• Announcements

    • Zapata

      Abbreviated rules   07/28/2017

      Underdawg did an excellent job of explaining the rules.  Here's the simplified version: Don't insinuate Pedo.  Warning and or timeout for a first offense.  PermaFlick for any subsequent offenses Don't out members.  See above for penalties.  Caveat:  if you have ever used your own real name or personal information here on the forums since, like, ever - it doesn't count and you are fair game. If you see spam posts, report it to the mods.  We do not hang out in every thread 24/7 If you see any of the above, report it to the mods by hitting the Report button in the offending post.   We do not take action for foul language, off-subject content, or abusive behavior unless it escalates to persistent stalking.  There may be times that we might warn someone or flick someone for something particularly egregious.  There is no standard, we will know it when we see it.  If you continually report things that do not fall into rules #1 or 2 above, you may very well get a timeout yourself for annoying the Mods with repeated whining.  Use your best judgement. Warnings, timeouts, suspensions and flicks are arbitrary and capricious.  Deal with it.  Welcome to anarchy.   If you are a newbie, there are unwritten rules to adhere to.  They will be explained to you soon enough.  
scassani

Seeing Ourselves Competing

24 posts in this topic

The problem I mean this post to address sits motionless in the background of most discussions that take as their subject an activity that exists in law.  The problem has to do with how we read the legal document that gives conveyance of the America’s Cup a place among other like trusts.  If we read the Deed of Gift, anticipating the things we say about what we read being tested for legal sufficiency, our discussion of country and the Deed of Gift will begin, and likely, end, with two valid observations:  Schuyler says nothing of the makeup of a crew and the history of Cup competition shows yacht clubs exploiting this vacuum.  We watch yacht clubs advantage themselves on the water by crewing their nation’s boat from the world’s best sailors.

 

The advantage on the water comes too late to save the feature Schuyler attributes to every Cup competition.  Schuyler makes the feature visible in the sentence he writes that we might distinguish from any other regatta a competition he means us to perpetuate:

 

"This Cup is donated upon the condition that it shall be preserved as a perpetual challenge Cup for friendly competition between foreign countries."

 

Writing the sentence where Schuyler does in the Deed shows him introducing to us a competition we would not have known from watching the many regattas yacht clubs hold year after year.  Watching annual regattas we have no reason to ask the nationalities of the men we see sail the boat that carries a club’s burgee.  But let there be something in it for us and what passes for legal sufficiency gives way to a demand that the sailors be our club mates.  If a match is to test the mettle of the Golden Gate Yacht Club then by God our sailors damn well better be members of the Club.  That only makes sense.  Our club cannot glow in victory or shrink humbly in defeat only to discover we counted on any accomplished sailor to show the world what we are made of.

 

Something very like this discovery comes of giving the introductory paragraph a place in our reading of the Deed.  Reading the Deed Schuyler writes for us has us turning to the Deed that we might know exactly what he wants from us.  Schuyler says all that need be said if we are to follow him forever.  By making the sentence the first thing we read that tells of the competition to come of his work, and by structuring this part of the Deed so as to have the sentence stand as a paragraph, Schuyler leaves no possibility of him suggesting that what he writes here calls for further thought on our part if we are to complete his thinking.  We reread the sentence out of its order in the Deed.  The further thought we give to Schuyler’s words has us reread the sentence, looking there for mention of what we read in Schuyler’s statement of the licensing or other legal requirements that connect a yacht club with a country.  We repeat this exercise when we put the introductory sentence in the context of another subject we read elsewhere in the Deed.  The context we create has us make of the sentence Schuyler writes a failed counterpart to the work he succeeds in doing, he demanding that a yacht or vessel be constructed in the country of the competing club.  We go looking for the connections Schuyler makes of club and country and yacht and country in the sentence he writes for us to read before he says anything of clubs and yachts.  Discovering Schuyler tells us a friendly competition between foreign countries leaves a place for pitting sailors from the same country against each other amounts to discovering we fail to discern an implausibility in our restatement of what Schuyler writes entire and unto itself.

