Categories
Reading Writing

The Starting Five I Keep

On November 25, 1963, every journalist in America was at Arlington Cemetery covering the state funeral of John F. Kennedy. Jimmy Breslin went to find the grave digger.

His name was Clifton Pollard. He was paid $3.01 an hour. He had been called in on his day off because the foreman thought he was the best they had, and the foreman was right about that. Breslin spent the morning with him while the ceremony unfolded a few hundred yards away — the dignitaries, the riderless horse, the flag folded into a triangle and handed to a widow. Pollard ate a ham sandwich and kept working.

The piece Breslin filed that afternoon is still taught in journalism schools sixty years later. Not because it covered the funeral better than anyone else. Because it didn’t cover the funeral at all. It found the true subject by ignoring the announced one.

That instinct — turn away from the obvious, walk toward the unglamorous specific, trust that the universal is hiding there — is the one idea I’ve returned to more than any other. It shows up in two very different writers who occupy, in my mind, the same position on the roster.

Breslin got there through deadline fury and a saloon-bred instinct for where the real story was breathing. He didn’t theorize about it. He just did it, on a deadline, in a city that rewarded the loud and the fast. John McPhee got to the same place by an entirely different route: patience, structure, and a willingness to spend six months learning how canoes are made or what happens to a piece of shad on its way up the Delaware River. Breslin worked like a man catching a cab. McPhee worked like a man building a cathedral.

But the underlying claim is identical. If you stay with a specific, unglamorous subject long enough — if you resist the pull toward the obvious center — it will eventually yield something that couldn’t have been reached directly. Pollard and his shovel. The orange grower and his grove. The nuclear physicist who also happens to be a canoe builder. The method is the same. Look where no one else is looking. Wait longer than feels reasonable. Write what you find.

This is one player, really. Just wearing two different jerseys.

The second seat belongs to Wright Thompson — not a single book but a stance. The premise that the most revealing place in any story isn’t the event itself but the moment before and after it, when the subject is alone with something they haven’t yet put into words. Every piece in this tradition is quietly asking: what is this person carrying that they can’t say out loud? It’s a question that turns out to apply well beyond sportswriting. It applies to most things worth writing about.

The third is whatever the Apple design era taught about constraint and clarity. Not nostalgia — something more durable. The idea that removing something can be an act of confidence. That the most useful things often appear to be doing less than they are. This one surfaces constantly in writing, in argument, in the editing pass where you decide what the piece actually needs versus what it accumulated along the way. Features are easy to add. Knowing what to cut requires a different kind of certainty.

The fourth is the philosophy embedded in spaced repetition — not the algorithm but the claim underneath it. That knowledge you don’t revisit isn’t really yours. That understanding decays on a predictable schedule whether you acknowledge it or not. The honest response isn’t anxiety about this; it’s the habit of return. Going back to the same passage, the same idea, the same question on a different day, and finding it has changed — or finding that you have.

The fifth seat shifts. That’s probably the right design. Four constants and one that evolves is roughly the correct ratio for a starting lineup that has to play in different eras. Right now that seat belongs to the question of what AI does to a practiced human sensibility — whether it erodes it by substitution or clarifies it by contrast. Earlier it was held by a certain kind of systems thinking. Before that, something else. The player who earns that spot is always the one asking the question the current moment most needs answered.

The coach who wins five championships doesn’t do it with the same roster. But he does it with the same philosophy. The starting five aren’t the players who happened to be good once. They’re the ones who keep earning their minutes regardless of what the season throws at you.

Breslin knew where to find Clifton Pollard because he’d been looking in that direction his whole career. The skill wasn’t the story. The skill was knowing that the story was never where everyone else was standing.

That’s the one I keep coming back to.

Categories
Living Norway Sports

The Norwegian Secret: Play Over Pressure

The Winter Olympics arrive, and like clockwork, a nation of just over five million people sits comfortably atop the global medal table. It defies traditional logic. You look at countries with massive populations, vast alpine resources, and infinitely deeper pockets, and yet, Norway outpaces them all. We naturally assume their secret is a spartan, rigorous system. We picture toddlers strapped to skis, enduring grueling regimens under the watchful eye of demanding coaches.

But the truth is far more subversive and, frankly, a little humbling. The Norwegian secret isn’t a hyper-competitive factory of future champions. It’s the radical, almost rebellious act of just letting kids play.

Watching a recent deep-dive into this phenomenon, the contrast is stark. In Norway, youth sports aren’t about building a resume or chasing a polished plastic trophy. In fact, until they reach their early teens, Norwegian kids don’t experience the manufactured pressure of scoreboards, rankings, or regional championships. The mandate is incredibly simple: do what you want, for as long as you want, as long as it remains interesting to you.

This runs entirely counter to the culture of early specialization and relentless achievement we are so accustomed to in the rest of the world. We are often told that if a child hasn’t picked their lane by age seven—if they aren’t on the elite travel team, practicing six days a week—they are already falling irrevocably behind. We apply the anxieties of adulthood to the playgrounds of childhood. We emphasize the grind, convinced that pressure is the only thing that creates diamonds.

Yet, the Norwegian model suggests that early pressure might just crush the joy right out of the endeavor. The athletes who eventually stand on the Olympic podium often share a surprisingly casual origin story. They didn’t burn out by age twelve because they were never forced to specialize.

“Yeah, I was a slalom skier until I was 14, and then I got bored and switched to the biathlon.”

The cross-training happened naturally. The athleticism was built not through forced repetition, but through sheer, unadulterated exploration. Because there was no pressure, they developed a deep, intrinsic love for the snow, the ice, and the movement itself.

There is a profound philosophical lesson here that extends far beyond winter sports. It’s about how we cultivate mastery in any domain of life. When we remove the external validations—the immediate rankings, the trophies, the fear of losing—we create space for genuine, intrinsic motivation to take root. We allow curiosity to be the engine of growth.

Think about our own careers, our hobbies, and our personal development. How often do we abandon something we might have eventually loved because we weren’t immediately “winning” at it? How much deeper could our skills run if we allowed ourselves the grace to be amateurs, to switch paths when our interests evolved, without feeling like we were falling behind on some imaginary scorecard?

Letting kids play isn’t just a strategy for hoarding gold medals; it’s a blueprint for sustainable success and resilience. It turns out that when the stakes are kept low, the ceiling for human potential is incredibly high. The best way to build a champion, it seems, is to forget about the championship entirely and just enjoy the snow.