"We Are the Champions" and GP?

[JBotAlan]

This year, we had a pretty good machine towards the end. We made it to eliminations every competition this year. And we never made it past finals--that was the highest we went. So I have had many times to think this over.

Depending on how you look at GP, 'We are the Champions' could be considered a bad choice for a "victory" song. HOWEVER, in that same light, we should not have a recognized winner at all.

Yes, I do see a break in gracious professionalism, BUT I think that a) the winning team deserves it, and b) it keeps the rest of us striving to become a winner.

Yes, I think it hurts to lose...for a moment, and then I realize that if I get to work, the robot will perform better at the next regional. That losing is where I pulled my energy and inspiration from as I worked all of those late nights. All of those hours in the workshop I thought of being in that winner's circle. And we came close, coming in second at IRI.

I believe that while 'We are the Champions' is a violation of GP in my book, we need it to push us along. What would make you want to win if the winner was not celebrated?

JBot

[Tim Delles]

As many of you keep saying "we should not have a winner... the competition is the least GP of all...".. However without the competition there is no FIRST. Honestly, what would teams do if they were told here is the game but we aren't going to have winners. How many do you think would actually want to participate?

FIRST is a competition. You have winners and losers on the field. You must keep this to drive people to be innovative.

Heck every year when the game is unvieled, i know i always think hmmm what would beatty, wildstang, and cheesypoofs do... If you take the competition away then you lose that part of the game.

[Carol]

When we won Chairman's at Philly they played "Simply the Best" (I think, I may be remembering it wrong. But it was played for some award). Would you considered that un-GP? Someone could take that to mean that their team isn't as good.

I remember when We Are The Champions played at the BOB, and my first thought was why now and not after the finals? Yes, it can be considered a slam to the losers but in my opinion a minor one. Remember who organized the tournament - a group of volunteers, unexperienced for the most part in this type of organizing. I don't know who selected the music but it was being played by a student (using an IPod which I thought was interesting.)

P.S. When we won Chairman's at Atlanta they played "Ain't No Stopping Us Now". About 50 times in a row, until we all got up on stage. It's burned in my memory.

[JaneYoung]

This is taken from the FIRST website under 'who we are'.
I like the part about fierce competition and mutual gain not being separate notions.


Gracious Professionalism

Dr. Woodie Flowers, FIRST National Advisor and Pappalardo Professor of Mechanical Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, coined the term "Gracious Professionalism."

Gracious Professionalism is part of the ethos of FIRST. It's a way of doing things that encourages high-quality work, emphasizes the value of others, and respects individuals and the community.

With Gracious Professionalism, fierce competition and mutual gain are not separate notions. Gracious professionals learn and compete like crazy, but treat one another with respect and kindness in the process. They avoid treating anyone like losers. No chest thumping tough talk, but no sticky-sweet platitudes either. Knowledge, competition, and empathy are comfortably blended.

In the long run, Gracious Professionalism is part of pursuing a meaningful life. One can add to society and enjoy the satisfaction of knowing one has acted with integrity and sensitivity.

[Dan Petrovic]

Originally Posted by JaneYoung

With Gracious Professionalism, fierce competition and mutual gain are not separate notions. Gracious professionals learn and compete like crazy, but treat one another with respect and kindness in the process. They avoid treating anyone like losers. No chest thumping tough talk, but no sticky-sweet platitudes either. Knowledge, competition, and empathy are comfortably blended.

That's basically a fancy way of saying what I said in an earlier post.

Originally Posted by InfernoX14

When it comes to the field at competition, it is about the robots, but we don't let the competitive spirit get in the way of sportsmanship and Gracious Professionalism.

[aaeamdar]

Originally Posted by Tom Bottiglieri

It seems that the people complaining about "the bad spirit of a song" that is usually played in celebration would probably never have a problem with it if they were on the other side.

