Sir Chris Hoy

[Skip Madness]

Anything you do like the recognises achievement then?

The trophies, gold medals, yellow/pink/gold/rainbow jerseys or headlines are all sufficient, I think. (Edit - beaten to it by rich p.)

And although SPOTY does not mean a lot to me I accept its validity in selecting the year's most popular sportsperson among those to whom it is important.

Again refering back to my previous statement that i am sure he has inspired some young people to get into sport. I only got into cycling after watching the Tour De France; and my grandad telling me stories of when he cycled. Maybe Hoy has got some young kids into the sport. That's good no matter what you might think.

Of course it is good - but a sense of perspective needs to be applied.

Serve people best? Yes but it also recognises some of people's best achievement in thier particular field. Hoy gave the public some of the best days to watch in the olympics.

Again, perspective is required. As fields of expertise go, entertaining people by riding your bike is one I would not prioritise honouring. You seem to be arguing from the point of view of what the honours system is - my concern is what it should (or rather should not) be.

Yes other people should get recognised but Hoy shouldnt have said no to a knighthood at all, he deserves it for the hard work he has put in.

To labour the point; yes he put in hard work... to ride a bike quickly. I can see there won't be an agreement here, so I will just try to say as succinctly as possible why I do indeed believe he should have said no to a knighthood:

1) It celebrates monarchy, which is aberrant in what is meant to be a meritocratic and democratic society.
2) It celebrates the British Empire, which exploited, killed and subjugated millions.
3) The honours system mirrors capitalism in that it easily ends up rewarding those who have had opportunities at the expense of those who lack them through no fault of their own.
4) Official recognition (of any individual) by the government ignores the contributions of those who make the achievements of the individual possible.
5) Even if one were to accept the premise of an honours system, there are people more deserving who have saved or helped lives more profoundly than by providing entertainment by riding a bike or encouraging other people to.

These things are what honours stand for, so in my opinion accepting a knighthood validates all of these flaws.

 

[Dave5N]

The trophies, gold medals, yellow/pink/gold/rainbow jerseys or headlines are all sufficient, I think. (Edit - beaten to it by rich p.)

And although SPOTY does not mean a lot to me I accept its validity in selecting the year's most popular sportsperson among those to whom it is important.
Of course it is good - but a sense of perspective needs to be applied.
Again, perspective is required. As fields of expertise go, entertaining people by riding your bike is one I would not prioritise honouring. You seem to be arguing from the point of view of what the honours system is - my concern is what it should (or rather should not) be.
To labour the point; yes he put in hard work... to ride a bike quickly. I can see there won't be an agreement here, so I will just try to say as succinctly as possible why I do indeed believe he should have said no to a knighthood:

1) It celebrates monarchy, which is aberrant in what is meant to be a meritocratic and democratic society.
2) It celebrates the British Empire, which exploited, killed and subjugated millions.
3) The honours system mirrors capitalism in that it easily ends up rewarding those who have had opportunities at the expense of those who lack them through no fault of their own.
4) Official recognition (of any individual) by the government ignores the contributions of those who make the achievements of the individual possible.
5) Even if one were to accept the premise of an honours system, there are people more deserving who have saved or helped lives more profoundly than by providing entertainment by riding a bike or encouraging other people to.

These things are what honours stand for, so in my opinion accepting a knighthood validates all of these flaws.

Bet you're a right laugh over a beer...

 

[Skip Madness]

Bet you're a right laugh over a beer...

That accusation of being miserable again - as though having an opinion on this that differs from yours means that it devours my entire life and precludes enjoyment of anything. If you take issue with any of the points I have made, why not argue against them rather than making vague snipes?

 

[gavintc]

You have to appreciate that a cycle forum will attract the more vociferous elements of the left wing who cannot accept any benefit being derived from the monarchy / tradition / British values.

 

[Skip Madness]

You have to appreciate that a cycle forum will attract the more vociferous elements of the left wing who cannot accept any benefit being derived from the monarchy / tradition / British values.

What benefit is being derived here from the monarchy? Why is tradition a good thing? What are British values?

 

[Kovu]

What benefit is being derived here from the monarchy? Why is tradition a good thing? What are British values?

Okay mate ... okay.

 

[Skip Madness]

Okay mate ... okay.

Maybe I have missed a memo, but is this a discussion forum or isn't it? Discussions actually entail responding to other people's points, exchanging thoughts and ideas. It looks to me like gavintc was trying to make a point; unclear on what exactly it was, I was trying to coax it out of him. Believe it or not, I am interested in other people's points of view, because if they give me their take on it then maybe they will point out something I had not considered, or simply have better logic and rationale than I do.

