[HN Gopher] Every champion needs a rival
___________________________________________________________________
Every champion needs a rival
Author : pbardea
Score : 49 points
Date : 2025-07-30 18:00 UTC (5 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (tombrady.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (tombrady.com)
| Animats wrote:
| That's why capitalism is in trouble. No rival.
|
| Having communism around kept capitalism honest. Without
| competition, it turned into "Greed is good, greed works". The
| best years for American workers were the post WWII years, when
| communism looked like a real threat.
| lukebechtel wrote:
| Wow, interesting point. Not sure I totally agree -- but it made
| me have the amusing thought:
|
| "Maybe we need metacapitalism."
| thinkingtoilet wrote:
| I would argue the social-democracies of Europe are exactly
| what that is. The idea the free market can address so many
| things better than any other economic model, but maybe
| ruthless profits shouldn't drive health care.
| dumama wrote:
| Agreed. The market needs to be well regulated in order for
| it to be tuned for human well-being rather than just greed.
| It's clear that ruthless profits can't be your optimizing
| function when it comes health care, housing, education, and
| environment.
| kryogen1c wrote:
| >That's why capitalism is in trouble. No rival.
|
| Isn't this an oxymoron? Isn't regulated free market competition
| a foundational principal of capitalism?
| Animats wrote:
| The point I'm making here was well understood in the post-
| WWII era. Here's the cartoon version: "Meet King Joe".[1] The
| more serious version, "Despotism".[2] The hard sell version,
| "How to lose what we have."[3] All of these were produced for
| industrial companies.
|
| It's worth understanding how this was viewed by the
| generation that won WWII.
|
| [1] https://archive.org/details/MeetKing1949
|
| [2] https://archive.org/details/Despotis1946
|
| [3] https://archive.org/details/InOurHan1950_3
| reverendsteveii wrote:
| capitalists have rivals, but capitalism does not
| schmidtleonard wrote:
| Nope. Private capital allocation decisions are the
| foundation. It is a mistake to mix this with wishful
| thinking, the same flavor of mistake as claiming "socialism
| is about making economic decisions that reflect the will of
| the people rather than the will of the rich," it assumes
| success at the aspirational principle when that assumption is
| something you must avoid at all costs if you want to
| understand success/failure at achieving the aspirational
| principle. Instead, a discussion about the foundation of a
| system should be very carefully confined to what the system
| actually does: capitalism is about private capital allocation
| decisions, socialism is about public capital allocation
| decisions, and in practice everything is mixed.
|
| Anticompetitive incentives and behavior are a natural
| emergent property on top of the private ownership foundation:
| network effects, platform effects, last mile dynamics,
| dumping, hell even economies of scale are intrinsically
| anticompetitive at the same time as they are intrinsically
| beneficial. Regulation to restore competition amid these
| natural anticompetitive tendencies can keep them in check and
| most people would agree this is generally a good idea -- but
| most people don't make the capital allocation decisions and
| most people don't learn about the world except through media
| controlled by people who do, so not only are the regulations
| 3 stories above the foundational principle, they are doubly
| insulated from effectively checking the dark forest on the
| second story by the very nature of the foundation itself.
|
| You have probably heard about how misalignment emerges in
| socialism, because that _is_ a story the jedi would tell you:
| capital allocation decisions made without skin-in-the-game
| accountability tend to cause malinvestment because as far as
| elected representatives are concerned the job is the product.
| Of course, a socialist government is aware of this tendency
| and tries to control it, just like a capitalist government is
| aware of anticompetitive tendencies in its own economy and
| tries to control them. The degree of success varies.
|
| When there is nothing to compare against, propaganda can hide
| almost any mismanagement, so I am glad that we seem to be
| entering a second period of genuine competition. I'm less
| glad that this brings with it a second period of genuine
| "hopefully we don't kill each other / ourselves," but so it
| goes.
| dylan604 wrote:
| So, when did communism go away?
| lordnacho wrote:
| What I find interesting about American Football is that the QBs
| are considered rivals, despite never being on the pitch at the
| same time. Messi and Ronaldo actually appear on many images
| contesting the same ball, Peyton and Brady you'd struggle to find
| pictures other than the post-match handshake.
|
| Why isn't the rivalry considered to be between the QB and someone
| on the defense? There's actually two matchups in an NFL game
| (plus specials but whatever), the two offense versus defense
| pairings. It's odd to make the rivalry about two guys who aren't
| directly tackling each other, when there are people on both teams
| who really are tackling those guys.
| reverendsteveii wrote:
| We compare QBs because QBs are comparable. It's really
| difficult to build a narrative around the number of passes one
| person completes vs the number of tackles a different person
| dishes out to different people on different teams, but very
| easy and meaningful to compare completion percentages for two
| quarterbacks. It's also because QB is considered a leadership
| and decision-making role moreso than any other position on the
| field, and so the overall performance of the offense tends to
| be attributed to the team as a whole but the QBs are compared
| on the decisions they make on the field and the rest of the
| offensive units are compared on their ability to execute those
| decisions.
