Sports people - should they always only be "in the zone" or "on the stage" too?

[JohnnyDee]

Sports people - should they always only be "in the zone" or "on the stage" too?

Something developed on the "Is Spieth a Choker?" thread which I found interesting so thought I'd widen the discussion and give it a fuller airing.

Most on here are sports fans and in addition to golf we've followed, and still follow, many other sports too. Our heroes at all earn a fortune and play their respective games at the very highest level which is all you'd expect really. But...

Some are People's Champions and transcend the "every day" to become iconic, whilst others are brilliant but no-one is about to lay down their lives to defend them. So why is that?

I believe that the icons (Nicklaus in golf, Higgins in snooker, Best in football and Ali in boxing etc. have a certain je ne sais quoi that sets them apart from their peers in any given generation. In addition to their phenomenal skills and killer instinct (qualities that are expected in any top sportsman /woman in their chosen field) they bring something else to the table.

It's a something that often cannot be measured or quantified but the public knows what it is when they see it. It's the difference between an event being sold out and one struggling to get bums on seats.

To me these very few let us see beyond the façade of their "game face" and into their very souls.

 

[Lord Tyrion]

Re: Sports people - should they always only be "in the zone" or "on the stage" t

Good question. Some people have to be in the zone, Faldo or Woods spring to mind. Others are not set up to be exciting, Boycott or Alistair Cook. You can admire these people, silly not to, but if you want to jump a level and be loved then you have to give a little to the spectator as well.

You can't force people to be extroverts or entertainers but I do believe pro sport is an entertainment industry so a little smile or wave wouldn't go amiss every now and again.

 

[Tongo]

Re: Sports people - should they always only be "in the zone" or "on the stage" t

As sports fans we like to see people with characters and human flaws. We watch sport to enjoy brilliance but also the drama. Look at Seve and Faldo. Nick won more but Seve was more popular because people lived their golfing dreams vicariously through following him, the excitement of seeing him do something spectacular was more alluring than watching Faldo grind it out.

The same with Ronnie O'Sullivan in Snooker. I've seen him play twice and the atmosphere was electric on both occasions. People are hoping to see another 147 in 5 and half mins or something similar.

Others can bang on about sport being a business etc etc but an exciting player with bravado and charisma will always gain popularity and support.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

Re: Sports people - should they always only be "in the zone" or "on the stage" t

For me there are two areas in sport

The competitive area and entertainment

Most sportsmen and women play the sport at a professional level to earn their living and to try and be the best they can. They are fully focused on that and for them that's all that matters

In regards entertainment well for me this comes in various levels

There are people who will be utterly enthralled by the sheer ability of people and watching people at the top of their game compete at the highest level some will find that a bit boring and then you have the people that will look for the interaction with the crowd or will attempt to entertain by using their character and attitude to the sport

Every single sportsman who plays professionally is competive and determined and totally focused on doing their best

If i used various sports stars for example

Tiger Woods - beyond focussed, totally tunnel vision to his surroundings but he play will entertain people , the dramatic chips and putts and shots from bunkers - people are entertained by his ability. The same with Speith right now.

Beef - his level of play isn't up there with the Speiths or Mcilroys and I don't think it ever will be but he is still focussed and determined etc but he also looks to entertain people with his out going character and attitude to the game

For me those are the type you get but every now and then you get a rare one - someone with the ability of a woods but combines it with the charisma of a Beef - Seve in golf is the perfect example , in other sports you had Ali , Djokovic etc

They are the sportsmen and ladies that everyone would pay to see

 

[Robobum]

Re: Sports people - should they always only be "in the zone" or "on the stage" t

It's the X Factor culture- everything is a popularity contest and k'all to do with performance and results.

I go by results only. Spieth was a great watch for me on Sunday, just picked the golf course off shot by shot.

 

[JohnnyDee]

Re: Sports people - should they always only be "in the zone" or "on the stage" t

It's the X Factor culture-

I don't think it is. Long before The X Factor galleries swarmed around Gene Saracen, Jack and Arnie leaving the other journeymen - Tony Lima etc. relatively untroubled.

Same as today really. If Bubba, Ricky, Rory or Phil are out there that's where the punters will be.

Skill and professionalism are a prerequisite for all to perform at the highest level, That other X Factor (now just how ironic is that ) is what makes the ordinary by all other measures the extraordinary in the history books.

