In this episode of Examined Sport, I look at Nicholas Dixon’s article: “On Winning and Athletic Superiority.” Published in the Journal of the Philosophy of Sport in 1999, this article examines the relationship between winning and athletic superiority. Dixon also explores whether playoffs are an effective way to determine athletic superiority.

In this episode of Examined Sport, I examine Leslie Howe’s “Gamesmanship.” Published in the Journal of the Philosophy of Sport in 2004, this article quickly became a classic, the go-to article on the topic of gamesmanship. In the article, Howe defines the concept of gamesmanship and analyses the ethical dimensions of gamesmanship in sport.

In this episode of Examined Sport, I look at Cesar Torres and Peter Hager’s article: “The Desirability of the Season Long Tournament: A Response to Finn.” Published in the Journal of the Philosophy of Sport in 2011, this article, as the title suggests, is Torres and Hager’s response to Stephen Finn’s “In Defense of the Playoff System.” While Finn defended a playoff system, in their article, Torres and Hager challenge that defense and offer arguments for superiority of the season-long tournament model over the playoff system.

In this episode of Examined Sport, I look at Stephen Finn’s article “In Defense of the Playoff System” (Journal of the Philosophy of Sport, 2009). In this article, Finn sets out first to challenge critiques of the playoff system from Nicholas Dixon and William Morgan, and then to offer his positive defense of the playoff system.  

In this episode of Examined Sport, I look at Pam Sailors’ “Mixed Competition and Mixed Messages.” Sailors takes up the question of sex segregation in sport by critiquing Jane English’s 1978 “Sex Equality in Sport (https://blubrry.com/sports_ethics_show/79650116/jane-english-sex-equality-in-sports/)". Sailors then discusses how to deal with the complexity of gender in sport and how best to structure competitions.

In this episode of Examined Sport, I look at Jane English’s “Sex Equality in Sports,” published in Philosophy and Public Affairs in 1978. In this classic and influential paper, English examines what equal opportunity for women in sports means and what it implies.

In this episode of Examined Sport, I discuss Nicholas Dixon’s “A Moral Critique of Mixed Martial Arts” published in Public Affairs Quarterly in 2015. This paper is one of the first philosophical analyses of the sport of MMA.

In this episode of Examined Sport, I discuss Nicholas Dixon’s “Boxing, Paternalism, and Legal Moralism” published in Social Theory and Practice in April 2001. While Dixon is not the first to address moral questions about the sport of boxing, this paper is important because Dixon focuses on what he calls pre-emptive paternalism as the basis for restrictions on boxing. This conception of paternalism has since been influential in the philosophy of sport on a wide range of issues from doping to banning of American football.

  In this episode of Examined Sport, I discuss Scott Kretchmar’s “From Test to Contest: An Analysis of Two Kinds of Counterpoint in Sport” published in the Journal of Philosophy of Sport in 1975. One of the foundational papers of the discipline, Kretchmar examines the distinction between tests and contests. The paper introduces several ideas that are influential on Kretchmar’s later work and on other thinkers in the field.  

  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 (https://www.blubrry.com/sports_ethics_show/36255363/nicholas-dixon-on-sportsmanship-and-running-up-the-score/) 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.    

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.

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.

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'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.  

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.