 

The sole means to discovering a thing we say to each other is implausible so long as we persist in saying it is to broaden the conversation.  Hear yourself in what others say on the subject.  Sailors and aficionados of the America’s Cup treat the absence of any mention of sailors in the Deed as reason enough to say makeup of the crews is no part of a competition between foreign countries.  Their casual demeanor when they tell us what they know betrays a fact we know:  Sailors and aficionados of the America’s Cup believe what they tell us is unexceptional.  They believe what they say fits with how we think country goes in the phrase “… friendly competition between foreign countries.”  Broadening the conversation to include us allows for pointing out the phrase takes in much more than the word country.  Bringing in competition and taking the time to characterize the sort of competition he means to perpetuate show Schuyler working as well as language allows to say what he wants to accomplish forever.  That outcome takes in all of what Schuyler writes.  It’s the competition part that gives the lie to thinking a licensed yacht club and sailors from anywhere combine on the water in such a way that a club takes possession of a cup.  Taking possession of the America’s Cup calls for a competition that finds us cheering our own as they cross the finish line.  We and they are one in a victory for our country’s entrant in the America’s Cup.

 

“The America’s Cup is America’s again!” and then we discover at most one in the crew is American.  Or none are.  No matter.  Do we want to say of this attitude it only makes sense?  What does it make sense of?  Certainly not winning and losing a competition between foreign countries.  We know how that goes.  There’s something in it for us.  Nothing of what sailors and aficionados of the America’s Cup put in place of what we know has us closer to the subject.  Indeed the near centuries old discussion that has been the purview of sailors and aficionados of the America’s Cup shows them losing sight of the competition altogether.  They leave nothing in it for us.  The purpose of this post is to leave you comfortable saying we know what we are talking about when we speak for ourselves on winning and losing a friendly competition between our country and that of another.  We have no idea what sailors and aficionados of the America’s Cup mean to perpetuate when they tell us to watch the world’s best sailors compete in our stead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think a lot of the conditions set out in the deed are over ruled by the protocol that is developed by the challenger and the defender.  If they agree that the nationality of the sailors is important so be it .. if they don't think nationality is important that becomes the convention.

The deed does not specify the design of the boats either but the challenger and the defender are usually able to come to an agreement about the design concept.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmmm, I'm not sure whether I understood what scassani wants to say, and I must admit I'm too lazy to read all of this a third time. Nevertheless I assume that GLS did not object having foreign sailors on board his AC yacht, so why should we? It may be that he wanted to have at least the "afterguard" being club members, but how can we know? If he wanted it, he could have written it into the DoG.

I think that "friendly competition between foreign countries" is more an introduction into the nature of the competition vs. the war-mongering that was a usual political strategy at that time*. Kind of "instead of killing each other, how about a friendly competition for a change?".

*Unfortunately not limited to the days of yore...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We have to look at things as they were when he wrote, and re-wrote, the deed. Many of the yacht racing establishment were not the crew and hands running the boat. They were the captain/owner who paid for it and maybe one or two of their chosen friends or other members of an afterguard that gave the orders and then the crew were hired hands much like a merchant ship. Like America, Stevens and associates had Dick Brown drive the boat. He also had the designer and his nephew aboard as part of the crew, so it could be a mix depending on who was available and willing to crew.

Travel between continents was something only the rich, merchant crews, or poor who saved and were immigrating typically, were engaged in. You would not have an owner sending out RFI's for foreign crew to man the boats. The Scandinavians and others I would guess were working the US shores and so were available to hire for crew. With the modern advent of air travel movement around the world is a totally different animal than what it was in the late 19th century.

You also have to look at this document for the pride that is shown in how they won the Cup and now choose to let any of you who want to challenge us to try and win it from us. The telling thing of how the deed is to be administered is how the NYYC handled it for 132 years.(outside of the shenanigans) They drew from their members and the best yacht designers in the area to defend the Cup with. They built the boats in the local NY area yards. And later, when the 12's were used, they crewed them with many of their kids who were out for the season from college, bringing-in the top notch elder club members to run the boat in the afterguard. To helm the boat for the NYYC you had to be a member, Turner, Hood, Conner, etc. were all NYYC members before they helmed the defending boat. DC may not have been a member when they recruited him to start Courageous in '74, since he was a late addition to the crew.

