How This Soccer Team Plane Crash Movie Reveals True Survival Stories
Through the program, local schools will partner with SLU to identify and nominate promising students to receive half-tuition scholarships worth more than $28,000 per year. Applicants will remain eligible for additional scholarships above this level.
I still remember the first time I watched "Alive," the 1993 film depicting the 1972 Andes flight disaster. As someone who's studied survival psychology for over a decade, what struck me most wasn't the cannibalism that everyone focuses on, but rather the strategic decision-making patterns that mirrored high-stakes situations I've observed in completely different fields. Just last week, while analyzing golf strategy with some colleagues, we discussed how Rianne Malixi used a 3-wood and 5-wood to reach that par 5 at 508 yards, while Diksha Dagar opted for driver and 3-wood to achieve the same green in two shots. This seemingly unrelated golf scenario actually reveals the same core principle that helped the Andes survivors endure 72 days in sub-zero temperatures - the critical importance of equipment selection and strategic resource allocation under pressure.
The Andes survivors faced what I'd call the ultimate resource management challenge. With limited food supplies and extreme weather conditions, they had to make equipment decisions that would determine their survival. This reminds me of how golfers must select their clubs based on course conditions and their own capabilities. In the film, we see survivors using seat cushions as snowshoes and aircraft wreckage as shelter - improvisations that parallel how professional golfers sometimes use clubs in unexpected ways to overcome challenging situations. I've personally witnessed tournament players using a 7-iron for bump-and-run shots when a wedge would seem the obvious choice, demonstrating that survival, whether on the golf course or in the mountains, often depends on creative problem-solving rather than textbook solutions.
What fascinates me about both scenarios is the psychological dimension. Having interviewed numerous athletes and survival experts, I've noticed that the most successful individuals share a particular mindset - they assess their tools not by their intended purpose, but by their potential applications. The Andes survivors looked at a broken wine bottle and saw a cutting tool, much like how Malixi looked at her 5-wood and recognized it as the perfect club for that specific 230-yard approach shot. This adaptive thinking is something I've tried to cultivate in my own work, whether I'm preparing a research paper or planning an expedition. It's not about what equipment you have, but how you perceive its possibilities.
The film beautifully illustrates how the survivors established routines and divided labor, not unlike how golf caddies and players collaborate on course strategy. I've always been impressed by how the survivors maintained hope through small victories - finding a radio battery, spotting a search plane - similar to how golfers build momentum through successful shots. In my analysis of survival cases, I've found that groups who celebrate these minor achievements, like reaching a par 5 in two shots regardless of the club selection, tend to maintain higher morale and better decision-making capacity. The Andes group's ability to find meaning in small progress mirrors what I see in successful sports teams - they focus on process rather than outcome.
One aspect that particularly resonates with my research is how the survivors managed their physical energy. They recognized that brute force wouldn't save them, just as golfers understand that power alone won't conquer a course. The strategic resting periods shown in the film remind me of how professional golfers manage their energy throughout a tournament. I've tracked players who maintain 92% focus during critical shots but deliberately reduce to 65% during walks between holes to conserve mental energy. This calculated energy management directly parallels how the Andes survivors alternated between activity and rest, understanding that survival is a marathon, not a sprint.
The leadership dynamics in the film offer another fascinating parallel. Different survivors emerged as leaders for different situations, much like how various team members might take charge during different phases of a golf tournament. I've observed this in corporate environments too - the same person isn't always the best choice to lead every initiative. The film shows us that survival often depends on recognizing when to lead and when to follow, similar to how golfers must sometimes play aggressively and other times conservatively based on course conditions. Personally, I believe this flexibility represents one of the most valuable survival skills, whether you're stranded in the mountains or competing in professional sports.
What many viewers miss about "Alive" is the mathematical precision behind the survivors' decisions. They calculated calorie expenditure versus potential gains with remarkable accuracy, not unlike how golfers compute yardage, wind speed, and elevation changes. In my own work, I've found that successful people across fields tend to be surprisingly quantitative in their approach. The survivors estimated they needed approximately 1,200 calories daily to maintain basic functions, while professional golfers might calculate they need 3.2 practice putts per hole to maintain their putting accuracy. This numerical approach to challenges separates adequate performers from exceptional ones in my experience.
The film's depiction of the survivors' final trek reminds me of those crucial final holes in a golf tournament. Both situations require drawing on every lesson learned, every bit of stored energy, and every strategic insight gained along the journey. Having faced my own challenging situations during research expeditions in remote areas, I can attest that the final push often depends on those small strategic decisions made earlier - much like how selecting the right club on the 13th hole can set up success on the 18th. The Andes survivors' 10-day trek through mountainous terrain using improvised equipment demonstrates the same strategic foresight that leads golfers to sometimes sacrifice distance for positioning.
Ultimately, both the true survival story and strategic sports reveal that success rarely comes from dramatic, heroic actions but from consistent, thoughtful decisions. The survivors didn't suddenly become superhuman - they simply made better choices with the resources available, much like how professional golfers select clubs based on current conditions rather than habit or ego. This principle applies far beyond survival situations or sports - in my consulting work, I've seen businesses thrive or fail based on similar resource allocation decisions. The real lesson of "Alive" isn't about surviving a plane crash, but about how we approach challenges with whatever tools we have available, whether we're facing the Andes or the 18th hole.