|
Three thousand years ago on a battlefield in ancient Palestine, a shepherd boy felled a mighty warrior with nothing but a stone and a sling, and ever since the names David and Goliath have symbolized battles between underdogs and giants. David's victory was miraculous and improbable; he shouldn't have won. Or should he?
Malcolm Gladwell has done it again. A master of abstract perspective put to word, his new book David and Goliath isn't about religiosity but instead accounts of perceptual reengineering to reverse our sense of competitive perspective, underscored by tangible proof that being the "underdog" is not necessarily a disadvantage unless we fall into that trap. As for David and Goliath, clearly the encounter took place: a-winner-take-all conflict between one representative of each army; the Philistines from Crete on one side of the river, the Israelites on the other. Instead of one mass against another, each side elected a combatant to end the stand-off. For one side, a six foot nine giant wearing full body armor, a javelin, a spear, and a sword. On the other, a teenager of slight build, determined to represent his side in battle. Research documents this in vivid detail; the original Vegas favorite against the overwhelming underdog.
Picture a six foot nine giant weighted down by armor and weaponry, standing stationary, waiting for the fight to come to him. Science also proves Goliath had a visual defect; in short he had double vision. What he couldn't have known about David was that the boy was an accomplished "slinger." Slingers were the Delta Force of ancient times. They honed their skill for years on end. A "slinger" perfected the use of a leather band configured somewhat like a slingshot, and attained accuracy levels that in today's world of weaponry would seem impossible. So down the ridge David came running, twirling his leather sling at a high velocity while Goliath stood mesmerized at his opponent's temerity. David let loose at about 30 yards. The impact of the slinger's stone hit the giant at 34 meters per-second, the equivalent of today's standard size handgun. The giant suddenly saw the battle was changing but it was too late. The stone penetrated his forehead felling the favorite. All these years we've been telling the wrong story! Fast forward to today. Every day in competition we're still hamstrung by "favorite and underdog." Reality for those who find it proves the contrary.
Brilliance in competition allows a select few to find ways to beat "Goliath" though none of them follow established rules. Florida Gulf Coast's basketball team didn't beat heavy favorites by overpowering them; they won by going around them, using their speed and playmaking to overmatch favored opponents. Howard Stern didn't rise to prominence by trying to out-talk other morning shows; he ambushed them with content (and often won on inferior facilities). In 1971 the Fordham Rams tipped-off against the highly ranked U-Mass Redmen. U-Mass hadn't lost a game in almost a year. Playing at home in Amherst at "The Cage," Digger Phelps was coaching visiting Fordham. "Their forwards were bigger than our center. We were a bunch of scrappy kids from the Bronx and Brooklyn." Fordham pressed, pressed and pressed some more, throwing U-Mass off their game with guerilla warfare. The more U-Mass relied on their star Julius Erving, the more Fordham attacked the ball for all 94 feet. Fordham won 87-79. Upset? Not really.
If you compete in anything, I recommend you read Gladwell's latest. The theme is a must-ponder for those of us earning a reputation and a living off scoreboards and scores. The theme of the work sums it up: The advantages of disadvantages (and the disadvantages of advantages).
|
