Heroes in Literature vs. Heroes in Life

As we know, the term hero is thrown around quite a bit in this day and age, often in situations that most would agree don't quite match up to the heroes of old (e.g. role models).  However there are also those who are labeled as heroes for a single action, such as saving someone from a fire or from being mugged etc.  Not many people would question the heroism of these individuals, and undoubtedly they act with bravery and morality, but how well does this match up with our concept of the literary hero?
In literature, heroic stories often explore themes such as sacrifice, redemption/vengeance, passion, morality, and countless others, but these themes are noticeably lacking from most "real hero narratives" if you will.  Saving a civilian in need is rarely premeditated.  It is likely not the "climax" of said person's life, nor is it necessarily a pivotal point in their psychological development or journey.  The event itself is a story.  These "heroes" are very unlike literary heroes who usually set out with a life goal, must endure many hardships and self-sacrifice, and finally emerge victorious, a changed being, and not always for the better.  There is an implicit criterion of these heroes where their heroic action cannot be separated from their existence; their goal is their end all be all, their ultimatum.  In a sense they personify the ideals and purpose behind their heroic action.  Even athletes, who on the surface seem less heroic than the aforementioned good citizens fit much more neatly into the literary hero category, as they possess similar devotedness to their passion.

Athletes

Early this semester we talked about whether athletes could be considered heroes or not, with many deciding that they aren't truly heroes because they do not achieve something of worldly value, i.e. saving a life or generally improving the conditions of others.  For the vast majority of athletes, this is most certainly the case, however under a more general definition of heroism, such as Campbell's, I believe that all competitors can be heroes.
This is especially clear for athletes who previously lived in poverty, struggled with chronic injury, death in the family etc.  They overcame hardships to accomplish their life goal or dream, and this is something that most people would look up to as heroic.
However for those that didn't have these clear-cut difficulties, for those that grew up in middle-class, functional families, the line between hero and citizen is not well-defined.  I mentioned the concept of the underdog in class as an example of a competitor taking on heroic qualities despite being otherwise quite ordinary.  The truth is that all competitors are underdogs at one time or another, struggling to become a member of the elite or even just recognized.  The obstacles they must overcome are inherent to competition: failure, doubt, disrespect, loss of motivation.  For those truly driven individuals, these are problems every bit as serious as poverty or tragedy.  Competition is a perfect example of the setting out on a personal or spiritual journey that Campbell pins down as the defining characteristic of a hero.  Competitors live a primarily tortured existence; they feel the need to prove themselves through success that they know cannot be attributed to anything but their own merit, which is in many ways both a blessing and a curse.  When glory is finally achieved, it was all worth it, yet for many it is unattainable.