Sports Ethics: Who is a Competitor?

We were driving home from grade school one day having a discussion about the meaning of life (both kids will tell you of the madness of having two professors for parents). My daughter piped up, "well life is a journey to discover." My son hurrumped as only a ten year old can and proclaimed, "life is a game you play to win." I know, my wife and I were not planning on raising stereotypes, but there you have it.

Life is a game you play to win?

Simple enough:  A life philosophy? A way of being in the world? A way to relate to problems?

In the world of sport and of athletic competition, the highest compliment that can be paid to a person is "he or she is a competitor." I guess that the competition in athletic competition gives it away.

Being a competitor pervades the language that describes, evaluates, demeans and praises athletics. Yet it is important to remember that being a competitor does not mean a person always wins. An athletic winner can compliment the opposing person or team who lost by saying, "they were great competitors." Being a competitor may be vital to succeeding and winning, but it exists as a separate ethical status in sports. 

The reality of being a competitor lies at the moral heart of athletics and any defense of the moral worth of sports. But what does it mean? to be a competitor? Why is it morally worthy and respected even by the individuals who may win over a person. Is it a good way to live and approach life?

To compete requires a context and someone to compete against. One competes for a purpose. Without a goal to gain and someone who also seeks it, there is no competition.

In theories of evolution creatures compete to survive. They compete against other creatures seeking to survive. Sometimes the competition can be brutal and head to head since creatures seek to control the same resources of an area or herd. sometime competition can be brutal individuals compete as prey and predator or males compete for access to female  Such competition can end in a zero sum game--one dead, one alive. One propagating, one slinking away.

Sometimes, however, individuals compete to find a right and secure niche, and successful competition can mean finding co-surviving niches or cooperative strategies to survive. To succeed in this environment the creature must develop their traits and skill and intelligence to thrive in their ecosystem, not necessarily dominate another creature.

The essence of the biological competitor lies in the incessant challenge posed to survive against the environmental challenges and the other competitors who seek similar goals. The moral worth of a successful competitor is clear; the individual survives. Interestingly in this world, competitors do not want to compete against the best unless they have to. Their risk assessment preference prefers the weaker and less likely to succeed--the unique human and athletic desire to push oneself and gain glory by competing against the best grows from human's capacity for self reflection and self comparison. 

The moral worth of competition can emerge from its relationship to refine and develop the quality of a being. Being a competitor demonstrates its worth in how it contributes to the being's ability to survive and thrive.Competition hones a creature's skills and ability to thrive. It can drive a creature to develop its capabilities to their maximum extent and to find the right niche where these capabilities bring reward.

Being a competitor involves two possible obvious outcomes: to lose or win against the environment or fellow competitors. In the biological frame, to lose means to die, to win, means a creature lives another day, that is the reward, not dying, living another day for another set of possibilities.

Actually a third outcome exists. If a creature or species loses in the competition for resources, they do not necessarily die. They can move to another ecosystem. They can find different resources that permit them to survive by filling unoccupied niches or exploiting underutilized resources. They can accept a different and lower place in the herd. A real competitor can also be smart and use the "loss" to find another way to survive and thrive. They can also use the loss to get smarter, skilled or stronger.

Competing helps creatures and people grow. It can help them develop and get better or find the right niche for them by trying one area and moving to another.  But what does being a competitor mean for a human being and an athlete.

Athletic Competitors

At its center being a competitor involves an internal dialogue where the person sets goals and measures him or herself against their ability to achieve those goals. One can compete against oneself to expand skills, develop knowledge, refine technique and practice, reflect and learn. Being a competitor begins with the internal stance of competing against oneself and pushing and testing and developing one's skills.

This self dialogue introduces an often lost aspect of being a high performing competitor. Good competitors learn and adapt when they lose or face strong competition. But strong competitors  also innovate. In professional and athletic competition, people use their mind to reframe issues. They discover new ideas and approaches and tactics. They invent new ways to deploy resources and even one's body or team strategy. So being a competitor involves not just endless refining one's skill and strength and bodily integration, but thinking and applying imagination and mind to the game and challenges before the person. This can range from innovation in training, mental preparation, nutrition as well as tactics and skill refinement. A good competitor pushes him or herself to get better both for the sake of their own excellence and of winning against competitors. 

A competitor lies in an uneasy relationship to him or herself and to life. The relationship to self remains restless since personal identity can anchor in success as an athlete.  Any strong competitor can link their sense of self worth to the extrinsic goal of winning, not just the intrinsic goals of meeting their own aspirations.

This relation to self involves a constant assessment of how good one's skills and intelligence. A competitor cannot ever be satisfied with him or herself. The challenges of the game or sport change. Younger, more talented and sometimes more innovative athletes enter the arena of competition. No safe harbors exist. To succeed and stay competitive in this arena requires immense personal focus and discipline and adaptability. It means every day tests whether one has the self-discipline and desire to perfect one's skills and push oneself to the limits to stay in the game.  

