Lesson 7:  Multiple Choice Answers

1. Are intimidation tactics and trash talking necessary to be successful?

1a. Yes

Keith Harrison of Arizona State University argues that trash talking and intimidation should be an acceptable practice in sports. Harrison states that trash talking varies among cultures and it is our responsibility to respect the cultural value of others. However, what often happens in sport is that athletes do not know when to draw the line.

In contrast to Harrison, Gordon Marino (2007) states, “It could be said that messing with your foe's psyche is just part of the game, and that a few properly timed comments can wreak havoc with the oversensitive. Where is the fine line between trash talking and taunting?  Can we teach players where that line is?  Or should we even be concerned with that line? In almost every case, on-the-field fights are fueled by a kind of teasing banter that zings back and forth beneath the radar of referees. Instead of offering a helping hand, a blocker who puts his man on the ground might whisper something like, "Get used to being there." Or a cornerback might snicker and quietly say, "Nice hands," as the receiver he is covering drops a pass” (p. 1).

For instance, in 2006 the University of Miami and Florida International had one of the worst football brawls ever seen in collegiate athletics. After constant trash talking and unethical aggressive play, an FIU player snapped and leveled the Miami place kicker on a PAT after a Miami touchdown. This action incited a riot on the field in addition to fights in the stands amongst fans. The fallout of this incident led to several suspensions and the expulsion of a few of the players from their universities. Moreover, both head coaches were dismissed at the end of the season for a lack of control within their programs.

You may want to reconsider your perspective on trash talking because consequences often follow philosophies.  Return to question 1 and read answers depends and no.

As a society we place a large emphasis on winning, and so it seems intimidation, trash talking, and unethical aggression have become more accepted in sports throughout the years due to our values.

“The degree of emphasis on winning directly influences the extent of physical and psychological violence in sport. That is, as winning increases in importance because of financial payouts, status, and symbolic rewards, many players will use any means at their disposal, even violence, to attain victory” (Lumpkin, Stoll, & Beller , 1994, p. 96).

A prime example would be the state of NBA during the 1990s. Throughout this era, the Detroit Pistons and later the New York Knicks were two of the more aggressive and intimidating teams in the NBA. Due to their tactics, they became quite successful. Moreover, both teams had a familiar foe in the Chicago Bulls they saw regularly in the playoffs. Realizing they did not have skill to beat Michael Jordan’s Bulls, both teams resorted to physical play in order to level the playing field. In fact, this strategy was successful for the Pistons early in Jordan’s career in which they beat the Bulls in their first three playoff meetings. Nonetheless, this style of play involved several players committing flagrant fouls and the attempt to bully the more athletic Bull’s players. Moreover, this unethical aggressive play led to on the court fights and an extremely sour relationship between the clubs. Due to these tactics, the NBA was forced to change their rules in the late 1990’s because of the results of this unethical aggressive play. Nevertheless, once the Bulls beat the Pistons in 1991, they never lost another playoff series to them or the New York Knicks during Jordan’s presence.

Relativism is a dangerous philosophic perspective to follow.

You may want to reconsider your perspective because consequences often follow philosophies.  Return to question 1 and read answer no.

Lumpkin, A.; Stoll, S.K.; & Beller, J. (1994). Sport Ethics. St. Louis: McGraw Hill.

As evidence that teams can be successful without displaying this behavior, one should examine John Wooden's philosophy and his decades of coaching. Coach Wooden is widely regarded as one of the most successful coaches of all time in any sport. Wooden won seven straight national championships and 10 in 13 years while coaching basketball for the UCLA Bruins. Wooden ( 2005) stated, “I wanted those under my leadership to see me always on an even keel—intense, of course, but even. How could I ask others to control themselves if I couldn’t do it? And emotional control is a primary component of consistency, which, in turn, is a primary component of success” (p. 108).

Wooden, J. & Jamison, S. (2005).  Wooden on Leadership.  New York:  McGraw Hill.

You have chosen the best answer in relationship to having a consistent philosophy and that will not become problematic in decision making about respect.  Please also read answers: yes and depends before continuing on to multiple question 2.

