[Polybius]

In fencing, like in tennis, the winner of the bout is determined by a certain number of points without a time limit. You are wrong. Fencing also has a time limit. Fencing isn't about running up the score. It is about hitting and not getting hit. The bout is over when a fencer reaches 15. But a clock is running. If a fencer is ahead when time runs out, he wins.

O.K. Excuse me for getting the hypothetical of your son's fencing example wrong. Let me rephrase it.

Let's see ...... There is a time limit in fencing and also a scoring limit in fencing. ...... Hmmmmm ..... So, what would that very good fencer do to totally humiliate your son as this Coach humiliated the other team? What could he do to play with your son like a cat plays with a mouse to show everybody in the crowd what an athletic god he is and how your son's fencing skills were nothing but dog scat ...... Hmmmmm. .... Got it!

The fencer would have made it a point to reach 15 points AS FAST AS HE POSSIBLY COULD. Within 3 seconds of the start of the action after each point scored, he would have scored against your son. Since the rules made it impossible to run up the points, he would have strived to ensure that he was known as the fencer who totally destroyed and humiliated your son by going from, zero points to 15 points in 45 seconds worth of fencing action.

Now is the humiliation analogy correct in regards to fencing rules?

My point deals with DELIBERATELY HUMILIATION of your opponent.

Giving away points is merely one way to DELIBERATELY HUMILIATE your opponent.

The "Gator flop" occurred during a 1971 NCAA football game between the Florida Gators and Miami Hurricanes

Unecessairly running up the score is another way to DELIBERATELY HUMILIATE your opponent.

I understand not acting like an arrogant winner. In fencing you are disqualified very easily for ungentlemanly conduct. But, “low class” in sports (in my opinion) includes expecting your opponent to hold back or let you get something which is not rightly earned.

You again confuse "holding back" (pushing your car through the school zone) with "piling it on" (blasting through the school zone with the pedal to the metal at 89 MPH).

There are many ways to DELIBERATELY HUMILIATE your opponent.

HOW TO DELIBERATELY HUMILIATE YOUR OPPONENT - EXAMPLE ONE: Letting yourself be touched deliberately in fencing is a humiliating insult because your are, in effect, telling the crowd and the opponent that you considered your opponent is so hopelessly pathetic that deliberately giving away points is the only way that that piece of dog scat will ever score.

HOW TO DELIBERATELY HUMILIATE YOUR OPPONENT - EXAMPLE TWO: Scoring all 15 points in fencing in 45 seconds of action because you are pushing yourself to set a time record is a humiliating insult because your are telling and showing the crowd and the opponent that your opponent is so hopelessly pathetic that you can dispatch of that piece of dog scat as if he were a card board cut-out.

HOW TO DELIBERATELY HUMILIATE YOUR OPPONENT - EXAMPLE THREE: Running up the score in a timed sport without a scoring limit is a humiliating insult because your are telling and showing the crowd and the opponent that your opponent is so hopelessly pathetic that you can score on him again, and again and again and again as if he were a card board cut-out. "You see how I can score against this pathetic loser? Wanna see it again? Wanna see it again? Wanna see it again? Wanna see it again? Wanna see it again? Wanna see it again? Wanna see it again? Wanna see it again? Wanna see it again? Wanna see it again? Wanna see it again? Wanna see it again? Wanna see it again? Wanna see it again? Wanna see it again? Wanna see it again? Wanna see it again? Wanna see it again? Wanna see it again? Wanna see it again? Wanna see it again? Wanna see it again?"

Or would you hold back on your “win” just to let the opponent “feel good”?

Refraining from DELIBERATELY HUMILIATING your opponent is called "Sportsmanship".

You are still pissed that your son was humiliated with unsportsmanlike conduct by "HOW TO DELIBERATELY HUMILIATE YOUR OPPONENT - EXAMPLE ONE" but, yet, you champion the humilation of those girls by "HOW TO DELIBERATELY HUMILIATE YOUR OPPONENT - EXAMPLE THREE.

As most know, it is based on the real activity of sword fighting. Would you ever let someone have a “free” touch on you if they were holding a real blade? Or would you hold back on your “win” just to let the opponent “feel good”? If you did either of these two things, you just might be killed.

"Real blades"? "Killed"?

On a thread about running up the score in a girl's high school basketball game, you are talking about getting "killed" with "real blades"?

Ummmm ..... Let's get back to the Planet Earth. This thread is about high school sport, not war or getting attacked by Jack the Ripper. Nobody is going to "die" because they practiced good sportsmanship at a high school athletic event.

I know basketball isn't fencing, but someone will win, and someone will lose. There are no charity points.

Once again, right back to "HOW TO DELIBERATELY HUMILIATE YOUR OPPONENT - EXAMPLE ONE" while completely ignoring the rest of the book "101 Ways to Humiliate Your Opponent in Sports".

"Charity points" and "In you face points" are merely two sides of the "How to Deliberately Humiliate Your Opponent" Coin.

[Aurorales]

Nice opus you wrote there.

Who or what is determining the point of when a winning side won too big. Would 50 pts be OK? Does the point spread need to be smaller? how small? does this change with each game?
So was the win itself OK?

A strategy in fencing is cat and mouse. Some call it physical chess.
You call it “humiliating”. I call it strategy and winning. Winning quick is good. Jumping out ahead in points early on in the game is good. It is called strategy.

Here is something my son brought up to me last night about this topic.

What if some of these players have higher ambitions and playing basketball is what will help them achieve it.

What if getting higher, better individual stats would help on a college application?
What if getting higher, better stats would help get on a college team they hope to be on.?
What if getting higher, better stats would help get a scholarship so they could afford to go to school?

Please stop looking at what this might have done to the losing side for a moment, and see what winning this game might have meant for the winners.
Records might have been broken.
Dreams might now have a better chance of being fulfilled.
Maybe one of the winners went to sleep with a smile on their face, feeling good that their hard work is paying off.

Olympians try to win medals. They also try to break records. These are goals for athletes. I applaud the achievement.

Summary of my opinion:
Winning is good. Losing sometimes hurts. If after losing, it is worth it to you, you practice more, try harder, and maybe next time you will win. Which would be good.
Good is good. Losing helps you learn how to win. Then the win feels even better.
Sweet tastes sweeter if you have also tasted the bitter.

I will now stop rewriting my opinion of sports and winning. I respectfully disagree with you.