Tuesday's workout was our first legitimate "speed" workout of the season, as in, it was the first time we've had to run under 4:50 pace for any period of time: 8 x 1000m at 2:57-2:59 with equal rest. It was a pretty miserable day on the I.M. fields, with the mud slowing us down a bit (but no falls, surprisingly). Once again confirmed that John McGowan is one of the biggest half-steppers around. He wouldn't let me lead a rep even when he asked me to. Still, a solid workout all around for the whole team. I got excited on number 6 and threw in a 2:53, but finished it up with 2:57s. Full workout details here.
Will be heading up to Boston tomorrow to cheer on our guys running at the New England Championships at Franklin Park. I'm predicting big things from Ryan Laemel, who missed Paul Short because of a calf injury but seems to be back in great form. We'll also see the debut of Julian Sheinbaum, who was inflicted this past Summer with a combination of injuries and working too hard at an I-Banking internship (Freshmen, take note...) but has been running well in workouts as of late and has quite a bit of natural talent, which reminds me of a discussion last night with JVD about the definition of sport and the comparative value of talent versus work ethic. I love this analysis by Harsha Bogle on what he calls "talent versus attitude."
Is it pleasing to witness amazing displays of pure talent and skill? Sure, but it's not the stuff worthy of legend unless you back it up with equally impressive displays of commitment, will-power, and even failure. Who deserves more respect? The star QB of the Irish in 1975 (does anyone even remember his name?) or Rudy Ruettiger?
Who would you rather emulate? Alberto Contador? Or Enrico Toti, the one-legged Italian cycling legend who, when war broke out, died at the front lines throwing his crutch at the enemy.
The world's "greatest athletes" aren't going to be found on a basketball court, a football field, or soccer pitch. In fact, they probably aren't even on the international stage at all. They've got an attitude that won't let them be defined by comparative statistics, a corporate sponsor, or fame. Some have natural talent, but some don't. But most importantly, they all play their sport the same way they live their life -- that is, with respect for the rules and allegiance to their work ethic 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. How Tiger Woods or John Terry act on their own time doesn't change the number of victories next to their name in the record books, but they're far away from the athletic caliber (yes, I do mean athletic caliber) of a Ruettiger, Toti, or Zamperini. The "greatest athletes" are sure to keep their title forever.
 |
| Louis Zamperini, of the biography Unbroken |
You've become delusional. An athlete is, "a person who is proficient in sports and other forms of physical exercise". So the world's "greatest athletes" must be those who are the most proficient in sports and other forms of physical exercise. Rudy may be a more admirable athlete than Tiger or John Terry, but greater? Great is just an extent of something. A great athlete is a great athlete. it doesn't matter whether he's sleeping with his best friends wife or not, he is a great athlete. he is a terrible person of course, but he's still a great athlete and his athleticism must be measured within the framework of athleticism alone. I've lost all respect for Tiger woods as a person but as an athlete? absolutely not. You have fallen in to the trap of conflating the two. I also don't understand, even by your obscure measurement of the worlds greatest athletes, why he or she can't be found on a basketball court or soccer pitch? can these athletes not "play their sport the same way they live their lives"?
ReplyDeleteCome on now, Johnny... the Oxford Dictionary can't solve anything for us. Try looking up "truth," "justice," or "free-will" and see if you get an adequate answer. But for the sake of argument, let's provisionally accept that definition. You say an athlete is "a person who is proficient in sports and other forms of physical exercise." I don't disagree. Now, proficiency in any field must be acquired through either training and work, or by the grace of a natural ability. In most cases, proficiency is a combination of both training and natural ability. Now natural ability is something that cannot be earned or altered, but is given to some individuals and not others in varying degrees, as it is accorded by chance. Would you not agree? And as such, we cannot say that any individual is deserving of praise if this is the sole cause of his proficiency, since he has no choice in the matter at all -- to do so would be akin to praising the fortune of an individual who has inherited his wealth and has done nothing to earn it. And though we do praise the beauty of individuals who are born with pleasing features, this praise is conferred on an image alone, and not the person.
ReplyDeleteNow here is where we are likely to differ. If you look up the word "great" in the dictionary (I'll go with Oxford for your sake), it is defined as "of an extent, amount, or intensity considerably above the normal or average." Like you said, "great is just an extent of something." But I say that a far better definition of "great" in our context is "that which is deserving of praise." Therefore, I say that the "greatest" is "that which is MOST deserving of praise."
To recap the earlier train of thought then, an athlete is "a person who is proficient in sports and other forms of physical exercise." An individual's proficiency must be made up of either natural ability or training, and in most cases it is a combination of both. But since natural ability is given at random and is not deserving of praise, it cannot be considered in our determination of greatness. That leaves only the proficiency which an athlete has acquired through training and work, which I contend is the only true measurement of any athlete's greatness. That it may seem "obscure" and different from the common opinion is not evidence of its validity either way.
That's a solid workout.
ReplyDelete