2. Do games demand a different “personality” in order to be successful?

A certified collegiate soccer official and former player states:

“Suppose you are playing and the opposing player whacks you. I mean, you keep it in your head. You’re like hey, that guy whacked me and as soon as you get an opportunity to nail him back, you always hit him hard. You know? You always hit him hard, and usually if you know a star player of a team, somebody who has the ability to change a game, you nail them just to slow them down. You know? So they play a little scared. You know? Every time they hear footsteps behind them they get rid of the ball and don’t get a chance to create those opportunities. So that, yeah, as a soccer player we have strategies like that. I mean, you have to. It goes back and forth like any other sport.”

In addition, some coaches believe to be successful demands using intentional intimidation and unethical aggressive tactics. However, often intentional intimidation and unethical aggression backfires and causes harm to the team, coach, and player who chooses to use these tactics. A primary example occurred in 2005 when Temple Basketball Coach, John Chaney ordered one of his players to commit hard fouls.

Hiestand (2005) stated, “Believing Saint Joseph's players set illegal picks, Chaney had ordered a Temple player to make hard fouls -- resulting in an opposing player getting a broken arm. Bob Ryan, on ESPN on Sunday, said it was "absolutely irresponsible" and likened it to ex-Ohio State football coach Woody Hayes punching an opposing player but Chaney was 10 times worse than Hayes" (p. 1).

This action left many appalled and saddened by this event. At the time, John Chaney was one of the more respected and influential black coaches in the game and he permitted his anger to supersede his rational thought process. Now, a man that should be remembered for everything positive he did for basketball will always be linked with his unfortunate coaching mistake.

However, Chaney also was known for his short fuse and temper.  Click here for a You Tube of Chaney during a post game conference.  Unfortunately, such behavior begins to define the individual.

You might want to reconsider your point of view about a change of personality.  We are measured by who we are as we compete.  Return to question 2 and read depends and no.

One could argue that a change of personality using intimidation is a deliberate act to debilitate your opponent by using psychological or physical means.

For example, when a basketball player played against Dennis Rodman, they knew they were going to face an excellent defender, rebounder, and team player. However, they also knew they were going to face a player who would foul hard and sometimes verbally and physically attack them. One could classify Rodman’s behavior as a change of personality that used intentional intimidation and unethical aggression to be successful…and that he was, winning five NBA championships.

For an example of this tactic, watch the attached You Tube Clip. 

On the other side, when a basketball player played against Bill Russell, they knew they were going to face a phenomenal talent (like Rodman) who was an excellent defender, rebounder and team player. However, they also knew that Russell was not going to verbally or physically assault them.

One could argue that Russell’s skill level may be considered perceived intimidation, however, only to the ones that were intimidated by his ability. Moreover, Russell has often stated that when he played against his opponents, he wanted them to play to their best. To go further, Russell has stated that he did not even care of he lost, he just loved being in the flow of the game and feeling the synchronization of his teammates. Some may argue that comparing Dennis Rodman to Bill Russell is not fair due to the difference in their size and skill level. This is an acceptable argument; however, Bill Russell was also able to dominate arguably the most dominating player of his generation in seven foot four, Wilt Chamberlin. In head to head matchups Russell’s teams consistently won and more importantly, Russell accomplished this feat without using intentional intimidation and unethical aggression en route to 11 NBA championships in 13 years.

For a You Tube Clip, Click here.

Even though Dennis Rodman was successful, you might want to to reconsider your point of view about a change of personality.  We are measured by who we are as we compete.  Return to question 2 and read both yes and no.

Dietrich Bonhoeffer once stated that strength of positive character lies in one’s ability to lead and can be found in most “good” people.

 John Wooden said of positive character that if you can discipline yourself, others won’t have to.  Respect every opponent, but fear none.  The best way to improve those you lead is to improve yourself.  It is amazing how much we can get accomplished when not one of us cares who gets the credit.  And remember, all time spent trying to get even for some slight would be better spent on getting ahead.  

In addition Coach Wooden stated that character is at the center of a team’s chemistry.

 “A person of character tends to be more considerate of other people, of teammates. … A person of character tends to be more giving and sharing with others – with teammates during a game. … A person of character works better with others. … And most of all, he … is most eager to do what’s best for the team.”

You have chosen a better answer than yes and depends, however, in so doing you are defining yourself as an idealist which then demands consistency of action in all that you do.

Please read all of question 2 including yes and depends.