SPRING 2008 Community College Magazine - Northampton ...

qwrttxvyukjgdsaxbnm
A few years ago, I was playing golf behind a foursome that was on the next tee as we were finishing up on the green. While
someone in our group putted, shouts of exhilaration and other assorted whoops erupted on the next tee. They could and
did mean only one thing — one of the four had made a hole in one. The foursome exchanged high fives all around, and we
joined in the congratulations for this rare and defining moment in the game of golf. The hole in one will remain among the
lucky player’s most cherished memories of his life. The story of his ace will probably get better and more mythic with each
retelling. That single event captured for me what sport is all about. Stripped of instant replays and slow-motion cameras
and crowd noise, sport is about participation in something entirely physical and intuitive. At its best, it measures one’s
athletic and physical skills against either an opponent or a standard of perfection. Its virtues include preparation, hustle,
making a play, respect for the opponent, and working hard. When two athletes or teams compete, each knowing that they
have done their best to prepare and then play at the highest level of their skill, the outcome, while satisfying to one and
disappointing to the other, is anticlimactic. There is great (though increasingly quaint) satisfaction in the knowledge that
one has done one’s best, win or lose.
A curious aspect of sport is that it resists explanation. It doesn’t
lend itself easily or accurately to analysis and interpretation (this
despite a legion of analysts and interpreters who clog the airwaves
every weekend). The truth is that Peyton Manning throwing a
touchdown pass or Serena Williams breaking a serve are far more
exciting to watch than listening to those athletes explain how they
did what they did. The activity is so reactive and instinctive that
most athletes cannot explain their own performances well. They
simply perform.
That being said, sport is always played in a social context,
either in the company of teammates or opponents and sometimes
in front of spectators who often pay huge sums of money just to
watch. It has its own section in the daily newspapers and its own
television networks. Schools at all levels support and sponsor teams
and athletic contests. The most skillful practitioners at the elite
professional level constitute a new American aristocracy, earning
millions of dollars. Before long, Tiger Woods will become the first
athlete to earn a billion dollars in prize money and endorsements.
To be sure, sport is a visible and celebrated aspect of American life.
As one wag put it, among the unimportant things in life, sport is
the most important.
The question has always been what it is about sport that makes
LEFT CENTER-PHOTO BY PHILIP STEIN/ALL OTHERS-BY RANDY MONCEAUX
it seem so important. The classical response is that sport builds
character. The source of this perspective may be the statement
mistakenly attributed to the Duke of Wellington that “The Battle
of Waterloo was won on the playing fields of Eton,” suggesting
that defeating Napoleon was largely the result of playing soccer
at an upper crust English boarding school. Irony aside, Wellington
may have been on to something (for 19th and 20th century boys
at least) in that the teamwork, cooperation, importance of
practice and striving for excellence learned in play all work
well in professional and corporate life. Participation in sport
during school years was a valuable addition to a resume and job
application, underscoring one’s ability to work well with others and
focus on achieving an important goal. This ideal was well reflected
in Byron White, an All America running back at the University of
Colorado, who later graduated with honors from Yale Law School
and served on the U.S. Supreme Court for over 20 years.
Unfortunately, the lesson of sport-building character was a
moot one for girls of that time, and also resulted in the clubbiness,
insularity and exclusivity that one associates with the down side of
the American ladder to success. Only “team players” needed apply
in Wellington’s model. For many years, that frequently meant
white, male and financially comfortable. It would take another
SPRING 2008 ● NCC
19