What kind of competition creates the highest level of performance?

[christos_liaskos]

Last Sunday we had the Sports Personality of the Year Awards in the UK. It is mostly awards for sports people from the UK but one award is called the "Overseas Sports Personlaity....". The nominees for it were Federer and Usain Bolt.

I dont want to debate who achieved more and who 'dominated' their sports the most the year though - that is essential what the award is supposed to be for, of course some will agree with the decision and some wont. I am asking another question however.......

If you assume that both people have exactly the same level of achievements and domination, I wondered how you could separate the two. This made me wonder which kind of sport achieves the highest level of performance? Is it a sport like running, where you compete to the best of your ability but essentially you cant be affected by your opponents performance and vice-versa. Or is it a sport like tennis where the level you reach or can reach will depend on your opponent? MacEnroe said he was sad when Borg retired because he felt that their rivalry brought out the best in each other and they could push the limits of their abilities even more. You have the same situation with Roger and Rafa.

So the motivation of being the best you can be, in Usain Bolt's case it has to come from within, to push himself to be the best he can be, regardless of his opponents. In Roger's case though do you argue he is now being pushed by his opponents to reach amazing levels of perfomance or, as a lot of people say for the first few years of his domination, does his level of perfomance not have to be that high because the opposition is not competetive enough.

I know there isn't really a proper answer to this question but let's hear your oppinions and theories if anyone has any.....

[raiden031]

I disagree with your idea that running and tennis are all that much different competively. I would say in most cases, athletes are pushed to higher performance in order to out-perform their adversaries.

The biggest difference between tennis and running is simply that in tennis you have to learn to defend against your opponent, unlike running where all you need to do is be the fastest one out there. The motivation to out-perform is there in both though.

[Camilio Pascual]

Originally Posted by christos_liaskos

Is it a sport like running, where you compete to the best of your ability but essentially you cant be affected by your opponents performance and vice-versa.

!!!
???
You must have no or very limited experience in competitive running at any distance above an all out sprint.

[Praetorian]

I think regardless of whatever sport, it's one's personal motivation and drive is the biggest impact to what drives a person to perform. Do you want to do it for yourself, or do you want to overcome the performance of someone else? Does it really matter? I think it's different for everyone, and isn't sport specific at all.

[christos_liaskos]

Originally Posted by Camilio Pascual

!!!
???
You must have no or very limited experience in competitive running at any distance above an all out sprint.

Errmm yes sorry I am not experienced at this . Do i really have to be experienced in a certain area before i make an observation on it You say it as if everyone does it and i am the only one clueless as to what it involves.

Of course running is competition between people and that can lead to one pushing another.

But how can you not see the difference in the type of competition? One requires an opponent in order to do the sport and the other can be done without. Without a dictionary the i am guessing the word 'competition' means two or more people playing against each other. That of course raises the level of performance.

But to not see the difference in these types of competition id very surprising to me, I would have thought there was even a word for the different kinds of competition

[Camilio Pascual]

Originally Posted by christos_liaskos

But how can you not see the difference in the type of competition? One requires an opponent in order to do the sport and the other can be done without.

You need to define what you are talking about better and give us another example.
Running was just a really bad example for those of us who know what rabbits, kickers, and racing is.

[christos_liaskos]

Originally Posted by Camilio Pascual

You need to define what you are talking about better and give us another example.
Running was just a really bad example for those of us who know what rabbits, kickers, and racing is.

I'm sorry you dont understand the basic principle of what the difference in the kind of competition both sports are.....it's quite simple really....

[Camilio Pascual]

Originally Posted by christos_liaskos

I'm sorry you dont understand the basic principle of what the difference in the kind of competition both sports are.....it's quite simple really....

So far you've just mentioned tennis and running. I've challenged your statement that running is a sport where "...essentially you cant be affected by your opponents performance and vice-versa." This statement is ludricous to somebody who has been on a track team.
So, I'm asking for another example, which you seem unwilling to provide, chastizing me instead for not being able to see the difference with your single, questionable example. The deficiency in your example is that you don't seem to be aware of how an opponent's performance CAN affect one's performance. This very fact is how a runner who has never won a race and failed to complete about 20% of his races can still be a valuable member of a track team.
So, how about another example instead of running?

[christos_liaskos]

Originally Posted by Camilio Pascual

So far you've just mentioned tennis and running. I've challenged your statement that running is a sport where "...essentially you cant be affected by your opponents performance and vice-versa." This statement is ludricous to somebody who has been on a track team.
So, I'm asking for another example, which you seem unwilling to provide, chastizing me instead for not being able to see the difference with your single, questionable example. The deficiency in your example is that you don't seem to be aware of how an opponent's performance CAN affect one's performance. This very fact is how a runner who has never won a race and failed to complete about 20% of his races can still be a valuable member of a track team.
So, how about another example instead of running?

You can say all you want blah blah blah, of course running is only what it is through competition. But can you go outside now and run 100m? Yes. Can you go outside now and play a match of tennis on your own? No. They are different kinds of competition, different formats, whatever you want to call it

[Camilio Pascual]

Originally Posted by christos_liaskos

But can you go outside now and run 100m? Yes.

You just changed the deal.
Where is the opponent you mentioned that can't change one's performance?