In high school I played three varsity sports and
dealt with multiple coaches. Although each coach had a different style, one
thing remained constant with all of them: they were the ultimate rulers of the
team. If a player disagreed with a coaches decisions or methods, there was no
democratic way to fix it. The coach would always be right and the player had to
obey each of his commands. The coaching styles for each team have many
parallels with the absolute ruler that Thomas Hobbes describes. The only way to
be successful as a coach is to have dominant control over your team and have
the final say in all issues.
There have been many coaches who have used Hobbes’
concepts of being absolute and indivisible to bring their teams success.
University of Kentucky coach John Calipari is the most recent example of how
Hobbes’s style of rule creates success in sports. Calipari is a two-time coach
of the year and won the 2012 NCAA college basketball championship with
Kentucky. Despite all of his success, Calipari has been criticized for his
harsh treatment of players and dominant coaching style. While he may not be my favorite coach, (growing up as a Knick/Kansas fan will do that) it is clear that he is one of the best college coaches to ever live. In 2009 while he was coach of the Memphis
Tigers, he was asked a question about a confrontation he had with one of the
players on his bench. In response he simply stated, “I’m their coach, not their
peer. I have the final say, not them.” Calipari never lets the line between
coach and player be blurred and made it clear that he has dominate control over
his team.
Coach Calipari’s ability to remain the dominant ruler
prevents any individual from being bigger than the team. His pure power allows
his players to work as a unit and ultimately achieve success. Hobbes argues
that the people give up their natural rights in ordered to be ruled in a
controlled matter and that is what Calipari has done. By avoiding a democratic
style of rule and keeping his dictator-style of coaching, he has been able to
win: the ultimate goal of every team.
I think this is a good idea for a post as most people have played on a sports team at least once in their lifetime, and have experienced a coach, or have even been one themselves, so most people are able to relate at least a little. I also think this is a good post because many people may have strong opinions about whether it is the coach or the players that make the team, or both. Do all winning teams have completely dominant coaches? Taking it a step further, are all organized activities, including sports, classes and clubs, more successful when there is one dominant leader calling all the shots? I don't think that I agree that the leader has to have complete control over the organization in order to be successful. Without the team, or the members of the organization, the leader is unable to accomplish anything, and this gives the members of the organization at least some amount of power.
ReplyDeleteThis is a really interesting connection to draw, between Hobbes' idea of an absolute ruler and sports coaches. This idea definitely shows how most things in modern society can be deemed 'political' in many senses of the word. I wouldn't consider myself a huge sports fan (Michigan football and basketball are different stories with me) but just to push back on your point that the ultimate goal of any sports team is to win- is this really true? Obviously this goal lies on the surface of any sporting endeavor, but don't sports, and coaches for that matter, aim to do so much more? They can rally huge groups of people, inspire its players and its fans, help people to find a place. Same with Hobbes- his aim was not simply to put an iron fist ruler in place, but to protect the people against the fear of death, the fear that they wouldn't be allowed to opportunity to live. Don't sports and coaches do this in some sense too? Don't they make sure that those with the talent and the drive and the ability to do something are given that chance to make some mark on the world?
ReplyDeleteThis is a really interesting comparison. I don't know very much about sports or this specific coach, but I can understand what you're saying. I agree that in terms of sports, Hobbes is correct that is necessary to have an absolute ruling power. After all, sports always have a specific goal and want to do what it takes to reach it. However I don't think this can be applied the same way to government. They are two very different aspects of life. Sports, for most people, are just a small portion of their lives in the grand scheme of things, while government is something that effects people every single day. So I agree that in many sports is necessary to have an absolute ruling power, but not in government.
ReplyDeleteSam, I agree with the above comments in that this is an extremely interesting and creative comparison you draw between Hobbe's idea of an absolute ruler and sports coaches. I think you do a good job of pointing out the pros to this idea and voicing your personal opinion. I, however, will have to completely disagree with you on the matter. I agree that the final say is obviously the coaches, but I don't think that "The only way to be successful as a coach is to have dominant control over your team." The example you provide of Calipari is a good one, but there are so many other successful coaches, such as Tony Dungy, out there in all sports that do not share the same mindset. I don't think it's a coaches job to be a complete dictator and closed to players' inputs. In my view, an ideal coach would know how to take control and make final decisions, but would also be open to listening to players' feedback and opinions. One man doesn't always know what's best. There are things that the head coach can't see that the players can.
ReplyDeleteI think sports is a very interesting lens to examine Hobbes, as well as some of the other theorists we have discussed. Clearly, Calipari's success shows the Hobbesian rule in the locker room is one means to a successful coaching career. However, as with politics, success is largely circumstantial - *see VUCA from today's lecture. I am a soccer fan as well as a basketball fan, and recently, Chelsea Football Club fired their coach, Andre Villas-Boas. Villas-Boas, a relatively young coach, attempted to establish a clear line between himself and his players - the ruler and the ruled. Ultimately, his attempt at Hobbesian coaching was disastrous as the Chelsea players united against him and convinced the owner to fire Villas-Boas. Dictator-style coaches walk a fine-line as they sometimes underestimate the collective power of the players, and sometimes tease "revolution." Ironically, Chelsea's next coach, Di Matteo took a more Taoist (my solo-media project topic) approach to coaching. He did not attempt to create a defined hierarchy and coached as a peer rather than a ruler. He had immediate success, winning the European championship in his first season.
ReplyDeleteI really like this comparison Sam. Being an avid sports fan I have watched John Calipari take Memphis to the NCAA Championship in 09 (probably the best basketball game I have ever seen) and watched him win it last year with Kentucky as well. A coach fits Hobbes description of an absolute ruler extremely well. He handles the decisions of the people, absolutely and unquestioningly. However, I think a sports team is model citizenry for Hobbes' theory, and is not something found in society.
ReplyDeleteHobbes expects the citizens to give their rights to a leader/monarch and in return they gain protection and security. Individual college players do not have power, and in turn will come together to give this power to a coach. Yet, they are all on the same team. They are all striving for the same goal which is to win a title. The coach makes the decisions he see's best fit because that is why he is hired, and very rarely are his decisions disputed. But in terms of political leaders, their constituents have different wants and needs. They don't want to win a championship and dont have all the same goals. As Hobbes reminds us humans are self-serving. Therefore while it might be easy to have an absolute ruling coach try and lead his team to victory, a leader in a similar capacity would have a much more difficult time.