L.I.F.T.

February 3rd was National Girls and Women in Sports Day.

Supposedly, “thousands of sports educators, coaches, athletic directors, recreation directors, association members, sponsors, students, and parents across the country will show their support of the Day and of this year’s theme, “Stay Strong, Play On.”"

I hadn’t heard anything at all about it.  But, congrats girls and women!  I’ll back you up any day of the week!

You go, women!

I’m really grateful for excellent bloggers like JR Atwood at Playthink.  JR has again prompted me to write an entry that is essentially a response/reflection on one of his recent posts.  JR’s post has a highlight section of the discussion between Bill Simmons and Malcolm Gladwell about sport celebrity…that, to me, goes nowhere.  The topic of the part of the discussion posted in JR’s blog is about the public reaction to sports-celebrities’ behaviors, and how “random” those reactions appear to be.

While a fascinating topic in itself, that conversation really goes nowhere.  There are no answers in the end.  Why?

That’s the reason for this post.

I’m confused by the Gladwell/Simmons conversation.  They only talk around their subject-matter, describing it, but not uncovering anything.

What’s strange to me is that neither of them points out that expectations of (or reactions-to) professional athletes and their behavior are entirely fabricated.  They’re created by the media, the consensus-view of the commentators, and the consensus-view of the viewers.  Granted, that’s a vague statement, but stick with me for a second.

What I’m saying is that there is no “strict moral ground” by which to judge the behavior of celebrity athletes (or any celebrity, for that matter).  Instead, the reaction is more a conflagration of the “public image” of that athlete, the media’s reaction/billing of the behavior, and the public’s buy-in to that billing.

I don’t think the reaction has anything to do with the “volatility of statistics.”  Stats are meaningless if a game is “infinite” (played for its own sake, to continue playing, as opposed to played to win).  Therefore, the value of stats is agreed-upon before the sport is begun.  The rules are laid out.  “This is a finite game.  It is played to win.  Therefore, we keep track of everything.”

This is also a cultural creation.  What are the meaning of statistics?  The meaning, like the meaning of celebrity athletes’ behavior, is culturally created.  What is the meaning of one or several players taking performance-enhancing drugs (PED’s) and thereby skewing those stats?  How can one really know?

At this point, I’d like to turn to the PED discussion.  Because it does highlight what’s happening underneath this discussion of celebrity-athlete behavior and public reaction.

Here’s the deal, and here’s what fascinates me the most – This “debate” itself is a game.

It’s similar to the “healthcare debate” entry I posted.  Till cultural change occurs that supports all of the talk about healthcare change/promotion, any talk about healthcare is mere lip-service.  No true change can occur until the culture will support that change.

Similarly, until a systematized, reliable, regular, and transparent method of testing athletes for PED’s is put into place, there’s no real telling what the “true” stats are.

Along with any other specifics about the subject matter they propound on, Gladwell and Simmons don’t discuss the testing policies/procedures in place now, or the history behind those policies.

While they were “banned” in 1991, “random” drug testing was only started in MLB in 2001.  Steroids were only banned in the NBA in 1999.  And, though steroids were “banned” in the NFL in 1990, loopholes were found in 2005 that allowed Carolina Panthers players to be prescribed banned substances two weeks prior to the 2004 Superbowl. (go here for the USA Today article outlining the last two references).

I put “random,” and “banned’ in quotes above, because, to the best of my knowledge, testing is far from random, and (as in the case of the Panthers), performance-enhancing substances are far from truly banned.  Instead, players are tested who will test positive.  Occasionally, a scapegoat may be needed, or someone out of which to make an example, and they’ll be tested.  Or, someone from outside the organization will report unfavorable news and the whole thing will blow up.

My point about testing, above, is to say that the stats are already skewed.  It’s impossible to know what the true stats are for sports until everyone is tested.  If that’s your goal.

But I don’t think that it is.

This site has a nice “news-based” overview of drugs in sports, that shows clearly that athletes have always used “performance-enhancing drugs” of some sort or other.  So the question I come to is not whether or not PED’s should be banned, or whether or not they’re skewing sporting outcomes, but what the game is behind this discussion.

What is the purpose of organized sports?  “Bread and circus?” – that is, a distraction for the masses?

For those who believe that organized sports are simply there because so many people enjoy watching them, I strongly disagree.  At the point at which a thing becomes a multi-billion dollar industry, people’s enjoyment, as being free from coercion, diminishes exponentially.

