  In this episode of Examined Sport, I look at Randolph Feezell’s “Sportsmanship and Blowouts: Baseball and Beyond.” Published in the Journal of the Philosophy of Sport in 1999, Feezell responds to Nicholas Dixon’s paper on blowouts that was the subject of a previous episode of Examined Sport. Feezell proposes what he calls the Revised Anti-Blowout thesis to better explain the ethics of blowouts.    

Examined Sport

Randolph Feezell, "Sportsmanship and Blowouts"

Published in the Journal of the Philosophy of Sport in 1992, Nicholas Dixon’s paper: “On Sportsmanship and Running up the Score” spurred a discussion on the ethics of wide-margin victories in sport. Dixon argues against what he calls the Anti-Blowout Thesis. Blowouts are not, on his view, always or necessarily unsporting.

Nicholas Dixon, "On Sportsmanship and Running Up The Score"

Kathleen Pearson’s “Deception, Sportsmanship, and Ethics,” was published in Quest in 1973 and it analyzes the ethical status of deception in sport and athletics. This short and exceptionally clear paper has influenced later work regarding deception and fouls in sport.

Kathleen Pearson, "Deception, Sportsmanship, and Ethics"

J.S Russell's “Are Rules All an Umpire Has to Work With?”, published in the Journal of the Philosophy of Sport in 1999, presents a theory of sport adjudication that Russell argues better explains sport, the role of officials and umpires, and guides those officials in officiating their sports. Russell’s paper is one of the first explicit attempts to explain and apply interpretivism, one of the central philosophical accounts of sport. This is part two of two episodes on Russell's paper.

J. S. Russell, “Are Rules All an Umpire Has to Work With?” Part 2

J.S Russell's “Are Rules All an Umpire Has to Work With?”, published in the Journal of the Philosophy of Sport in 1999, presents a theory of sport adjudication that Russell argues better explains sport, the role of officials and umpires, and guides those officials in officiating their sports. Russell’s paper is one of the first explicit attempts to explain and apply interpretivism, one of the central philosophical accounts of sport. This is part one of two episodes on Russell's paper.  

J. S. Russell, “Are Rules All an Umpire Has to Work With?” Part 1

Peter Arnold's 1984 article "Three Approaches Toward an Understanding of Sportsmanship" looks at sportsmanship as a social union, as the promotion of pleasure, and as a form of altruism. Arnold also criticizes James Keating's view of sportsmanship that was discussed in a previous episode.

Peter Arnold, "Three Approaches Toward an Understanding of Sportsmanship"

In his 1986 article, "Sportsmanship," Randolph Feezell argues that James Keating's classic account of sportsmanship goes too far in radically separating sports and athletics. In this episode, we examine Feezell's criticism of Keating and then look Feezell's account of sportsmanship as a virtue between seriousness and non-seriousness.

Randolph Feezell, "Sportsmanship"

What is sportsmanship? We all know we are supposed to be good sports but how do we know what that means in practice? To answer such questions, we need an account of sportsmanship. In this episode, we are going to look at the classic account of sportsmanship given by James Keating in his “Sportsmanship as Moral Category,” published in Ethics in 1964.

James Keating, Sportsmanship

This episode looks at Bernard Suits' classic paper “Words on Play,” in which Suits attempts to provide a definition of play. While sport and play are not the same thing; examining one yields insight for the other.

Bernard Suits "Words on Play"

In this episode of Examined Sport, I discuss Edwin Delattre's 1975 paper: "Some Reflections on Success And Failure in Competitive Athletics." This papers stands out for the distinction between winning and success; and losing from failure. It is also one of the earliest accounts of the logical incompatibility thesis.

Edwin Delattre, "Some Reflections on Success And Failure in Competitive Athletics"

The intentional foul highlights why it is important to understand the nature of rules in sports. In this episode of Examined Sport, I discuss Warren Fraleigh's "Why the Good Foul is Not Good." In this 1982 paper, Fraleigh presents an influential critique of the tactical intentional foul, igniting decades of discussion about the ethics of the intentional or 'good' foul.

Warren Fraleigh, "Why The Good Foul is Not Good"

In this episode of Examined Sport, I discuss Fred D'Agostino's "The Ethos of Games." In this 1981 paper, D'Agostino critiques Formalist view of games and defends an alternative theory we call conventionalism.

The Ethos of Games

In this episode, I examine Bernard Suits' "The Elements of Sport." This 1973 essay applies Suits' definition of game-playing (see the "What is a Game?" episode) to sport.

Bernard Suits "The Elements of Sport"

In this episode, I examine Bernard Suits' "What is a Game?" Suits presents his influential definition of game-playing in this discipline-defining article first published in 1967. Suits, Bernard. "What is a Game?" Philosophy of Science, Vol 34, No. 2 (June 1967), pp 148-56.

Bernard Suits "What is a Game?"

The 4th annual Sport Studies Symposium was held April 24, 2015. In this episode, the symposium participants discuss the ideas raised by the papers given at the symposium. In the first part of the episode, Mike Perry and Shawn E. Klein talk with Matt Adamson, Stephen Mosher, and Synthia Syndor about the nature of sport studies,its past, and its future. In the second part, Shawn and Mike talk with Aaron Harper, Stephanie Quinn, and Zach Smith about legal realism and sport, sport in the ancient world, and theology of sport. More information about the symposium here.

The Sports Ethics Show: Sport Studies Symposium 2015

Each episode focuses on ideas drawn from the philosophy of sport. The podcast seeks to be a resource for students and scholars, to highlight and examine themes in the philosophy of sport, and to spur new thought and research in the field.

hubhopper

Examined Sport

hubhopper