I'm in Colorado Springs at the US Olympic Training Center with a couple of my female athletes. We're in the final preparation stages leading into the US Olympic Team Trials. The Trials will take place in Iowa City, IA on April 21-22. All of the hard work is done and it's now time to get organized and take what we have into the most important event in the US since 2008.
This week is very light from a physical standpoint. The girls are tapering and honing their skills. It's too late to add anything and it's too close to push hard. This week is more of a "clean-up" phase. Essentially, the past 6-7 months of training have been a whirlwind and somewhat overwhelming, emotionally draining, mentally taxing and physically demanding. This week is about putting everything back together and in order.
I had a long conversation with one of my athletes two weeks ago and she expressed her frustrations with teammates, training, technique and almost everything associated with the sport. She felt like she was over-training and needed a break. I reassured her that all of this training is working out perfectly. I told her that the nature of her training and continued growth makes everything seem very "messy" right now. The analogy I used was that it's like her room is a mess, clothes are everywhere, she hasn't made her bed in months and now I'm coming with my vacuum cleaner and we're cleaning house: doing laundry, folding her clothes and putting them in the correct drawers (figuratively). We're going from disorder to order.
It's really not much different than a construction site. Before construction begins, the area is clean, orderly and functional. Once you "break ground," it gets a little messy. There is daily maintenance during a big job like sweeping and picking up tools, however, it's not until it's complete that you pull away the plastic and throw away the masking tape that was around the windows. The same is true now for those competing in the Trials. We have to get rid of the plastic, throw some things out and take inventory of all of our tools. We're taking a finished product to Iowa.
This is a big moment for these women. The next two weeks are extremely delicate and crucial. It's two weeks for the rest of their lives. They're feeling the weight of the pressure. If it's all done correctly, the pressure will help them rather than hinder them. Olympic Gold Medalist Scott Hamilton said, "Under pressure you can perform fifteen percent better or worse." To perform best, we need to maintain a healthy perspective and enjoy the process.
The probability of achieving the outcome you want increases when you let go of the need for it.
Tuesday, April 10, 2012
Monday, April 9, 2012
To be the best, you have to...
To be the best, you have to believe you're the best and do your best when it matters the most taking advantage of the opportunities before you. The opportunity of a lifetime must be seized in the lifetime of the opportunity. Mental fortitude and timing are essential.
"To be the best, you have to beat the best" is one of the most overused cliches in sports. I doubt those who become the best for any duration of time actually use this mantra. To be the best, you might never have to face the "best." The best focus on controlling what they can control. You cannot control who you compete against and you cannot control being labeled the obscure label of the best. You can control your attitude and effort, though. Externally focusing on the process and remaining positive rather than fixating on the outcome is the first step to unleashing your potential. Strive first to be your best and do your best.
It all sounds a little New Age, doesn't it? Like the person who says winning isn't important is probably the guy who is losing regularly, right? Make no mistake, winning is important and focusing on it helps fuel the desire to be the best. However, if the outcome supersedes the process, disappointment is almost sure to follow against the stiffest competition.
Every year I watch the final day of The Masters on television. Actually, I watch as much of the tournament as I can starting with the par-3 challenge on Wednesday. In recent years, the "best" golfer didn't win the tournament if world ranking and earnings are our measuring stick. Previous success is not much of an indicator, either. The winner is the individual who plays the best golf on Sunday when all the chips are on the table. The past 14 major championships have been won by 14 different golfers. 11 of the last 12 are first time major tournament winners. This year's Masters winner, Bubba Watson, played great on his way back to the clubhouse and stole a green jacket. When it came down to it, he had to beat Louie Oosthuizen - hardly the "best" golfer in the world - in a sudden death shoot out. Both are great talents, but not in the conversation of the best golfers on the planet, yet. Watson didn't have to beat the best, he had to play his best when it mattered most and believe he was capable of winning. It was a battle within himself - maintaining composure, focusing on the next shot and not allowing outside distractions to get the best of him. Sure, he finished ahead of the top golfers in the world, however, it wasn't about beating the best. It was all about him being his best.
Being the best and winning are not synonymous, so it's not about beating a specific opponent. You can be the best and not win or win and not be the best. Additionally, you can win without being your best and you can be your best and still not win. It's the nature of sports and one of the most important elements of it. It's why they play the games. if it was about beating the best, we wouldn't be captivated by people like Bubba Watson.