This self awareness and discipline is why "she's a competitor" remains one of the highest compliments athletes can pay to fellow athletes or coaches can pay to their own or opposing athletes. It articulates the deepest level of respect that exists independent  of whether the athlete wins or loses, it means they compete.

The competitor works to perfect and overcome deficiencies that are revealed in competition. Most athletes not only love to win, but they HATE to lose. In fact one of the saddest aspects of many competitors lies in the reality that he or she does not nearly enjoy the delight of winning and the sheer rush of being at your best; but rather feels only relief that they did not lose.  The fear of losing and the  pain of loss drives can reduce a competitor to a dreary driven and haunted life.

More than a few athletes can be described as "one of the most competitive people I know." What the person reveals is not just the drive to excel and win in athletics, but this carries over into every area of their life. I can be tiddly winks or RISK or making money or just goofing around over a video game. It does not matter, this type of competitor can be fun to have around, but to be honest can get pretty tiresome if they have to win or more to the point, just act out when they  lose. Learning to be an accomplished competitor is only part of learning to be an accomplished human and friend.

Each loss can eat away at their self worth, but real competitors use it as a spur to get better. This quest to get better defines another moral aspect of a competitor and athlete's code--a competitor does not quit. What does that mean? To most athletes quitting  takes on a moral overtone, to give up, to refuse to try any more. A quitter is the antithesis of a competitor.

This is not the same as a conscious decision that one cannot attain the level of excellence or cannot compete at the same level. This acknowledges  truthful self assessment. It means individuals may leave the field and retire or they may go to another level of competition such as age related such as  masters tournaments and levels where people can compete and excel and not give up but move beyond the need to win.

Competition possesses a darker side. First, it possesses its own demonic dynamic where competitors demonize the other competitors. Teams or individuals will compete not just to push themselves, not just to be the best and win but they supplement this motivation by projecting anger or hatred on the opponents. This anger and hatred motivate. 

The demonization undermines the sportsmanship by pushing individuals to test the rules in ways designed to hurt or punish the other side, not just win within the rules. Too many coaches preach to their teams that members need to  dislike or hate their opponents. This dehumanizing lessens the nobility and strength of the competitor as a model of emulation. It distorts the satisfaction of winning into a sharp lust for dominating rather than sheer appreciation of winning and being the best that a person or team can be at that moment.

Second, darkness can shape how competition pushes individuals to get better. A competitor learns from mistakes. When they lose or get bested, they think about why they lost, work on the weaknesses or perfect their strengths, and they work to get better. But two dangers sneak in here. In the first the competitor sacrifices their self worth and identity to the external trophy of winning, to their need to beat the other. Their worth and success is in some ways diminished because they triumph not in their excellence but in their dominance that depends upon the endless king of the mountain game. When they do lose, they lose not just the game, but they feel less as a person. Or as my ten year old volleyball players used to do, they blame it on the other team, the coach, anyone but themselves because it hurts too much.

Of course my young male volleyball players missed another vital point. Evolutionary biology demonstrates that the best cooperators become the best competitors. Humans succeed as a species not because of their immense strength, talent or even intelligence. They succeed because of their capacity to develop complex successful teams that succeed. The same is true of sports. Talent and skill will often fall before talent and skill melded into a coherent team philosophy and commitment. True competitors understand that successful competition requires a team culture.

Another facet needs to be remembered. A competitor competes to the end of the trial. This is why winners will compliment the vanquished. The competitor gives it all their effort and skill even when he or she is losing. Even when he or she or the team falls so far behind, no chance exists to overcome the deficit. The athlete keeps fighting and competing. This drive and way of being honors the game they play, honors their opponents but above all honors their own integrity. The person wins that internal dialogue that even when the extrinsic goal eludes them, the intrinsic goals exist and the person remains true to their self, their goals and their teammates. 

The great competitors revel in their wins, but they revel as much in their excellence, in the sheer joy and fun and success where they and their teammates exhibit utter mastery that plays out as success and victory. They don't need domination but they celebrate mastery.

Physical Creativity & Athletic Innovation

I have always loved the Fosbury flop. It made no sense, looked absurd and yet creates an amazing physical combination of torque and lift that revolutionized the high jump. Its creator Dick Fosbury stunned the world with this ungainly approach when his self-invented style helped him win an Olympic championship. Now every major elite competitor uses it. His contribution reminds us about the unique and under-appreciated aspects of physical creativity that pervades athletics. 

As in art, sports and athletes experiment and create  new possibilities for motion. Athletes push boundaries, experiment, try out new ways of doing actions and increase our understanding of the potential of our human physical and mental range.

The Fopsbury flop illustrates one of the unique aspects of creation in sport. A player or coach/player invent a new and unique body configuration that the sports world has not seen before. This body alignment achieves a purpose within the sport—it involves pure kinesthetic innovation. When it works other players can copy and adapt and deploy the same configuration. These kinesthetic innovations are replicable and adaptable by other players. This fits with Howard Gardener’s still controversial claim that bodily intelligence exists with its own dimensions of bod awareness, integrated perceptual, physical and emotional imagination and discipline.

