Thoughts on ZoSea's 'takeover' of the ASP? Nick?

[Nick Carroll]

If the surfers had been briefed properly then I'm sure this would have leaked to Nick or Steve.

Then this quote from an unknown source to Surfline

"They're going to keep the same structure, the same people involved, but with new owners. We believe in these people and we believe there's a better path than the one we're currently on. It's the best thing that could happen… These guys are bringing some dollars to the table; I believe they're smart and they have better contacts than us. And we need a visionary who's going to be able to take pro surfing to new places over the next three to five years."

This implies that the ASP's been sold. But it's an association of members. What is there to sell? And don't member's get a say in this? The source says that ZoSea has better contacts with the ASP. If that's the case then everyone senior at the ASP needs to have a good hard think about whether they are in the right job. I would have thought after 50 years the ASP had a pretty good rolodex of names in the industry.

The surfers have been briefed in meetings with Kieren Perrow who sits on the ASP Board as a surfer rep. These briefings have been going on for a couple of months now. They're not attended by a lot of the surfers. The surfers' main concerns are prize money, insurance, and end of career financial protection, and these have been given some play in what's been reported as the outline of the deal so far. Most of the surfers do not have any big visions for the future of the tour, they are busy trying to figure out how to win their next heats, but quite a few have a sort of simmering resentment of the Powers That Be, including honchos from the big companies (at least the ones that don't sponsor 'em) and some ASP staff who occasionally have to break bad news to them and thus become unpopular. I asked Kieren point blank in Tahiti to explain to me the specific nature of the deal and he refused, a bit uncomfortably, poor bloke.

The ASP, what does it own, among other things it owns the WCT and its ranking system plus all rights. That's what it has for sale, that's what it has been selling to the big surf corpos for the past 20 odd years. It needs to sell this to people beyond the surf industry in order to continue to grow, since the surf industry's limitations are so graphically being revealed at present. Yet the ASP as an organisation is pretty hopeless at sales. ZoSea might give them a leg up in that area, there's no doubt they'd have better contacts in the US sports media and endorsement world than the ASP.

I don't reckon any of this is v complex but I can't wait to get back to work and find out more about this deal. We'll be able to get people to talk now it's out in the open.

[rmb]

The surfers have been briefed in meetings with Kieren Perrow who sits on the ASP Board as a surfer rep. These briefings have been going on for a couple of months now. They're not attended by a lot of the surfers. The surfers' main concerns are prize money, insurance, and end of career financial protection, and these have been given some play in what's been reported as the outline of the deal so far. Most of the surfers do not have any big visions for the future of the tour, they are busy trying to figure out how to win their next heats, but quite a few have a sort of simmering resentment of the Powers That Be, including honchos from the big companies (at least the ones that don't sponsor 'em) and some ASP staff who occasionally have to break bad news to them and thus become unpopular. I asked Kieren point blank in Tahiti to explain to me the specific nature of the deal and he refused, a bit uncomfortably, poor bloke.

Kieren Perrow seems like he is a very good person to be a surfers rep comes across very clever and has a good demeanour and must be well respected by his peers to be elected to be in such a position. It wouldn't be an easy job to be trying to protect the surfers best interests against profit driven companies but he would be one who would do it with integrity and advice the surfers on the best path to take in such situations. I imagine you would have a bit more insight into the politics between the Surfers and the Companies/ASP Nick?

[steve shearer]

thats the crunch question, and I reckon the answer is no.

[el rancho]

If the ASP/Competitive surfing as a whole went broke... do you think less people would surf??

I think less kids would take up surfing.
there has to be some factor there, although I would bet my hairy nutsack that not one single skateboarder has ever taken up skateboarding because of competitive skating alone.

[oldman]

You certainly get the impression that Kelly Slug has no desire to give anything back to recreational surfers.

I love this term 'giving back'.

What could Kelly possibly give me as a recreational surfer, other than a back rub and maybe a little pat on the tush as he sees me skip away.

Glory be, giving back! What does that mean??????????????????????????????????????????????????????

[steve shearer]

maybe but I doubt it.

People take up surfing when they move close to the ocean, as a rule.

A certain percentage of the people will take up surfing regardless of whether there is an ASP or Bong.

I reckon less kids per capita in the coastal regions are taking up surfing due to other reasons.

