sport – dailyduncan

In part I we discussed the different forms of competition, the origin of sport and the difference between direct and indirect competition. Now we will explore the role of competition in other areas and determine whether it’s actually a constructive behavior.

As we discussed earlier, the major function of competition in nature is to ensure the survival of those most fit for their environment. Modern human competition is used to propel ourselves to achieve new levels of excellence and elevate those who are more talented or dedicated. Competition is a wonderful thing for those who succeed, but as Charles Schulz reminds us, “Nobody remembers who came in second.”

Beyond the podium, in silent locker rooms and on long drives home, the unremembered contemplate the purpose of their efforts. Failure is a necessary component in competition; there’s no way round it. Even the most innocent and well-meaning contests produce failure. These failures are not incidental, but a requirement in order to produce the successes, for a competition without losers is not considered legitimate.

By asking individuals to compete against each other, we are demanding failure. We’re taking pleasure in watching people devote their lives to something and come up short. This reveals how competition is actually a cruel experiment carried out by fans, coaches and parents. By enticing individuals with visions of fame and fortune, while planting false ideas of superiority and a right to win, competitors are conduced to compete, and often fail, for our amusement. But when disappointment falls on those who didn’t achieve their goal, their only consolation is that they may have a chance to redeem themselves. This cycle can continue indefinitely, when a simple cost-benefit analysis of would easily determine that competition is a poor investment.

We may attempt to excuse ourselves from responsibility by proposing that failure is a result of inadequacy, but the fact is that it will come to most, regardless of their efforts. In addition, competition has no sense of justice, so there is no guarantee that the most deserving will be victorious.

Another fundamental part of competition is enmity. Competition is conflict, and in order to have conflict, we must have an us and a them. It is essential that we detach ourselves from those we compete against, for our actions may directly result in their failure. Some competitors intentionally disassociate themselves with their competitors or even foster feelings of hatred in order to compete more intensely or without the restrictions that come with viewing an opponent as a fellow human being. Although there can be great respect between opponents, this relationship is hardly worthy of admiration. There cannot be unity between competitors, for in striving for the same goal we are actually stealing from others what they do not yet possess. There is a limited number of awards to be won, so the aim of each participant is to look out only for themselves, even at the cost of others. This may not be considered theft in the conventional way, but it is by our actions that our opponents are robbed of their prize.

This is also true in the world of business. Looking through the lens of nature, if sport is a dramatization of survival, then economic competition is an embodiment of the battle to feed. Much like blind pups suckling for sustenance, or wild dogs clashing for a piece of a kill, businesses compete to get a larger share of the market. Unlike in many sports, the aim of business competitors is not necessarily the elimination of their opponents, though that is sometimes the case. However, since they are often striving for the same goal, the competition can still be extremely fierce.

Because of the influence of capitalism and our confidence in the competitive market, the competition between businesses seems like an acceptable and upright practice, but the truth of the matter is that many honest, hardworking individuals are regularly driven into poverty. There is no room for empathy in competition, and as we already touched on, no role for justice, since there is no assurance that honest efforts will be rewarded or that underhanded deeds will be punished.

Another example of human competition can be seen in struggle for social superiority. Individuals compete to be the most popular and well-liked because we derive value from the knowledge of how we are perceived by others. This motivates us to keep up with, or surpass, those around us in whatever categories we deem important. Whether it be a measure of wealth, beauty or accomplishment, we can’t help but create competition with those around us.

Unlike official contests, these social arms races are conducted in silence, without terms or rules, and they are eternal. There is no beginning or end and no declaration of winners or losers in social competition, only the vague sense of comfort and supremacy that comes with being better at life than others. Social competition is indirect, since we rarely interfere with others’ quest for material excellence, but the frustration and sadness of those trapped below are definitely real. When we show off our new house, toned figure or gold medal to our neighbor, we could be subjecting them to feelings of inferiority, whether or not we are aware that we are competing.

Shall we continue to raise our children to view other people as enemies, to prioritize themselves above others and to subject themselves to failure for our amusement? Shall we chase success at the cost of the misery and failure of others, like ravenous beasts?

Of all the curious behaviors we exhibit, sport has to be the greatest non-essential expenditure of resources. After all, what purpose does it serve? It doesn’t feed the hungry, clothe the naked or better mankind. In fact, it only increases our consumption of the Earth’s limited resources and distracts us from the things in life that actually matter. It could be argued that sport helps keep us active, healthy and happy, but the existence of the multi-billion-dollar professional sports industry is doing little to curb growing rates of obesity and depression.

So why is sport so popular? What is it about competition that stirs us to push our bodies to the limit, paint our faces and riot in the street? The answer could lie in our ancestors’ struggle for survival.

In the past, humans, like other creatures, were constantly subjected to the cruelties of nature, always searching for food while evading predators and peril. However, for most who dwell in the first world, survival is assumed. We do not worry about being hunted by beasts or succumbing to starvation. Although there is still a need to provide for ourselves, we no longer do it through strength or cunning. Because of this, the focus of our existence has changed substantially. Success, which has replaced survival as the primary motivation for competing, doesn’t ask us to be strong or fast, vicious or violent (at least in the physical sense). This has created a vacuum – an appetite for the primal, physical conflict we once endured. Sport fills this void by creating a dramatization of survival.

