatening 'out-group' being not rival football fans but non-whites and / or the 'socialist' Government.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/ma ... ist-groups0 -
BikingBernie wrote:
Wasn't that Vince Lombardi the American football player / coach?dennisn wrote:as a famous football coach once put it "Winning isn't everything, it's the only thing".
In contrast here are the views of a Frenchman called Pierre de Coubertin:
“The most important thing in the Olympic Games is not winning but taking part; the essential thing in life is not conquering but fighting well.”
I think that the obvious difference in attitude here is still evident today in cycle sport today, with 'The French' admiring someone who rides with 'panache' and courage but doesn't win more than someone who does win but does so in a mechanical and calculated way. Unfortunately, many Americans inevitably see cycling, and especially events like the Tour, through 'American eyes' and assume that riders and spectators in France have the same attitudes as they do. Hence all the nonsense that one sees about 'The French' 'hating' anyone who wins the Tour who isn't French and so on. What they actually mean is that if the Tour were an American event Americans would hate anyone who won it who wasn't an American!
In my experience 'The French' are also far less 'tribal' when it comes to sport than 'Anglo-Saxons' tend to be. I watched the World Cup at a party organised by some of my neighbours in the village where I live and although they were obviously rooting for France, they still acknowledged the skill of the Italians. Most telling was when people said things like 'What a pity but they played well'. 'They played well'. A Brit or American would probably say 'We played well'.
Here's my view on this. The whole point of sport is that is competative - at all levels. It's all set up that there's a winner and a loser. Winning is the only reason you are there. I also think that competitive sports are a great learning tool for youngsters, becuause like it or not, life is competitive. It's natural. Darwin teaches us that all life is competitive.
If you don't like it - don't enter. Go and do aerobics. I used to be a fairly high level hockey player - now I'm in a mostly social team. But by god we want to win every game (and usually do).
The De Coubertin ideal is idealistic nonsense. If just taking part is enough, why try. His attitude is a manifeso for losers. It's for the fat kid who got picked last in the playground.
The panache thing - yeah, Arsenal fans come up with that one a lot, because thay haven't won anything for five years. I'm a West Ham fan, and we kid ourselves that we play football the 'right way' - but we'd abandon it all for a trophy.
As far as the 'us' and 'they' arguement. You base this on you friends who held a BBQ. This sounds like it was a champagne socilalist event. Possibly a semi ironic twist on the working class game. How many of those guests have ever been to a game? How many even follow a team? Or is it just some smug conceit - thinking you're better than the unwashed.Twitter: @RichN950 -
frenchfighter wrote:Firstly, I don't have heros in this or other sports. I'm not that type of person.
.
coughs......... splutters.............Gasping - but somehow still alive !0 -
Hmm, the phrase 'What came first, the chicken or the egg?' comes to mind. One might argue that human beings, whilst naturally tribal and 'competitive', can also be collective and cooperative. However, in order to preserve the existing power structures, both within society and on the international stage, the power brokers realise that it is necessary for children to be ‘educated’ to be as tribal and 'competitive' as is possible, and this is why there is so much emphasis on the ‘competitive’ aspect of sport. In fact in British Public schools this was an open policy, hence the quote I gave earlier about the battle of Waterloo being “won on the playing fields of Eton”.RichN95 wrote:Here's my view on this. The whole point of sport is that is competative - at all levels. It's all set up that there's a winner and a loser. Winning is the only reason you are there. I also think that competitive sports are a great learning tool for youngsters, becuause like it or not, life is competitive. It's natural. Darwn teaches us that all life is competitive.
You speak of Darwin. However, the sort of 'social Darwinism' you are alluding to was not a product of Darwin's mind at all. Rather it is a product of certain changes in attitudes towards wealth and inequality that have come about over the last 200 years or so, not least the 'American' idea that anyone can become anything they want in life, and in turn anyone who does not succeed has only themselves to blame and deserves no help from others. What's more the dominant view that has been created is that those who are 'successful' deserve to keep all of the rewards for themselves and that the distribution of wealth somehow 'goes against nature'. This is, of course an essentially 'right-wing' mindset promoted by those who benefit from the preservation of the status quo.
You are not alone in your belief in 'Social Darwinism'. This is what a certain German politician wrote in his book 'Mein Kampf', "Those who want to live, let them fight, and those who do not want to fight in this world of eternal struggle do not deserve to live." OK, so he 'extended the logic' of Social Darwinism more that you might, but the underlying mindset is the same.