I'm hoping to make this my last response to this thread, since it seems to me we've mostly reached an impasse. I felt particularly compelled to respond to what I felt was, frankly, a fairly snide ad hominem attack.

In 2006, when the mentors on my team went off into a room to decide our team's strategy (instead of letting the students decide/vote/have input) on the overall design of the robot. Some students on the team thought we should go for the low 1 point goal; others thought we should go for the high goal. The mentors came out and told us that we would be building for the low goal. While I thought that this decision strategically best, I was extremely unhappy that the mentors had made the decision rather than the students, and in response, I wrote a six-page e-mail to the entire team expressing my concerns, even though I agreed with the decision. I c

It seems to me that there are two eminently reasonable arguments to be made for keeping the song:

1. "I acknowledge that the song is in conflict with the ideals of gracious professionalism, and I really don't care, because GP has no meaning for me."

2. "I acknowledge that the song is in conflict with the ideals of gracious professionalism, and I do care, but I choose to look the other way, considering the fact that most of the song is unobjectionable."

Argument #1, of course, has its own issues, and I doubt anyone would be willing to make this argument (when I say "reasonable", I mean purely from a logical perspective). Argument #2 is, while not my own personal opinion, is certainly in most ways reasonable. As others have pointed out, the line "No time for losers", however you interpret it, appears only three times in the song.

However, as much as I found Tim Delles' more complete reading and analysis of the song to be interesting, thoughtful, and a good read, it doesn't click for me. For one thing, while looking at the song in its entirety is an interesting exercise, and can provide a useful context, analysis of the whole cannot brush away objectionable parts (if we acknowledge them as objectionable).

Furthermore, in relation to the "thousands of different opinions": everyone is welcome to their opinion, but that doesn't mean that everyone's opinion is equally valid. Imagine someone saying, "I think the 'losers' are actually the people who won the competition, because winning is bad." This is an obvious mis-interpretation of the song lyrics. To have an force of reason behind them, interpretations must have evidence.

To me, both the words ("No time for losers") and the tone/notes (a clear reference to the "nanny nanny boo boo" child's taunt) indicate a lack of respect for one's opponent which is counter to the spirit of gracious professionalism. Am I saying that this is the only possible interpretation? Absolutely not. Personally speaking, it's the only interpretation that clicks.

Anyway, this time I really have talked long enough. Thanks again to everyone who posted here, and I apologize for any comments that were (or you felt were) objectionable. I was a bit tired and should have gone to bed sooner =).

Thanks,
Paul Dennis
1719

[meaubry]

It's just a celebration song.
Let it go at that, and quit trying to read into it and rationale why it should or shouldn't be played.
There are alot bigger problems to deal with than if this song is GP or not.
Let's move on to those.

Mike Aubry

[seanwitte]

I always figured the "We" in the song meant everyone at the event, not the winning teams. I, personnally, have no time for losers. Not winning is different than being a loser.

[JaneYoung]

I do agree with meaubry (Mike) regarding moving on -
but...

I looked up the song in Wikipedia and kind of waited to see if anyone else would post this.

It was written for sports events. (one thing to remember is that Queen was known for rocking the house - engaging the audience/fans in the stands. Another song is, We Will We Will Rock You - go for it, Beth.)

Wikipedia:

Queen about the song

“ Certainly it's a relationship that could be, but I was thinking about football (soccer) when I wrote it. I wanted a participation song, something that the fans could latch on to. It was aimed at the masses; I thought we'd see how they took it. It worked a treat. When we performed it at a private concert in London, the fans actually broke into a football (soccer) chant between numbers. Of course, I've given it more theatrical subtlety than an ordinary football (soccer) chant. You know me. I certainly wasn't thinking about the press when I wrote it. I never think about the British music press these days. It was really meant to be offered the musicians the same as the fans. I suppose it could also be construed as my version of "I Did It My Way." We have made it, and it certainly wasn't easy. No bed of roses as the song says. And it's still not easy.
-Freddie Mercury (1978)[1] ”
“ I have to win people over, otherwise it's not a successful gig. It's my job to make sure people have a good time. That's part of my duty. It's all to do with feeling in control. That song "We Are the Champions" has been taken up by football fans because it's a winners' song. I can't believe that somebody hasn't written a new song to overtake it.
-Freddie Mercury (1985)

[AdamHeard]

There is another arguement a lot of people are making that you unfairly lumped into #1 and #2.

