Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Are professional athletes really that great?

I follow quite a few sports to various degrees and I'd break them down based on the skill-strength spectrum. Something like pool, darts, bowling, would be almost entirely skill based. Physical strength/speed is greatly limited. On the other side many track and field events, cross country, and sports like powerlifting, weightlifting, and strongman, are primarily strength/speed, but all have a small skill component.

The most interesting thing I've noticed is that with many (if not most sports) with a higher emphasis on physical capabilities is that they naturally select for physical attributes. To the point where they overcome skillsets.

Take basketball for example. The general opinion is that height is valuable for basketball, but this only partially true. The most important physical attribute in the NBA is wingspan. A few years ago only two players in the NBA had a wingspan less than their height, JJ Reddick and Yao Ming. On average, a male's wingspan is within -1/+2 of his height (I've seen various numbers). In the NBA it's more along the lines of 5-6% greater than their height. That extreme is typically only associated with a physical...I guess defect or mutation would be the right word. So even though players like Isaiah Thomas or Nate Robinson might seem short, their wingspan is equal to or greater than the majority of 6'1"-6"3" men, despite being under 6' in height. On the absolute extreme Kawhi Leonard, at 6'7", has a 7'3" wingspan and 11.5" hands...Even with only a 33" vertical he is so long that he can consistently impossible plays.

In American Football things like hand size are extremely important for several positions. They heavily impact the QB's ability to grip and throw the football and WR's ability to make catches. Players like Jerry Rice and Odell Beckham Jr have massive hands.

In general long legs relative to height are superior for running outside of 30-40m. Long arms are great for pretty much everything other than weightlifting/powerlifting. It's amazing that Mike Tyson was as good as he was with such a short reach.

In a sport like baseball (and probably cricket as well) eye sight is of tantamount importance. Albert Pujols has average reflexes, but 20/10 eyesight. Hugely important for picking up where the ball is released on a pitch.

I guess what I'm getting at is that I think sports have reached the point where they naturally select so heavily for physical attributes that they favor extreme physiques over skill. Meanwhile consumers make the assumption that individuals are extremely talented instead of being naturally gifted and hard working.

In short:

Basketball: Wingspan, leg length, hand size are more important for most positions than exceptional skills. Point Guard being the exemption.
American Football: Same attributes. Route running is still important, as seen by Welker who is relatively slow, can't jump, and most likely doesn't have huge hands.
Baseball: Wingspan is big for all positions, especially infield. Eyesight is vital for batters.
Gymnastics: Being shorter is better for men and women.
Powerlifting/Weightlifting: Shorter limbs are advantageous for all movements EXCEPT the deadlift.
Sprinting: Shorter legs are superior for acceleration, but have a slower top speed
Cross-country/distance: Long limbs RELATIVE to height are vital. I think being relatively small and light with long legs would be ideal.
Swimming: Longer torsos help buoyancy.

The most interesting thing to me is that outside of weightlifting/powerlifting and swimming, longer limbs relative to height are superior.

As usual, Hockey is ignored.

Come play rugby - although there is a degree to which size and immutable physical attributes affect the game, it's known as the game for all shapes and sizes for a reason.

However, it requires high levels of fitness, a mix of players for different positions, and serious levels of trainable skills and decision making ability (which depend on fitness).

The thugs' game played by gentlemen.

The skill levels of NFL, NBA, and MLB players is off the charts. I don't know how you can even question this if you've ever seen any of these guys up close. There are tons of guys with the physical attributes to play in those leagues who never make it. And most pro players build up their skill sets over their whole lives to make it at that level.

If what you're saying here is a fancier version of the old "all you gotta do is be big/strong/fast", then I think you literally couldn't be more wrong. It's 180 degrees from the truth.

djones520 wrote:As usual, Hockey is ignored.

Only because I view hockey as a very high skill sport where many physical attributes are negated or I don't understand their effect. Wingspan doesn't seem to matter because the stick defines your wingspan. Leg length might matter, but I don't understand how.

I think eye sight and reaction time might be the most important.

Deafbok wrote:Come play rugby - although there is a degree to which size and immutable physical attributes affect the game, it's known as the game for all shapes and sizes for a reason.

However, it requires high levels of fitness, a mix of players for different positions, and serious levels of trainable skills and decision making ability (which depend on fitness).

The thugs' game played by gentlemen.

The same is true for American football.

gorgon wrote:The skill levels of NFL, NBA, and MLB players is off the charts. I don't know how you can even question this if you've ever seen any of these guys up close. There are tons of guys with the physical attributes to play in those leagues who never make it. And most pro players build up their skill sets over their whole lives to make it at that level.

If what you're saying here is a fancier version of the old "all you gotta do is be big/strong/fast", then I think you literally couldn't be more wrong. It's 180 degrees from the truth.

