Howdy,
You make a bunch of good points. I still disagree, you understand, but
they're definately valid points.
One in particular I'd like to address though.
On Tue, 26 Sep 2000, miket wrote:
> Is this really a enough affect to eliminate these classes, and someone elses
> fun?
I'm unclear how eliminating the ladies classes would eliminate someone
else's fun? Those folks can still drive the car on the same course, still
have fun, etc. If the argument is that they only have fun if they're
getting a trophy, well c'mon over to my competitive personality side! :-)
In those cases, where you're so competitive that you can't have fun unless
you win, I think we're obligated to make the classes "fair" (and I agree
that that's ultimately impossible, but at least we can try to make it
better). What about the men who don't have fun if they don't trophy but
don't have the skill to do it in open class? How are they any different
than the women?
> >4. Low subscription classes that are clearly artificial bother me in
> >theory.
>
> So should something that bothers people "in theory" result in taking the fun
> away from others who enjoy the sport for the fun and challenge of it??
Depends, I guess. Racial discrimination bothers me "in theory" but I
contend it should be done away with even though some klan folks don't have
as much fun.
> It sounds like you knew the true meaning of your "attendance" award - and so
> did everyone else. I doubt if anyone who won a trophy in a competive class
>at
> that event thinks of your CP trophy when he/she sees their trophy and
>reflects
> on it. It bet they think of the last run they had when they beat the
>favorite
> with a nearly perfect run for a .01 second win.
I think you're right. I also bet there were plenty of folks in that room
that were thinking "man, I've busted my ass all year and didn't get
anything and that guy, who only ran two events in CP and didn't even beat
F-Stock gets a championship trophy."
Mark
|