The courts have held to the '4-Corners' of the deed when making their rulings but I am not sure how they would look at things such as crew nationality, etc., and any protocol adjustments for CiC, etc. Until it is tested we do not know. But we do know what 'having' means...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Richard Gladwell tells us the phrase “… friendly competition among foreign countries” implies the competitors are of the nation whose flag flies from the boat they sail.  I took several paragraphs in this thread to show Gladwell has the logic wrong.  Having looked at the phrase, Gladwell concludes the connection of competition with country and both with crew is described by saying implies.  Gladwell stops short of telling us how the phrase means.  Implies is a verb.  It is too faint in its entailment to carry the weight of winning and losing a competition among countries.  A supervisor puzzles over filling a new position.  He asks my opinion of a fellow employee’s work.  I reply using faint praise.  My answer implies I have a low opinion of the employee’s suitability for advancement.  Answering as I do entails I lack a spine.  I do not want the supervisor to know I believe he exaggerates the employee’s ability to contribute.  Otherwise I would straightforwardly tell our supervisor what I think of the employee’s, and his, work.  So, which is it?  Does the sentence Schuyler writes to introduce to us a competition he would have us continue in perpetuity imply or entail sailors’ nationality and that of the country their entry represents are the same?

 

Winning and losing give us the end to a competition among foreign countries.  A country’s sailors win; another country’s sailors lose.  That is definitive of the outcome of a competition among foreign countries, writ plain and simple.  Writing it so leaves nothing to chance.  The answer I give the supervisor is, by contrast, indirect and, perhaps, devious.  Asked an employee’s qualification I answer in my own interest.  There is nothing plain and simple about my reply to the supervisor.  There is everything plain and simple to me, here and now, describing my reply as being in my own interest.  That description, too, leaves nothing to chance.  We should ask of “… friendly competition among foreign countries,” does the phrase leave to chance sailors of the same country concluding a competition Schuyler tells us pits one country against another?  I do not deny a century and a half of sailors and aficionados of the America’s Cup reading the phrase in exactly this way.  Such a reading leaves to chance the Cup passing as Schuyler means to perpetuate and the sailors whose skills decide the match being from anywhere.  That describes the history of Cup competition.  Schuyler had a hand in making history.  So why did Schuyler not complain?  Why did he not step forward and say to the skipper of a crew of hired sailors, “This is not the competition you are meant to perpetuate.”  The answer is Schuyler never asked of what he wrote, as have Gladwell and I, that the competition he would perpetuate honor how the phrase “… competition among foreign countries” works.  Gladwell succeeds in asking us to question what we do in the name America’s Cup.  Citing implies though has him leave the door open to sailors from anywhere resolving a competition without he or us noticing such a competition could not be among foreign countries.  Citing entails would give Gladwell the correct description of the logic to what Schuyler and anyone else using the phrase competition among foreign countries is stuck with.

 

Schuyler writes, “… competition among foreign countries.”  He leaves off winning and losing such a competition.  This is not an oversight by Schuyler.  Winning and losing are the end to most competitions.  Being the end they are part of it.  Schuyler has no need to write what we know from a correct use of competition, namely whom to cheer and where to look that our country might do better next time.  We look inward and it is just this soul-searching that has been missing from the America’s Cup for a very long time.

 

No doubt Schuyler, writing the phrase, thought together the competitions he’d watched and the competition he sought to perpetuate.  And, as today, no one in his company thinks to ask of what he wrote, does it have meaning independently of what we do when wealthy men look anywhere for sailors to man what they and we call a friendly competition among foreign countries?  Wealthy men spend money as they will.  We agree to talk in service to what wealthy men do.  Indeed, agreeing to say a competition among foreign nations is resolved by pitting sailors from anywhere against each other is the trophy Schuyler perpetuates without he resorting to trust law.  It’s a matter of habit.  This one has us repeat the devious turn wealthy men, and I count Schuyler among them, give to competition and country.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, scassani said:

Richard Gladwell tells us the phrase “… friendly competition among foreign countries” implies the competitors are of the nation whose flag flies from the boat they sail.  I took several paragraphs in this thread to show Gladwell has the logic wrong.  Having looked at the phrase, Gladwell concludes the connection of competition with country and both with crew is described by saying implies.  Gladwell stops short of telling us how the phrase means.  Implies is a verb.  It is too faint in its entailment to carry the weight of winning and losing a competition among countries.  A supervisor puzzles over filling a new position.  He asks my opinion of a fellow employee’s work.  I reply using faint praise.  My answer implies I have a low opinion of the employee’s suitability for advancement.  Answering as I do entails I lack a spine.  I do not want the supervisor to know I believe he exaggerates the employee’s ability to contribute.  Otherwise I would straightforwardly tell our supervisor what I think of the employee’s, and his, work.  So, which is it?  Does the sentence Schuyler writes to introduce to us a competition he would have us continue in perpetuity imply or entail sailors’ nationality and that of the country their entry represents are the same?