[oldman]

If the ASP/Competitive surfing as a whole went broke... do you think less people would surf??

Do you think anyone would remember 6 months after the collapse?

Apart from the actual pro surfers that is. And their managers I suppose, and a menagerie of hanger's-on.

[steve shearer]

it might take on a romantic hue as a kind of nostalgic retro fashion project.

MIght see hipsters start training and looking like a condom stuffed full of walnuts before paddling out for thirty minute heats at Bondi.

never know; the human animal is basically competitive.

[Clif]

That's a very general claim, Steve. Collectivism has had just as much influence as competitiveness, or more in certain parts of the world and in certain cultures. Competiveness is something learned under particular ideological conditions, rather than an inherent human trait.

[steve shearer]

I disagree.

I think the fundamental aggression that comes with defending territory or competing for mates, pre-dates collectivism or co-operation.

Morality, religion, social systems that enabled hunter-gatherers to live in more settled agrarian communities may be seen as evolutionary advancements to deal with the fundamental "problem" of competition/aggression etc etc.

Sport, seen in this light, may serve a cathartic function in bleeding off the excess "competitive instinct" vicariously.

[Clif]

Alternatively, you are overcoding readings of the past with an interpretation borne of a current ideology that emphasises competition and so see past behaviours as such.

Nevertheless, defending one's territory and competing for mates does not by defacto mean the human condition is innately competitive or aggressive. What it means is that under certain conditions and at certain times those particular activities may involve these actions.

Just for context I am writing from an ethological paradigm which rejects universalism or reductionism in favour of context, contingency and specificity.

Sorry, just being a debating nerd

[Clif]

Given the above, this means sport is not a "bleeding off of the excess of competitive instinct" but a mode of producing competitiveness and aggression.

[steve shearer]

I think even the most cursory and casual glance at history would refute that notion.


I've lived in several households where Sport was actively avoided.

There was no loss of competition or aggression, no matter how passively it was expressed.

Taking your position to it's logical conclusion, if Sport disappeared would we see a loss or even the disappearance of competition or aggression in the World?

I'd argue strongly, No.

Humans will compete for resources, mates, power, etc etc ......as animals do. Anyone who witnesses a Pre-school play-yard, a work-place, a school, a pub, a line-up can attest to the fundamental truth of that.

They will also co-operate to achieve higher tasks.

Divorcing ourselves from the essential animal and ecological reality of our existence is a purely academic exercise.

with all doo respect of course Clif

[alakaboo]

Fewer! Fewer kids.

Sorry, just being a debating nerd

[Clif]

Of course, other activities will generate competition and aggression also. However, I suggest that competition and aggression may emerge from certain context or collectivism may etc. Competition and aggression do not take place in all circumstances and at all times. Aggression and competition are not fundamental causes but rather are an effect of certain conditions of possibility. For example, if there are plentiful resources, mates, etc competition and aggression may not emerge. And there are and have been times and places where this is and has been the case. A situation of scarcity drives competition and aggression. Consider after the rains in some places in Africa, some animals settle into quite a settled and mutual co-existence for a period of time. Competition and aggression do not spontaneously emerge because they are not innate, they have to be produced via the condition of scarcity - among other contingencies. The same goes for a lineup. Plenty of waves and only a few people and a lineup can be non-competitive and non-aggressive. Now, it may become competitive but another ingrediant may have been thrown into the mix that sends things in that direction.

[Clif]

Alakaboo?

[steve shearer]

Competition and aggression do not take place in all circumstances and at all times. Aggression and competition are not fundamental causes but rather are an effect of certain conditions of possibility.

Kids need to be taught to share. Go visit any playground to see the truth of that.

The fundamental state of young children is a kind of rampant egotism.

This individualism seems to assert itself spontaneously in the human organism and is the Primary reason that collectivism/utopianism has not manifested in human society.......or if it has it has quickly degenerated into a murderous totalitarianism at the hands of Egotistical Dictators.

There's an egotistical Dictator lurking in every human breast.

Mostly it is suppressed by morality, religion etc etc or else harmlessly sublimated into status consumerism or Sport.

[godsavetheking]

Aggression and competition are not fundamental causes but rather are an effect of certain conditions of possibility.

That doesn't disprove steve's claim that humans are innately competitive. Merely that at under certain conditions that urge is suppressed