I must take exception to his remarks which, though true in some situations, are untrue in sport.
The reason is the structure of the rules of sport.
Take football for instance. There can be only 1 winner, by definition. Ergo, are all the losers cowards? ... unmanly whiners? He said he came in second twice and did not like it and never wanted to experience it again.
Should those who do not win bow their heads in shame?
His speech is inspiring (superficially) because it speaks of not compromising one's integrity, of remaining true to one's objectives and eventually coming out on top. But it lacks the content to support such claims. They do not transfer to sporting contests because a limit is placed on the number of winners - namely, ONE.
Do you see why this would apply to raising your family? ... in business? ... trying to educate oneself?
Why?The difference is the absence of a logical limit on how many can win. If becoming successful in business were allowed but one winner ... we should see only Bill Gates as being successful and everyone else as inadequate.
For winning and losing, these are the actual, general rules:
I am particularly appalled by the use of sports figures as "role models" because they are typically mindless, vain, besotted and used up by age 25. A "jock" is more often than not a crybaby (or sodden fop - with earrings now, no less) not a paragon of quiet, manly toughness.
"No amount of training in sports builds character."
When I was in high school I was not allowed to play football (minor medical). At the homecoming game (which was lost), the players were actually crying on the sidelines - uncontrollably - evoking in me silent thanks for being saved the humiliation of being seen in their company.
If you really want to be a better men,
Try the army.When friends came back from Vietnam, they actually seemed to be better people than when they left - greater confidence, less need to 'show off', just quietly 'in charge' or their own existence.