5 ms·

> not applicable to your personal swimming benchmarks Though, unfortunately, this is the connection the blog tries to make. Swimming is competition as sport a

> not applicable to your personal swimming benchmarks Though, unfortunately, this is the connection the blog tries to make. Swimming is competition as sport and that's true for even the professional swimmers. Blue ocean makes sense if your in business for monetary success and not for the love of competing.

timdaub 5y ago
I'd argue that you don't have to swim for the sake of competing. I mainly do it to live happily.
- klyrs 5y ago
  This is my attitude with cycling. Sometimes I enjoy racing a (unwitting) bus, but racing other cyclists was never interesting.
  - jjoonathan 5y ago
    I think you both agree with BrianOnHN -- I read "competition as sport" as competition for the purposes of entertainment, enjoyment, and fitness rather than for the purpose of winning.
snek_case 5y ago
This is probably going to be an unpopular opinion, but I would say that "competition is for losers" probably applies to competitive sports as well. Most of them have very little room at the top. You're likely going to end up spending tons of money and time and not really get anywhere as a professional athlete. Not to mention the risk of injury. I think swimming is pretty safe, but if you look at mountain biking or, gasp, gymnastics, there are competitive sports where you can really damage your body, and your career will be over after just a few years. Then, there's also the issue that working extremely hard to become say, an olympic gymnast, can actually be damaging to a child's mental health (no time to relax and develop socially like the other kids). So yes, if nothing is at stake, then why not? Go ahead and try to swim faster than your buddies, you'll probably get fitter in the process. But trying to get to the top of a very crowded field, I think you should only do that if you really really enjoy competition for its own sake and you have some kind of a backup plan.
- olau 5y ago
  I think competition in its essence is antisocial. If you are participating with the primary goal of winning, you're participating to make everyone else experience a loss. I understand structuring social events as competitions adds drama and a sense of excitement, but as a parent I really wish people would think twice about it. Perhaps it's possible to just gather people with similar interests and have them share tricks and stories, without an aggressive agenda...
  - bobthechef 5y ago
    That's because you construe competition purely in terms of dominance or something like that. But friendly competition can also be a means of bringing out your best. In other words, two friends can engage in friendly competition for mutual benefit.
  - aantix 5y ago
    As a father with kids in sports, I want them to: - Learn to play well with others, even under stress - Figure out where they can help, and through that, identify their strengths/weaknesses - Know that they can demand more from themselves, especially under time constraints and can rise to meet those expectations It's about them seeing things through, be committed to their friends, showing up for themselves and the group. The drama of losing will happen, probably a lot, but it's OK, because the sun still rises again in the morning and you get a chance again to play and redeem. Such is life.
    - borroka 5y ago
      This way of thinking, which is very legitimate, largely comes from the mythical idea of "sports teaching life" or "the English army came from the fields of Eton". But I have to say that apart from the extremes of the distribution, I have yet to see, after a life in sports, that much of a difference in personality, attitude, "values" between people who did sports extensively and people who did not. Physically, yes, there are huge differences, and it is more than enough and what I like for my kids. It is all part of the discourse that sounds good in theory and in fact it is value-driven (it sounds good and it must be good), but empirically it does not come up as solid as expected.

timdaub 5y ago

I'd argue that you don't have to swim for the sake of competing. I mainly do it to live happily.

klyrs 5y ago
This is my attitude with cycling. Sometimes I enjoy racing a (unwitting) bus, but racing other cyclists was never interesting.
- jjoonathan 5y ago
  I think you both agree with BrianOnHN -- I read "competition as sport" as competition for the purposes of entertainment, enjoyment, and fitness rather than for the purpose of winning.

snek_case 5y ago

This is probably going to be an unpopular opinion, but I would say that "competition is for losers" probably applies to competitive sports as well. Most of them have very little room at the top. You're likely going to end up spending tons of money and time and not really get anywhere as a professional athlete. Not to mention the risk of injury. I think swimming is pretty safe, but if you look at mountain biking or, gasp, gymnastics, there are competitive sports where you can really damage your body, and your career will be over after just a few years. Then, there's also the issue that working extremely hard to become say, an olympic gymnast, can actually be damaging to a child's mental health (no time to relax and develop socially like the other kids). So yes, if nothing is at stake, then why not? Go ahead and try to swim faster than your buddies, you'll probably get fitter in the process. But trying to get to the top of a very crowded field, I think you should only do that if you really really enjoy competition for its own sake and you have some kind of a backup plan.

olau 5y ago
I think competition in its essence is antisocial. If you are participating with the primary goal of winning, you're participating to make everyone else experience a loss. I understand structuring social events as competitions adds drama and a sense of excitement, but as a parent I really wish people would think twice about it. Perhaps it's possible to just gather people with similar interests and have them share tricks and stories, without an aggressive agenda...
- bobthechef 5y ago
  That's because you construe competition purely in terms of dominance or something like that. But friendly competition can also be a means of bringing out your best. In other words, two friends can engage in friendly competition for mutual benefit.
- aantix 5y ago
  As a father with kids in sports, I want them to: - Learn to play well with others, even under stress - Figure out where they can help, and through that, identify their strengths/weaknesses - Know that they can demand more from themselves, especially under time constraints and can rise to meet those expectations It's about them seeing things through, be committed to their friends, showing up for themselves and the group. The drama of losing will happen, probably a lot, but it's OK, because the sun still rises again in the morning and you get a chance again to play and redeem. Such is life.
  - borroka 5y ago
    This way of thinking, which is very legitimate, largely comes from the mythical idea of "sports teaching life" or "the English army came from the fields of Eton". But I have to say that apart from the extremes of the distribution, I have yet to see, after a life in sports, that much of a difference in personality, attitude, "values" between people who did sports extensively and people who did not. Physically, yes, there are huge differences, and it is more than enough and what I like for my kids. It is all part of the discourse that sounds good in theory and in fact it is value-driven (it sounds good and it must be good), but empirically it does not come up as solid as expected.