> He was right, of course. What these athletes do was rather interesting, but the people themselves were only fast swimmers, who did the particular things one does to swim fast. It is all very mundane. When my friend said that they weren't exciting, my best answer could only be, simply put: That's the point.

This article (and its conclusions) reminded me a lot of the stuff David Foster Wallace wrote about the world of professional tennis. Wallace portrayed the life of a professional athlete as a kind of modern monasticism. From his Esquire article "The String Theory" (2008):

> Note the way "up close and personal" profiles of professional athletes strain so hard to find evidence of a rounded human life–outside interests and activities, values beyond the sport. We ignore what's obvious, that most of this straining is farce. It's farce because the realities of top-level athletics today require an early and total commitment to one area of excellence. An ascetic focus. A subsumption of almost all other features of human life to one chosen talent and pursuit [...]

> Sex and substance issues notwithstanding, professional athletes are our culture's holy men: They give themselves over to a pursuit, endure great privation and pain to actualize themselves at it, and enjoy a relationship to 'excellence' and 'perfection' that we admire and reward (the monk's begging bowl, the RBI guru's eight-figure contract) and like to watch, even though we have no inclination to walk that road ourselves. In other words, they do it for us, sacrifice themselves for our redemption.

Point being, the life of a professional athlete in the making is (mostly) not glamorous or exciting, but rather a very narrow existence comprised of pure persistence and dedication to a small set of very specific movements and activities, repeated over and over.