| hangonhn wrote:
| Wow. That's such an interesting observation. Two major uniquely
| American sports have this pattern: QBs in football and pitchers
| in baseball. I wonder if it is just a coincidence of history. I
| guess cricket has the same pattern as well?
| dylan604 wrote:
| If you think that's interesting, did you ever consider that
| baseball is the only sport where the _defense_ has the ball?
| leosanchez wrote:
| Cricket?
| bbarnett wrote:
| But the goal is to use your defense (bat) to prevent the
| offense throwing the missile at you, and blowing up your
| home(plate).
|
| Ah, politics. It's all perspective.
| gerad wrote:
| Goalies in hockey, and whoever the best player is on the team
| in basketball. ;-)
| cjpearson wrote:
| It basically comes down to the face that the quarterback
| position has an outsized importance in the game and those
| players become the face of their franchises. They are often
| credited with wins and losses despite those being a team stat.
|
| Some of the players do find this fan/media obsession strange.
| They may be asked about playing against QB X and reply that
| they're actually playing against the opposing defense.
|
| There are rivalries between players who are on the field at the
| same time, but they're less prominent. Those between a wide
| receiver and cornerback are probably the most common.
| Throughout the game they are racing, pushing and deceiving each
| other and fighting over the ball and it can become heated.
|
| However, it's also possible to have a competitive rivalry
| without directly facing each other on the field. In individual
| sports like golf this is the only way. But in other sports
| players can also compete with each other on some individual
| aspect. In baseball, the 1998 HR chase and Dimaggio brothers
| are some prominent examples. In Brady's case he had a strong
| desire to be number one. The threat of Peyton winning MVPs over
| him, having better statistics than him or Peyton's team winning
| over his was a strong motivator for Brady to protect his
| status.
| dylan604 wrote:
| It's about stats, not head-to-head play against the rival. Each
| week the teams are not playing against each other, but the
| rivalry still exists. Also, these come into play with fantasy
| leagues. You want your player to have a good week while the
| others have bad weeks. That Ronaldo v Messi you used as an
| example also doesn't happen on a weekly basis. Maybe a couple
| of times a year at best, yet they are still rivals. I'm also
| confused on when you would have sen Ronaldo track back to be
| competing for the same ball that Messi would have been playing.
| dgfitz wrote:
| Have you watched much, or any, American Football?
|
| I considered typing out a novella, but it wouldn't mean much if
| you're as unfamiliar with the sport as you seem to be.
| snarf21 wrote:
| You have a similar thing in golf even though the rivals almost
| never play their rounds in the same group.
| michaelterryio wrote:
| In football, the QB generally decides the outcome of the game
| and their performance is directly comparable.
|
| I admit there's some weirdness that they don't face off
| directly, but that's why.
| ccppurcell wrote:
| Yeah I came to make the same comment. But Messi and Ronaldo
| didnt play each other that many times in the grand scheme of
| their careers. A big part of the comparison is statistical.
| Trophies, records and so on. Tennis might be a better
| comparison because to win a grand slam, Sampras really had to
| beat Agassi.
| iainmerrick wrote:
| I don't disagree with your general point, but Messi and
| Ronaldo absolutely have played directly against each other a
| decent number of times -- a quick google suggests 30 head-to-
| heads in the "clasico", supposed to be one of football's
| biggest rivalries.
| annodomini2019 wrote:
| The rivalry is whether one QB is better than the other in
| taking their team to the promised land, as they both have the
| most overall contribution to team success. Really all it is.
| amradio1989 wrote:
| Its not really dissimilar to sports like golf, gymnastics,
| track and field (the high jump), etc. I certainly believe there
| can be rivals in those sports, so I don't see why we'd exclude
| football QBs from this conversation.
|
| That said, American football is altogether inferior to the real
| football.
| temp_praneshp wrote:
| Nah, soccer is real boring, would take American Football
| anyday.
| tunesmith wrote:
| It's just that they take turns. The top rivals in darts, or
| pool, or any other turn-taking game is the same way. They have
| to react to what their rival left them.
| lordnacho wrote:
| > there are people on both teams who really are tackling
| those guys.
|
| This is the critical distinction.
|
| Peyton isn't deciding the defense when Brady is on offense.
| Brady isn't reacting to whatever Peyton left on the pool
| table or the dart board.
| furyofantares wrote:
| Quarterbacks start with the ball ~at the start of almost every
| play and one of the two quarterbacks is in possession of the
| football for the majority of the game. They are BY FAR the most
| important individuals in the game. Receivers, tight ends, and
| running backs get some attention too because they are also
| individually fairly involved, but plays are split between ~5 of
| them.
|
| I think much of the same is true of pitchers in baseball as of
| quarterbacks in football, except pitchers only play something
| like 1 in 6 games, and these days it's very rare for them to
| pitch a complete game.
| spiralcoaster wrote:
| You find it interesting that people that play the exact same
| role on both teams can be rivals?
|
| By your logic golfers could never be rivals, because they're
| never interacting or defending against one another -- they're
| just playing against the course.
| lordnacho wrote:
| > there are people on both teams who really are tackling
| those guys.
|
| This is the critical distinction.
