Tolerance

February 1st, 2012 § 0 comments

Do you remember how belligerent the discussion surrounding Tim Tebow sounded when Tebowmania was at its peak? I do. I hated feeling like I had to settle on a disposition so early in Tebow’s professional career.

Tim Tebow is a polarizing figure. What I find most interesting about Tim Tebow isn’t what makes him polarizing — the unconventional quarterbacking style and commitment to his theological beliefs — it’s that he has become polarizing. The reaction to Tebow is a lot more interesting than even his most compelling qualities.

Recently, Tim Thomas’ reputation underwent a similar transformation. Thomas is a sensational hockey goaltender who also, apparently, happens to be a politically charged American. He got the web buzzing after making a decision to express part of his political orientation. The circumstances of that choice — the high profile stage, the timing, the Facebook note — are mostly uninteresting but the reaction from the public has been absolutely fascinating.

It always surprises me the degree to which an athlete can force us to confront a social or economic issue. More than any other category of celebrity, athletes have a way of revealing unresolved tensions within the public.

We’re constantly reevaluating athletes based on their athletic performance. Sometimes athletes are measured by more than just ability. When this occurs the conversation tends to drift into one of tolerance. The big picture question for every polarizing athlete is one of tolerance.

* * *

I admire athletes for their physical ability. Those are not just empty words. I understand how hard they must train and the sacrifices they must make in order to reach the professional level. Athletes impress me; they impress me all time. The skill they demonstrate, the stories they craft — it can be a remarkable viewing experience. What athletes do and say in-between games can, if you let it, detract from this experience.

I’m always reluctant to set any expectations for the behavior of an athlete outside of a competitive environment for many reasons but mostly because they’re always based on appearances and surface truths. Shouldn’t it take more to know a person? Wouldn’t it take more to know you?

I’m not trying to sell anyone on the idea that what athletes say and do inside the public’s sphere of observation is totally irrelevant to the games. But I do think from time to time we need to remind ourselves that — and pardon the cliché — athletes are people. People are complicated and can have complex motives in life. And they’re diverse and they’re full of surprises. We should all respect each other’s story. We should respect the blank spaces.

That I will never fully understand Tim Tebow or Tim Thomas in their time as professionals is not disappointing or at all bothersome to me. I don’t need to understand an athlete to appreciate his work. All an athlete like Tebow or Thomas will ever ask from me is my attention; they have it, without condition, for as long as they compete at the professional level.

Eventually, I learned that the actual behavior of polarizing athletes was much less consequential, in a direct sense, than the breadth of the reaction would otherwise suggest. Are we out of problems? Polarizing athletes like Tebow and Thomas are harmless. Again, it’s about tolerance; tolerance from us, the public. Are you tolerant of this behavior from a person you don’t fully understand – the sports world routinely asks us. Nevermind that this person is a legitimate stranger. Please provide your answer by an explicit show of support or criticism. This is what we do.

Feature: The Fire in Leaders

February 11th, 2010 § Comments Off

In sports like hockey, winning is what observers use to measure success. Similar to most other competitive endeavors, winning in hockey is relative to its environment and every year the competition changes; players switch teams and grow older; managers and coaches get replaced. But the most volatile aspect of this business – not to mention the one that has perhaps has the greatest influence on success – is in the collective motivation of the players that make up individual teams. The sports industry is about as pure of a meritocracy as there is. Each team is saturated with talent and strong coaching. Eventually what separates the teams that win from the teams that lose is how motivated they are to win. It’s not that the losers don’t care so much as the winners want it so bad, they can’t even finish a bowl of Fruity Pebbles without thinking at least twenty times of their names being engraved on the hardware. » Read the rest of this entry «