Which sport/activity is the LEAST dependent on talent, and MOST dependent on how HARD or how MUCH you work at it?

Sports that are not real sports.

Golf

Darts

Bowling

Basically anything where 50 year-olds have a chance.

Rowing

Sportly Portly wrote:

Sports that are not real sports.

Golf

Darts

Bowling

Basically anything where 50 year-olds have a chance.

Take running, most everyone running doesn't have a chance. There are 60 year old men, women too, that can clean the clocks of lazy ass 20 year old people. Age is a factor but hard work more so. Look up times for the elite 60 year olds. You will be astounded.

Most people die slowly, doing nothing to keep in shape.

` wrote:

I would have thought something like darts, but I read a study that showed that after everyone having a little bit of practice, those with talent would never be surpassed by those without, no matter how much more training the less talented throwers did.

Michael van Gerwen is one of the most talented sportsmen on the planet.

What he can do is ridiculous.

I think pretty much all sports require talent.

Also, we've all heard the ol' "I don't really consider running a sport because it doesn't take any talent and anyone can do it. It only matters how much you run". Which we know is bullshit.

If I had to guess, id say bowling probably requires the least talent

I would say the activity of providing for one's family and achieving career success is highly dependent on work ethic and drive. Lots of very bright/talented people end up as failures because they're lazy or easily influenced by their friends who don't want to them to succeed.

Jimmy21 wrote:

I think pretty much all sports require talent.

Also, we've all heard the ol' "I don't really consider running a sport because it doesn't take any talent and anyone can do it. It only matters how much you run". Which we know is bullshit.

If I had to guess, id say bowling probably requires the least talent

Have you ever bowled at a high level? I'm not talking about a beer league. You'd be surprised.

` wrote:

... but I read a study ....

What study is this? How did they measure talent? Doesn't sound like a legitimate study.

Triathlon, almost by definition, is a sport for people lacking talent in any of the separate disciplines

It's obviously true (or should be), that if you take a group of people working very hard and very intelligently at a particular sport, the differences in performance will mostly be down to "talent" or rather genetics. So in order to be successful without much talent, one has to be in a sport where the number of people working as hard as possible is very small.

I think distance running absolutely qualifies. Not because there aren't a lot of people who do it, but mostly because the quantity of work that it takes to reach one's potential is so huge. So at the high school level, the average kid can be very good if he trains seriously, and most kids can run in college if they want to. And once you start plateauing, you just move up in distance. A 15:30 5k is pretty common in college, but a 2:30 marathon (which a 15:30 guy should be able to run with training) is pretty rare. If you move up to ultra distances, you see decidedly non-elite athletes making U.S. teams. It's not because talent isn't part of ultrarunning; it's because there aren't that many talented people doing it seriously.

Surprise wrote:

Triathlon, almost by definition, is a sport for people lacking talent in any of the separate disciplines

Depends what you consider "lacking talent"

Are most upper level triathletes world-class in any individual sport? No.

But most of them are "good" at at least two of the sports (usually cycling and running) and can train through the third sport.

A few of the age-grouper triathletes I know are at least 16:xx open 5k guys and all have broken 1:20 in the HM. Not blazing, but it does require some level of talent to do that.

800 dude is spot on - talent will tend to matter less as the competition pool decreases.

So, you'll want to look for sports with two properties: i) barriers to entry, and ii) low rewards (especially monetary). A third property would be region-specific sports (like jai jalai), but I don't think that's what the OP has in mind.

Barriers to entry would be things like cost of equipment and natural factors out of our control. For example, ski jump requires snow and a mountain, or as an alternative a very expensive facility (I've never heard of an indoor olympic-style ski jump, but I'm sure it's possible). You also need some gear. Bobsled is similar but even more expensive gear.

For low rewards, think of a sport like ultramarathoning. Prize money is small and there is little opportunity for sponsorship compared to even olympic track & field athletes.

I think that winter sports might be a good bet. For 'activities' (though these guys are under a lot of physical stress) I would imagine that motorsports (despite having large prize money) could be a good possibility, simply because the barrier to entry is so high.

Curling

race car driving. There have been so many children of famous drivers follow them in the sport. How many Andrettis and Unsers have we seen? Formula 1 is different, I suppose. But in indy car and nascar, it seems opportunity is granted by nepotism and not talent.

bladerunner wrote:

race car driving. There have been so many children of famous drivers follow them in the sport. How many Andrettis and Unsers have we seen? Formula 1 is different, I suppose. But in indy car and nascar, it seems opportunity is granted by nepotism and not talent.

How many baseball, basketball, football, track,... and so on have kids that follow in their footsteps? It is a combo of genetics and environment. Sports like golf and Nascar benefit from smaller talent pools (i.e. how many people even try to be a professional race car driver versus the number that show up to try and play baseball or run track) which make it easier to make to the top.

At low levels sports like golf and bowling are such that you can make up for a lack of talent by developing a lot of skill. At the high level though you run into the problem that you have people with both skill and talent.

And yes talent is hard to measure. We all come to sports with years of prior experience and training. Doesn't change the reality that some people are better the moment the start AND then rapidly improve more than people that put in the same amount of work.

Swimming 109 percent

Chess

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%C3%A1szl%C3%B3_Polg%C3%A1r

Any sport for rich white people. Sailing, golf, polo, and many of the winter sports, including hockey. They require more money and access to the right facilities in the right location. Many people who have the talent to dominate those sports never try it in their lifetimes.

Chris Rock said it best: "Motherf*ck Wayne Gretzky! Wait till you see Lebron on some skates!"