#3 Aknowledge that There is in fact no conlict because celebrating the winners in a sportslike fashion has been one of Dean Kamen's goals (he's trying to make it popular like sports right? Well, then you have to celebrate the winners in a traditional, well known way) and anyone offended really needs some thicker skin because people lose, and no one will allways win.

[Alan Anderson]

Originally Posted by aaeamdar

It seems to me that there are two eminently reasonable arguments to be made for keeping the song:

1. "I acknowledge that the song is in conflict with the ideals of gracious professionalism, and I really don't care, because GP has no meaning for me."

2. "I acknowledge that the song is in conflict with the ideals of gracious professionalism, and I do care, but I choose to look the other way, considering the fact that most of the song is unobjectionable."

I choose #3: "What ungraciousness? What lack of professionalism? I don't see how it's putting down anybody who didn't end up in first place."

We are the champions. We put forth the effort to face our challenges and try to overcome our limits. Regardless of the outcome of the competition, we did our best, and we're not losers!

To me, both the words ("No time for losers") and the tone/notes (a clear reference to the "nanny nanny boo boo" child's taunt) indicate a lack of respect for one's opponent which is counter to the spirit of gracious professionalism.

What tone/notes are you alluding to? I don't recognize the "nanny nanny boo boo" reference. [edit]I looked it up, and it's from a song released in 2004. Queen's "We are the Champions" is from 1977, ten times as long ago. I think you have your belief about which is a reference to which backwards, even granting that such a reference exists (I didn't see one, but I have never heard the Le Tigre song).[/edit] Maybe there's something in your personal history that makes you extraordinarily sensitive to this particular song? It sounds like you see the phrase "no time for losers" as dismissive instead of inspiring. (I once had a protracted and heated online discussion with someone for whom the word "patronizing" evoked extremely bad emotions. Once I discovered where he was coming from, and once he discovered that it didn't mean quite what he thought it did, things made much more sense to both of us.)

[John Gutmann]

Ok this is my first reply to the thread, after reading most of the responses. First off let me say I think this is a ridiculous discussion. I think it is being blown way out of proportion. My opinion is kind of the who cares one, in my eyes it is a song. If you don;t like it then don't listen to it. or if you don't like it get out of FIRST. FIRST may be all about GP, but it is a competition. A competition is about winning. People know there will be winners and people know there will be losers. They should know that coming in. Besides it isn't like the winning team is playing the song. So if you really must interpret it, then the person playing the song has no time for losers and they are the champions which means the DJ won and the DJ has no time for losers.

If we ban this song I might as well complain about announcers saying that once alliance won the match, because by the saying someone one is saying that the other team didn't do as good, and it made me feel bad. But there will be losers, if we want to have no losers we might as well just have 20,000 people play tag. If you here that song when your on Einstein and you just lost, and you feel bad then ok, that is understandable, but seriously if it makes you feel bad enough that you forget about the fact that you are second place in the WORLD and that you just became finalists then maybe there is something more wrong then the song.

Give me as much negative rep as you would like but we are all mature sensible human beings. The horse it dead, just let it be. [/rant]

-John

[Travis Hoffman]

Originally Posted by Alan Anderson

What tone/notes are you alluding to? I don't recognize the "nanny nanny boo boo" reference.

Alan:

Not that I want to prolong this thread, but I believe he was saying that the rhythm and accent of certain syllables in the "losers" line is very similar to the manner in which children typically deliver the mocking line "na na na na, boo, boo".......