 

Winning and losing give us the end to a competition among foreign countries.  A country’s sailors win; another country’s sailors lose.  That is definitive of the outcome of a competition among foreign countries, writ plain and simple.  Writing it so leaves nothing to chance.  The answer I give the supervisor is, by contrast, indirect and, perhaps, devious.  Asked an employee’s qualification I answer in my own interest.  There is nothing plain and simple about my reply to the supervisor.  There is everything plain and simple to me, here and now, describing my reply as being in my own interest.  That description, too, leaves nothing to chance.  We should ask of “… friendly competition among foreign countries,” does the phrase leave to chance sailors of the same country concluding a competition Schuyler tells us pits one country against another?  I do not deny a century and a half of sailors and aficionados of the America’s Cup reading the phrase in exactly this way.  Such a reading leaves to chance the Cup passing as Schuyler means to perpetuate and the sailors whose skills decide the match being from anywhere.  That describes the history of Cup competition.  Schuyler had a hand in making history.  So why did Schuyler not complain?  Why did he not step forward and say to the skipper of a crew of hired sailors, “This is not the competition you are meant to perpetuate.”  The answer is Schuyler never asked of what he wrote, as have Gladwell and I, that the competition he would perpetuate honor how the phrase “… competition among foreign countries” works.  Gladwell succeeds in asking us to question what we do in the name America’s Cup.  Citing implies though has him leave the door open to sailors from anywhere resolving a competition without he or us noticing such a competition could not be among foreign countries.  Citing entails would give Gladwell the correct description of the logic to what Schuyler and anyone else using the phrase competition among foreign countries is stuck with.

 

Schuyler writes, “… competition among foreign countries.”  He leaves off winning and losing such a competition.  This is not an oversight by Schuyler.  Winning and losing are the end to most competitions.  Being the end they are part of it.  Schuyler has no need to write what we know from a correct use of competition, namely whom to cheer and where to look that our country might do better next time.  We look inward and it is just this soul-searching that has been missing from the America’s Cup for a very long time.

 

No doubt Schuyler, writing the phrase, thought together the competitions he’d watched and the competition he sought to perpetuate.  And, as today, no one in his company thinks to ask of what he wrote, does it have meaning independently of what we do when wealthy men look anywhere for sailors to man what they and we call a friendly competition among foreign countries?  Wealthy men spend money as they will.  We agree to talk in service to what wealthy men do.  Indeed, agreeing to say a competition among foreign nations is resolved by pitting sailors from anywhere against each other is the trophy Schuyler perpetuates without he resorting to trust law.  It’s a matter of habit.  This one has us repeat the devious turn wealthy men, and I count Schuyler among them, give to competition and country.

 

What Schuyler "meant" is not relevant to a contest where the rules are agreed between the challenger and the defender and only has effect if the challenger and defender cannot come to an agreement; this would seem to render your argument moot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Moonduster said:

Yours is a pedantic, overwrought attempt to deduce much from nothing and it fails. The argument is far, far simpler.

The text of the Deed says, in part, "among foreign countries", it does not say "between foreign countries".

From the Oxford Dictionary -

Between is properly used of two, and among of more; but perhaps this accuracy is not always preserved.

From the Cambridge Dictionary -

We use between to refer to two things which are clearly separated. We use among to talk about things which are not clearly separated because they are part of a group or crowd or mass of objects

Had the choice of words been "between", there would be some perilously thin argument for a so-called Nationality Clause. As the chosen word was "among", there is no such argument to be made.

We can conclude that while the match is clearly between two clubs and two yachts, the Deed makes reference to a group of nations. And as "among" cannot be a reference to the clubs, it must therefore be a reference to the individuals who are involved in the design, construction and sailing. 

What is this ^ about?
The Deed says indeed "between" and not "among", bold mine:

"This Cup is donated upon the conditions that it shall be preserved as a perpetual Challenge Cup for friendly competition between foreign countries."

A simple text search reveals that there is not one "among" in the whole of the Deed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ouch, I looked only at Galdwell's (mis)quoted text, which says "among". I just referenced the original text and you are completely correct - the wording there is "between". 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gladwell's suggestion is one 'take' on what that expression might mean, but no one with any AC knowledge would ever suggest it is an enforceable one.

It is one (and probably the most direct) way of establishing a recognisable 'national' component in the AC today.

And there is certainly AC precedent for it to be included in an agreement between the Defender and the Challenger.

