Happiness, Ambition and Pursuit
Of all the goals an athlete might possess I believe the most noble is that of reaching our ultimate potential, or at least giving an honest attempt in reaching our ultimate potential. Basically, making the most of our capacity. By the way, capacity is what we're capable of; capability is what we actually accomplish.
Other goals can be worthwhile as well, but one I've never really understood is in trying to attain material goods (and yet so many spend their lives doing so; incidentally, the so-called American Dream is my worst nightmare). Another misguided goal to me is to aim for specific race placings, when we know all along that others---those we compete against---are beyond our control. Ultimately, we should endeavor to do our best, both while racing and while preparing to race others.
In working with age-group triathletes I've come to the realization that there will always be limitations involved: we're simply trying to see how good we can get, given the rest of our life's responsibilities...i.e., given the choices we have made. We want to see what we're made of, but without undertaking the sacrifices that may leave a void in the rest of our life. (It's not unusual here in Boulder for me to hear age-groupers, when talking about pros, proclaim something like, "but I like to have a life!" or that pros "lack balance," because they're fully committed to such a one-dimensional way of life.) (Please note that not many pros are actually fully committed, and this is generally what sets the truly professional apart from the lifestylers, the successful and the not-so-successful, the productive and the unproductive, the pros and the Joes.) Anyway, as an all-or-none kind of coach, this semi-committed approach is often a hard pill for me to swallow, age-group or pro. As I've written in the past, why go half-assing it, when you can full-ass it?!
Now this isn't to say I don't understand the half-ass approach. I was once an expert, in fact. As an athlete I never really pushed my boundaries. I accepted mediocrity because it was comfortable and familiar, not to mention that I was very successful at it! I relied heavily on a high capacity but did little to nothing to demonstrate capability. To borrow a thought from Nietzsche, I became who I was and not who I thought I was. Thankfully, I've long since come to accept my failures, yet it's hard for me to watch others repeat such mistakes, when I now know better: to actualize oneself, one must strive.
But sure enough, I see these same behavioral patterns oh-so-much in this day and age: that good enough is good enough. For example, so many pro triathletes coach not because they're good coaches (they are not), but because it enables them to continue to live the lifestyle (please note that it's tough to live a lifestyle when you are dead). They're no more committed to being a good coach than they are to being a good athlete. They are lifestylers. This, whether they're a good (i.e., performing) athlete or not. (Remember: some athletes are merely successful because they are lucky: they've chosen the right genealogy. Of course, at the top levels of sport, this is pretty much the case across the board, and it's the hardest working who win, not the most talented. A pro becomes a pro because he's talented; he wins because he outworks everyone else.)
Now there's really nothing wrong with being a lifestyler. Life, after everything is said and done (and, to be sure, more is generally said than done), is about trying new things and experiencing as much as we can during the short time we're here. But how quick are we to tear down the winners because of our "balance"! We criticize those on top because they're easy targets: simply aim high! We claim that our "balance" makes us winners, because we've tasted a wide variety of flavors, despite having never tasted victory. After all, variety, it's been said, is the spice of life. But to me the behavior of tearing down the successful (or anyone else) tastes of bitterness, not spice. Are we truly successful if we need to lash out at others? Are we successful because we possess good "balance" in our life? Or are we only kidding ourselves?
Maybe as humans we're meant to give 100% to a sole passion and abstain from dividing our attention; divided attention could be looked at as a lack of focus. Our primordial ancestors were focused, since their survival fully depended on it, whereas today...not so much. And indeed, the focused souls I know, those who pour 100% of their very being into a sole cause (i.e., a soul cause), seem to be happiest. (And happy is a good aim in life...maybe our only aim.) But then again, they wouldn't pour themselves into something if they weren't happy doing so.
Happiness is what drives our ambition and yet our ambition is happiness. We are happy when we're active in pursuit of choice---those worthwhile goals that we, in some measure, might achieve. But yet there is no happiness without contentment and inner peace, which essentially requires less or lessened ambition. Perhaps when all is said and done (and again, more is usually said than done) the pursuit ends up being the goal. It's just that at the time we don't see this with our success blinders on.
Greg LeMond, a neighbor of mine back in Sacramento many moons ago, and the guy who inspired me to take up this whole damn lifestyle, once said, "I fear that with success it is never enough." This, after winning the Tour de France three times. He found more success than most ever will but yet needed more, and he's been looking ever since.
Is that happy?
Maybe. Maybe not. One who longs for what is constantly out of reach will be constantly unhappy, eternally striving but never arriving. Not only shall he not attain that which he desires, he will fail to appreciate that which he has. And there's bound to be no happiness in that.
