From: dave@snitor.sni.ca (Dave Till)
Subject: Re: Bonds "choke"?
Organization: Siemens Nixdorf, Sietec Open Systems, Toronto, Canada
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 18:46:44 GMT

In article <48202@shamash.cdc.com> jblixt@mips.COM (jon blixt) writes:
>First of all, I'm not saying Barry Bonds choked.
>
>I do, however, have a fairly simple question.
>
>Is there such a thing called choking and does it occur?
>
>IMO, I answer yes to both questions.  To me, choking is not
>performing a skill which you regularly accomplish given different
>circumstances.

I have always found the concept of "choking" to be something deeply repellent.
And, until now, I haven't figured out exactly why.  Here's a stab at an
essay I have always wanted to write; it is called "Donnie Moore Is Dead,
and You Don't Look So Good Yourself".  (This is not meant to be a flame of
this particular post, by the way.  No offense meant.)

---------------------------------------

Important athletic events, such as playoff games, pennant races and World
Series contests, are often thought of as tests of will and strength, as
opposed to mere tests of athletic ability and skill.  Some people believe
that a true "winner" is someone who can triumph when the going gets tough;
these people believe that certain athletes -- the "losers" -- "choke" when
under this pressure.

I think no one can dispute that certain people perform better under stress
than others.  However, I strongly dispute the idea that the ability to
perform under stress is proportional to the "character", "inner strength"
or "reliability" of the person in question.  When we, as fans, say that
athletes are "choking", we are not merely criticizing a lack of skill or
effort -- we are questioning an athlete's moral worth, and suggesting that
this athlete is an inferior human being.

The pressure not to be thought of as a "choker" which is placed on an athlete
in a key contest -- an athlete whose entire life and self-worth are completely
defined by his skills -- can only be imagined by those of us who are not under
such pressure.  If, as sometimes happens, an athlete just can't do what is
required of him in a particular situation, the personal consequences can be
devastating.

Look at Donnie Moore, for instance.  He was the ace reliever for the 1986
California Angels, and gave up a key home run which lost his team the
League Championship Series that year.  He was accused of "choking", and
never recovered from the blow; he eventually shot his wife and then himself.

And he isn't the only one.  Don Newcombe slid into alcoholism as a result
of being accused of "choking" in key Yankees-Dodgers games in the 1950's.
There are probably several others who have suffered similar fates.

If an athlete does not give sufficient effort in a key event, we can, if we
care to, criticize the athlete for doing so.  However, in almost all cases,
everybody out there is giving everything they have, and it is not their
fault that they come up short in a particular situation.  When we, as fans,
accuse athletes or teams of "choking", we are, in effect, condemning them for
something they couldn't help doing.  It is just as offensive and repellent
(though not as extreme, I admit) as criticizing a developmentally challenged
person because he or she can't function at an adult level.

To put it bluntly:  every time we use the word "choke", we risk killing
another Donnie Moore.  And one is enough.

--Dave "rather long-winded today" Till
e-mail path:  dave@silver.sni.ca or dave@snitor.uucp
(or try dwtill@watyew.waterloo.edu)