3 ms·

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 the

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.
- mym1990 5y ago
  I don't think competing and winning have to be the same thing, they usually aren't. Winning is just an end result, a lot of times you might not have full control over that result. Competing has a lot more to do with effort and mindset. I play a lot of tennis and watch a lot of tennis, at very high levels a match can be decided by less than 10 shots, and those shots might be less than inches from being in or out. But just because the result is an L doesn't mean the competition wasn't high and some of great value wasn't gained for all parties. Also, competition being anti-social seems like a strange concept. Unless I am only in competition with myself, I do need participation from other parties, and that in itself creates a social environment, for better or for worse.
sharadov 5y ago
You are competing to get better at something, but you better be detached from the result as well. And the pleasure of competing at a high level in any sports discipline is second to none. You are not doing it for glory, but for the purity of the experience, and there is nothing quite like it.

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.
mym1990 5y ago
I don't think competing and winning have to be the same thing, they usually aren't. Winning is just an end result, a lot of times you might not have full control over that result. Competing has a lot more to do with effort and mindset. I play a lot of tennis and watch a lot of tennis, at very high levels a match can be decided by less than 10 shots, and those shots might be less than inches from being in or out. But just because the result is an L doesn't mean the competition wasn't high and some of great value wasn't gained for all parties. Also, competition being anti-social seems like a strange concept. Unless I am only in competition with myself, I do need participation from other parties, and that in itself creates a social environment, for better or for worse.

sharadov 5y ago

You are competing to get better at something, but you better be detached from the result as well. And the pleasure of competing at a high level in any sports discipline is second to none. You are not doing it for glory, but for the purity of the experience, and there is nothing quite like it.