 

[chrisd]

Re: Sports people - should they always only be "in the zone" or "on the stage" t

I guess that the current sports person who gets the most stick for his personality is Andy Murray, i played competitive club tennis for about 10 years and fully appreciate just how special he is but, of course, he doesn't have the charisma that, say, Seve had and, as a result, wont be revered as much as he should be

 

[JohnnyDee]

Re: Sports people - should they always only be "in the zone" or "on the stage" t

I guess that the current sports person who gets the most stick for his personality is Andy Murray, i played competitive club tennis for about 10 years and fully appreciate just how special he is but, of course, he doesn't have the charisma that, say, Seve had and, as a result, wont be revered as much as he should be

100% agree Chris. Murray is one of the "best" sportsmen these islands have ever produced but he gets slammed more often than not.

But he's not a cut and dried example of what I'm on about. In his case it's not all to do with his demeanour but more about an injudicious comment he once made. His monotone delivery doesn't help either but I think he's brilliant.

What he does lack is showing that "human frailty" when playing (OK when he lost at Wimbledon he let the mask slip at the post-match interview - apart from that it's shouts of frustration) instead he elects to keep the "game face" on throughout his entire match, thus letting no-one in to what's making him tick.

With the Seves etc. those emotions were clearly on their sleeves.

 

[Capella]

Re: Sports people - should they always only be "in the zone" or "on the stage" t

I admit that I enjoy watching someone like Rory or Phil or even Bubba more, just because they are quirkier, take on impossible shots and are more interesting to watch than Spieth or even Jason Day. But I would never expect anyone to change the way they play to become more of a crowd pleaser. Every player has the right to play in the way that works best for him or her (as long as they stay within the rules, of course).

 

[HomerJSimpson]

Re: Sports people - should they always only be "in the zone" or "on the stage" t

I don't see the relevance. All these professionals are out there and working. It's there job so they aren't all (yes there are exceptions) going to be interested in being anything other than focused. I've been lucky to meet some golfers with very austere reputations like Monty, Faldo and Lyle and behind the scenes when they aren't playing they are very articulate and very entertaining company.

 

[JohnnyDee]

Re: Sports people - should they always only be "in the zone" or "on the stage" t

It's not really about relevance to be fair, Homer.

It's a matter of fact that in any sport there are those who rise above the pack to a status that transcends their ability and who take on Seve status. It's not something the player seeks or even works on, it's (IMO) an organic thing whereby they somehow give an insight into their inner selves by how they comport themselves when playing their particular game, whether it be golf, hockey, table tennis or snooker.

This insight allows the viewer / fan to glimpse into and empathise with the player's motivation and personal situation etc.

Take snooker. I watched Higgins & White often take on shots that were fraught with disaster but were, if pulled off, pivotal to success in the match / tournament. When they did pull them off the feeling of achievement leapt from beyond the player and into the arena and beyond that again out to the television audience. Davis rarely, if indeed ever at all, would have attempted them. He was smart and knew the odds against pulling them off were slim or quite often impossible. He played the percentages, often bored people to death BUT became one of the best players ever. That was undeniable however he was far from being the best liked.

I can think of no better example than the Higgins clearance against White in the 1982 semifinal of the Embassy World Championship. Nearly every shot was one step from disaster yet he pulled them all off. When he potted the black the roof nearly came off The Crucible. Now even 35 years after he did it and knowing every shot I still get a massive rush watching it.

That's the je ne sais quoi that I'm talking about. Very few have it but it's what sets those who do have it apart from the pack.

It doesn't give them any more skill, success or money - but what it does give them is the ability to have the masses follow them and raise them to the status of icon as opposed to a really good player / champion.

 

[Slab]

Re: Sports people - should they always only be "in the zone" or "on the stage" t

Some are People's Champions and transcend the "every day" to become iconic, whilst others are brilliant but no-one is about to lay down their lives to defend them. So why is that?

