The problem with this logic is that you are right until the majority of people are unreasonably violent. The problem is, civilization will have collapsed well before the percentage approaches what's needed to make a majority. It's the wrong question. The right question is, what's the victim count? Physically and emotionally, what's the toll?

You seem to be suggesting that we should be able to predict how violent a civilization is by the amount and type of organized sport it does. I suspect if you actually go through various countries you're not going to find much of a correlation. For a start, look at the level of violence in the US compared to Canada, and then consider that for generations almost every single Canadian male grew up playing hockey - one of the most violent sports out there. Do you see the predicted higher rates of violence?

In fact you can go through most European countries and do the same - the level of sports organization (starting with young children) in Europe is much higher than anywhere in the America's, or Africa, or Asia ... do you see a correspondingly higher level of violence?

Its seems easier to draw the conclusion that organizes sports is a very minor element (if its an element at all) in how violent a society is.

My arguments are weak...

I'm sorry Brian, but maybe you should have just stopped there?

Don't you think it weakens your argument considerably that your evidence is simply a list of a handful of cases?

Of course. But I'm not writing in a scientific journal. And even that's not enough. It takes decades and hundreds, or even thousands of scientists to gather the necessary data to significantly prove a hypothesis and develop a theory. That or really good math. My arguments are weak because of scope alone

Most people can easily think of ten or so people who played sports as children who aren't violent or angry - would you accept that as a counter point to your claim? In fact, most children play organized sport of one kind or another during school, and only a small percentage engage in violent activity. If we're going to compare lists, I suspect the list of those who played sport and didn't become violent is going to be by a very comfortable margin the longer one.

The problem with this logic is that you are right until the majority of people are unreasonably violent. The problem is, civilization will have collapsed well before the percentage approaches what's needed to make a majority. It's the wrong question. The right question is, what's the victim count? Physically and emotionally, what's the toll?

No, I use no statistical evidence or otherwise to show that sports makes people more violent or aggressive. I ask for none when you are submitting POINTS OF VIEWS. Keep them coming.

Don't you think it weakens your argument considerably that your evidence is simply a list of a handful of cases? Most people can easily think of ten or so people who played sports as children who aren't violent or angry - would you accept that as a counter point to your claim? In fact, most children play organized sport of one kind or another during school, and only a small percentage engage in violent activity. If we're going to compare lists, I suspect the list of those who played sport and didn't become violent is going to be by a very comfortable margin the longer one.

And what about whole countries who either have very organized sports education for children (Sweden), or who worship a very violent sport (Canada with hockey) and yet remain quite peaceful. Shouldn't the Swedes be in the middle of another epoch of coastal raiding? Shouldn't Canadians be murdering each other on the streets (or at least pulling their jackets over each other's heads?), and getting into wars whenever possible if your conjecture is correct?

In fact, my experience is that playing hard contact sports reduces violent tendencies rather than encouraging them - the people I know who wrestle, do judo, BJJ, play hockey, or box are if anything the most relaxed, easy going people I'm acquainted with, possibly because they get it out of their system when playing, possibly because they feel secure enough physically that they don't have to pretend to be tough. There's a strong tradition in Canada of young offenders being pulled out of very destructive ways by sport. By your thesis, they should in fact become more violent and angry because of sport, which is contrary to what has been seen.

I think your argument would be stronger if you made the more limited claim that professional sports leads to violence and anger, though I'd argue that even there the effect is much smaller than what is seen among those who go into politics.

Really though, when you start with an absolute like "Organized Sports Teaches (sic) Us Nothing" the burden is entirely upon you to justify such a statement. Nothing? Really? Nothing at all? Not even as a bad examplar?

Charles, you are exactly right. That statement (Organized Sports Teaches Us Nothing) is flat wrong. And it does become incumbent on me to prove such a statement correct. The truth is, I can't do it, because it's incorrect. Like you said, it can teach something even if though it doesn't necessarily teach what it purports.

You tell us sport encourages breaking the rules. In golf - a sport (and my sport) - players routinely call infractions on themselves. It is a sport that encourages this behavior. The fact that another sport does not encourage this behavior is not an indictment of sport in general, but the culture of people involved in other sports. Can you say NBA or NFL - fed largely by ghetto rats? Can you say A-Rod?? It is tolerated because of fandom, but that is not new.

You spoke of violence. Yes, aggressive physical behavior in properly executing certain sports is an advantage: wrestling, football, hockey. Its those sports nature. But just because you don't like its inherent nature, don't damn the concept of sports in general. Further, now be shocked: it also is so in golf, just not directed at the opponent. Stand next to a fine golfer sometime as his driver hits the ball. A correct golf swing is the single most most violent action in all of sport. But you are confusing aggressive physical activity in pursuit of winning the game with out and out hooliganism, and an intent to harm. That is not an indictment of sport, but of the prevailing culture.

