Absolutely. Becoming world class at anything, especially anything competitive, also involves failing about a million times on the way up. In coaching chess one of the first things one tends to ask is what the student wants to achieve. And the typical response has something to do with winning. But they don't need you for that. If they just want to win, then they but need to never play anybody better than themselves!
Improving involves blood, sweat, tears, and defeat. Only to come back ever stronger.
You can fail or have success on many dimensions. There is probably some skill you are good innately, or better than a large chunk of population. On that dimension you will have probably have built a pretty good self-esteem over the years, but you know that you can still improve (hence comparing yourself with who got 4 medals if you have 2) but fear of failing will not completely block you, only stress you more to raise the bar.
On the other hand, in domains where you are not so good by default, if you are a perfectionist you can totally risk being paralyzed until you think you are "good enough for it".
I don't think there is a "good by default" dimension. Maybe a "learning easier" dimension. I'd argue that in such advanced spheres comparison becomes secondary. First an foremost it's about the activity. Like friends competing in a game of cards. It's about having fun with friends. Winning is for having a purpose to play.