Reading Jill Micayla's recent blog caused me to think. She felt badly because Terry did not include any of her stories in the contest. Jill suggested she has never been a winner.
That isn't true, because Jill has won my admiration on more than one occasion.
I wonder how many of the rest of us think we aren't winners -- when in fact we are?
I think anyone who gets up every day and faces the world bravely while trying to approach each and every person they meet with love and compassion is a winner.
I think Terry is a winner for trying to accomplish something, when there is an apparent need.
I think Jill is a winner for having survived again and again against incredible odds.
What do you think? How do you define a winner?
As an aside. I've won many, many contest during my life and have found that the whole "winning" thing is grossly overrated. Most contests are held to motivate you to do something. . .maybe even manipulate you to do something. Winning is often held out as the endgame or goal when in fact it is merely part of the journey. Ask any athlete who has won if that "winning" actually defined her. Most will look you in the eye and say it was nice, but it is nothing but a fond memory.
One of favorite athletes (Larry Bird) said “A winner is someone who recognizes his God-given talents, works his tail off to develop them into skills, and uses these skills to accomplish his goals.” Jill, do you recognize anyone?
Angela Rasch
Comments
A Winner
Angela; I totally agree with you with what you said above and Jill is diffentedly one of those winners. Richard
Richard
Losers are OK
I really am rather old fashioned. I was brought up in the philosophy that taking part was what mattered. Whether one won or lost was merely incidental.
Sadly it is a belief to which I still adhere. Sounds terribly Victorian. Sort of dear old Henry Newbolt's
"And it's not for the sake of a ribboned coat.
Or the selfish hope of a season's fame,
But his captain's hand on his shoulder smote
"Play up! Play up! And play the game!"
God save us from people who want to win all the time. They are missing out on so much that is worthwhile. And it only leads to discontent when it doesn't turn out as they wish. Whereas we happy few who don't really care all that much have a peaceful and contented, and in all probability, richer existence.
Of course it's nice to win. I am not against winning per se. But it isn't really that important. And it is certainly far far better to lose well than to win badly.
At least I think so. :)
Fleurie
I agree with your comments entirely.
When I coached youth sports I used to tell the parents the "perfect" season was one where the kids won a third of the game, lost a third of the games, and tied a third of the games. That way they would experience everything sports had to offer and could learn from it. I coached several teams to state/district championships, but could see no discernible advantage in those seasons as a learning experience over seasons where we barely won a game.
Angela Rasch (Jill M I)
Angela Rasch (Jill M I)
Hurrah for Losers!!!
Losers play an absolutely vital role. Without losers there can be no winners. It is only our good natured participation that allows winners to bask in a warm self congratulatory glow. The poor dears would eke out a miserable existence without us.
Even winners need to lose on a fairly regular basis otherwise there is no point in winning. It would become a repetitively boring experience and the futility of it all would be obvious to the meanest intelligence.
In my thoughtless youth I played rugby and rowed to a reasonably high standard. There would have been absolutely no point in doing so if I had always won.
That is what sport is all about. Mind you professional sport isn't sport by any stretch of the imagination but merely an extension of the entertainment industry. And even professionals need to lose reasonably frequently otherwise nobody would pay to go and watch them.
Fleurie