So if it doesn’t really matter…that is, if there’s no way to know what the “real” stats are, and there’s no “real” ground by which to judge a (any) celebrity’s behavior, what are we talking about here?

I don’t think we’re really talking about anything.  Certainly nothing of importance.  Just surface characteristics of a much larger dynamic.

It’s like talking about the weather.  How is it?  The city-slicker hates the rain, the farmer loves it.  Same rain.

But hate it or love it, there it is.

Why do we talk about the weather?  It’s easier than doing something.  It’s easier than admitting that we have no control over it.  Comfort?  I don’t know…you tell me.

Dr. Peter Gray’s recent article on Psychology Today, “The Morally Questionable Lessons of Formal Sports,” asks the very pertinent question – to what end, sports?

I’ve commented on my own experience with organized sports in previous posts, and will sum up by saying that I almost always have experienced what Dr. Gray outlines in his article – the creation of enemies through organized sporting activity.

Granted, none of those people are still my enemies, but the process of organized sport itself necessarily (in most cases) creates the Self/Other distinction more quickly than other group dynamics.

What happens next?  Well, the group becomes Self and Other (or “my group and their group”.  Then Self and Other becomes Self VS Other (or, “my group versus their group”).

Then the violence happens.

Once an individual perceives themselves as separated from their habitat – as physically separate – there are no consequences when things are done-to that habitat.

Habitat includes everything around us.  Furniture, walls, plants, animals, air, weather, sounds, etc.  Everything that is our “external organ.”

It is interesting that that process is so simple to accomplish.

In the study that Dr. Gray cites, it was accomplished by giving children rewards for winning whatever game against the other team.  Win, you get an award.  Lose, you do not.

Suddenly, I am not just separate from the large context, but not rewarded for my efforts (though they may have been as great, relatively, as those of the other players).

What dissolves this dialectic?  Again, in the study Dr. Grey cites, conflict between groups was resolved by involving the group in a common goal.

We’ve seen this in history.  Unite opposing factions, or views, against a “common enemy.”

Suddenly we’re all on the same team (at least for a while).

But what hasn’t happened is the dissolution of the Self/Other dialectic.  It still remains, ruling over all, until the teams are split up again, and one is pitted against the other.

At the last Highland Games in Dunsmuir, I twisted my ankle pretty badly coming out of a throw. I remember doing it, but nothing felt wrong or out of place, it kind of just bounced right back, no swelling, nothing wrong.

Then, about a week ago, my left ankle started to hurt REALLY BADLY when I was practicing some Bagua at a local park. It was actually the pain of the joint being out of place. I could do ankle circles and get the bones to actually “thunk” back into proper alignment.

It’s been like that for about a week now, off and on. So yesterday, I decided to wear “real” shoes, to give myself some added stability, and help my ankle to heal. I’m wearing my old Adidas Samba Milleniums, that I haven’t worn in forever! Actually, I got them right before my FiveFingers, so they’re pretty much new!

The funny thing is, it works!

As soon as I put those shoes on yesterday morning, my ankle felt more stable, and relaxed a little bit. I went and led the play camp, with no ill effect. I was able to play tag with the group (though I was being very conscious of that ankle)!

This experience reminds me of homeopathic medicine – where you take a small amount of something that is “poisonous” or harmful to help your body fight that thing. Similar, too, to the idea behind vaccinations.

Sometimes, the poison is the cure.

Don’t get me wrong, this isn’t a return to the use of “normal” shoes for good. I’m pretty sure it was the high-soled North Face All-Terrain Running Shoes that were the culprit for my sprain to begin with. Next ‘Games, I’m going to try out the Vivo’s!

It does point out the usefulness of shoes, though.  Orthotics, similarly, are useful for people who have serious foot maladies – for a time!  Any assistive devices are good for people who need them – as long as they’re only used while the person is working on fixing the underlying problem!

The problem with a lot of these corrective or assistive devices is that they become accepted as “normal” after a while.  The person doesn’t work on correcting underlying issues causing the problem.  Then, the device becomes a crutch.  Progress, development and healing stop.  Regression, devolution, and the continuing degradation into disease begins.

No, for me, this is a temporary fix, till my ankle heals up, and I can return to wearing things that let my feet live!

A good friend of mine, Sam, developed an incredibly unique approach to life. He said (at least) a couple of things that always intrigued me, and that have stuck with me over the years.