If you do not want to read the debate, I suggest not clicking on the thread.

 

[Radius]

There are quite a few different ways to look at it, as has been displayed here...
One the one hand, shouldn't all (most) teachers get a knighthood for inspiring children to follow their eventual university course / career path? It would be impossible. And why should he essentially 'win' something (the knighthood), for winning something else? I'm almost certain he was satisfied with winning three golds, so what's the point in knighting him?
On the other hand, if the system is one of recognition, then he has made an achievement, and it should be recognised. If the system would instead give knighthoods to those who pay for them (not that they do already ), then this is the lesser of two evils. Would his rejecting it have made a difference? Who knows...

It's play the system or shun the system really.

 

[Kovu]

Maybe I have missed a memo, but is this a discussion forum or isn't it? Discussions actually entail responding to other people's points, exchanging thoughts and ideas. It looks to me like gavintc was trying to make a point; unclear on what exactly it was, I was trying to coax it out of him. Believe it or not, I am interested in other people's points of view, because if they give me their take on it then maybe they will point out something I had not considered, or simply have better logic and rationale than I do.

If you do not want to read the debate, I suggest not clicking on the thread.

But this is a thread about SIR CHRIS HOY, not the system in general, or british tradition or the monarch, I just believe that that can have its own thread, here if you wish to talk abotu knighthoods and how bad they are, or a debate in cafe or even P & L if you wish.
And to further my point, I replied back about what you said on Hoy and his knighthood with a post of length (ish) so I am not saying dont make a point, do on the topic of the thread by all means.

 

[Skip Madness]

But this is a thread about SIR CHRIS HOY, not the system in general, or british tradition or the monarch, I just believe that that can have its own thread, here if you wish to talk abotu knighthoods and how bad they are, or a debate in cafe or even P & L if you wish.
And to further my point, I replied back about what you said on Hoy and his knighthood with a post of length (ish) so I am not saying dont make a point, do on the topic of the thread by all means.

This is not a general thread about Chris Hoy, this is a thread about him receiving his knighthood - it is perfectly on-topic to talk about knighthoods and how bad I think they are, and why I think Hoy should have rejected it. There is no reason why as soon as politics enters a thread in this section of the board we should all lug ourselves off to Politics and Life, it is good to discuss the wider context in which cycling exists and interacts in these threads in my opinion.

And it was gavintc who raised all that stuff about British values and tradition - I was interested in what he was getting at.

The reason I joined this forum and not one of the other countless cycling boards on the web is that it struck me as the kind of place where people do like to have a more in-depth debate about this kind of thing and not just have threads consisting of yes/no answers.

 

[steviesch]

welllll......yes.......and....no!

 

[striker]

My view:
I think the honours system in theory is a good idea
I think in practive however it has been hijacked by New Labour.
In my view, Chris Hoy should NOT have got a Knighthood. and nor for that matter should Steve Redgrave. (even though they are both great sportmen)
Their medals should be enough recognition in my view.

Take a similar example. Sir Ian Botham. A great sportsman, but also a great servant of the country who raised awareness and funds for Leukemia in this country at a time when funding was very poor. His knighthood (long after he had retired) was as much for that charity work as for his sporting record.

The honours system should be based on service to the country/community and not just rewarding the current crop of sportsmen for doing their job in order to try and give a supposed 'feel good' factor to us all

 

[rich p]

Succinctly put if I might say so, Striker

 

[Dave5N]

My view:
I think the honours system in theory is a good idea
I think in practive however it has been hijacked by New Labour.
In my view, Chris Hoy should NOT have got a Knighthood. and nor for that matter should Steve Redgrave. (even though they are both great sportmen)
Their medals should be enough recognition in my view.

Take a similar example. Sir Ian Botham. A great sportsman, but also a great servant of the country who raised awareness and funds for Leukemia in this country at a time when funding was very poor. His knighthood (long after he had retired) was as much for that charity work as for his sporting record.

The honours system should be based on service to the country/community and not just rewarding the current crop of sportsmen for doing their job in order to try and give a supposed 'feel good' factor to us all

Can you actually remember the last Tory Government and their corrupt cavalier approach to awarding honours?

 

[fenman]

Can't believe Hoy has received a knighthood. Yes it was great he won 3 golds but a knighthood....come on now.

Maybe in 20 years time if he gives a lot back into his sport and uses his name to benefit others but not at the moment. Surely much more deserving people.

Sir Chris Hoy has set up a scholarship scheme that will provide two young Scottish riders a year with support, mentoring, product sponsorship and funded attendance at the UCI Sprint School in Aigle, Switzerland.
www.chishoyscholarship.com. Give it a try!! Will watch for your results