I disagree. I've seen collegiate level players in basketball that couldn't miss a jumper, but they were too short, not lanky, etc for a higher level of play. Small guys that excel in the NBA (Steve Nash, Isaiah Thomas, Iverson) are undoubtedly incredibly skilled and other players Jordan, Kobe, Lebron, clearly worked harder than their competitors to reach where they are. That doesn't change the fact that theoretically you could have an equally skilled, hard working guy with a terrible skeletal structure for pro basketball not make it simply because he can't make up that physical disadvantage.

As sports become more competitive they naturally select for ideal physical attributes. You can train as hard as anyone, but not make it, because you're just not the right build. However, the players that beat out their competitors at the highest level are clearly more skilled and harder workers.

What sparked my interest enough to attempt to discuss this was an article on shrinking gymnasts. I didn't realize the last Olympic gold medalist (I don't recall her name) was only 4'8", but it makes sense because it gives her a tremendous advantage over competitors that are taller and heavier.

I think you're making a mistake in thinking that physical attributes are taken instead of natural skill or hard work. Truth when you get the elite level of professional sport, you need some combination of all three. It's true that hard work and technical training won't get you there if you haven't got the physical abilities, but it's also true that natural physical ability won't get you there if you haven't got the other two.

 sebster wrote:
I think you're making a mistake in thinking that physical attributes are taken instead of natural skill or hard work. Truth when you get the elite level of professional sport, you need some combination of all three. It's true that hard work and technical training won't get you there if you haven't got the physical abilities, but it's also true that natural physical ability won't get you there if you haven't got the other two.

That's not what I'm suggesting.

Here's an example. I played basketball in HS and had a teammate my height, but who had a 7-8" greater overhand reach than me and I can't even fathom what his wingspan was...This guy was athletic and great on defense, but couldn't shoot, dribble, or pass, and was so uncoordinated he struggled with layups. So even though he was more physically gifted for the sport, I was better.

If you have only the most minimal amount of skill in a given sport you will not succeed. But to even get a chance at the professional level, which is what so many Americans strangely obsess over, you have to physical gifts that separate you from the rest.

Even someone like Jeremy Lin has physical attributes necessary for pro basketball. He stands 6'3" with a 6'5" wingspan and 8'2" overhead reach. It's not crazy by any means, but I'm only 3 inches shorter than him and their is a 6" difference in our overhead reach and 5" difference in wingspan.

 trexmeyer wrote:

gorgon wrote:The skill levels of NFL, NBA, and MLB players is off the charts. I don't know how you can even question this if you've ever seen any of these guys up close. There are tons of guys with the physical attributes to play in those leagues who never make it. And most pro players build up their skill sets over their whole lives to make it at that level.

If what you're saying here is a fancier version of the old "all you gotta do is be big/strong/fast", then I think you literally couldn't be more wrong. It's 180 degrees from the truth.

I disagree. I've seen collegiate level players in basketball that couldn't miss a jumper, but they were too short, not lanky, etc for a higher level of play. Small guys that excel in the NBA (Steve Nash, Isaiah Thomas, Iverson) are undoubtedly incredibly skilled and other players Jordan, Kobe, Lebron, clearly worked harder than their competitors to reach where they are. That doesn't change the fact that theoretically you could have an equally skilled, hard working guy with a terrible skeletal structure for pro basketball not make it simply because he can't make up that physical disadvantage.

As sports become more competitive they naturally select for ideal physical attributes. You can train as hard as anyone, but not make it, because you're just not the right build. However, the players that beat out their competitors at the highest level are clearly more skilled and harder workers.

What sparked my interest enough to attempt to discuss this was an article on shrinking gymnasts. I didn't realize the last Olympic gold medalist (I don't recall her name) was only 4'8", but it makes sense because it gives her a tremendous advantage over competitors that are taller and heavier.

Okay then, you're not saying what I originally thought you were saying.

But it's also kind of obvious to say that it's better to be tall if you're a basketball player, or have explosive acceleration if you're a running back. That's why teams value SPARQ ratings (speed, power, agility, reaction, quickness), to varying degrees. But there are also enough exceptions to the rule to make it not an absolute thing.

Height being valuable to basketball is a flawed premise. Overhead reach and wingspan are valuable.

Think of it like this. You can have two players.

Player A) 7' tall, 9' overhead reach, 7' wingspan, longer torso, shorter limbs
Player B) 6'9" tall, 9'2" overhead reach, 7'3" wingspan, shorter torso, longer limbs

Player B has superior reach despite being shorter and because he has longer legs is more mobile and most likely lighter increasing his general speed and vertical leap. For a real world example.

Yao Ming) 7'5" tall, 9'6" overhead reach, 7'5" wingspan, longer torso, shorter limbs, 310 lbs
Dwight Howard) 6'10" (in shoes), 9'3.5" overhead reach", 7'4.5" wingspan, shorter torso, longer limbs 240 lbs

Dwight might be 7" shorter, but he only loses 2.5" in reach and 0.5" in wingspan while being 70 lbs lighter making him much faster and a better leaper (simply because it requires less force).

