Collateral damage in sports?

Odd. There are at least a couple of sports events here in Japan recently that made the news, and I think they are somewhat related. At least they seem to share a thread to me.

First was the death of a 17 year old sumo wrestler/student, apparently due to the toughening up process (which at this sumo stable involved beating, kicking, and taunting the young wrestler, on at least two occasions). Various folks grumbled about how such toughening is a necessary part of getting students ready, but the sumo stable trainer has been tossed out, and there have also been serious questions raised about just what part such ijiwaru (bullying) plays when there is a nation-wide movement to reduce or stop bullying in the schools.

The second is more recent. Apparently there was a young challenger for a boxing title. The challenger made the news for being very confident, saying he was going to crush the title holder. Then when the bout started, he immediately started . . . illegal tactics? Gouging eyes, kneeing the title holder below the belt, and so forth. There is a picture that the news stations really seemed to enjoy showing where he picked up the title holder and tossed him. Apparently the title holder just kept trying to box. Very bizarre, apparently.

And the aftermath was that the challenger has lost his license (for a year, at least), and his trainer (and father) also had his license pulled. The trainer, at least, apologized profusely for such unsportsmanlike conduct. The boy just looked sulky, as far as I could tell.

And again, there seems to be this thread of not being quite sure how to separate the violence from the sport. Sure, the referee says don't do all this bad stuff, we want a good clean fight - but a little gouge here, a little knee there, and it sure is a lot easier to win.

How do you help kids separate the two when they see examples like this?

Interesting point of view

The NHK (public television) folks put some odd programs on. Right now there's a visit with a circus camp in Monaco. One bit particularly caught my imagination - they were talking to the fellow who arranges most of the "big shows" for this group, laying out the musicians, lighting, acts, and all. They asked him about the underlying stories, and he responded quite emphatically that he doesn't have any stories in his shows. No, he said, "All I do is provide spectacles - great sounds, great sights - and the audience tells themselves stories." And yet he is known for engaging the audience, exciting them - and even the little clips of his shows that we saw were quite amazing.

Tibetan instruments with people trained in the monk's style of chanting - they said the leader could go for 20 minutes with a single "ooooooooo" booming away from his stomach. This with a single horse prancing in place, the rider quiet, under a spotlight.

Or a huge moon, with a woman suddenly swirling into sight in front of it, and then the lights move to a single figure muffled in white with huge billowing wings fluttering around it as it spins and dances in the center and snow falls. Then it crumpled to the ground, a white pile, and a horse wandered into the spotlight and up to the pile, as if to pull the figure back out, then stopped. And the lights went out.

Fun stuff. And I think I need to contemplate that notion of providing spectacle and letting the audience tell themselves stories.