Up Your ACQ

You have heard it here before. I talk about it frequently. It is something that keeps me curious. I suppose if one desires a categorical definition it falls closest into the human psychology section. Here are the broad strokes of the phenomena (in the form of a question):

Why is it that if two people, roughly the same age, gender, fitness level, IQ, social standing, religion, health, 401k, domicile square footage, number of offspring, party affiliation, average 5K time, and preferred choices of stress management, are given a standard physical readiness test, as we used to call it in MWR, that one will overachieve and the other under? Why will one push past pain to achiever the test objective while the other will toss in the towel at the first sign of uncomfortability? 

Simply because everyone is different and there are, as the popular song once suggested, different strokes for different folks? Please at this critical juncture, do not take my question to be judgmental in nature, I adore the differences between us and celebrate diversity as if every day was the Forth of July, but, as an athlete, competitor, coach and serious student of the game, this difference has always intrigued me, and continually provides additional data that I trust will, someday, prove useful. 

As you know we have gone so far as to create a tool in the attempt to measure, and therefore manage, this obscure element of testing and training. In testing we can use the precision of the ergometer to measure power, the odometer for miles, heart-rate monitors and oxygen volume uptake gauges as well as the myriad combinations of time, speed, distance and intensity. These are all physical, the athlete’s response to a given testing criteria. But this is also where traditional measurements end. No tools exist, to the best of my knowledge, that adequately measure the psychophysical (or dare I suggest the spiritual) response to the same testing protocol. Everything after the time, speed, distance, power and intensity becomes a very subjective matter of guesswork. Or, what many years ago Dr. Gunnar Borg established as RPE, our self rating of perceived exertion. Dr. Borg’s famous scale asks the participant to rate his or her effort from 1-20, one being napping on the sofa to 20 being the hardest thing imaginable. But this is exertion, what you feel about the effort level, and not an assessment of what you feel ABOUT said effort. Two completely different things. A hammer is just some metal atop a wooden handle UNTIL you pick it up and crash a nail to a pine wood floor. 

We developed the ACQ in response to this glaring need. The Athletic Character Quotient, while still firmly planted in the subjective garden of estimates and perceptions, gets us a little closer to answering some big questions. For instance this juicy one: UNDER WHAT CONDITIONS WILL YOU QUIT?

The person who has earned (through hard work, dedication, discipline, focus and awareness) a high ACQ will almost immediately answer: NEVER! While her counterpart with a lessor ACQ will game her answer to fit her experience, motivation and comfort level, anything producing a mist sufficient for termination of session and a return to the zone of comfort and convenience. 

Yes, we can practice this. With the goal of continual improvement foremost in mind, every workout, every class, every drill, every little thing becomes an opportunity to answer the big questions asked by the ACQ formula. UNDER WHAT CONDITIONS WILL I BACK OFF, SLOW DOWN, COMPROMISE, CHEAT, HIDE, IGNORE, BULLY, DISRESPECT, ENABLE, BERATE, ABUSE, HARM, OR OTHERWISE PREFORM BELOW MY PERSONAL STANDARDS OR THOSE OF MY TEAM? 

You have that magical opportunity at this very moment. Up your ACQ.