You seem to rest a significant portion of your argument on the fact that the benefits of participation in (those bad) sports can be gotten elsewhere. Fine. My daughter tried soccer (bad), volleyball (bad) and now basketball (worse). Frankly, she stinks at sports. She is all about the arts: dance, acting, singing, modeling etc. There, she's first rate. To be sure, I've seen first hand how her school's over-emphasis on sports doesn't fit her personality. And yes, she is learning many of life's lessons in these other pursuits. But that is not a proof of sport being "bad," or not being a conduit for learning useful behavior. It just means there are different ways.

Look, I share with you the sense of outrage and disappointment at the miserable parents screaming and yelling at the coaches and the refs..............because his gd 10 year old son doesn't get enough touches of the ball. Its just awful.

But that isn't because sports is bad. Its because parents are behaving badly. And why?

We've just come off a giant credit bubble that is a direct byproduct of a self important, self indulgent, instant gratification society.

I'd go inspect that societal (and quintessential 60's - 70's) malformation for awhile rather than blame organized sports.

No, I use no statistical evidence or otherwise to show that sports makes people more violent or aggressive. I ask for none when you are submitting POINTS OF VIEWS. Keep them coming

Seriously, are you TRYING to set me up? I don't believe it. Such a formulaic response doesn't exist in real life. Is this a John Hughes movie? Are you a member of the Alpha Betas?

Yes, kids only do theater or debate or any of the LAME things because they are FORCED to. I mean, who in their RIGHT mind who do those things willingly? What possible use is Model U.N., Student Congress, or Foreign Extemporaneous Speaking? What could you possibly do with your life if you did those things, be a Poli-Sci Professor? How absolutely LAME!

And for your information, I wasn't THAT kid. But I liked THAT kid and made sure he wasn't picked on by the Ogres of the world.

i am not sure the tone and message conveyed in your two posts juxtaposed here match. you have quite a jon stewart routine going.

you seem to be intent on pointless rabble-rousing. that, and porn, seem to be what the internets are good for.

You completely missed the point of the article, which is that organized sports engenders violence and anger, not that competition is bad.

I am really not convinced of this argument. Although I have girls involved in sports (my boys generally aren't interested and have other pursuits) so perhaps it is different for girls.

My girls have benefited quite a bit from playing organized sports. Oldest played youth league soccer, basketball, softball and track and field. She does all but softball in high school. She isn't violent or angry-and her high school soccer team is a boys team.

My younger daughter plays the above, although in middle school substituted volleyball for soccer. She too isn't violent or angry.

I do agree that we don't let kids have the freedom to just free play like they did when we were kids-and kids getting a game of neighborhood kickball or baseball is important, but I don't think organized sports teaches nothing and I have a hard time being convinced that it promotes violence and anger-although I will caveat that gender and type of sport may influence this argument.

Brian, if I was impolite in my first comment, it was because I see this as an ancient, and not at all a new, observation. When you said "admit" or even now "grant" you seem to be implying that I've come to realize something new.

I don't at all think that you've stumbled on something new. See Jon Stonger's article that I link to in my article. I concede that organized sports IS an outlet for violence in lieu of battle - but that only aids my point that MOST sports are inherently violent or have some violent elements. Not necessarily in their direct maneuvers (as in football), but for what they serve. This tribal purpose that others have mentioned as well.

odograph broached it, but I have to be more specific: For millions of years, our bodies and brains adapted to a fight for survival - killing animals to eat, defending ourselves from other tribes, etc. Sports are a relatively harmless outlet for our primal instincts. And yup, it's exactly those primal instincts that flare up sometimes when things go wrong in sports.

But that has seemed to overshadow the larger point that organized sports teaches us nothing that un-organized or self-organized sports or other organized/un-organized activities can do just as well without being the cousin of tribal warfare.

Wow, with millions of people playing organized sports, Mr. Knapp managed to find a few terrible stories over a period of several years, some even with videos. Very impressive work. Truly anything that isn't perfect must be eliminated.

And

Its not very convincing as written, is it? It'd be surprising if there weren't stats on this, and while there's nothing wrong with taking a few cases for emphasis, it means almost nothing with some sort of wider analysis. Which he himself would probably say if someone countered his piece with an article picking out ten or so people who did organized sport and didn't become violent or angry ...

And

Is there any statistical evidence that organized sports makes kids more violent and angry?

No, I use no statistical evidence or otherwise to show that sports makes people more violent or aggressive. I ask for none when you are submitting POINTS OF VIEWS. Keep them coming.

I don't think we should do away with any sports but we also shouldn't just assume all sports will build character and are necessary for later adult life. Sports should be fun and character is more likely built in classrooms, at home, and at work.