In the wrestling world, this cliche gets hammered because it's an individual sport. Henry Cejudo won an Olympic Gold Medal in 2008 and was not the best wrestler in his weight class. They don't give gold medals for the best, they award the individual who beats all of the opponents he faces. Cejudo won four matches and didn't have to beat Besik Kudokhov. Kudokhov is arguably the best pound-for-pound wrestler in the world today. He has been king of his weight class every single day since 2006 except for that one day Cejudo put everything together at the most optimal time. Cejudo has never defeated Kudokhov, yet he has a gold medal and Kudokhov doesn't. Kudokhov has five world gold medals, though. Truth be told, Cejudo was never close to beating Kudokhov. In Beijing in 2008, that wasn't the objective, though, was it? Cejudo controlled what was within his control. If he had to beat the best to be the best, there would have been another match following the championship finals. Beat the opponent in front of you and seize the opportunity when it's there.
On the flip side, I went to Russia in 2005 to seek out one competitor - Alan Dudaev. He was the reigning world champion at my weight class. I remembered the cliche to be the best you have to beat the best. In a friendly dual meet in Vladikavkaz, I beat Dudaev 0-3, 1-0, 1-1 in a match that was meaningless to him. I have a healthy perspective on that match today. Dudaev was fresh off a world gold medal and was in the middle of technical phase in his training schedule. He focused on one skill during our match (and scored 3 points on it in the first period). I caught on to his tactics and stayed away from it and he was unsuccessful the final two minutes. I scored in the clinch and on a push-out. That situation did not make me the best even though I "beat" the best (don't try to take that away from me...).
To be the best, you don't have to beat the best. You have to believe you're the best and take advantage of the opportunities that are in front of you while controlling only what you can control.
"To be the best, you have to beat the best" is one of the most overused cliches in sports. I doubt those who become the best for any duration of time actually use this mantra. To be the best, you might never have to face the "best." The best focus on controlling what they can control. You cannot control who you compete against and you cannot control being labeled the obscure label of the best. You can control your attitude and effort, though. Externally focusing on the process and remaining positive rather than fixating on the outcome is the first step to unleashing your potential. Strive first to be your best and do your best.
It all sounds a little New Age, doesn't it? Like the person who says winning isn't important is probably the guy who is losing regularly, right? Make no mistake, winning is important and focusing on it helps fuel the desire to be the best. However, if the outcome supersedes the process, disappointment is almost sure to follow against the stiffest competition.
Every year I watch the final day of The Masters on television. Actually, I watch as much of the tournament as I can starting with the par-3 challenge on Wednesday. In recent years, the "best" golfer didn't win the tournament if world ranking and earnings are our measuring stick. Previous success is not much of an indicator, either. The winner is the individual who plays the best golf on Sunday when all the chips are on the table. The past 14 major championships have been won by 14 different golfers. 11 of the last 12 are first time major tournament winners. This year's Masters winner, Bubba Watson, played great on his way back to the clubhouse and stole a green jacket. When it came down to it, he had to beat Louie Oosthuizen - hardly the "best" golfer in the world - in a sudden death shoot out. Both are great talents, but not in the conversation of the best golfers on the planet, yet. Watson didn't have to beat the best, he had to play his best when it mattered most and believe he was capable of winning. It was a battle within himself - maintaining composure, focusing on the next shot and not allowing outside distractions to get the best of him. Sure, he finished ahead of the top golfers in the world, however, it wasn't about beating the best. It was all about him being his best.
Being the best and winning are not synonymous, so it's not about beating a specific opponent. You can be the best and not win or win and not be the best. Additionally, you can win without being your best and you can be your best and still not win. It's the nature of sports and one of the most important elements of it. It's why they play the games. if it was about beating the best, we wouldn't be captivated by people like Bubba Watson.
In the wrestling world, this cliche gets hammered because it's an individual sport. Henry Cejudo won an Olympic Gold Medal in 2008 and was not the best wrestler in his weight class. They don't give gold medals for the best, they award the individual who beats all of the opponents he faces. Cejudo won four matches and didn't have to beat Besik Kudokhov. Kudokhov is arguably the best pound-for-pound wrestler in the world today. He has been king of his weight class every single day since 2006 except for that one day Cejudo put everything together at the most optimal time. Cejudo has never defeated Kudokhov, yet he has a gold medal and Kudokhov doesn't. Kudokhov has five world gold medals, though. Truth be told, Cejudo was never close to beating Kudokhov. In Beijing in 2008, that wasn't the objective, though, was it? Cejudo controlled what was within his control. If he had to beat the best to be the best, there would have been another match following the championship finals. Beat the opponent in front of you and seize the opportunity when it's there.