You are not the only one to have viewed the world in such terms, although some have expressed their ideas in a rather more direct way using terms such as 'ubermenschen' for the 'glorious winners' and 'untermenschen' for, metaphorically speaking, 'the fat kid who got picked last in the playground'.RichN95 wrote:The De Coubertin ideal is idealistic nonsense. If just taking part is enough, why try. His attitude is a manifeso for losers. It's for the fat kid who got picked last in the playground.
You say 'If just taking part is enough, why try?'. One might as well say 'If winning is everything, why take part if you have little or no chance of winning?'. The reality is that people get many rewards from getting the best out of themselves that they can, and whether they win or not is often an irrelevance.
No, I base what I say on the 50 years or so of research that has been done on the topic.RichN95 wrote:As far as the 'us' and 'they' arguement. You base this on you friends who held a BBQ. This sounds like it was a champagne socilalist event.0 -
BikingBernie wrote:dennisn wrote:
In my experience 'The French' are also far less 'tribal' when it comes to sport than 'Anglo-Saxons' tend to be. I watched the World Cup at a party organised by some of my neighbours in the village where I live and although they were obviously rooting for France, they still acknowledged the skill of the Italians. Most telling was when people said things like 'What a pity but they played well'. 'They played well'. A Brit or American would probably say 'We played well'.
They must have been watching a different game from me as i recall both teams were gash they must have ar sed a few bottles of Pims . Anyway I am a football fan i go most weeks to club football and have been to World Cup in Italia 90 and France 98 so its something i am passionate about and to me you come across as one of those academic bores who have never been through a turnstile in his life and wouldnt know a regulation size 5 even if it hit you smack in the mouth.Gasping - but somehow still alive !0 -
http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2010 ... nt-germain
Howard, I guess you will now have to build into your theory something that accounts for the hooliganism in your left-wing idyll... Brits on holiday maybe?Le Blaireau (1)0 -
Hammond had a similar bad experince wth some cowboys in a US based crit back in 2005 or 06, they were not respecting lines an flow into the corners0
-
France is hardly a 'left-wing idyll'. For one the French, by a very narrow margin,voted in Sarkozy as their President!DaveyL wrote:http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2010/may/02/paris-saint-germain
I guess you will now have to build into your theory something that accounts for the hooliganism in your left-wing idyll... Brits on holiday maybe?
The bottom line is that people across the world don't inherently vary a great deal, what does vary are the 'values' that are encouraged by the system that they live in. Right-wing, in group / out group tribalism may be a widespread human trait, but such attitudes only tend to become dominant when they encouraged and validated by the political and social structures that people operate in. There are many examples of how this can happen, including the huge social engineering project that was Thatcherism.
Even in social systems that promote more egalitarian values, such as that of Denmark, right-wing in group / out group tribalism can be found and of course there will always be those who hold 'extreme' right-wing views wherever one goes. Football, which is highly tribal in nature, has often attracted such 'extreme' elements. However, the existence of such groups does not really tell us about what sort of values are dominant in the wider society.
P.s. What also varies from society to society are those who are allocated 'out group' status. In the UK cyclists have long been treated as being members of a social out group. In other countries right-wing in group / out group tribalism finds often different targets. For example, North Africans in France, black and Hispanic people in the USA and Asians and Aboriginal people in Australia. For many Christians homosexuals constitute a hated 'out group' and so on.0 -
In my experience 'The French' are also far less 'tribal' when it comes to sport than 'Anglo-Saxons' tend to be.
You obviously don't have any experience of French rugby? Toulouse hate Stade with a vengeance and don't much like Perpignan and Biarritz (who also detest Stade)!0 -
As I said, 'tribal' sports like football (and rugby) do attract 'tribal' fans. I was more thinking of the reactions of the 'casual' viewer, which in my experience accords with that reported in the article from the Guardian, which I quoted from earlier.Pross wrote:
You obviously don't have any experience of French rugby? Toulouse hate Stade with a vengeance and don't much like Perpignan and Biarritz (who also detest Stade)!In my experience 'The French' are also far less 'tribal' when it comes to sport than 'Anglo-Saxons' tend to be.0 -
Does "your experience" extend to beyond the workers' co-operative you inhabit?Le Blaireau (1)0
-
Britsh, not sure about the French club scene, Rugby League does not seem to adhere to your analysis either. The clubs fans have the same traits as football supporters in their tribal-style devotion and their reaction to their rivals but guess what happens when they meet up before, during and after games?
Joviality, banter, shared love of the sport and mutual respect. I have never witnessed a fight at an RL game or felt in the slightest bit threatened. How's that work then?"In many ways, my story was that of a raging, Christ-like figure who hauled himself off the cross, looked up at the Romans with blood in his eyes and said 'My turn, sock cookers'"
@gietvangent0
