SO “back in the day” (in another lifetime, in a small town in southwestern Ohio when I might have described myself as an “athlete”) a high school teacher gave me a mimeograph (“ditto sheet”) copy of a speech by Vince Lombardi.
Yes, that is the “Vince Lombardi” for which the “Lombardi Trophy” is named.
The speech came to mind because I used the “winning is a habit” line (again).
Mr Lombardi gave the speech in July of 1970. I’m guessing at the time of the speech he was planning on coaching in the NFL that year, but he died in September 1970 (colon cancer, he was 57).
The mimeograph copy I had was PROBABLY a transcription of the speech. From a “document” point of view that means that “paragraph breaks” were a little arbitrary – i.e. the “ditto sheet” version was a couple VERY large blocks of text.
The full speech was probably around 50 minutes (5,000 words, “paid after dinner speech” length) – again, just me guessing after spending 10 years teaching/getting paid to talk.
I did a little more light editing this morning, changed the font, increased font size for readability, more paragraph breaks. The U.S. Copyright act of 1976 started automatically granting “copyright protection” to any and all “creative works.”
Before 1976, to get copyright protection you needed to place a “copyright notice” on the work in question – which means I’m 99.99% sure THIS speech is in the public domain
Vince Lombardi
I want to talk a little bit about attaining a goal, a success what I think it is. I want to say first that I think you’ve got to pay a price for anything that’s worthwhile and success is paying the price. You’ve got to pay a price to win, you’ve got to pay a price to stay on top, and you’ve got to pay a price to get there. Success is not a sometime thing it is an all the time thing. In other words, you don’t do what is right once in a while but all of the time. Success is a habit, just like winning is a habit. Unfortunately, so is losing. So it has been the American zeal, gentlemen, to be first in everything that we do and to win and to win and to win.
Random thoughts
There is a lot of “meat” in the speech which is still valid in the 21st century.
Vince Lombardi often gets depicted as “legendary football coach” standing on the sidelines and yelling. Leadership styles are obviously influenced by personality – and Mr Lombardi was certainly “explosive.”
BUT his success did not come from “yelling on the sideline.” We could fill up a small library with books “related to” Vince Lombardi – so he made that transition from “Hall of Fame coach” to “cultural icon” at some point.
I’ve read a few Lombardi biographies so some random thoughts:
- He was an assistant coach at the U.S. Military Academy West Point when they were still a national football power – under “legendary” coach Earl “Red” Blaik
- coaching in the NFL was (probably) a second choice – i.e. there were rumors that “major colleges” at the time wouldn’t want to hire an Italian head coach – I’m not making any accusations, but it was a different time.
- it is easy to forget that “college football” was more popular than the NFL “back then” – the rumor is that Earl Blaik encouraged Vince Lombardi to take an assistant coach job in the NFL
- Woody Hayes (as the story goes) called Vince Lombardi the best coach he ever met – Mr Hayes is another example of “great football coach” whose “sideline antics” got a lot of press, but had little to do with his success (but a lot to do with his “fall from grace” – umm, ’nuff said)
- The NY Giants won the NFL championship in 1956 – with Vince Lombardi as offensive coordinator and Tom Landry as defensive coordinator — Mr Landry would win a few games (and 2 Super Bowls) as head coach for the Dallas Cowboys, ’nuff said
- There was a LOT less money floating around the sport of football “back then” – pro football was NOT a “full time”/year round job for a lot of players from that era – but I wouldn’t over sympathize the lack of money into thinking of that time as some sort of “when the game was pure” era …
- from an “armchair amateur historian” point of view – the fact that OTHER coaches considered Vince Lombardi a great coach says a lot more than any win/loss record. I’m sure they didn’t all LIKE him, but they RESPECTED him …
Would Vince Lombardi be successful in 2024?
Short answer: Yes.
The game is obviously very different. There is a lot more competition, players make a LOT more money, but (just me guessing) Vince Lombardi would have adjusted.
Bill Parcells had a very “Vince Lombardi” coaching style and I would describe (waiting to be inducted into the Hall of Fame) Bill Belichick as another example of a “Lombardi like” approach to the game.
