I was watching a baseball game the other day and the announcers were debating if whether or not Albert Pujols is the best baseball player ever to play the game. Better than Mays, Aaron, DiMaggio, Musial, and Ruth. Better than A-Rod, Bonds, Jeter, and Pete LeCock. Sure, that's a very strong argument. He is without a doubt, one of the best.
It got me to thinking...what it would take to be the absolute best at what you do.
First, you have to have an amazing amount of natural ability. And second, you have to be driven well beyond the likes of your average joe. You have to eat, sleep and breathe whatever it is you are trying to be the best at.
But also, you have to have proven statistical results, or else it's way too subjective.
Albert Pujols, Michael Jordan, Wayne Gretzky, they all are considered arguably the best at what they did or what they currently do. But it's easy to gauge just how good they are with the relentless statistical nature of these games. It's easy to compare Albert to Ruth...statistically.
The only way that I (or anyone) can come close to comprehending how it would feel and what it would take to become the absolute best at something, is to first figure out what it is that you are best at. Or in other words, you're strongest trait, activity, or whatever. Now, that's a pretty broad task to begin with. I, for example, immediately think of fly fishing. But others may think of accounting, lighting a fire without petroleum, pull ups, planting rose gardens, designing cell phones, or yodeling. Let's get back to fly fishing.
Fly fishing is a sport, or at least "part" sport. I consider it an art, a science, a pastime, a hobby, and a subculture as well. But it is the type of sport that is not ruled by stats. So, how is one to know who is the best fly fisherman in the world? Well, there are fly fishing contests and tournaments, but not many. And the majority of the more well known fly fishermen do not compete in these. Would you gauge the best on how much money one has made from the sport? How much knowledge of the history, entomology and technique of the sport? The places traveled and water covered? How many fish you catch? Is it the guy who first broke ground in fly fishing or the guy who carried it to the next level? I'm really not sure.
I consider myself a pretty good fly fisherman. As non-competitive as I consider myself also, I definitely am competitive on the river (not vocally, mentally). There are times when I am not catching many fish and some guy 20 feet away is slaying them, but I may not agree the technique he is using...so which angler is better? If I were to "dumb down" my technique, so to speak, and start catching fish like this guy, am I instantly better? Or am I better by sticking to perhaps a more traditional method?
I think that being the best at something is an impossibility. It's too debatable. It will always be a matter of opinion. It doesn't matter who has the best stats, there will always be arguable variables. Someone today doesn't have much of a leg to stand on when comparing Albert to Ruth, or Albert to Mays. Their positions were different, their eras were different, their competition was different, the fitness science and technology is different, and so forth and so on. Figuring out who the best is at anything is impossible, simply because no one knows who else might be out there that is better. Lance Armstrong is great, but there are a thousand Lance Armstrong's out there that are better cyclists.
"How do you know, butthole?" you ask. I don't know, I suspect. But not all great cyclists enter the Tour de France. Lance did, though, and he won it a bunch of times. Therefore he is considered the best based on his competitive accomplishments. But I guarantee that there are better cyclists, they just choose not to enter races.
So, what is better? Someone who chooses one "activity" and attempts to become better at it than anyone else? Or someone who chooses a handful of "activities" and strives to be pretty good at all of them?
Yvonne Chouinard, founder of the outdoor apparel company, Patagonia, and avid mountaineer, climber, fly fisherman, surfer, and kayaker (at some point in his life), stated in his book, "Let My People Go Surfing" that he strives for 80% perfection when he takes on a new sport. Don't know if those were his exact words, but they're close enough. He says that any more than 80% dedication is too much, and one must focus solely on that one sport if one chooses to push beyond 80%. I'm assuming that he considers 100% expert...the best. So 80%'s gotta be pretty damn good.
But without knowing what 100% is...ie, the best...how do I get to 80%? How do I know when to pull back or to push forward?
I guess I kind of understand. I think of people who have embraced an activity to the fullest...they've made a living out of this activity, they've been a trailblazer in the industry, they eat, sleep, and breathe this activity. And then there are people like Mr. Chouinard who are really good at a lot of things, but not considered the best (although he may be the best at building and running a sustainable company).
I can equally admire both. I don't necessarily own any characteristics of either type, though. I'm good at a few things, like fly fishing and being wicked, but not great at anything. And I'm not sure I've got it in me to strive to the best at something. At this point in my life, that would just be trying to prove something. I am what I am. If someone were to ever consider me the best, it would be by accident on my part. If I become considered the best fly fisherman by others, it will not be because I'm hellbent on being that person, it will be because I genuinely love what I'm doing and as result, have become pretty damn good at it. Unconscious success.
Hell, to people that don't know any better, I may be considered the best fly fisherman to them. I may already be there. I may be just like Albert. Pujols, Jordan, Gretzky, Armstrong, and Todd. I can live with that.
.
No comments:
Post a Comment