Mark Shaw writes...
>What is interesting about the term "competition" is that it is defined as
>involving somebody else. If nobody shows up you are simply not competing.
>Now if you want to call it something else, like a "demonstration" then
>maybe everybody is entitled to getting a trophy for making a good demo.
>But don't call it getting a trophy for competing.
In 1987 I was the only entrant in APL at the Solo II Nationals. I was kind
of embarassed by it, but still, having come all that way from California to
be told, "Sorry, you're the only one. You get zilch," would have seriously
hurt my feelings, me being just a kid and all. I just found this trophy
among some other things as I was unpacking in my new abode. It brought back
a lot of nice memories.
I liked what Charlotte King told me that year. She won like a billion
championships in a row, often times with competitors (whom she'd SQUASH!),
and sometimes by herself. (Author's note: it wasn't HER fault no one showed
up, and back then, women running in the Open class "just wasn't done.") She
said, with her lively Fresno twang, "Honey, don't you worry a thing about
it. The rest were just too afraid to show up!"
Anyway, it DOES mean something to me, because it's the last trophy I got for
a long, long, LONG time. It's the last national championship Li'l Stroker
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Shaw [SMTP:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> Sent: Monday, August 23, 1999 9:10 PM
> To: email@example.com
> Subject: Re: Earning Trophies? Nope.
> Rocky Entriken wrote:
> > IF THEY DO NOT, then if someone shows up....... He earned that
> championship just as
> > surely as if he'd beaten 100 drivers to win it.
> Sort of like does a tree falling in the forest make a sound, if nobody
> is around to hear it...
> What is interesting about the term "competition" is that it is defined as
> involving somebody else. If nobody shows up you are simply not competing.
> Now if you want to call it something else, like a "demonstration" then
> maybe everybody is entitled to getting a trophy for making a good demo.
> But don't call it getting a trophy for competing.
> > He ran the events. He put forth the best effort in that class. He was
> > and ready to take on all comers. Nobody did it better. So now some
> > idealistic individuals who are NOT EVEN IN HIS CLASS want to put him
> > and say he should not received a trophy?
> Every entrant has the option to seek out a competitor at the event.
> says they HAVE TO run by themselves. They can bump themselves to the next
> class in the rule book so that they could have some competition (see
> but they CHOSE NOT to do that. Why? Because they might get beat by a
> supposedly better car? Hmmm...
> > About the only thing a hosing like this does is discourage that
> > one-car-class guy even more and then, soon, you lose him too. Because
> > you even take away the pure fun of just going out and driving the best
> > can. That's supposed to be all we are here for, the fun. Don't screw
> > part up too with a bunch of bureaucratic BS.
> So, someone gets pissed and leaves because they have to be bumped to class
> where they loose all the time; and we call that a shame. On the other
> when a person in a poorly classed car that always gets beat complains,
> rather than provide them a class of their own they are told that's the way
> it is and they can leave if they don't like it. Isn't that sort of
> as to who can "compete" in their own class? Ooops, I forgot, one person
> is supporting one of those "blessed" classes; and the other is not.
> If fun were indeed the main ingredient of this sport, and bureaucratic BS
> is a bad thing, then why do we have an ever-expanding rulebook with
> more and more restrictions? And why does it take an act of God to get
> a car re-classed or get a new class established, such as is finally in
> process for SP?