NOOOOOOOOO time for LOOOOOOOOOO-sers
NAAAAAA-na naaa-naa BOOOOOOOOOO-booo *sticks thumbs in ears, sticks out tongue, wiggles fingers*

To be fair, I've always thought of this same children's expression whenever I've heard this song in the past, but it's never really bugged me, especially in relation to its use during a FIRST event.

[aaeamdar]

Originally Posted by AdamHeard

There is another arguement a lot of people are making that you unfairly lumped into #1 and #2.

I really didn't expect my last posting to evoke yet more criticism, but...

I didn't lump anything in with anything. You've either misinterpreted what I said or chose to read very selectively. Yes, a goal of FIRST is to celebrate excellence. Yes, I'm all for that. Yes, I realize that some teams will win and some teams will lose. However, if you think (as I do) that the song takes a taunting tone towards the losers, then its "celebration" of the winning teams is no excuse. I said specifically that there were two "eminently reasonable" arguments to be made.

And no, Alan, there is no personal history that makes me extraordinarily sensitive to this song. Even your anecdotal reference doesn't really help me understand where that came from. If you don't see how the song puts down the losers, take another listen.

To both Adam and Alan, I must say again that we seem to be at an impasse over something very simple: what, exactly, is meant by "losers" and "champions" in the phrases "No time for losers" and "We are the champions"? If (in the context of FIRST) we define losers as teams who didn't try, had a defeatist attitude, and we define champions as every team who came to the competition and participated positively, then you are both exactly right, and my argument has no basis.

However, if this is really what we mean by "champions" and "losers", then explain to me, if you would, why this song is played [i]right after the final elimination round, when there is both a clear "champion" and "loser" (or regional winner and finalist, if you will). If we use this broader definition of champion and loser, then why not play this song, say, at the beginning of the competition, to celebrate all the teams that were able to build a robot and make it to the regional? Or at the end, to celebrate all the teams who stuck through to the end, regardless of whether they won or not?

The bottom line is this: the "champions" in the song are the regional/championship winners, and the "losers" are either (take your pick) everyone else, OR the finalists, and neither one of those choices is conducive to the argument that this song is anywhere near clicking with gracious professionalism.

Alan, I was not making any sort of reference to "Le Tigre" as I have never heard of who/what that is. The tone/notes I was referring to were the notes of "No time for losers" which constitute (_approximately_): starting note, minor third down, perfect fourth up, major second down, minor third down. The "taunt" I was referring to was something a little child might say before/after sticking out his/her tongue. I'm not sure how to more completely express this.

Paul

*EDIT*: Yes, Travis, that is exactly what I was talking about. Didn't see your posting until I had already posted mine. Does that clear anything up?

[Tim Delles]

The bottom line is this: the "champions" in the song are the regional/championship winners, and the "losers" are either (take your pick) everyone else, OR the finalists, and neither one of those choices is conducive to the argument that this song is anywhere near clicking with gracious professionalism.

Wow.................

once again it goes to your views... Honestly, how do you know what every single person at an event is thinking??? have you asked every single person in FIRST what they think the words champions and losers mean?

i doubt it...

This makes me very sad for you, espeically when you say that this is the bottom line. This may be the bottom line for you, but everyone is entitled to their thoughts about the song.

Also this is something that has been playing as long as i can remember (8 years in FIRST).. I myself am one of the sorest losers (i can admit that because i get very grumpy when i/my team does not win) and this song has NEVER bothered me. The reason is because they were simply better than me/my team, and that is just one way to help celebrate that they out smarted or built something better than me/my team.

Honestly how would you celebrate the winners of an event? Because if you don't celebrate them what would make a team want to win? If they don't want to win what would make them want to build the best robot they could? if they don't build the best robot they could why would they build a robot? if they didn't build a robot why would they be in FIRST???