 

As to GS and his intentions, what is left of his time and concept of 'between Nations'?

In those days you couldn't cross the Atlantic in hours, change Nationality almost at will, buy a Yacht Club of convenience and bend it to your ends - invent a Yacht Club from thin air even, conveniently use a designer in a foreign country, have multiple designers collaborate on a design, have the international rules body rewrite the rules of sailing to your desire, find others willing to help fund 'your' AC campaign from anywhere on the globe, use materials sourced and transported from anywhere, have the boat/s (or it's components) built anywhere etc etc. The days of horse and buggy and steam are over - and that at least has to be acknowledged when parsing the past into the present.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, scassani said:

Richard Gladwell tells us the phrase “… friendly competition among foreign countries” implies the competitors are of the nation whose flag flies from the boat they sail.  I took several paragraphs in this thread to show Gladwell has the logic wrong.  Having looked at the phrase, Gladwell concludes the connection of competition with country and both with crew is described by saying implies.  Gladwell stops short of telling us how the phrase means.  Implies is a verb.  It is too faint in its entailment to carry the weight of winning and losing a competition among countries.  A supervisor puzzles over filling a new position.  He asks my opinion of a fellow employee’s work.  I reply using faint praise.  My answer implies I have a low opinion of the employee’s suitability for advancement.  Answering as I do entails I lack a spine.  I do not want the supervisor to know I believe he exaggerates the employee’s ability to contribute.  Otherwise I would straightforwardly tell our supervisor what I think of the employee’s, and his, work.  So, which is it?  Does the sentence Schuyler writes to introduce to us a competition he would have us continue in perpetuity imply or entail sailors’ nationality and that of the country their entry represents are the same?

3

Where do you get this from? The full extract from http://www.sail-world.com/156750 reads:

"There are plenty of other sailing events which cater for multi-national crews and professional sailors of all nationalities. The America's Cup is a “friendly competition between foreign countries” and by implication the crews should be nationals of those countries."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Moonduster said:

Ouch, I looked only at Galdwell's (mis)quoted text, which says "among". I just referenced the original text and you are completely correct - the wording there is "between". 

 

It was not even you, looks like scassani misinterpreted "between" for "among". I assume he/she is no native speaker, so s#it happens.
Me: Someone is wrong on the internet? Shock, horror, doom and unmitigated failure... ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

robberzdog is correct.  I misquote Gladwell's comment.  The error is mine and I apologize for the confusion this has encouraged among posters.  I compound my error when I carry it through to my attempts to quote Schuyler.  He too writes of a competition between foreign countries.  I get the relevant sentence correct in the post that begins the thread, likely because I copied from the Deed.  Left to my own hand I screwed up.  But before I am told to step back from the conversation I mean this thread to further I have a question:  Does posters' efforts to bring the conversation on point to what Schuyler actually wrote vitiate an argument I make turn on who wins and who loses a competition?  I am struck by the paradox the practice of hiring sailors from the world market creates when this practice is put in service to a competition between foreign countries.  Surely even the most dogged reader will grant that there is something odd to P.J. Montgomery, at the end of AC33, announcing, "The America's Cup is America's again!"  The clash is created by hearing Montgomery exclaim and knowing that at most one member of the crew of AC33 is an American.   I cannot remind myself of Montgomery's remark, shrug my shoulders and think So what?  What should be obvious-a country wins a competition - is put in need of explanation- at most one of the sailors is American.  I suspect the managers of AC33 cringed at what was an innocent but blatant exaggeration of what just happened.  Montgomery's shout comes within a whisker of being false.  A crew of Kiwis and an Australian did what Larry Ellison hired them to do - return the Cup for safekeeping by a yacht club whose legal status meets the requirement Schuyler prescribes in the Deed.  Sure enough, the Cup changed hands.  But was Montgomery right to proclaim a win for America?  Shall we, knowing who brought the boat to the finish line, repeat his shout?

On reading the replies on this thread I have to acknowledge posters are not given to taking issue with a practice the sailing community accepts as part of how a Cup competition goes.  This acceptance predates by many years the ease of transportation and communication that is said to have dissolved the boundaries of country, or at least made designing a competition around them impractical.  At it's inception the Cup competition Schuyler watched looked pretty much as do those of today and back then practicality was not the excuse posters make of it today.  Schuyler wrote to perpetuate the competitions he'd watched and to this end he introduced to us "... a friendly competition between foreign countries."   Sailors were hired from wherever the requisite skills were nurtured.  And so it goes.  Perhaps the most I should hope for is to prompt sailors and others of us attracted to Cup competitions to consider a competition that honors its country all the way to the water and, in this way, earns the accolade Montgomery offered too easily at the conclusion to AC33.     