|
| Why is the commentator talking about Brady vs Peyton, when
| actually Peyton is doing nothing to stop Brady getting
| touchdowns?
|
| Why don't they focus on whoever is making the decisions on
| the defensive side? That would seem to matter more as a
| struggle between combatants. It's not like each defense is
| some nameless, generic unit that simply reveals who is the
| better QB.
|
| There might be some depth to the attack vs defense strategy
| that is worth highlighting, above the QB v QB.
| pimlottc wrote:
| A rival isn't the same thing as an enemy. Rivals are equals
| that compete for the same goal (e.g a championship). They do
| not have to compete head-to-head.
|
| For example, academic rivals compete in the classroom to have a
| better GPA, business rivals compete to win more customers and
| sales, etc.
| hangonhn wrote:
| Highly recommend the movie "Rush" about the F1 rivalry between
| Niki Lauda and James Hunt. The movie is highly dramatized but
| this is one of the themes.
| tsaifu wrote:
| incredible movie. supposedly does james hunt dirty though
| reverendsteveii wrote:
| thesis: every champion needs a rival to draw out the best in them
|
| antithesis: there is nothing about the existence of any other
| person that changes what my best is or whether I deliver it
|
| potential synthesis: I am my own perfect rival. I am right at my
| skill level, my career is a perfect parallel to my own, I don't
| need to look outside myself for a reason to improve and I can
| always do a little better than I did last time.
| dgfitz wrote:
| actual point: if I'm the best at what I do, and nobody is
| pushing to become better than me, I will stagnate because
| nobody else has exposed a better possible pinnacle.
|
| Iron sharpens iron.
| reverendsteveii wrote:
| This doesn't preclude that though. Maybe it's because I'm a
| weightlifter and while we compete with one another we really
| don't, but my own numbers can be my rival. In fact, they're a
| much more effective rival than anyone else at the gym because
| they can never be permanently beaten, they can never retire,
| they will always demand more. If I wake up tomorrow and
| through some miracle I'm the best weightlifter on earth and
| can bench a 1000 pounds, 1005 pounds exists whether someone
| else can lift that much or not. If you're Tom Brady you don't
| need Peyton Manning in order to throw more touchdowns and
| fewer interceptions, you need to throw more touchdowns and
| fewer interceptions. If your rival has a career-ending injury
| does that define your pinnacle? Not if you're actually in
| competition with yourself it doesn't.
| dgfitz wrote:
| This is very simply refuted: you're not one of the 5
| strongest people in the world. Brady, Manning, were the
| best at what they do, top 5 in the world at the time they
| played and to this day.
|
| When you're not competing with yourself, it's an entire
| world of difference.
|
| edit: typo
| reverendsteveii wrote:
| what about everyone who uses Brady's system and also
| isn't the best? Does that refute Brady's system? Why
| choose the arbitrary cutoff point of top 5? Why focus on
| being the best when you'll definitely fail instead of
| focusing on being your best? If Brady could've been
| better if only he'd had a better rival does that indict
| this system?
| boogieknite wrote:
| the greatest i know of are interesting characters because
| they can invent rivals and adversity where none exists. this
| comes across oddly and makes for great stories about their
| mania for competition
| charlesabarnes wrote:
| This sort of competition drives every goal I have. Identify a
| rival to benchmark myself against and to hold myself accountable.
|
| I am surprised to see that he turns it into a "true enemy"
| relationship where the other party is "taking" something for you.
| I think that is perfect for sport rivalries, this sort of
| thinking probably wouldn't be the best for most readers of this.
| dylan604 wrote:
| If you get the job I was applying for, you'll be my bitter
| enemy until then end of days. Did you start receiving Hair Club
| For Men emails? bwhahahaha. Did your github repos start getting
| massively wasetful PRs? hmmmm...
| xavdid wrote:
| If you're interested in some (light) science behind rivalry
| and/or the Michigan/OSU rivalry, I highly recommend the
| documentary "Rivals: Ohio State vs. Michigan". It's a fun look
| into why a rivalry drives better performance.
|
| https://www.imdb.com/title/tt22937658/
| darod wrote:
| 2 tom brady posts on the front page in one day?
| hamrocksissors wrote:
| and zero peyton manning posts, interesting
| pedalpete wrote:
| That's not where Peyton Manning is competing!
| insane_dreamer wrote:
| Counterpoint: Federer and Nadal had a long friendship throughout
| their rivalry.
| pedalpete wrote:
| Rivalry and competition does not mean enemy.
|
| Can you imagine what life would be like for either Federer or
| Nadal if the other didn't exist? It might be quite boring to
| play knowing you're always going to stomp every competitor.
|
| Use your competition to make you better, not just prove how
| good you are.
|
| This is the attitude we see in great competitors who get beyond
| their ego.
|
| [Edit] - what I originally commented wasn't a great example, so
| I re-wrote it.
| CSMastermind wrote:
| Seems like he's following a ridgid structure in his blog posts
| (reflection, learning, application). Is this a common framework?
| I've seen similar things but not this specific one before.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-07-30 23:02 UTC)