On the flip side, I went to Russia in 2005 to seek out one competitor - Alan Dudaev. He was the reigning world champion at my weight class. I remembered the cliche to be the best you have to beat the best. In a friendly dual meet in Vladikavkaz, I beat Dudaev 0-3, 1-0, 1-1 in a match that was meaningless to him. I have a healthy perspective on that match today. Dudaev was fresh off a world gold medal and was in the middle of technical phase in his training schedule. He focused on one skill during our match (and scored 3 points on it in the first period). I caught on to his tactics and stayed away from it and he was unsuccessful the final two minutes. I scored in the clinch and on a push-out. That situation did not make me the best even though I "beat" the best (don't try to take that away from me...).
To be the best, you don't have to beat the best. You have to believe you're the best and take advantage of the opportunities that are in front of you while controlling only what you can control.
Sunday, April 1, 2012
Who do you say Jesus is?
I had a quick thought in church today. People develop opinions of individuals based on what they hear from others or what someone looks like. It's common place to draw conclusions on the character of an individual based on how they dress. At our core, we know it's wrong and still find ourselves and others doing it. Our culture and society have basically discredited this kind of behavior, right? People are encouraged and taught to look inside each person and know them for who they are. Except when it comes to Jesus.
I know many people who have drawn their conclusions and opinions of Jesus based on what others say and think. In fact, it goes a step further with Jesus, and people somehow are given a pass to make-up whatever they'd like to about him. Their opinions of who Jesus is are all over the map and much of them created to fit one's way of life, thought process or desires. They're not based on who he actually is.
I naturally formulate opinions about every single person I meet - usually before I even hear them speak. I dislike this about myself. If you're anything like me, it happens regardless if we want it to or not. However, I actively strive to remain open minded and let the individual tell me who they are. You know, don't judge a book by its cover... Our culture might stereotype people, but it also puts pressure on us to get to know the individual. Except when it comes to Jesus.
I've met many people who are content and satisfied with the presumptions of Jesus. They develop an opinion and stubbornly stick to it and refuse to get to know him. In everyday life, is it alright for me assume I know everything about another person because someone else told me about him/her? Absolutely not! Then, why does our society permit - and even encourage - us to think whatever we'd like to about Jesus? It seems like a double standard.
Who YOU say Jesus is is the most important answer you'll ever have to give in this lifetime. In Mark 8:29: "'But what about you?' He asked. 'Who do you say I am?' Peter answered, 'You are the Christ.'" Jesus asked Peter who he thought he was. He didn't ask Peter who his parents thought he was. Or what his friends thought. Or what his teacher, professor and even pastor thought. Some of us are basing our faith on the faith (or no faith) of others. "Who you say I am?" He asked.
He asks everyone this most important question. Getting the answer correct on this one is too important to ignore or to take someones word for. Each of us must get to know Jesus for who he is if we're going to accurately formulate opinions about him. As humans, don't we owe that everyone? I think so. And even more when it comes to Jesus.
I know many people who have drawn their conclusions and opinions of Jesus based on what others say and think. In fact, it goes a step further with Jesus, and people somehow are given a pass to make-up whatever they'd like to about him. Their opinions of who Jesus is are all over the map and much of them created to fit one's way of life, thought process or desires. They're not based on who he actually is.
I naturally formulate opinions about every single person I meet - usually before I even hear them speak. I dislike this about myself. If you're anything like me, it happens regardless if we want it to or not. However, I actively strive to remain open minded and let the individual tell me who they are. You know, don't judge a book by its cover... Our culture might stereotype people, but it also puts pressure on us to get to know the individual. Except when it comes to Jesus.
I've met many people who are content and satisfied with the presumptions of Jesus. They develop an opinion and stubbornly stick to it and refuse to get to know him. In everyday life, is it alright for me assume I know everything about another person because someone else told me about him/her? Absolutely not! Then, why does our society permit - and even encourage - us to think whatever we'd like to about Jesus? It seems like a double standard.
Who YOU say Jesus is is the most important answer you'll ever have to give in this lifetime. In Mark 8:29: "'But what about you?' He asked. 'Who do you say I am?' Peter answered, 'You are the Christ.'" Jesus asked Peter who he thought he was. He didn't ask Peter who his parents thought he was. Or what his friends thought. Or what his teacher, professor and even pastor thought. Some of us are basing our faith on the faith (or no faith) of others. "Who you say I am?" He asked.
He asks everyone this most important question. Getting the answer correct on this one is too important to ignore or to take someones word for. Each of us must get to know Jesus for who he is if we're going to accurately formulate opinions about him. As humans, don't we owe that everyone? I think so. And even more when it comes to Jesus.
I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: "I'm ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don't accept his claim to be God." That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a good moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic-on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg-or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronising nonsense about His being a great moral teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to. - C.S. Lewis 'Mere Christianity'
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