Yao Ming wasn't a bust, but injuries (primarily due to his size) limited to a career best of 25 points/9 rebounds/2 blocks over 48 games.
Dwight Howard averages the same number of blocks, more rebounds, less points over his career, has been a perennial All Star and all defense player despite giving up 7 inches in height.

This is despite the obvious skill gap between the two. Ming is by far the better shooter and passer, but despite tall, his skeletal structure limits his mobility greatly and reduces his effectiveness in the high speed, open court style of the modern NBA.

While I think it's definitely true that these sports have minimum requirements which inherently only allow people with odd physical characteristics into the game, the fact is that the pool of these "odd" people is always much larger than the number of slots available. So the competition does become about your talent. Talents which only exist due to the physical characteristics you were born with for sure, but talent nonetheless.

IE: Major league sports is essentially a skill competition between people with specific physical attributes.

 Grey Templar wrote:
While I think it's definitely true that these sports have minimum requirements which inherently only allow people with odd physical characteristics into the game, the fact is that the pool of these "odd" people is always much larger than the number of slots available. So the competition does become about your talent. Talents which only exist due to the physical characteristics you were born with for sure, but talent nonetheless.

IE: Major league sports is essentially a skill competition between people with specific physical attributes.

Exactly, but outside of a misunderstanding of height I never really see this discussed. And people do overcome handicaps. Tyson had a terribly short reach for his height, but was still an excellent boxer for a time.

 trexmeyer wrote:
That's not what I'm suggesting.

Here's an example. I played basketball in HS and had a teammate my height, but who had a 7-8" greater overhand reach than me and I can't even fathom what his wingspan was...This guy was athletic and great on defense, but couldn't shoot, dribble, or pass, and was so uncoordinated he struggled with layups. So even though he was more physically gifted for the sport, I was better.

If you have only the most minimal amount of skill in a given sport you will not succeed. But to even get a chance at the professional level, which is what so many Americans strangely obsess over, you have to physical gifts that separate you from the rest.

Even someone like Jeremy Lin has physical attributes necessary for pro basketball. He stands 6'3" with a 6'5" wingspan and 8'2" overhead reach. It's not crazy by any means, but I'm only 3 inches shorter than him and their is a 6" difference in our overhead reach and 5" difference in wingspan.

You've misunderstood my point. What I am saying is that unique physical attributes, co-ordination and work ethic are all needed at the elite level.

So to use your example, you lacked particular physical attributes that would keep you out of the elite levels. Your friend had those particular physical attributes, but was not co-ordinated in general. Neither of you made it to the elite level, because there are thousands of guys who have both the coordination and the unique physical attributes to make it at the elite level who are fighting for a handful of sports.

So yes, in order to get a chance at the elite level you need particular physical gifts. You also need natural coordination. It's an elite field, you need to be the complete package.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:
While I think it's definitely true that these sports have minimum requirements which inherently only allow people with odd physical characteristics into the game, the fact is that the pool of these "odd" people is always much larger than the number of slots available. So the competition does become about your talent. Talents which only exist due to the physical characteristics you were born with for sure, but talent nonetheless.

IE: Major league sports is essentially a skill competition between people with specific physical attributes.

But you can just flip it around, and claim that sports have a minimum level of coordination/skill, and the pool of such coordinated people is much larger than the number of slots available, so that group is then further selected for 'odd' people with physical attributes that suit the sport in question.

It's like you guys are seeing a Venn diagram and noting that pro athletes are the group in the intersection, and saying that the group must have A, and then also have B. But it's exactly equally true to say the group must have B, and then also have A.

 trexmeyer wrote:

djones520 wrote:As usual, Hockey is ignored.

Only because I view hockey as a very high skill sport where many physical attributes are negated or I don't understand their effect. Wingspan doesn't seem to matter because the stick defines your wingspan. Leg length might matter, but I don't understand how.

I think eye sight and reaction time might be the most important.

Wingspan doesn't seem to matter?

Surely you're joking???

Chris F'n Pronger was a holy terror of a defenseman partly because of his wingspan...

 whembly wrote:

 trexmeyer wrote:

djones520 wrote:As usual, Hockey is ignored.

Only because I view hockey as a very high skill sport where many physical attributes are negated or I don't understand their effect. Wingspan doesn't seem to matter because the stick defines your wingspan. Leg length might matter, but I don't understand how.

I think eye sight and reaction time might be the most important.

Wingspan doesn't seem to matter?

Surely you're joking???

Chris F'n Pronger was a holy terror of a defenseman partly because of his wingspan...

At 6'6" his wingspan could have been anywhere from 6'3" to 6'8" and still fall within a relatively normal range. I really doubt it was anything extraordinary.



These are long arms.

Try looking at Zdeno Chara too - wingspan...matters.

Now that's a good example! I don't watch enough hockey to really know. But if y'all say it does, I'll take your word for it.