I think it’s too easy to use the term people’s champions as a positive trait or something to aspire to

In tennis the Brits would’ve supported a scabby dug if it brought success at Wimbledon, the public were starving for a win but he’s not a people’s champion, I wonder why

Your snooker examples are ‘jack the lad’ types. A bit naughty, a rule breaker (not in play) and the potential for car crash viewing was just as likely as the brilliance, so folk follow/watch for that too

The off field behavior of Best would never be held up as aspirational and Ali’s style of using aggressive arrogance to bait opponents could easily be called unprofessional

So generally speaking it seems one of the ways to be a people champion you need to be a nonconformist or unconventional even a bit strange

The world needs all types but surely it’s understandable why a player like Spieth may not want to behave like this. So for the majority of professionals that je ne sais quoi factor is perhaps best left well alone

 

[USER1999]

Re: Sports people - should they always only be "in the zone" or "on the stage" t

I think part of it is to do with players who can do the extraordinary. Speith, and others, are consistently good, but do not really do anything wow. Its not his game. He is never going to pull off a shot, or hole a putt that i couldnt do just the same. Woods, Seve, McIlroy, Bubba, Michelson, and others, can, and do, amaze me with shots i cant even imagine.

 

[HawkeyeMS]

Re: Sports people - should they always only be "in the zone" or "on the stage" t

It's pretty simple really. Everyone is different. In every walk of life you get people who have presence or charisma, and you get those who don't. Every so often someone comes along with a combination of traits that enables them to be brilliant AND engaging, most of the time we get one or the other (or neither)

We are made up the way we are made up, unfortunately people seem to set expectations for others, often these are expectations that they wouldn't have for themselves.

Put yourself in the position of Jordan Spieth? How would you come across? I know for a fact that if you put me in that position I wouldn't be like Seve or Nicklaus, I'm just not that person. I wouldn't want to be shoved in front of a microphone when I'd just shot 75, in fact, if I'm honest, I can imagine times when I simply wouldn't do the interview. Most of the time I'd be polite and honest. I'd be light hearted and would try to crack a few jokes but would probably be grumpy on other occasions. It's the way I am.

 

[Slab]

Re: Sports people - should they always only be "in the zone" or "on the stage" t

Agree with above

I think we just have to look at how utterly hopeless most people we know are when asked to talk in front of a group or make a presentation and heaven help us when they need to do a speech at a wedding... total verbal mince with the personalty of a sea-monkey!

Why would a pro golfer be any different unless they've been media coached (& even then it wont be natural)

 

[HomerJSimpson]

Re: Sports people - should they always only be "in the zone" or "on the stage" t

It's not really about relevance to be fair, Homer.

It's a matter of fact that in any sport there are those who rise above the pack to a status that transcends their ability and who take on Seve status. It's not something the player seeks or even works on, it's (IMO) an organic thing whereby they somehow give an insight into their inner selves by how they comport themselves when playing their particular game, whether it be golf, hockey, table tennis or snooker.

This insight allows the viewer / fan to glimpse into and empathise with the player's motivation and personal situation etc.

Take snooker. I watched Higgins & White often take on shots that were fraught with disaster but were, if pulled off, pivotal to success in the match / tournament. When they did pull them off the feeling of achievement leapt from beyond the player and into the arena and beyond that again out to the television audience. Davis rarely, if indeed ever at all, would have attempted them. He was smart and knew the odds against pulling them off were slim or quite often impossible. He played the percentages, often bored people to death BUT became one of the best players ever. That was undeniable however he was far from being the best liked.

I can think of no better example than the Higgins clearance against White in the 1982 semifinal of the Embassy World Championship. Nearly every shot was one step from disaster yet he pulled them all off. When he potted the black the roof nearly came off The Crucible. Now even 35 years after he did it and knowing every shot I still get a massive rush watching it.

That's the je ne sais quoi that I'm talking about. Very few have it but it's what sets those who do have it apart from the pack.

It doesn't give them any more skill, success or money - but what it does give them is the ability to have the masses follow them and raise them to the status of icon as opposed to a really good player / champion.

Look at any sport. Take George Best in football as a real maverick and he was definitely a crowd pleaser but ultimately if you look at his performances (before booze took its toll) you'll see that he was still intent on playing and winning the game. There have been others like McEnroe that set themselves as the public enemy but would solely be focused on winning on the court.

There have been golfers, and Seve, Trevino etc that have been real showmen bit again at the crunch they were fierce competitors who were simply intent on winning. In this day and age, I think to a large degree, the collegiate system and minor tours take away any idiosyncratic traits and it's rare to see too many coming through that are outgoing, Beef perhaps being the exception to the rule