       

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the Deed of Gift Individual words have had a very significant meaning in the America's Cup when taken to Court (NYSC) for interpretation, such as the meaning of "having" in the 2007-2010 case and the meaning of "match" in the 1987-88 case.

There are direct meanings in the Deed of Gift which the Courts interpret as being "within the four corners of the Deed" (such as the two mentioned), then there are meanings in which the Court has to interpret the intent of the donors - no arguments have been sustained on the basis of intent.

However there are several that could be - the requirement to sail the Cup regatta on the waters of the Defending Club. Whether you can defend on a lake or lagoon when as a challenger your club must have "its annual regatta an ocean water course on the sea, or on an arm of the sea, or one which combines both." And further "all such races shall be sailed on ocean courses, free from headlands" (while this comes from the part of the Deed which talks about Mutual Consent provisions) - again you could argue the intent of the donor was not to have a course dotted with islands and reefs such as was the case in the Great Sound in Bermuda.

Then there is what "constructed in the country" practically could have been intended to mean by the donors given the subsequent rise of global manufacturing.

There is nothing within the four corners of the Deed which says how the crews of the competing boat must be compromised. In the early matches they came from anywhere, then in the latter days of the NYYC's tenure the crew and designers had to come from the country of origin of the challenger/defender club. Plus the entire boat had to be constructed in the country of origin (an intended test of that country's boat building ability), before being shipped to the Match venue.

Post 2003 that got watered down to we have the situation in 2017 where they only needed one passport holder if the defender/challenger country in the sailing crew.

And now the pendulum looks set to swing another way - all under the same Deed of Gift.

As for your distinction between "between" and "among". The inference from within the Deed of Gift is that "between" provides for a match between two clubs. If it were "among" then there would be a clear inference that there was intended to be a situation with multiple clubs competing (as happens now with the Louis Vuitton Challenger Selection Series). That is not contemplated specifically by the Deed, but it is created in the Protocol (only introduced in 1992) where the Challenger agrees to submit to the outcome of a Challenger Selection Series, and the Defender agrees to meet the winner of that series in the Match.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are a lot of things that have transpired since Schuyler wrote the deed that he could not have imagined. I have always felt like the deed was a document intended to re-create in competition what the America did in winning the Cup. If you take the words of the deed with the story of how the syndicate's boat America won the Cup you would be pretty much right on what Schuyler's intent for the competition would be. That would include bringing someone on board who has local knowledge, say like Bond did in hiring Andy Rose back in '77. But, the gist of the crew were nationals of the club that is the challenger for the Cup except for that time I noted earlier where the typical yacht racing owner hired hands to run the boat, some of which were foreign nationals that worked boats of the day where they would hire from. This practice was used on the Cup boats the same as was done for their typical crew on their own personal yachts.

So, my take is while it may not be specified in the language of the deed the example of how the America won the Cup in 1851 is there to fill-in the gaps. Bastardizing it for money and convenience should not be allowed, no matter how much we have 'progressed'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks robberzdog.

