A special guest commentary ...
The Whiffler has invited me to contribute a guest commentary, and I'm honored to do so. I exchange periodic emails with Mr. Whiffler, and the prompting for this post came from a rhetorical question I asked in one particular email – something to the effect of: "Can't you be a nice guy and be a great athlete?"
The Whiffler has invited me to contribute a guest commentary, and I'm honored to do so. I exchange periodic emails with Mr. Whiffler, and the prompting for this post came from a rhetorical question I asked in one particular email – something to the effect of: "Can't you be a nice guy and be a great athlete?"
Actually those were my exact words, voiced in frustration after the recent Masters. I'm not so happy with Tiger and his behavior, both on and off the course, and I know I'm not the only one. I find myself rooting for Phil to become great, despite his track record as what I might consider a lovable loser. Three Masters victories isn't exactly a losing record, but it seems like he has come close many more times than he has won. So back to the question – can you be a nice guy and be a great athlete? Two of the greatest athletes in our generation, Michael Jordan and Tiger, would seem to have personalities dominated more by drive, competitiveness, and ego, rather than empathy or compassion. But then there's Phil, who I'm sure has his faults, but seems to be more capable of being a nice guy on his way to winning than others.
Part of this question comes from my own experience as well. In my competitive sports history, I have encountered all sorts of personalities, and more than a few whose drive to win apparently came packaged with blinders to the feelings and needs of those around them. I would like to think that an athlete who was at peace with himself or herself, grounded, humble, and morally mature would have the advantage over the self-centered, immature, yet incredibly competitive one. But do they? Or is it really all on an individual basis, and generalizations are pointless and unfair?
I really don't know the answer, and would be curious what the Whiffler and others think about both their personal experience and observations specifically regarding golfers. Until someone proves otherwise, I'm going to go on rooting for the nice guy. It may be my ego, but I can relate more to the nice guy than the win-at-all-costs type. And who knows, maybe someday, I'll be rooting for the new and improved Tiger! Until then, here's to becoming one of the greatest golfers ever, Phil.
Thanks for the chance to contribute, Mr. Whiffler, and I look forward to reading your posts for a long time to come.
Rob Twardock, Grayslake, IL
Thanks for the chance to contribute, Mr. Whiffler, and I look forward to reading your posts for a long time to come.
Rob Twardock, Grayslake, IL
Rob Twardock, aka "the Glacier," is a gentleman, scholar, good friend, loving husband, devoted father, talented musician, and all-around great guy. He is also one of the four surviving original members of "The Mojo Daddies." He regularly loses to the Whiffler at golf, but not usually by very much.
Can you be a nice guy and be a great athlete? The answer is yes but it depends on what you consider a nice guy. If your definition of a nice guy is based on the following comment, “Two of the greatest athletes in our generation, Michael Jordan and Tiger, would seem to have personalities dominated more by drive, competitiveness, and ego, rather than empathy or compassion”, the answer is no.
ReplyDeleteTo make it to the top of anything (athlete, career, hobby, music, etc.) you need passion and desire. I don’t believe talent alone will get you to the top. To become a top ATHLETE you need to have a personality that IS dominated by a competitive drive to be the best – which in sports means winning. I once heard Greg Norman say the reason he was the best is that he worked harder than anyone else. He not only had talent but also a tremendous desire and drive to be the best. Even the “nice guys” at the top of their games in sports have personalities dominated by drive and competitiveness – but you CAN be a nice guy and still have a personality dominated by a drive to win. It’s the ego part that probably separates the nice guys from “not so nice” guys. I use to think nice guys had a respect for their sport or the history of their sport – but Jordan and Tiger sure do so I guess that one is out.
I also think you can have empathy and compassion but not to the point where your personality is dominated by it or to the point that you’ll let the other guy/team win. Most top athletes are gracious winners and will acknowledge the player/team they beat so they do have empathy but not dominated by it. I would consider Rob and Zim [the Whiffler] to be competitive, driven, compassionate, AND nice guys but I don’t ever remember either of them letting someone win (and I’m not counting letting your kids win). Are you bad guys because your desire and drive to win is greater than your empathy or compassion to let [name withheld] win occasionally? I don’t think so.
I don’t know what the best definition of “nice guy” is. Is it charisma?. Arnold Palmer has charisma and people think he’s a “nice guy”; Is it athletes who are extraverts? Does anyone consider David Duval a nice guy because he doesn’t like to talk?; People who smile a lot? (Magic Johnson); People who help others in the off season?; Family men vs. single men?; Gracious losers?; Or does it simply come down to someone who is genuine, has manners, and is respectful of people around them.
What ISN’T a “nice guy”: Someone who is not respectful of those around them; someone who is selfish; someone who wins at all costs.
I think both “nice guys” and “not so nice guys” can have drive, competitiveness, empathy, and compassion, but I’m not so sure about ego.
And that’s all I have to say about that.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteOK Forrest, I would disagree when it comes to "both nice and not so nice guys can have empathy and compassion". There are alot of ways to judge whether someone is "nice" or not and I realize its a pretty simplistic term. I would propose the golden rule as a simple measure of "niceness". And it seems to me those that don't follow the golden rule, and especially those that do the opposite (Tiger), lack empathy and compassion. You can be highly driven to win in sports (that doesn't mean by default you lack compassion - its a game/business/career, after all, not life and death) and still be a gracious winner by offering sincere congratulations. Or you can want nothing more to win, run up the score, celebrate in the other guys face and offer a token handshake afterwords.
ReplyDeleteMy competitiveness has an ugly side, I will admit. So thats why the question is interesting to me. Are the great athletes those that submit to the dark side and win at all costs? Or are there those that can channel the force and keep their humanity along the way? Or is every case unique?
I don't know. Maybe I'm getting old but it seems like we have fewer "good sports" in sports these days. Kids need good role models. I heard the new defensive coach for the Illini football team was going to prohibit excessive celebrating, personal victory dances, etc. So maybe there is hope yet....
I think it can be a delicate balance. Part of the reason Tiger is so good is because he's so ruthless. Part of the reason Phil hasn't won more is because he's not. Not that he "lets people win" as Scruffy suggests, but his more amiable nature makes it more difficult for him, I think, to put the hammer down and crush his opponents when the time comes. Guys like him play best when they're relaxed and loose and they can block out the pressure. But Tiger has an uncanny ability to channel that pressure into a positive force in key situations. This trait is common among greats in other sports (Jordan, e.g.), but it's rare in golf, where a zen-like peace is usually a greater weapon than a fiery intensity. I'm not sure if that has to do with being "nice," exactly, but I think those traits go hand-in-hand to a certain degree.
ReplyDeleteFred Couples is a good example, too. The guy is a pretty big underachiever, and I think a big part of the reason why is because he's so laid back. But that always helped him during the "silly season," the unofficial events in the off-season where he had a reputation for always winning tons of money (no pressure). And it's helping him on the senior circuit, where he has yet to finish worse than second in four events.
Jack Nicklaus, as is so often the case, offers what I consider the ideal. When you read his autobiography, he talks about how inside he just burned to win, and was even cocky about it. He KNEW he was better than everybody else, and that helped drive him. But he also knew how to be humble on the outside – and how important that is. It's a great way to be – though difficult to achieve – and what I still hope Tiger can become someday.