ADDvantage magazine February 1999 -- I’ve played tennis since the age of 3, and I am proud to admit competition was and is a natural part of my personality. I’ve always viewed the concept of competition as an intrinsic part of human nature – something as basic as the fight and flight mechanisms that have ensured our very survival.
Most of us consider high school, college and professional sports a "normal" outlet for competition. Whether it’s football, baseball, basketball or tennis, we’re used to cheering for our favorite players to win a particular contest of athletic ability and determination. But, mention the word competition in other settings, including children’s sports, and you’re likely to get a few nasty looks.
Through several experiences, I’ve developed a deep appreciation for what competition can do for individuals, and I’m afraid that society is losing sight of the very positive role it can play in our lives and those of our children.
Although there were many earlier examples, one of the most important lessons I learned about the value of competition came courtesy of my college tennis coach. In 1959, I, along with a cast of young international players, was recruited by Lamar Tech (now Lamar University), a small college in Beaumont, Texas. By the end of my junior year, our team had accumulated 86 consecutive wins – the three most notable being against USC, UCLA and Stanford University. These three colleges generally alternated winning the NCAA championships. We were ranked the No. 1 team in the world in a World Tennis magazine poll. Although my coach was happy with his team’s winning record, he was proudest of his former team members’ accomplishments off the tennis court and would often brag about one or more of them who had achieved national or world prominence in various fields of business. He attributed much of his former students’ successes to their competitive nature and their ability to deal with people as both partners and opponents on the tennis court.
Another notable lesson in competition came a few years later, when I first became a teaching pro and agreed to coach a squad of four competitive junior players. Prior to traveling to our first series of tournaments, I held a team meeting and a father of one of the boys approached me and said he never again wanted to hear the word "champion" used in a conversation with his child. He said he simply didn’t believe in pressuring his child with such competitive expectations.
Thinking back, I should have told the boy’s father that under those conditions his child did not belong on the competitive traveling squad. In subsequent years, he was always a bit of a problem in my program. Today, at age 40, he still doesn’t have a job.
The other three team members were always highly competitive, and the same competitive spirit was no doubt part of the foundation upon which they achieved their future success. One of them is now a heart surgeon, one of them has become a multimillionaire in a communications capacity and still another owns a major multimedia production company.
Among others, these two lessons proved to me that competition isn’t a dirty word. Competition in one form or another is responsible for our country’s success in business, our political system and the social values and standards we set for others and ourselves.
There will always be people who are opposed to the general concept of competition for competition’s sake, including parents who do not want to pressure their young children into winning at all costs. There is, however, a difference between pressuring a child to be competitive and allowing a child to use his or her natural competitive instincts.
It worries me that there are several movements afoot aimed at trying to remove competition from youth sports.
Take for example, a story out of Boston that was published in the Houston Chronicle last summer. It explained that the Massachusetts Youth Soccer Association had instituted "nonresult oriented competition" for all tournaments for children 10 and under and were considering the same rules for 12-year-olds. This means no keeping score, no awards ceremony and no winners for tournaments …"
According to the article, the soccer association felt the new rules were needed so "there will be no losers, and none of the bad feelings that can come with defeat." The association’s registrar continued by saying, "We’re trying to take away that ‘You’ve-gotta-win-the-trophy’ feeling."
You show me a 6-year-old who doesn’t know if he or she has won or lost a game at the most basic recreational level, and I will be very, very surprised. This fact alone is why soccer will never make it as an adult competitive sport in the United States. Removing the scoring and other competitive aspects of the recreational game will not allow the sport to become entrenched in the public’s mind as an exciting and challenging activity.
On another front, some parents are more worried that their children may not make the cut for the No. 1 team. Instead of allowing their children to play at the next lower level, they would rather take the competitive aspect out of the sport altogether and make all children play at the same level, regardless of their skills.
This sort of thinking is scary! Not only are these modifications to children’s sports removing competition from games such as soccer, but they are also setting a trend that promotes the equalization of all children in many other areas, including academic settings, without consideration of their individual talents and abilities. This is a little too close to socialism for me.
Over the years, tennis has had its own debate on the pros and cons of competition for young players. A few years back, USTA dropped its national competition for 12-year-olds. Today, American tennis is desperately looking for 18-year-olds that are capable of making it into the world’s Top 100. The problem is that today’s 18-year-olds lost two valuable years of national competition. It is quite conceivable that they simply did not get the competitive training early enough to be able to now challenge players from other countries that train their athletes to compete at a very young age.
Although too late, having recognized the problem, USTA has reinstituted the 12s competition.
As tennis begins to rebuild the ranks of young competitors, it’s important that we look at the total tennis picture from the low-level recreational player to the world-class competitor. While recreational tennis should be fun, it should provide enough competition to allow us to recognize those youngsters who have the potential to compete on a national and international level.
Individualism and competition still is the driving force behind what makes our country great. To successfully compete is the American dream, whether it’s in the sports arena or in the boardroom, American tennis and other sports can benefit from this lesson.
