Two of my current favorite literary scribes covering the secular topics of sport and the American zeitgeist are ESPN's "Sports Guy" and pop-culture critic Chuck Klosterman.  Both write about sports from a fan's perspective, which I appreciate and can easily relate to.  Both are also bookish nerds and retain endless amounts of useless information about sports, music, movies, books, etc, that only comes in handy when you are having pointless arguments about the significance of the Saved By the Bell episode where Jesse Spano takes speed pills and whether that became a deciding factor in casting Elizabeth Berkley as the call girl in Any Given Sunday. (My guess is no, I kinda think Showgirls had something to do with it).

In any case, Chuck and Bill's literary rants are right up my alley.  They teach me something new about sports, pop culture, and writing.  And when they came together yesterday for a power packed 80 minute podcast, I was downright giddy.

But two items came up in the discussion - at least as it relates to the Olympics.  First and foremost, they were ragging on the Olympics!  As much of a man crush I have on both guys, I can't get past the fact they both could care less about the Olympics.  Hearing them rag on the sport of swimming and talk about the need to make the gold medal for basketball bigger in size than say the gold medal for winning the men's 100 meter breaststroke was like Dante from the movie Clerks hearing that his girlfriend had relations with over 30 men.  It was devastating and made me feel like I worked for PETA when it came out that Michael Vick was at the center of a dog fighting scandal.

How can someone proclaim to be "The Sports Guy" and work for the World Wide Leader in Sports be so ignorant and short-sighted?  Then again, I will still follow him like I was a twelve year old school girl and he was the star of Twilight.  As a matter of fact, I'm listening to his third podcast of the week as I type. 

Back to my point...even though I don't think I made one.  Anyway...the second item I found fascinating between the Klosterman and Simmons discussion was the debate they had about the measuring success among athletes.  It was a great a conversation for a number of reasons, but mainly because it is a conversation I come across at the Olympic Training Center all the time. 

How do you measure an athlete's success? 

The Simmons/Klosterman debate centered on the argument of whether former NBA forward Chris Weber was "successful" in his career.  Klosterman argued yes, as Weber is someone who made well over $100 million dollars, is probably better off than his high school peer group, and has gotten the chance to experience things in life most people throughout the world could not.  Simmons countered that Weber's career was not successful because the player never measured up to his potential.  They then shifted towards comparing the basketball career of Paul Shirley, a journeyman basketball player who played for numerous NBA teams, as well as in Europe while venturing into writing for ESPN and penning an autobiography.  Simmons seemingly contradicted his former point, claiming that anyone who can play in the NBA for a year had a successful career - a contradiction Klosterman duly pointed out.

Nonetheless, the debate demonstrated the absurdity of people who work within sport arbitrarily passing judgment on the merits of athletes.  How can anyone claim to know an individual athlete's ceiling?  All the statistical analysis cannot measure determination, will, work ethic, sport aptitude, pain tolerance...all the intangibles that make a good athlete great. 

Again, this is a conversation I come across quite often since I work directly with the athletes who live and train at the Olympic Training Center in Colorado Springs.  The question is something athletes pose to themselves daily.  The answer is something staff and athletes both have to live with.  As arbitrary and relative as the answer is, it has very concrete repercussions. 

If an athlete's dream is to qualify for and compete in the Olympic Games, are they successful?  Well it kind of depends on who you ask.  In my opinion: yes.  That individual achieved their lifelong goal and more than likely sacrificed much of their personal life to attain that dream. 

But from other perspectives, some might not agree.  "Sports" fans like Bill Simmons and Chuck Klosterman would say no because they have proven to show little interest in the Games outside of basketball. 

Administrators who have to make tough decisions about their sport because of the struggling economy might not agree because their goal is to win medals and in their eyes, their athletes did not succeed for a variable of reasons such as poor coaching or a perceived lack of talent.

The reality is both athlete and administrator are right.  It's the goal of nearly every professional sports organization to win the championships of their respective sports.  The U.S. Olympic Committee and respective national governing bodies are no different.  It is just unfortunate and tough to see athletes suffer the effects of their organization's lack of full endorsement. 

It's admittedly hard to see athletes leave the training center because their program feels they lack what it takes to medal.  Again, that's not to say the program is wrong in their assessment, but when you work with an athlete for years and see their development, it's difficult to not be able to see that athlete reach their goals. 

However, as I got the chance to see this weekend in Glendale, AZ, one should never discount the merits of an athlete and/or team who at one-time were viewed as unsuccessful.  The NFL's Arizona Cardinals is a team that traditionally wins early draft picks not playoff games, while their leader, quarterback Kurt Warner has been maligned throughout his career as untalented and past-his-prime.  Nonetheless, they beat a Philadelphia Eagles team that was statistically better than the Cardinals on paper and will now get the chance to play in the Super Bowl for the championship title. 

Ultimately, everyone loves the tale of an underdog.  It's what inspires everyone and anyone to dream big, strive for lofty goals, and overcome seemingly impossible obstacles.  While we all stand in awe of Michael Phelps' achievements, the simple truth is we can more easily relate to the everyday struggle of Olympians like cyclists Michael Blatchford and Giddeon Massie.  Guys who bust their butts everyday to represent their country proudly at the Olympics and give their all to be the best they can be, even if that means falling short of winning.  Athletes who compete for themselves, the pride of representing the U.S.A., honoring their family and friends, and are motivated by their passion for their sport.

So when you scroll through the pages of TeamUSA.org or the next time you're watching a sporting event, think about the character of the athletes being presented and think about all that it takes an individual to compete at an elite level.  Sometimes there's more to defining success than winning or losing, and nothing represents that more than the Olympic spirit.