I have written before about heroes and why people choose sporting icons as people they aspire to. Sportsmen and women command respect not only for their punishing training regimes and collection of silverware, but their determination and mental attitude. Their regimented and relentless struggle to push themselves not only inspires us, but also makes us question their resolve and will to compete. These people, from all backgrounds, have a purpose and drive that often shuns the normal plateaus of human endurance and takes them to the top of their profession and the podium.
The Olympic Games is nearly within a year and it is the sporting event that perhaps captures the public’s imagination the most. Though most of the athletes are now professional and sporting contracts have made athletic careers more lucrative, it is popular because there is something very organic and pure about the competition. Years of struggle, injury and scrutiny, culminate in the opportunity to reach the ultimate goal in sport. Why do they push themselves so far and often to the edge? And why do we admire these people so much? What is it that separates them from politicians or scientists?
Perhaps the first thing to reflect on is the result. Athletes yearn to the pinnacle of victory. Defeat is an obstacle that drives them further. A critic could suggest that in today’s wealth and sponsorship dominated market, athletes can comfortably survive, even if they do not always finish first. However, it would be naive to suggest that the top athletes enter competitions purely to fulfil branding and contractual obligations. They are there to win, there is no other alternative. The trials of Tim Henman at Wimbledon became of perennial interest to the British public because of the struggle and narrative. His story represented the ‘glorious loser’ as he struggled to contain Pete Sampras or failed to put down Goran Ivanisevic. Though fond in the British public’s eye, I’m certain Henman would prefer to be history’s victor rather than nearly man.
The determination of most sportspeople is something different that we cannot contemplate. For many it is the only life they have ever known. Boxing is an avenue for them to harness something out of life, away from the traumas of poverty and crime. There are of course plenty of rags to riches stories within the world of politics and business but they do not encapsulate the same setbacks as sportspeople. The candour can often be lost in Hollywood films but it represents a dogma that both children and adults aspire too.
Contrast that to the lives of politicians. They possess that drive and vigour to achieve something and create ‘change’ for the better. However, the fog and cloudy toxicity in politics is something that does not represent something pure or clean. We do not see the negotiations and compromises. We see politicians as shady and self-serving; determination is a thirst for power not success.
Compare and contrast two men of time: Steve Redgrave and Gordon Brown, both highly determined and motivated people. Brown, a custodian of power for the past 15 years is seen as spiteful and insolent, his insipid relationship with Tony Blair fragmented the heart of New Labour and tarnished the portrayal of government. Redgrave, the five-time Gold Olympian rower, was diagnosed with diabetes three years before the Sydney Games in 2000. The media wrote him off and said that someone with condition would not be able to compete. Redgrave, 35 at this point, used this as a thrust to win. Three years later he was picking up his fifth and final gold medal. Perhaps it is unfair to contrast the two but it represents the difference between drive and selfishness in these two fields.
Politicians’ legacies are often judged by history, politicians like President Lyndon B. Johnson and Richard Nixon had obvious personal flaws; cold, ignorant and opportunistic, but their history is written in legislation and its evolution in society. Whereas sport captures in real time the first person over the line, the goal in the final minute and the shot that beats the clock. We recognise the training and the punishment, but we remember ‘the moment’. That is what drives sports people over the edge. That is why we understand the rage and the adulation. The goal is to win and that is final.
It is often why people take extra measures to ensure success. The likes of Ben Johnson and Marion Jones were under pressure to perform and they knew drugs were an easy option to achieve that. Just like politics the necessity to smear and stain rivals is often an easier, yet dirty road to journey.
Politics and sport define eras, and define the way we organise our lives. It is just that sport conveys emotions in a much more visceral and raw manner. Being a part of that as a fan is an inspiration, but being the athlete that everyone wants to cheer and recognises is the spur that pushes them over the line. Sport answers easy questions, politics does not.
The Olympic Games is nearly within a year and it is the sporting event that perhaps captures the public’s imagination the most. Though most of the athletes are now professional and sporting contracts have made athletic careers more lucrative, it is popular because there is something very organic and pure about the competition. Years of struggle, injury and scrutiny, culminate in the opportunity to reach the ultimate goal in sport. Why do they push themselves so far and often to the edge? And why do we admire these people so much? What is it that separates them from politicians or scientists?
Perhaps the first thing to reflect on is the result. Athletes yearn to the pinnacle of victory. Defeat is an obstacle that drives them further. A critic could suggest that in today’s wealth and sponsorship dominated market, athletes can comfortably survive, even if they do not always finish first. However, it would be naive to suggest that the top athletes enter competitions purely to fulfil branding and contractual obligations. They are there to win, there is no other alternative. The trials of Tim Henman at Wimbledon became of perennial interest to the British public because of the struggle and narrative. His story represented the ‘glorious loser’ as he struggled to contain Pete Sampras or failed to put down Goran Ivanisevic. Though fond in the British public’s eye, I’m certain Henman would prefer to be history’s victor rather than nearly man.
The determination of most sportspeople is something different that we cannot contemplate. For many it is the only life they have ever known. Boxing is an avenue for them to harness something out of life, away from the traumas of poverty and crime. There are of course plenty of rags to riches stories within the world of politics and business but they do not encapsulate the same setbacks as sportspeople. The candour can often be lost in Hollywood films but it represents a dogma that both children and adults aspire too.
Contrast that to the lives of politicians. They possess that drive and vigour to achieve something and create ‘change’ for the better. However, the fog and cloudy toxicity in politics is something that does not represent something pure or clean. We do not see the negotiations and compromises. We see politicians as shady and self-serving; determination is a thirst for power not success.
Compare and contrast two men of time: Steve Redgrave and Gordon Brown, both highly determined and motivated people. Brown, a custodian of power for the past 15 years is seen as spiteful and insolent, his insipid relationship with Tony Blair fragmented the heart of New Labour and tarnished the portrayal of government. Redgrave, the five-time Gold Olympian rower, was diagnosed with diabetes three years before the Sydney Games in 2000. The media wrote him off and said that someone with condition would not be able to compete. Redgrave, 35 at this point, used this as a thrust to win. Three years later he was picking up his fifth and final gold medal. Perhaps it is unfair to contrast the two but it represents the difference between drive and selfishness in these two fields.
Politicians’ legacies are often judged by history, politicians like President Lyndon B. Johnson and Richard Nixon had obvious personal flaws; cold, ignorant and opportunistic, but their history is written in legislation and its evolution in society. Whereas sport captures in real time the first person over the line, the goal in the final minute and the shot that beats the clock. We recognise the training and the punishment, but we remember ‘the moment’. That is what drives sports people over the edge. That is why we understand the rage and the adulation. The goal is to win and that is final.
It is often why people take extra measures to ensure success. The likes of Ben Johnson and Marion Jones were under pressure to perform and they knew drugs were an easy option to achieve that. Just like politics the necessity to smear and stain rivals is often an easier, yet dirty road to journey.
Politics and sport define eras, and define the way we organise our lives. It is just that sport conveys emotions in a much more visceral and raw manner. Being a part of that as a fan is an inspiration, but being the athlete that everyone wants to cheer and recognises is the spur that pushes them over the line. Sport answers easy questions, politics does not.