One of those things is the title of this post – Go where you want to be.

The first time I heard Sam say this was in reference to finding a parking spot, of all things.

We were going to meet up at a club in DC to hear a band play, and I spent about fifteen minutes looking for a spot. When I got into the bar, there was Sam, having a beer, looking relaxed, as usual.

“How’s it going, Josh?” he asked.
“Great. Took me forever to find a spot though!”
“Huh,” Sam said.

We talked some more, the band played, and then it was time to go. We walked out of the front of the bar and there was Sam’s car! Parked right in front! I hadn’t even noticed it on my way in.

“Nice spot!” I said.
Sam looked at me and paused, as he did once in a while – usually after I’d said something earlier related to a life-philosophy idea, and the time had come to talk about it.
“You have to go where you want to be Josh” he said.
I stared at him like he’d just told me I should eat a banana.
“What?”
“Yeah. I just go where I want to be. If I’m looking for a spot, I don’t drive all around the place looking for one. I drive right up to the front of the place first. That’s where I want to park. Usually, there’s a spot right there for me. When there’s not, I work my way out from where I want to be – not vice versa.”

We parted for the evening, but the words have never left me.

I think about this a lot, and apply it to much more than parking, and I think you should too. Think about places in your life right now, where you aren’t going where you want to be.

Then turn around and go there instead.

Charlie Reid and I presented to some folks at Sports Basement in Potrero Hill last night.  It was a one-hour talk on Play-Based Fitness Seminar (click the link for a PDF copy of the presentation).

Play-Based Fitness Seminar

While the first thing we learned was that we need to be better at marketing and advertising (I think only 5 people total showed up), we learned a lot more as well.

One of the most striking things that I learned was that Sports Basement seems to be like most corporations – focused on traditional ideas of work.  I mean, the name is “SPORTS” Basement, so I guess I shouldn’t be surprised.  But it was a little shocking to learn that they don’t have play-based teambuilding for their employees…especially considering all of the toys they have all around them all the time!

The second thing that really stood out for me was a realization I had during part of the talk.  We were discussing “abstract” play – word-games, puns, imaginary play, etc., and I realized that no adults do this past a certain age.  Sure, you might imagine that you had a different job.  Or a professional athlete might use visualization techniques to help themselves perform better.  But no adults engage in pure fantasy-play – creating imaginary surroundings, with imaginary characters (who may or may not represent real people), etc.  I’m not sure why this is, but I’m going to start a regular practice of engaging in this behavior, and I’ll let you know how it goes!

Get out there and play!

There are a lot of factors to success.  There’s luck (right place/right time), environmental factors (having the tools at the right time), community factors (having support), biological factors (having some biological advantages that others might not), etc.

However, chief among the factors necessary to be successful at something (and by that, I don’t mean monetarily successful, I mean achieving a very high level of proficiency at that thing – which can come with or without money), are exuberance, and intention.

Exuberance is a state of passionate excitement.  In the parlance of our times – you’re stoked.  You can’t wait to do the thing.  You’re happy about it.  You love it.  Even when it gets hard, you feel challenged by the problems, not defeated by them.  They seem to give you even more energy.  That’s exuberance.  Without it, people will stop trying very quickly.  If you’ve ever been around athletes or coaches for a while, you’ve probably heard the phrase “You’ve got to want it.”  That’s where the next part comes in.

Intention, the “wanting it,” seems to be at the base of all success, or effort aimed at success, and the subtleties of intention are numerous.  First, you must have the general intention to do the thing.  That’s “self-directed activity” in a nutshell.  But secondly, you have your own unique intention toward the thing, once you’ve started doing it.  The term is used a lot in massage therapy, where we say that the most important thing is to focus your intention to heal the person.  Well, that’s a very basic level of intention.  I intend to heal you.  But how?  And why?  I intend to heal you because – there could be any number of different reasons that will resonate differently with individuals.  I intend to heal you in this way – that comes from your life history, your understanding of “healing” and what it means to heal someone.

A lot of the success books and courses out there prescribe step-by-step rules or guidelines for achieving success.  And some ofthem are very helpful.  A lot of them make you go through activities to help you to “know yourself” better.  And those things can be helpful too.

But I’ve never seen a self-help or success book or course that targets your exuberance, and stokes that flame, or that helps you to understand how central your intention is to the success you find (or don’t find) in your life, and how to focus that intention into a tool to get you where you want to be.