My interest in the subject begins with me noticing discussions of Cup competition take a legal bent when crew composition is added to the mix.  You've taken this turn.  You have the history right so far as the history plays out in the setting of court review.  Your mention of "having" emphasizes how little legal argument overlaps our day-to-day talk of competition, winning an losing, nation and such subjects.  In the name of precision, legal argument takes the nouns and verbs of day-to-day talk and binds them through definition, first through the context of the legal document at issue, then to the intent of the author, possibly divined through the legal issues of the day, and finally to an accepted source of meaning, usually a dictionary all parties to the legal dispute are obliged by law and practice to accept as final.  There is no prior reason to think a discussion of the sentence Schuyler writes to stand in the Deed as does a paragraph, has to take the turn you take us into.  What do we read before nouns and verbs are made the focus of our talk about what we read?  We read the sentence Schuyler wrote.  It's English so there should not be the discussion of what a word means.  Before the discussion is taken in a direction that plays well in court-"having"- we have such talk as asking a new acquaintance where she was born, puzzling with a friend over who might carry America to gold medals now that Phelps has retired, writing a letter to Jackie Stewart where I ask his opinion of the emphasis on commercial success in Formula One, this emphasis having replaced that given to nation some fifty years ago and so on.  These are not legal discussions.  My question to you is: Might a discussion of country, winning and losing a friendly competition between foreign countries and such lead us to notice what the presumption of legal necessity keeps hidden?  Might we learn from watching such a discussion  lead us to discover the sentence Schuyler writes, he giving first mention of the competition he would perpetuate,  does not give us the sort of competitions he'd watched in the years leading up to writing the Deed?  We have perpetuated competitions pitting sailors against each other.  Wealthy businessman did that in Schuyler's day.  To do so on the pretext, and that is what Schuyler's introductory sentence gives us, of deciding a competition between foreign countries, the practice of haring sailors from anywhere to man a country's boat works at cross purpose  to what our day-to-day talk of winning and losing a competition and our talk of foreign countries has us expect we will see when we to go to an AC match.  We go to see America win.  We cheer our country.  We take selfies with the crew.  Does learning none, or perhaps, one of the Crew of our boat is American disappoint?  Has the distinction Schuyler makes among countries, namely that they are foreign to each other, dropped out?  To whom does a country become foreign if not the nationals of another?

The reply I mean to discourage goes like this:  The subject scassani would have us discuss is preempted by legal review or the potential for such review.  If we are to participate in the discussion we have first to assume the technical expertise that supports discourse in the courts.  Few, if any of us, have the needed skills.  For what anyone says to have any consequence the discussion must be before a court.  Absent a court setting what anyone says on the subjects of competition, winning and losing, foreign countries and nationality is so much intellectual fluff.  It's the courts or nothing.   This reply gives us what allows us to continue Cup competitions in the mold of those Schuyler watched a century and a half ago.  The reply does this better than any example I might design to show we know what we are talking about when an accent leads us to ask where you are from, and to understand what we are told answers the question, The turn to legalese really is perpetuity at work.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suggest that you read the many Court documents, Submissions  and Decisions before launching into this sort of commentary. People might not agree with the way the Deed is interpreted and works in a legal sense. However we have to accept that is the way it is and develop our understanding from there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Trust makes it clear that it is to be 'a perpetual challenge Cup for friendly competition between foreign countries.'

Some people (especially commercial-money-motivated interests who are trying to capitalize on nationalistic fervor) intentionally leave out the very critical follow-on definition of what the competition actually is about. The Trust follows with that definition of the competition:

'a match for this Cup with a yacht or vessel propelled by sails only and constructed in the country to which the challenging Club belongs, against any one yacht or vessel constructed in the country of the Club holding the Cup.'

My opinion, based on the clause's position in the Deed, is that even MC can't override it. Nothing written anywhere says anything about the hired hands. Nationality in the Trust is all about what country the boats are constructed in and nothing else; and no court anywhere would ever agree beyond those 4 corners.

More complicated in the modern world than 'having' is the meaning of the 'constructed' term. Again in my opinion, a reasonably good meeting of that term would include launching in the country of the Club, prior to it going elsewhere to try match and beat the Defender.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IMO, a competition between countries at this time implied different national sailors, designers, boats. The only reason the Deed specifies the constructed in country is because many boats at this time were used by other countries and sometimes renamed.

I would like a NYSC interpretation though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Tornado-Cat said:

IMO, a competition between countries at this time implied different national sailors, designers, boats. The only reason the Deed specifies the constructed in country is because many boats at this time were used by other countries and sometimes renamed.

I would like a NYSC interpretation though.

My interpretation is that American yachting interests wanted to prove their superiority over their British counterparts. The inclusion of the "constructed in country" clause was to support that objective. Nationality of the sailors, or indeed owners, was irrelevant and should remain so, IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/11/2017 at 6:01 AM, scassani said:

The problem I mean this post to address sits motionless in the background of most discussions that take as their subject an activity that exists in law.  The problem has to do with how we read the legal document that gives conveyance of the America’s Cup a place among other like trusts.  If we read the Deed of Gift, anticipating the things we say about what we read being tested for legal sufficiency, our discussion of country and the Deed of Gift will begin, and likely, end, with two valid observations:  Schuyler says nothing of the makeup of a crew and the history of Cup competition shows yacht clubs exploiting this vacuum.  We watch yacht clubs advantage themselves on the water by crewing their nation’s boat from the world’s best sailors.

