Robert, you're really getting at the meat of what I think is the real
basic issue, ... what's the justification for sport at all?  Growing up
in post WWII times, I used to reason that football was justified as a
training ground for people who might some day have to storm machine gun
positions for worthy causes.  Lately, I haven't seen much demand for
that.  However, if sport does play that role in our society, the
questions of what constitutes good strategy are even more important.

I agree that the question of whether to compete is a no brainer, but
that isn't the question I see here.  I see the trade-offs between
single-game goals and season goals as a legitimate consideration.  I
can't offer good logic that says it's wrong to pursue the season's goal
at the expense of a single game and I don't consider my example to
describe a failure to compete.  On the contrary, it involves the
question of how you compete effectively for the bigger prize and why
popular lockstep thinking about the single-game goal is justified as the
only moral alternative.

I see a single game as a battle and a season as the war.   I have to ask
again why anyone would claim von Clausiwitz and Eisenhower are
unjustified in deciding to lose or withdraw from single battles if that
increases their chances of winning the war.  Deciding not to win a game
may not be the popular decision or the strategy followed by most people,
but I don't see that there's only one strategy that's morally allowable.

boB


"Jacobs, Robert E." wrote:

> From:                   Bob Griebel <[log in to unmask]>
> >
> > I've scoured the Bible and the Koran on this one.
>
> Well, there's your first problem; you didn't consult  the Talmud ;-)
>
> > I'm still at a loss and I'd still appreciate the thoughts of anyone
> > whose greater understanding of right and wrong explains why, when
> > conflicting winning objectives are involved, only one can be
> > justified,    . . . and which one.
>
> I suppose any answer that denounces intentionally losing a game
> will defy "logic", but then, so does the mere presence of sport. It's not
> a rational necessity of life, but in fact is a sort of idealogical
> microcosm of life, an experience played by a fair and just set of
> rules, and governed by objective officials overseeing all facets of
> play, but still requiring a voluntary bilateral focusing of might and
> energy within the framework of these guidelines. It's like life, but
> not. Ultimately, isn't that the appeal of sport? Fighting until the
> bitter end, but maintaining your dignity, having perhaps gone down
> in a fair fight, displaying all the qualities of fair play and
> sportsmanship? It's what we all too often *don't* have in everyday
> life, but we can look forward to it when watching our favourite
> teams go at it on the weekend; taking pride not just in vicrories but
> in effort. Organized sports at any level is nothing without fans or
> interest, and it is an insult to sport itself to, at *any* time,  *not*
> engage in the spirit of competition; for without that spirit, there is no
> essence of sport, no driving force to get you to that game that you
> are thinking about intentionally losing. In that sense, I see this issue
> as a no-brainer.
>
> But then, I could be wrong.
>
> Robert