There are many articles on the problem of violent parents who attend their child's athletic events. For a quick sample, visit here, here, and here. To be honest, I can't help but wonder if this isn't a nurture or nature problem. Before I had kids, I would silently mock the loud-mouthed parents at games who screamed at the top of their lungs, and who cursed the referee who caught their child committing a blatant foul. My oldest boy is 2 and when we were in public, a boy and his little brother attempted to take a toy away from him. My son head-butted the bigger boy in the chest and the boy released the toy. The second one grabbed him by the arm, but leg go when he realized my son's mouth was headed for the offending arm. We disciplined my son, but not after the wife and I having a conversation regarding why we should've punished him at all(which was my position) Not only that, but we attended a birthday party where the kids were bowling. I was cheering for my son and got very animated when he almost got a strike, then it hit me, I'm becoming like those people I mocked!. Granted, I'm not puning out coaches and refs, but if the swituation was right, would I?

Questions for debate:

1.)Is competitiveness a good thing for fathers to teach their sons? Is that not a good thing to have them learn when you send them out into the world on their own?

2.)Is this a nature or nurture problem?

3.)What are the best solutions to this problem? Can attending a sportsmanship seminar help you overcome your ties to your child and your desire for him/her to do well?

1.)Is competitiveness a good thing for fathers to teach their sons? Is that not a good thing to have them learn when you send them out into the world on their own?

Is it a good thing for fathers to teach sons? Yes, I think so. Is it a good thing for mothers to teach sons? Yes, I think so. Is it a good thing for fathers and mothers to teach daughters? Yes, I think so.

I think kids are naturally competitive, and I think traditionally girls have been 'nurtured' in such a way to condition their competitiveness out of them, or channel it away from physical or intellectual prowess, so the only outlets it can find are in who is the prettiest, who has the most friends, etc.

The trend today is to also try to curb the competitive tendencies of boys as well. It's well-meaning, because the kids who aren't all-round sports geniuses have tended to be isolated or villified (as "cissies" or "nerds" perhaps) by the jock types and their hangers-on. But it's also misdirected, since competition is innately human, and if it isn't allowed a productive or healthy route, it finds other ways of expression that may not be as productive.

I'm biased, of course, but the "winning is everything" idea that characterises American competition is less desirable and admirable than the "do you best; the game's the thing; fair play; etc." British idea - especially in kids. They aren't stupid, once they've lost once and won once, they'll notice the difference in how they feel, but the very British idea of forming a line to clap the losing team off the field (which still happens in most professional sports played here, except top-flight soccer) helps avoid the worst excesses of villifying "losers" generally. I'll expand more on this answering question 3.

2.)Is this a nature or nurture problem?
It's both - competition is natural, the "problem" arises when nuture either tries to deny it altogether or to fetishise winning to the point where it is the only goal, regardless of the rules.

3.)What are the best solutions to this problem? Can attending a sportsmanship seminar help you overcome your ties to your child and your desire for him/her to do well?

I think sportsmanship training is a great idea, provided it places emphasis on playing to the best of your abilities, and is careful to maintain that winning at all costs is not acceptable if it means breaking the rules. Cheating is, and should, be viewed as far worse and far less acceptable than just being inept. The echo here in the adult world we all live in is brekaing the law - which should never be acceptable or praiseworthy, unless the law is clearly wrong. The vast majority are not, and even principled lawbreakers should not whine when caught brekaing them, any more than sports people should complain about or argue with the referee.

Here, I think the answer is not to wind the clock back to the jock/nerd duality of old. Competition is fine, but - especially in schools - the "winners" should not be encouraged to look down on "losers". Nor should "loser" be written off. That the intellectually but not physically gifted should be written off or socially shunned in schools speaks of nothing so much as a culture of anti-intellectualism

I think we should bring competition back in a big way in our schools, but across the whole spectrum of abilities - everyone can excel at something - and we should teach our kids that by being good in one area, they are not intrinsically superior to those who are bad in that area. They're probably better at something else.

More than anything else, we need to teach our kids to be "good losers" much more than we need to teach they have to win. By that, I don't mean they should learn to enjoy it, but they should learn how to learn from losing. (e.g. what can they do differently next time, rather than JUST that they don't like it, or that they are lesser people for having lost).