More thoughts from a competitive personality
Jim Parinella seems to think that Idris is slamming me in his blog entry. Maybe he is, who knows. There is probably at least a backhander in there, but I'll get over it. I was going to try and write something that analyzed competitiveness more, and try and fit myself somewhere in it, but it became too hard. So instead I will provide some self-analysis and anecdotes, and leave it to the reader to comment.
Personality
* When I play any game, if there are agreed rules, I hate when people don't play by the rules. I'm thinking less of ultimate at this point then when I play parlor or social games, like Taboo, Pictionary, Trivial Pursuits, etc. By the same token, I expect people to hold me to the same restrictions. When I extend this to ultimate, I imagine a lot of people feel that I am a loudmouth that complains a lot. Sideline calls or endzone calls where there is no line, I hate when people just call themselves in and it is very close. I try to get them to identify a foot. If it is close, the only way you can really tell is to get somebody to check between the cones. Fortunately, most fields are lined these days, so that gripe is disappearing. But I can be a stickler, though Jim would probably argue that I am being a stickler when it favors me, and he is probably ultimately right.
* At practices, when we are doing some sort of competition and I'm on the sidelines, whether a scrimmage, 10-pull, whatever, I am almost always competing, helping my team on the field, following the action on the sidelines, talking to help, whether the force, or last back, etc. While some of my teammates (both past and present) will do this well at times, I feel like I almost always am doing it.
* When playing board games with my kids, like Candyland or Sorry, I'm happy for them when they win, but deep down it still rankles me that I lost and I still want to win every game, even though I understand the value of them winning. Fortunately, we aren't to the level yet of playing true strategy games, or something where I can make obvious mistakes to let someone win, because it will be interesting to see how I am with that.
* Reacting to a comment from Idris' blog, I don't think the only way to identify a competitive player is by someone who complains, tweaks, etc. I also think it can be identified by their actions and demeanor. Unfortunately, I have also probably done some of the tweaking stuff, but I bet that if I didn't, people would still identify me as a competitive personality.
Historical stuff
* One event that causes me some chagrin occurred at Tuneup in 2004. We were playing Doublewide in the semis(?). We were on offense and somebody made a bad pass that one of their younger players laid out for and pancaked (and caught). When he got up, the disc was now on the ground. I immediately said turnover, that the player wasn't allowed to not retain possession of the disc, and that the ground had NOT caused the turnover. Suffice to say, I got very heated, thinking that the teams were going to let it go by. Probably the worst I have lost it in a long time. In retrospect (by the end of the game), and even worse now, I realize that it would have been far more effective to try and be reasonable about it. I think the game was reasonably close at the time, I just can't really remember/justify why I lost it that badly. Although, given my comment up top about wanting to play by the rules, I guess I also shouldn't consider saying 'good play you can have the d'. At what point do you enforce the rules. Granted, in a less important game, or one against a lesser opponent where it was a given you were going to win, people will be more magnanimous.
* AMENDED (added after comment #1) historical #1: After reading the first comment, I reread what I wrote for historical #1 and realized that I came off pretty bad. To clarify. After the defensive play occurred I got pretty heated because I wanted to explore exactly what happened AND make sure that we (DoG) didn't just say OK to the defensive play. I was well aware of the rule that the person had to have sustained contact with the disc for it to not be a turnover, especially on a defensive layout (and that the ground can not cause a turnover on a defensive play, unlike an offensive catch for a goal). I spent a lot of time explaining the rule to the rookie, and pushed real hard for him to say whether he had caught the disc and put it down after the layout (which I suspected but wanted to make sure). He eventually agreed that he had caught the disc and consciously left it on the ground. I may very well have browbeaten him into this answer, but I was following the letter of the rules to try and (re)gain an advantage for our team. In retrospect, I feel I could have probably gained the same result while being much calmer, but I really felt that it was one of those razors edge situations where play was just going to continue and it was going to be too difficult to rewind play and perspective to the actual D.
* '97 national semis against Ring of Fire. We went down 10-4 in a game to 17 that we would ultimately win after one of the most exciting comebacks I have ever been involved with. What I remember most about this game, and I know that Jim will verify this, is that when we starting going down early and then big, I got REALLY mad. Mostly because we were playing so poorly. I remember that for the entire rest of the game, I was sporting an incredibly angry face, stalking up and down the sideline, not being negative necessarily, but super intense, super angry. I literally couldn't control it. It was the weirdest thing. Of course we came back to win the game, but even after the game, I was still sporting the angry face in the huddle. I don't know how much of it was because there was no way we should have been losing to that team and of having the streak end that way. I carried the angry face over into the finals, albeit not quite as strongly, and we went up 7-0 and almost 8-0. For that game, it was more of a way of keeping incredible focus, which the entire team had after the wakeup call of the previous day.