And I’m not really sure that a book or course can do those things.

There is a whole “boutique fitness clothing” economy springing up across the country (world?).  Places like Lululemon, Athleta (which Gap Inc. is buying), were created to “cater to female athletes.”  They offer luxurious workout clothes (that can be tailored, no less), that cost a small fortune for an average person.

We all know this is make-believe.  You don’t need “yoga pants” to do yoga.  In fact, my favorite clothing for yoga is a pair of shorts.  Women may want to keep their bra’s on, but I’m fine if they don’t.

What about running?  Yeah, again, a pair of shorts.  If it’s chilly out, give me sweatpants and a sweatshirt.  If it’s too cold for that, what the hell am I running for (from?)?

Back in high school gym class we were given running shorts (the real deal…if you have big glutes, your cheeks are hanging out of the back) and a tank top.  That was our gym uniform.  Perfect.  Then, suddenly, someone designing clothes for athletes realized they could charge more if they used more fabric (or something).  Suddenly, guys in the NBA were wearing coulats in games, and arm-sleeves, or several t-shirts at the same time, and sports became a fashion-show.

Well, okay, whatever floats your boat.  But I want you, dear reader, to consider two things about these choices – Function, and Repercussions.

Function – how will you function best?  Consider that.  Then think about “fashionable” items that you might wear a lot (I mean, more than your gym clothes) – like “skinny jeans,” that inhibit hip flexion.  Suddenly everyone walks like a penguin, they can’t bend at the hips.  They have to flex their lower back (lumbar spine) when they sit, because their “skinny jeans” won’t let their hips bend.  Add high heels to that mess and you have physiological disaster waiting to happen.

Repercussions – aside from the physical repercussions (which aren’t obvious…that is, you won’t notice you’ve been crippled by your clothes till your back blows out), there are serious global environmental repercussions to the continual production, consumption, and disposal of unnecessary bullshit.  When you buy your new Lululemon workout gear, where was it made?  Where was it shipped from?  Who made it, and how much were they paid?  What happened to the environment they lived in?  How long will it last?  Longer than a skimpy pair of running shorts?  When the trends change, will it sit in your closet, or be dumped on Goodwill, or worse – in the trash can?

You are effecting very large things with your fashion choices.  Be careful.

I was blown away recently when I stumbled on this article on Stack magazine online.  It’s called “Training Trends with Under Armour,” and is about a year old at this point.

The “trends” they’re talking about are shoes.  Specifically, three shoes produced by Under Armour, called the UA Proto Power Trainer, UA Proto Speed Trainer and UA Proto Evade Trainer.

Under Armour has created the three shoes to provide foot support for three different types of training – sagittal plane (frontward/backward), frontal plane (side-to-side), and “vertical” plane training.

Essentially, you now need three different sets of shoes in order to practice properly in the off-season.  I would guess, too, that you’d need to change shoes in the middle of your workout, as you transitioned from training in one plane to the other.  Unless, of course, you only trained in a particular plane in each workout.

Aside from the fact that this “informational article” is obviously an advertisement, and that the “logic” behind these shoes is more about making money than about improving human performance – I don’t know whether to laugh or cry.  People will obviously be buying these shoes, and buying the message that goes with them.  Under Armour is a huge company, that wouldn’t have invested resources into producing and marketing these shoes unless their market research said they’d be successful.

For all of the athletes out there using these shoes, I have a couple of questions.  The first is the one I pose above – how do you train?  Do you have to change your shoes during each workout, or do you just focus on one plane of movement each workout?

The second question I have for you guys is – what happens when you’re on the field of play?  Do all of your abilities meld together magically in the heat of the moment?  Do you miss the specific cushioning provided by the shoes when you have to lace up your old Nike cleats?

Meanwhile, Under Armour, I assume you’ve done some real scientific research to back up the claims made about your shoes.  Can I see it?  And can you justify the increase in your carbon footprint (and the amount of garbage in the world) with that science?

I have to reiterate that shoes are essentially bad for you.  They’re necessary because of the way we’ve structured our man-made environment – as a cold, hard place.  But they’re accessories to the body, not enhancements.  People who excel in sports excel in any shoes.  They have put in the hard work to perfect their technique, to build their strength…years of practice and effort, not new shoes, make a better athlete.