Again “side line personality” is an increasingly small part of the game of football. e.g. You have to pay the price to win.
Sports Psychology
Another famous “Lombardi quote” (when he was coaching in Green Bay) was that he wanted players to place the Green Bay Packers “third” on their list of priorities.
What should be first and second on the list? “God” and “family.”
This is important as the “balance point” to another famous “Lombardi quote”: “Winning isn’t everything. It is the only thing.”
From a “practical sports psychology” point of view – those concepts met at a point where “playing performance” is very high.
i.e. “football” is important, but not the REASON for existence. Relationships OFF the field are MORE important than on the playing field – but those “on the field” duties shouldn’t be neglected.
Lose a football game and you shouldn’t be happy, but it isn’t the end of the world. The same applies to “winning a game” – yes, enjoy when you win, but it isn’t permanent.
The “desired performance state” is where the athlete can go at “full speed” but still be in control. That involves “being in the moment” and not worrying about past OR future possibilities.
Mistakes are going to happen – but don’t let the “last play” (good OR bad) get in the way of the “current play.” e.g. ok, you messed up, don’t spend time apologizing, worry about getting the next one right – there is plenty of time AFTER the game to dissect what went right/wrong
i.e. save the “After Action Review” for AFTER the action …
Of course “elite athlete” doesn’t achieve that without a lot of work/practice. They can’t just “show up” and expect to win.
e.g. You have to pay the price to win.
If there are “life lessons” to be learned from “sports”, then that is a still a big one …
Success consists of getting up just one more time than you fall.
Oliver Goldsmith
Management Theory
There is a lot of talk about how “leadership theory” changes between generations.
Tom Landry once said that when HE played the game, if the coach had told them to lay on the ground while coaches kicked them in the stomach, THEY would have done it.
The point being that “back then” players didn’t dare question coaches. Of course “coach” was supposed to have a reason for doing what he did – but he wasn’t expected to share that reason with players.
THAT type of “centralized command and control” was the norm when Vince Lombardi was coaching.
Obviously trust has to be earned – and no, I don’t think Tom Landry had coaches kicking him in the stomach. I’m guessing that Tom Landry had players asking him “why are we doing this.”
Of course “American History” is kind of centered on “questioning authority” – but that is a different subject.
Random thought: One of the “colorful” personalities in American Revolutionary history was Inspector General Friedrich Wilhelm von Steuben who CLAIMED to be a Prussian officer. He wrote the “Regulations for the Order and Discipline of the Troops of the United States.” The rumor is that General von Steuban complained about “American troops” always wanting to know “why”/asking questions – i.e. as opposed to the obedience of Prussian troops …
(… btw: the “von” part of his name implies that he was an “aristocrat” – which would have been expected of an “officer” in Prussia/Europe – BUT he probably wasn’t. Like I said he was a “colorful” personality ..)
MEANWHILE …
SO Vince Lombardi’s “leadership style” was typical for his generation — but again, he was a “teacher of football.” His view of human nature was that humans are naturally lazy (in general) and need to be “encouraged” to work.
Of course I’m sure he “encouraged” individual players differently – recognizing that the way “rookie” needs to be “encouraged” is different than they way “veteran player” needs to be “encouraged.”
Putting a label on his management style isn’t important – the grand “management” concept is ALWAYS that “management equals communication.”
“Basics of leadership 101” in the 21st Century PROBABLY starts off with the concept that “folks” are going to be better “employees” if they understand the “why” of their job.
From an “amateur armchair historian” point of view – I would argue that understanding the “big picture” has been the ideal/goal for MOST of human history. It was only after the industrial revolution allowed “management” to “deskill” labor by extreme job specialization that phrases like “that isn’t my job” became possible.
Random thought: IF I was ever shown a “job description” for a job, there always was an “other duties as assigned” line – which basically meant my job was to do what they told me to do.
THAT concept might be a good dividing line between “skilled” versus “unskilled” labor – i.e. if they can train your replacement in a short amount of time, you are VERY replaceable.
How do they learn the “why?” Well, obviously someone needs to teach them – and making sure that happens is “management.”
Leave a Reply