* No particular event, but I will admit that when bad plays or results accumulate in a game sometimes, I will eventually let out a scream of frustration. This is almost always a result of poor play, either on the part of the team or myself. If we are playing well and losing, this doesn't occur. I have been told that it is not necessarily productive for the team, and I have tried to avoid doing it these days, but sometimes it is too much of a visceral reaction to stop. But I feel I have gotten much better about this.
* There have been times where I have seen what I feel to be a bad call on the part of my team and I have said nothing about it along the lines of trying to get the teammate to retract his. These are typically foul, strip, calls as opposed to sideline calls, in/out where there is less of a personal interpretation. I am embarrassed to admit that. I have intervened sometimes, but all too frequently I have not said anything (and felt uncomfortable about it). And, yes, this has also been a function of how important/tight the game is. Now that I think a little more about this, I would have to say that I am not unique, because bad calls happen reasonably frequently in ultimate (whether on purpose or not). And I can pretty much guarantee that plenty of other people stay silent when they know better. This does not justify my inaction, but it is worthy of note.
* Win at all costs. Despite some of what I have said above, I don't feel I have that mentality. Interpret as you will.
Flame away.
Personality
* When I play any game, if there are agreed rules, I hate when people don't play by the rules. I'm thinking less of ultimate at this point then when I play parlor or social games, like Taboo, Pictionary, Trivial Pursuits, etc. By the same token, I expect people to hold me to the same restrictions. When I extend this to ultimate, I imagine a lot of people feel that I am a loudmouth that complains a lot. Sideline calls or endzone calls where there is no line, I hate when people just call themselves in and it is very close. I try to get them to identify a foot. If it is close, the only way you can really tell is to get somebody to check between the cones. Fortunately, most fields are lined these days, so that gripe is disappearing. But I can be a stickler, though Jim would probably argue that I am being a stickler when it favors me, and he is probably ultimately right.
* At practices, when we are doing some sort of competition and I'm on the sidelines, whether a scrimmage, 10-pull, whatever, I am almost always competing, helping my team on the field, following the action on the sidelines, talking to help, whether the force, or last back, etc. While some of my teammates (both past and present) will do this well at times, I feel like I almost always am doing it.
* When playing board games with my kids, like Candyland or Sorry, I'm happy for them when they win, but deep down it still rankles me that I lost and I still want to win every game, even though I understand the value of them winning. Fortunately, we aren't to the level yet of playing true strategy games, or something where I can make obvious mistakes to let someone win, because it will be interesting to see how I am with that.
* Reacting to a comment from Idris' blog, I don't think the only way to identify a competitive player is by someone who complains, tweaks, etc. I also think it can be identified by their actions and demeanor. Unfortunately, I have also probably done some of the tweaking stuff, but I bet that if I didn't, people would still identify me as a competitive personality.
Historical stuff
* One event that causes me some chagrin occurred at Tuneup in 2004. We were playing Doublewide in the semis(?). We were on offense and somebody made a bad pass that one of their younger players laid out for and pancaked (and caught). When he got up, the disc was now on the ground. I immediately said turnover, that the player wasn't allowed to not retain possession of the disc, and that the ground had NOT caused the turnover. Suffice to say, I got very heated, thinking that the teams were going to let it go by. Probably the worst I have lost it in a long time. In retrospect (by the end of the game), and even worse now, I realize that it would have been far more effective to try and be reasonable about it. I think the game was reasonably close at the time, I just can't really remember/justify why I lost it that badly. Although, given my comment up top about wanting to play by the rules, I guess I also shouldn't consider saying 'good play you can have the d'. At what point do you enforce the rules. Granted, in a less important game, or one against a lesser opponent where it was a given you were going to win, people will be more magnanimous.
