Do "ethics matter more than athletics" or does "winning take care of everything"?

[birlyshirly]

For voting and discussion.

[Ernest Jones]

Perceived ethics or actual ethics?

Assuming we are taking about actual ethics and not assumptions being made with colored glasses...I believe ethics to be more important than winning in all matters with the exception of Love and War in which ethics take a back seat.

[MS256]

Good ethics are more important than any game.

No reason to not have good ethics and be a winner.

Bad enough ethics will usually prevent sustained winning (one way or another).

[Fourputt]

Good ethics trump anything else in golf.  That is why the "Ettiquette" section is the first chapter in the Rule book.

In other sports, like football, basketball, baseball, not as much, unfortunately.

[iacas]

Perceived ethics or actual ethics?

Assuming we are taking about actual ethics and not assumptions being made with colored glasses...I believe ethics to be more important than winning in all matters with the exception of Love and War in which ethics take a back seat.

Seconded.

Simon Dyson was DQed and given the chance to say he'd tapped down a ball mark. Plus there was that guy at Hilton Head a few years ago who clipped a piece of straw or a thin stick and called the penalty on himself.

It's not unethical to say or stand by what you think is true.

[Jmdmbike]

The ethics of golf is more important to the overall appeal of the game than simply winning.The players calling penalties on themselves - that's what Brian Davis did a few years ago at Harbour Town even though it meant losing the playoff - is an important part of the culture of the game.

[birlyshirly]

If I've understood EJ's and Iacas' point correctly, let's assume that "ethics" means genuinely ethical conduct - not a smokescreen put up to provide cover for unethical behaviour.

[iacas]

If I've understood EJ's and Iacas' point correctly, let's assume that "ethics" means genuinely ethical conduct - not a smokescreen put up to provide cover for unethical behaviour.

Yeah, uhhhh, that doesn't do anything to clarify things. I can't name a single person who's put up a smokescreen to provide cover for unethical behavior (on the golf course).

[boogielicious]

Remember, it is not "unethical" to incur penalties.  They are just penalties.  Even being DQ'd does not indicate you are unethical.  With that being said, ethics is very important.  I did not vote because you did not clarify "ethics" and did not provide a third choice.  I have a feeling this thread will degrade to an anti-Tiger thread again.

[birlyshirly]

Yeah, uhhhh, that doesn't do anything to clarify things. I can't name a single person who's put up a smokescreen to provide cover for unethical behavior (on the golf course).

well, uh, in that case I didn't understand your and EJ's point at all. Can you elaborate?

[iacas]

well, uh, in that case I didn't understand your and EJ's point at all. Can you elaborate?

Yes. See post #9.

[birlyshirly]

Remember, it is not "unethical" to incur penalties.  They are just penalties.  Even being DQ'd does not indicate you are unethical.  With that being said, ethics is very important.  I did not vote because you did not clarify "ethics" and did not provide a third choice.  I have a feeling this thread will degrade to an anti-Tiger thread again.

What's the unstated 3rd option that you would have voted for? Obviously, I thought it would be interesting to juxtapose these 2 quotations - and it would never have occurred to me that playing 3 off the tee after losing a ball could be considered unethical.

There's no reason for this to develop into an anti-Tiger thread - no-one's voted for him yet

[boogielicious]

It is a rather vague question. "Do "ethics matter more than athletics" or does "winning take care of everything"?"

"They both matter" would be a good third choice in the poll.

[birlyshirly]

I don't agree. A choice between 2 statements that directly contradict each other forces the voter to make a choice. Your proposed third option lets them avoid making a choice. It's like asking people if they'd like better public services AND lower taxes.

[iacas]

I don't agree. A choice between 2 statements that directly contradict each other forces the voter to make a choice.

The problem is that these don't directly contradict each other anywhere but in your own mind. Nor do the tax and public services ones. An agency could become more efficient, resulting in better service and lower operational costs. So, thread done. It was always obvious to some of us where you were going with this, but now that it's been confirmed, it's done.

[Ernest Jones]

I don't agree. A choice between 2 statements that directly contradict each other forces the voter to make a choice. Your proposed third option lets them avoid making a choice. It's like asking people if they'd like better public services AND lower taxes.

I don't understand, are you saying that being ethical and winning are mutually exclusive? I don't believe that to be the case. I also don't think that lower taxes AND better services are automatically mutually exclusive either, it takes better management than most bloated governments are capable of but that doesn't make it impossible.