 

The advantage on the water comes too late to save the feature Schuyler attributes to every Cup competition.  Schuyler makes the feature visible in the sentence he writes that we might distinguish from any other regatta a competition he means us to perpetuate:

 

"This Cup is donated upon the condition that it shall be preserved as a perpetual challenge Cup for friendly competition between foreign countries."

 

Writing the sentence where Schuyler does in the Deed shows him introducing to us a competition we would not have known from watching the many regattas yacht clubs hold year after year.  Watching annual regattas we have no reason to ask the nationalities of the men we see sail the boat that carries a club’s burgee.  But let there be something in it for us and what passes for legal sufficiency gives way to a demand that the sailors be our club mates.  If a match is to test the mettle of the Golden Gate Yacht Club then by God our sailors damn well better be members of the Club.  That only makes sense.  Our club cannot glow in victory or shrink humbly in defeat only to discover we counted on any accomplished sailor to show the world what we are made of.

 

Something very like this discovery comes of giving the introductory paragraph a place in our reading of the Deed.  Reading the Deed Schuyler writes for us has us turning to the Deed that we might know exactly what he wants from us.  Schuyler says all that need be said if we are to follow him forever.  By making the sentence the first thing we read that tells of the competition to come of his work, and by structuring this part of the Deed so as to have the sentence stand as a paragraph, Schuyler leaves no possibility of him suggesting that what he writes here calls for further thought on our part if we are to complete his thinking.  We reread the sentence out of its order in the Deed.  The further thought we give to Schuyler’s words has us reread the sentence, looking there for mention of what we read in Schuyler’s statement of the licensing or other legal requirements that connect a yacht club with a country.  We repeat this exercise when we put the introductory sentence in the context of another subject we read elsewhere in the Deed.  The context we create has us make of the sentence Schuyler writes a failed counterpart to the work he succeeds in doing, he demanding that a yacht or vessel be constructed in the country of the competing club.  We go looking for the connections Schuyler makes of club and country and yacht and country in the sentence he writes for us to read before he says anything of clubs and yachts.  Discovering Schuyler tells us a friendly competition between foreign countries leaves a place for pitting sailors from the same country against each other amounts to discovering we fail to discern an implausibility in our restatement of what Schuyler writes entire and unto itself.

 

The sole means to discovering a thing we say to each other is implausible so long as we persist in saying it is to broaden the conversation.  Hear yourself in what others say on the subject.  Sailors and aficionados of the America’s Cup treat the absence of any mention of sailors in the Deed as reason enough to say makeup of the crews is no part of a competition between foreign countries.  Their casual demeanor when they tell us what they know betrays a fact we know:  Sailors and aficionados of the America’s Cup believe what they tell us is unexceptional.  They believe what they say fits with how we think country goes in the phrase “… friendly competition between foreign countries.”  Broadening the conversation to include us allows for pointing out the phrase takes in much more than the word country.  Bringing in competition and taking the time to characterize the sort of competition he means to perpetuate show Schuyler working as well as language allows to say what he wants to accomplish forever.  That outcome takes in all of what Schuyler writes.  It’s the competition part that gives the lie to thinking a licensed yacht club and sailors from anywhere combine on the water in such a way that a club takes possession of a cup.  Taking possession of the America’s Cup calls for a competition that finds us cheering our own as they cross the finish line.  We and they are one in a victory for our country’s entrant in the America’s Cup.

 

“The America’s Cup is America’s again!” and then we discover at most one in the crew is American.  Or none are.  No matter.  Do we want to say of this attitude it only makes sense?  What does it make sense of?  Certainly not winning and losing a competition between foreign countries.  We know how that goes.  There’s something in it for us.  Nothing of what sailors and aficionados of the America’s Cup put in place of what we know has us closer to the subject.  Indeed the near centuries old discussion that has been the purview of sailors and aficionados of the America’s Cup shows them losing sight of the competition altogether.  They leave nothing in it for us.  The purpose of this post is to leave you comfortable saying we know what we are talking about when we speak for ourselves on winning and losing a friendly competition between our country and that of another.  We have no idea what sailors and aficionados of the America’s Cup mean to perpetuate when they tell us to watch the world’s best sailors compete in our stead.

great write up scassani - thanks 

GLS did write and comment on the various issues regarding the AC and the DOG - his writings  explain his intent in more detail 

and also shows why he/nyyc changed the DOG 3 TIMES  - I have most of his writings on this subject and I will post them later as time allows 

cheers 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now