Getting Angry
Written 23 September 2008
Every Friday morning a group of us meet up on the waterfront and do roughly 50 minutes of riding before going to a central cafe to eat breakfast, a phenomenon commonly known as the breakfast ride. There are a few regulars in the group and some seasonal breakfast riders who make the occasional appearance. �Last Friday we had an interesting bunch which included a male rider who has recently got into the sport and started attending club races. �He shared with the group that he found many of the riders race "angry". He then made a comment that one of our other breakfast ride attendees wasn't angry and that he was a talented rider. �Said talented rider retorted by saying that no he wasn't angry but that he didn't win either. �The conversation then took an interesting tangent and roughly concluded that to be a top rider you needed to be slightly angry. �It seemed that most agreed on this, that if you thought about all the top riders (and I suppose this stretched to athletes in general) they all were, or are, slightly angry.
This made me think - is this true? And if it is, why is it?
To be a top athlete there are several prerequisites. �They include of course physical ability, but more than that you need to have psychological ability, which includes "getting angry". �Most top athletes have something to prove, some chip on their shoulder about something. Apparently growing up Michael Phelps was the target of bullies. He was diagnosed with ADHD and was taunted relentlessly. He used his anger and fear as revenge when he got in the pool. �Prior to the Olympics when people said he couldn't win seven golds he used it as motivation, he channelled his anger into his performance. But harnessing anger properly like Phelps can be hard to implement for some (think John McEnroe throwing his tennis racquet).
�In the women's peloton (where testosterone plays less of a role) the best riders seem to be the angry or scary ones. �The ones with their game-face on all the time who won't necessarily try to make friends. I believe this is also called the "killer instinct" or the "take no prisoners" attitude. �You can be liked in the peloton but you probably won't win because you won't want to screw over your mates in the finish. �This attitude makes friends and a good reputation but not a winner.
Linked into "getting angry" is a fierce competitive spirit. A hatred of losing. �A cycling friend of mine recently said that no one enters a race to lose but I'm not so sure I agree. Many people do not seem intent on winning. �They would like to win but if they don't then they don't. �When an angry rider loses they do what they do best and get angry about it. They over-analyse their every stuff up. �They will store the loss for next time as angry motivation. �If losing doesn't make you angry then you won't really appreciate winning either. �This angry competitive spirit is called by a mate of mine the "red mist". �It is a mist that descends on the angry rider when they compete. �It is a fight or flight mechanism that allows for no other focus but winning, and also brings out the mongrel in most.
It is cause for concern, in light of this, that the English Football Association has recently decided that "Under-sevens and under-eights are not permitted to play in leagues where results are collected or published or winner trophies are presented." Yes you read it right: that means in the under-sevens and under-eights football there will be NO WINNERS. What? This is not good news for creating more "red misted" young athletes and is only one of several examples in schools and sport where winning is not being given the importance that it used to. �Maybe this is why my breakfast ride friend finds riders "angry" because he has not been exposed to what sport used to be about - winning at all costs.