* AMENDED (added after comment #1) historical #1: After reading the first comment, I reread what I wrote for historical #1 and realized that I came off pretty bad. To clarify. After the defensive play occurred I got pretty heated because I wanted to explore exactly what happened AND make sure that we (DoG) didn't just say OK to the defensive play. I was well aware of the rule that the person had to have sustained contact with the disc for it to not be a turnover, especially on a defensive layout (and that the ground can not cause a turnover on a defensive play, unlike an offensive catch for a goal). I spent a lot of time explaining the rule to the rookie, and pushed real hard for him to say whether he had caught the disc and put it down after the layout (which I suspected but wanted to make sure). He eventually agreed that he had caught the disc and consciously left it on the ground. I may very well have browbeaten him into this answer, but I was following the letter of the rules to try and (re)gain an advantage for our team. In retrospect, I feel I could have probably gained the same result while being much calmer, but I really felt that it was one of those razors edge situations where play was just going to continue and it was going to be too difficult to rewind play and perspective to the actual D.
* '97 national semis against Ring of Fire. We went down 10-4 in a game to 17 that we would ultimately win after one of the most exciting comebacks I have ever been involved with. What I remember most about this game, and I know that Jim will verify this, is that when we starting going down early and then big, I got REALLY mad. Mostly because we were playing so poorly. I remember that for the entire rest of the game, I was sporting an incredibly angry face, stalking up and down the sideline, not being negative necessarily, but super intense, super angry. I literally couldn't control it. It was the weirdest thing. Of course we came back to win the game, but even after the game, I was still sporting the angry face in the huddle. I don't know how much of it was because there was no way we should have been losing to that team and of having the streak end that way. I carried the angry face over into the finals, albeit not quite as strongly, and we went up 7-0 and almost 8-0. For that game, it was more of a way of keeping incredible focus, which the entire team had after the wakeup call of the previous day.
* No particular event, but I will admit that when bad plays or results accumulate in a game sometimes, I will eventually let out a scream of frustration. This is almost always a result of poor play, either on the part of the team or myself. If we are playing well and losing, this doesn't occur. I have been told that it is not necessarily productive for the team, and I have tried to avoid doing it these days, but sometimes it is too much of a visceral reaction to stop. But I feel I have gotten much better about this.
* There have been times where I have seen what I feel to be a bad call on the part of my team and I have said nothing about it along the lines of trying to get the teammate to retract his. These are typically foul, strip, calls as opposed to sideline calls, in/out where there is less of a personal interpretation. I am embarrassed to admit that. I have intervened sometimes, but all too frequently I have not said anything (and felt uncomfortable about it). And, yes, this has also been a function of how important/tight the game is. Now that I think a little more about this, I would have to say that I am not unique, because bad calls happen reasonably frequently in ultimate (whether on purpose or not). And I can pretty much guarantee that plenty of other people stay silent when they know better. This does not justify my inaction, but it is worthy of note.
* Win at all costs. Despite some of what I have said above, I don't feel I have that mentality. Interpret as you will.
Flame away.
posted by Alex de Frondeville at 2:50 PM
18 Comments:
After reading this comment, I realized that my story on #1 was woefully incomplete/inadequate. I have since updated the post, leaving the original #1 and adding an AMENDED version below it, for blog historical accuracy.
I mostly agree with point 2. However, I am willing to admit that there have been occasions where I have said that our job (winning) would be easier if a certain individual were not playing in a particular game against us (this is more along the lines of watching a prior game and seeing someone dominate). I'm not sure I completely subscribe to the theory of "I want to beat them when they are at their best, and anything less will be hollow". Teams routinely have issues, whether injuries or otherwise, and it is the combination of the deepest team with the best strategy and the stars aligned with them that wins nationals. There is nothing wrong with saying that it would be easier to win if 'x' weren't there as long as you aren't actively trying to create that situation.
I feel like I absolutely relate to your competitive nature.
The only way I can not be such a stickler for the rules or be super aggressive (in whatever competition I'm involved) is to not try.. and then I don't have very much fun. In the case of playing games with kids or in a group of people that are not as competitive as I am, I will attempt to sacrifice my own enjoyment for their's. It's tough and even then I still do feel it on the inside.
I'm not quite sure why I care so much other than some sort of biological motivator that makes me want to assert my dominance over others. I hate it when other people think they are better than me. I don't know why, I just do.
I'm pretty sure my dad never threw any game against me, ever. I don't think I've ever beaten him in chess, basketball, or tennis, although I am a better chess player than him now (haven't played him since high school) and he is probably lost enough quickness (at age 62) that I could beat him in basketball despite his great shooting. He'd still beat me in tennis.
