Hacker News Reader

Comment by BiteCode_dev | Hacker News Reader

When I was a kid, it dawned on me that to be among the best, you had to be the one willing to sacrifice the most. Because there are diminishing returns up there, and when everything is equal (talent, biology, etc), then what you cut of to dedicate to the craft is one of the last differentiators.

So really, did I want to be among the best that bad?

And I realized I didn't.

The price is too high.

View on HN

There are self-reinforcing effects. For example, you work hard to become a top 50 player. At that point you don't have to work as hard to remain in the top because now you have certain advantages.

So you can also look at these "sacrifices" as "investments".

Being in top 50 of anything seriously competetive requires monk-like existence. You can't just coast, many atlethes who don't have the true monk mindset tried to coast a bit after a couple years of ruthless grind that got them to the top. It always results in decline of performance.

I think people have watched or read a lot about those old school or fictional competitors, arriving wasted at the event or with a messed up life because that's what the medias sell.

Even if it could have happen at a certain time, today's competitions are such high-level precision things that everybody is at the top of their game, every parameter is taken in consideration.

If you are not, you don't even get at the top.

I was surprised to chat with a few e-sport competitors a few years ago and learn that they are using drugs to maintain focus.

> everything is equal (talent, biology, etc)

But everything is non-equal. Best of the best have everything aligned in the same direction (family, wealth, genetics...). Even the "sacrifice" does not hurt, because that is just the way they do it.

Believe in "Great sacrifice" does not work in long term, and just builds resentment over time. People who promote it are usually drug addicts and broken in their personal lives!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com