Factor X: Competitiveness

[julie_m]

So Josh and I were watching a (fairly lame) show profiling student athletes yesterday. They did a segment on a young skater, and her mom or coach or someone said "she's a true competitor" and how she loves practicing her sport, always tries to improve, etc etc. A few people said that about her, she's "such a competitor."

Then a friend said about her, "even if she doesn't skate well or win anything, she's just happy to be there and performing."

We started talking about it...I always kind of believed that being a fierce competitor and just being happy to show up were two different things, and mutually exclusive. Both approaches have their merits, but can you be on both ends of the spectrum at the same time?

Tiger Woods is a fierce competitor, often (always?) competing against himself more than anyone else. Sure, I'm sure he enjoys playing, but in a tourney he's there to do his best, and seems to come down on himself before anyone else for mistakes. While some would give their eye teeth to take a top ten in a tourney, for Tiger, he seems to always want better.

Other golfers just seem happy to be there, and put on a good show. While winning might be nice, they maybe don't have the competitive drive to constantly critique themselves.

My golf partner curses himself if his ball ends a little left. In comparison, I hit a short drive, and say, "hey, at least it went straight!" (One of us is consistently better than the other, but one of us is more fun to golf with.)

So if you're just happy to be there, see the fans, enjoy the nice weather, whatever, do you really have a chance to win? And not a fluke win, but to be A WINNER, and dominate your sport?

Can you really become a fine golfer if you don't have a competitive drive?

 

[Smallville]

Good point Julie, and something I can't say that I have thought about before. But I'll agreee with you that if you simply enjoy playing, you aren't as competitive as you need to be to be one of the best.

I've said it before, but I think the biggest reason you see the pros out there going through the motions is the size of the purses these days. Pretty easy to get complacent when you make a million dollars for finishing 104th on the money list. Maybe complacent isn't the right term, but they can make a pretty good living getting a few top 10's or top 5's every so often.

 

[JB]

I think you can become a fine player without "killer instinct". But to get to a certain level you have to have it in you somewhere. Elite athletes look at losing as an option like death. Larry Bird and Magic Johnson talk about this endlessly. Tiger Woods says the same thing. Jordan, Kobe, and others have it as well. Others love winning but do get sidetracked. It is in your makeup in my mind and not something that can be taught.

It really depends how serious you are about your passion. Whatever it is.

 

[soxngolf]

This is an interesting thought. I think it depends on how you take, "happy to be out there." I think if you are thinking of it as if they don't care how good they play, that they are just there to have fun and not really worry about their score then your thought is correct. You can't be the best if you don't care how you score.
BUT, I think you can also take it as these players LOVE what they do. Yes, they work hard to be the best, they devote endless hours to being the best, they don't accept anything but winning, yet when it comes down to it, the thing that drives them is their basic love for the game. "Loving being out there" is what allows them to work 12 hours a day to be the best.

 

[provisional]

Any sport or competitive event will have player who will drive themselves (and team mates) to be the best, to win championships. The more popular sports will have more of these "driven" players, than the less popular sports. The less popular sports, and competitive events will have too many players who are just happy to be there. Golf is no different. IMHO it is the money available, and endorsements that has created players who can live quite well just by being there. A win every so often is a good thing, but just making the cut is just as good for some, due to having a decent payday. Golf would be more popular week in, and week out, if there were more "Tigers" playing. More competitiveness breeds more players with whom the fans can identify with. I know the argument is there that Tiger is just so much better, and the other players are really playing their best, but I don't buy into it, since you don't see the same group of players finishing second to him on a consistent basis. Another problem in golf is that the better players can pick, (money again) and choose when, and where they want to play. The better players, except for majors, don't play in the same tournaments enough to my liking. That's the biggest reason I don't watch much golf on TV. I use to back in the 60s, 70s, and 80s, but the game's competitive value has changed since then. Now, I will buy tickets whenever needed to go to tournaments, regardless of the field, and watch it in person. But, even then, for the most part I am watching for good "golf" shots, and not one individual player. Well, maybe I will follow Furyk's group for a few holes each day. Fortunately we have three tours who have tournaments in Vegas.