There's some value in letting your kids win, sure, but there's some value in teaching them to play their best out of respect for your opponent. Those folks that cheat at Scrabble are the same ones that want an upside-down point when they're killing their opponent. Their dads let them win at everything.
Tarr: I don't think I will plan to let either of my kids win anything. Christian seems to be a little sensitive about losing. I'm hoping to transform that into a desire to learn/practice more instead of just retreating/not wanting to play anymore.
I'm pretty sure my Dad didn't throw tennis games against me. Took awhile for me to get ahead of him. We didn't play too many other sports/games in common besides bridge, which we didn't play often enough, although he definitely has much more experience than I do, especially since I don't really play anymore.
Anonymous: Good call on the sacrifice. I definitely feel that way, and it can detract from my enjoyment but unfortunately there are some situations, or more likely crowds, that require it. Inconvenient to say the least. I'm talking about with peers here, not kids. That is its own separate topic.
Scene: the de Frondeville living room, Alex playing Monopoly with his son.
Alex (rolls the dice and lands on Boardwalk, which Christian has a hotel on): *#&@#$!
Christian: What's that word mean, Papa?
Alex: Oh, nothing. (whistles). Your turn.
Christian rolls the dice.
Alex: Ha! Say, son, you like choo-choos. And remember how you got a splinter when we went to the boardwalk that one time? How's about I trade you one, no TWO of my choo choos for that boardwalk property.
etc.
I was thinking more along the lines of "Catherine, how about Connecticut Ave for Broadway? I think the light blue goes much better with your eyes."
Interestingly enough, the opportunity has already come up playing Sorry! with the kids. It is a pretty good beginning strategy game for kids (and drinking game for adults). Good practice with numbers, etc. I spent a lot of the first few games trying to explain why they shouldn't do a certain move but do something else. Explaining how and when to split 7's was particular difficult. However, recently there have been one or two occasions where I neglected to explain something, sort of sink or swim. And the thought definitely crossed my mind that I was being completely 'doing this for your benefit to learn' but also to help me a little.
with board games such as checkers and confidence games like darts, i usually try and enjoy for social reasons and curb my competitiveness. and while losing is never fun, being outwitted is even worse and that frustration is a learning opp.
turning the heat up a bit, i'm certain i don't make an adjustment in sports i'm only so good at. for example at the WAC, the badminton (been over a year since i played)is cutthroat. the s. korean, irish, and english doctors don't make friends easily. failing to be as competitive would be wasting their time and not rising to a challenge.
guilty of being too competitive on the ultimate field is ridiculous. of course i'm talking about the run to nationals and not rec league and tournaments where ultimate is more of a groovy past time. alex wrote of his role as a sideline player. this may be where one's true competitive nature and swagger is exposed. and i'm with him on his activity and critique: get away from your gear and get in the game. the difference in being competitive there and being belligerent isn't very close.
as for the topic as a whole, it's not too difficult to seperate players who are genuinely competitive from the ones who are merely whistling past the graveyard.
Okay, I think all of you care way too much about winning. What I really love is truly great competition. For example, my team was winning in a fall league game 8-4 the other team has 1 sub and is huffing and puffing. My team has 7 subs who are hardly tired. A random men's club player comes walkling by wearing the exact same color shirt as the other team. I know that this guy is probably the most athletic player on the field. I also know that even if we give the other team him, we will still probably win and our entire team will be exhausted by the end.(Much more competitive game.) So I ask him if he wants to play and he is overjoyed. Would you have asked him to play knowing that you could lose the game because of it? Interestingly enough the other team didn't let him play because they wanted to strengthen their own team chemistry.
yours, SL
beatty: Darts is a good example. I agree with what you say. There is a social aspect to those games that adds to the enjoyment and reduces the pain of losing, although even if I'm playing darts with someone who is clearly superior, I want to win even more. There is clear satisfaction in beating someone at their own game. There is less satisfaction in beating someone who you are expected to beat. If anything, those games are more annoying because you are partly trying not to lose instead of trying to win. That can be expanded to its own topic.
OK. I'll bite. What do you mean by whistling past the graveyard?
anonymous: As discussed above, there is more satisfaction in beating a better team. So yes, in that case I would allow the good player to play, especially if we were smoking the other team. However, there are limits to this kind of generosity. Granted it can't happen at the nationals level, but I would not want a Furious or Seattle to pick up a random stud at Nationals.
Would you let him play if you thought your team would probably lose for better competition?