I will emphasize this physical creativity and innovation. I am not talking about coaches who introduce new systems like “West Coast” offenses or “Triangle” or “Motion” offenses. Nor am I talking about the endless tweaks in games and techniques on the margins, rather I am aiming for the innovations, the actions of a person and that person’s body that reconceptualizes what the human body can do and how humans can achieve goals.

I also don’t want to talk about the unique singular achievements of physical genius that might reside in a extraordinary athlete or artist such as a dancer like Nijinsky. Too often these moves reside alone, singular and almost curious in their linkage to one person’s sole genius or moment in time. I also don’t want to talk about evolution of techniques and styles that go with “bigger, faster, stronger” athletes pushing boundaries of technique and adaptation.

Sometimes these moves might involve adaptation or discovery of possibilities in new technologies such as the rise of a two handed backhand—an absolutely unique and stunning technique tied to new racket design. Tennis style and innovation, for instance, has much less to do with kinesthetic innovation than adaptations to the technology of rackets such as today's fascination with top spin brought on by new stringing technologies. Bigger baseball mits might change how some fielders adapt. The world of golf has to be tightly regulated because it has been so susceptible to shaft, head and ball technologies that change the range and accuracy and focus of the game. 

I think you see the plethora of physical creation and innovation in games with the fewest technological intermediaries such as basketball and soccer. Gymnastics highlights the same dynamic more in the floor routines than in the more disciplined and constrained work. I once would have said that about swimming until shark skin laminar flow transformed the sport and forces strong regulation of its suites.

This physical and kinesthetic innovation is noticeable in established sports and gets proof of concept by its ability to spread through the system and have other athletes adopt it, practice it, customize it and extend it.

This creation does not come from nowhere. Elite athletes practice, prepare and refine skill. They study the style and technique of other athletes. Elite athletes push their bodies and test nutrition and exercise and conditioning. Good athletes  think about their sport, and often alone in the gym or field, they practice new “moves” or silly moves or just play and enjoy it; they may just stumble upon an new way to achieve a physical goal just by playing.

I think that American basketball of all the established sports generates more physical creativity and innovation than all the other major American sports combined. Partially this arises from the continuous upwelling from the “play” of the street where a culture of glory and one upsmanship pushes young athletes to experiment and demand more of their body. Latin American soccer generates similar impressive innovations in soccer styles. Young athletes aggressively seek to go where no one has gone before.

A couple examples suffice. Think of something as simple as the the one hand jump shot which in the nineteen fifties made an entire way of playing basketball obsolete inside three years. More recently, think of how the invention of the  crossover dribble freed up infinite possibilities of driving, It not only freed players but revolutionized offenses. These simple feel like the norm now, but at birth these creative, unique inventions lead to new ways of configuring a body against the norms. The cross over had been emerging and then Allen Iverson perfected its possibilities which spread to the entire game.

Julius Irving inaugurated a new way of seeing the airborne possibilities of a driver as well as how to perform around the basket. His style and innovative moves opened a huge range of angles and scoring unknown before. Michael Jordan would carry these experiments in flight, angle, body control and hang time to unimaginable heights that are now integrated into the life of every AAU players. 

This is what I mean about replicable. What Erving and Jordan accomplished did not remain just unique to them. Once their play changed the imaginations and possibilities for other players, their style permeated the game and two generations of players after them. Just as all the high jumpers use variants of the Fosbury Flop, today every player deploys the dribbles, jump shots and drive variations innovated by other players.  

In these cases, the players invented new body configurations. This was not an adaptation to new possibilities of a technology such as occurs in tennis or golf, it involves new ways to imagine and carry the human body in space achieving the goal of a sport.

Here I am most interested in innovations—creative reconfigurations of the body’s possibilities—that work. Fosbury won a gold medal and went on to a successful career. The jump shot proved far superior in release, range and adaptability than the two handed set. The cross over freed players and transformed offense possibilities. 

In baseball I can think of the head first slide as one questionable innovation. Not a lot occurs in most of baseball given its tight constraints. Pitchers, however, are glorious backyard inventors. They are always experimenting with hand grips and angles and speeds. Think of the first submarine pitcher, cutter or my favorite for baseball creativity, the glorious and improbably knuckleball.

The natural extension of bodily intelligence and creativity expresses itself through the invention of new sports. Again many experiments occur, most never get off the play ground, some become fads, but some grow and capture imaginations and talent and ultimately sponsors. The emergence of modern X sports and to my own mind snowboarding demonstrates this world of discovering bodily potential. 

Each meet literally introduces new convolutions and configurations as the sport invents itself and people push themselves and their boards to their limits before our eyes. Parcours, like basketball, grew from the street keeps expanding with little rime or reason. The world now sees it pilfered by movie sequences that adapt its techniques to create chase scenes and moves that no human could have imagined two decades ago.

Here lies the crux for me. Phyisical intelligence, like all types, offers the possibility of invention, creation, growth and imagination. Our sports, our lives and our horizons broaden thanks to them.