Before addressing the many types of sport, it’s important to distinguish between single participant and team sports. Although both are common throughout history, today’s team sports tend to have more intense fans. This could be caused by the relative lack of war in the developed world. Our ancestors lived under the constant threat of invasion by enemy tribes or nations, something completely foreign to many of us. Without an avenue to focus our instinct to defend the collective, it’s possible that many throw their furor behind a local or national sports team in an attempt to satisfy nationalist inclinations.

Now there are many different kinds of sport, some representing survival more closely than others. Bobsled racing, for example, bears no resemblance to anything seen in nature, while wrestling, which has existed for millennia, is a fairly raw and accurate representation of unarmed human combat. Although more classic sports, such as wrestling, have been present in some form in nearly every civilization throughout history, some of them are losing favor because of their violent nature. Violence is no longer seen as an acceptable avenue to settle a dispute, despite the fact that most every other creature does this. But as we are attempting to suppress our violent nature, the rising popularity of mixed martial arts may suggest that we still harbor an appetite for a more elementary form of competition. After all, of what use is the ability to run while bouncing a ball or hit a puck into a net while skating on frozen water? No one ever lived or died based on these skills; they are completely arbitrary.

Until now we have been discussing the origin of competition and its various forms, but it’s at this point that we make a significant distinction between two different categories of competition: direct and indirect. Direct competition pits two or more participants, or teams, against each other in a head-to-head battle in which each competitor is attempting to achieve victory over their opponent(s). Examples of direct competition would include hockey, tennis and Starcraft. Indirect competition, on the other hand, doesn’t ask competitors to interfere with each other, but merely to strive for the highest level of achievement, often while competing in close proximity, either at the same or a similar time. Examples of indirect competition include golf, memory sport and track and field events. A simple way to distinguish direct from indirect competition is that indirect sports can be played by a single participant, while direct sports require at least two participants.

There are also some sports which lie somewhere between the two, such as baseball, which does require that players compete against each other, but only allows them to interact through a complicated set of rules that makes the game exceedingly slow and uninteresting. The only directly competitive interaction between opposing players comes when the batter swings at a ball thrown by the pitcher.

It’s interesting how indirect competition between athletes can be simultaneously intense, while totally fabricated. Most people are not aware that when they are watching the 100-meter dash, they aren’t actually watching athletes compete against one another. What they are watching is athletes performing in the same place and at the same time, which creates the illusion of competition. Of course, it seems as though they are trying to outrun each other, but they are actually just running as fast as they can. The fact that the runners are side-by-side has nothing to do with their performance, other than the added pressure. It’s very likely that the winner of the race isn’t the fastest runner, but merely the person who is the fastest on that particular day, or perhaps it’s simply the person who performs best under pressure.

There are also some forms of indirect competition, such as high jump and weightlifting, that are not decided by the best single performance, but through a process of elimination, similar to the game of limbo. In such sports, athletes are required to achieve a minimum level of performance in order to remain in the competition. After each round, those who failed to do so are removed, and the required level is increased. A winner is eventually crowned when only one athlete is able to successfully complete the task.

Although this system of indirect competition generates excitement and increases the duration of the competition, it is completely unnecessary in order to determine a winner. We could just use an apparatus that measures jump height or lifting force, but that would merely expose how uninteresting these sports actually are. Also, just imagine how foolish it would be to use elimination system for other events, such as the 100-meter dash. Asking competitors to repeatedly run the same distance and faster each time would be absurd.

Of all of the strange forms of competition, bracket drag racing has to be the most contrived and fictitious. The idea of having two vehicles race to a finish line, although indirect, seems pretty valid, but that’s not what bracket racing is about. In fact, in no way does the sport actually determine who is the fastest. Here’s why:

Before the race, the drivers submit their dial-in, which is their projected time to cross the finish line, a time which the driver may not beat during the actual competition. The car with the faster dial-in is then given a handicap equal to the difference between the two times, which eliminates the advantage. Once the race is over, the driver with the faster time is declared the winner. But how, exactly, does the race determine who is faster? The slower car is given a head start, so it doesn’t matter at all who is faster, only who performed closest to their dial-in. A race between a child on a tricycle and a tough guy in a muscle car would be exactly as legitimate.

In order to be successful, a sport must meet many requirements. Among those, it must be designed around human ability. It can’t be too difficult, lest the casual participant find it unenjoyable. Neither can it be too easy, for it must have a skill cap that allows professionals to continually improve. It also can’t take too long a time to play and risk boring audiences, or too short a time, requiring long pauses and artificial structures to increase its duration. A good sport is also simple, which is another reason why classic sports have endured for so long. Demanding that athletes conform to rules that are exceedingly silly or irrelevant may fail to capture the essence of competition, which is survival.

In part II we will explore the role of competition outside of sport, and how it’s actually pure evil.

Tag: sport

The Nature of Competition: Part II

The Nature of Competition: Part I