-SL
anon: Game time decision. You talk about a team getting smoked. I find it hard to believe that one player would make that much of a difference in that situation. This is also summer league. If the game was already very close and competitive, then what is the point of letting another person play, especially if the teams are truly 'teams' as opposed to pickup. Also depends if this is big tournament game, etc. Like I said, a lot of factors would come into the decision.
About the only value in games like that is maybe being able to experiment with certain strategies in a slightly less competitive environment to hone them for big games.
Here is an article about a Little League coach ordering an intentional walk in order to face a cancer survivor.
Despite all the complaints mooted about in the story, I think the most important line is the last one where Romney decides to rededicate himself to practicing hitting so next time they will want to walk him instead. That is a potent argument for NOT taking it easy on some one. This inspired Romney's competitive juices, where catering to him would not have.
Well, kudos to the kid for not buying into the "I'm a victim" story, instead aspiring to improve. But the coaches sound like "hate to lose" types.
I think the general rule of recreational play is that it's ok to take advantages of weaknesses where they occur (e.g., throwing hard to lil' Romney, trapping the women in coed), but not ok to design a strategy that would normally be bad or never done (e.g., intentionally walking the other 10 year old kid, the Tea Cup, hitting fly balls to the cripple in right field) just to win.
rick reilly blows.
lightening blast tuesday fried appliances and outlets and has kept me offline. alex, i'll answer you soon enough; keep this entry alive in the meantime.
There was another Little League story in the paper today. In some semifinal game in NH/VT, team A was up by a run going into the bottom of the last inning but realized that one of their players hadn't yet batted in violation of the rules, so the only way they could not forfeit was to allow a run to score and go to extra innings. So, they tried intentional wild pitches, but the other team realized what was happening and refused to advance and intentionally struck out so they would lose yet win. There was another gem of a quote from the home team, how the guy tried to portray himself as all high and mighty and how he would have rather lost by one than to have it come down to this, but why not take the free tie and try for the legitimate win?
Hi.. sorry, I read the first annecdote, and had to comment before I even read further, not to mention finishing the blog entry:
Your first anecdote was about rules, and about someone calling themselves in (and also being able to identify a foot).
When you question someone else's interpretation of the rules, you're obviously not playing the same game -- and you're not even playing _that_ game anymore, you're playing the "my rules are better and 'righter' than yours" game. In other words,
1. When you say that someone's call of being in wasn't true, you're saying that their interpretation of the rules as applied to their situation isn't true.
2. At this point, you're _not_ playing ultimate (or candyland, or whatever) -- you're discussing the rules as applied to that particular situation.
3. If there were a clause in the rules that said "Players may affect the outcome of a play by convincing the other player that the original call in a situation was incorrect, thereby reversing the call" -- then you _would_ be playing the game. But there is no such clause in any of the games you're refering to.
To summarize the situation, you're trying, literally unfairly, to affect the outcome of a game. This is not competitiveness -- competition is a "test of skill and ability". The skill you're using at that moment is not the skill being tested in Ultimate (.. well, depending on the spirit or level of ultimate).
I agree, some people don't have the same interpretation of the rules (the line is here, the line is there, I don't know candyland well enough to make an example, but you get my point.). If you thus feel that losing is a reflection of your own self-worth -- even if it wasn't following the same rules, yeah, then it sucks. To some extent that's pretty normal, I think. I'm sitting here at this moment pissed at some player who made a bad travel call and then backed it up using false arguments (which I only realized later.. long story). But.. you know what, I'm a better _player_ than he is. I'm faster, I throw better, I play better with my team, and we won that game. If he had been a better player, then I'd be really pissed, but I'd have also lost all respect for him -- he'd be better _and_ need to resort to focusing on the rules?
The way you describe yourself makes me inclined to think that the situations you're refering to aren't refering to _using_ the rules in the normal course of play (calling a foul, contesting a foul, knowing exactly what the fouls, travels, violations, and etc. are and calling those), but are refering to situations where you're correcting or convincing someone about the rules. Even if their interpretation of the rules doesn't match yours, play the _game_, not the rules. Because we're not talking about players who haven't read the rule book (and if we are, that's a whole other situation that I won't even go into, and in my opinion, isn't even worth discussing).
My last point of this too long comment is that competition is the essence of sport, to me at least. Wins and losses based on athletic ability and smarts. And the people we hate are the people who don't focus on the game but focus on the rules...
Post a Comment
<< Home