As a description of the realities of athletic competition, it is an idiotic statement. Obviously, winning's not the only thing, because for every winner there's a loser. As a statement for developing and growing as an athlete, it's unrealistic, because in athletics as in all else we learn from our failures and mistakes. If what he was trying to say was, "Losing is no option; get all ideas of losing out of your heads!", then I understand his reasoning as a coach, but "Winning is the only thing" seems to me a sloppy way of putting it.
2006-07-08 17:30:25 · 4 answers · asked by John (Thurb) McVey 4 in Education & Reference ➔ Quotations
I don't mean to call Lombardi an idiot! He was one of the smartest coaches who ever lived, and I sure don't mean to find fault with his emphasis on winning. I tremendously admire him.
2006-07-08 17:34:49 · update #1
He meant that, whether you ultimately win or lose, you got to go in focused and with the clear intention to win. In other words, ambivalence is not an option. Otherwise, why play?
2006-07-08 18:03:33 · answer #1 · answered by Joe_D 6 · 5⤊ 0⤋
People aren't paid to play -- they are paid to win. The idea that a sports franchise would hire players who didn't have it in their heads and hearts that they are there to win is ridiculous. Nobody cares or remembers the losers -- winning is the only thing.
2006-07-08 17:36:23 · answer #2 · answered by tsopolly 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
he meant losing is not an option, there is nothing acceptable except winning. pro sports you got to love em
2006-07-08 17:35:13 · answer #3 · answered by rdc2517 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
He meant he got paid more and wasn't fired if they won. =)
2006-07-08 20:06:33 · answer #4 · answered by Lady Irene 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