Would you consider a sport where, due to random genetics, only 7% of the population could get really good at it?

You can be very short and a world class libero.

You can also be "too tall" in volleyball, because you become a defensive liability. NCAA rule allows players not to play backcourt positions. But that's much harder to do under FIVB rule with only six substitutions per set (as opposed to 15).

I always imagined that guys who are maybe hitting around some of the following marks: 1:50, 4:0x, 14:xx, etc. are about as skilled/talented/whatever as other major sports' benchwarmers. Adjust the numbers however you see fit, but the point is that they're good college athlete times, but not crazy fast.

You run a 3:59 mile and get a pat on the back. But if you had the same amount of skill and talent in football, you'd at least get a good salary to be on some NFL team's practice squad. If you were equally good at soccer there's a million smaller teams that would be happy to take you. Instead, you get 5 pairs of shoes per year and your club covers your meet entry.

Not close. You are pointing out 100th guy in an event. 100 QBs aren't drafted. 100 TEs aren't drafted. Only about 10 players per position are drafted. That is more like 1:46 or 3;53.

Sure, I just made up numbers. But going strictly off the draft isn't that helpful. There's probably around 100 total QBs in the whole league, and that's just QBs. There are way more receivers and RBs as well. And then you could go play in like the CFL or something too. You're not making NFL money, but you're getting more than a track club gives you.

My point is, there's a lot more people getting paid in other sports. A 1:46 guy is lucky to get paid at all outside of meets and travel.

There’s hardly anyone being paid in any sport. If you check notable alumni in any HS, guys that ever made it to the pros, are on a small list. My alma mater has been about 2000 students, with good demographics for baseball and have won a few section championships, but in over fifty years, there have been just three player to make it to MLB, and two were cup of coffee types.

Totally! if you're looking at the tip-top, Missy Franklin has size 12 feet and webbed toes. Any individual olympic sport is way more difficult to excel at than any team sport

I have to say I find this post really ironic.

I find most people on this board being fixated on the issue of winning and losing in all levels of sports.

People can and will participate in any sport they want, but the people that win the genetic lottery will always be the ones at the top in their sport. And we discover from the people at the top, the genetic traits that are most favorable for that sport.

One baseball study found 81% of Professional baseball players have at least 20/15 vision, maybe 50% have at least 20/12 vision and 3.9% have 20/8 vision which is the limit of human eye sight. But 81% of baseball players have one genetic trait less than 1% of the population has, having good eye sight alone doesn't guarantee anyone to being a good pro baseball player, because 19% still managed to get to the top.

A lot depends on what your definition of "really good" is but you've basically described all sports and activities, + or - several %.

Funny attitude since I am not convinced you have no idea what you are talking about.

When I first saw this post, I thought you were then going to use distance running (not basketball) to bring home your point.

It’s either that, or participation medals. RT XC’s list would useful for choosing a summer camp.

Other than the libero, the other players are all about 6'6" or taller on the men's size and 6'2" or taller on the women's size. Look at USA women's roster, those girls are as tall as our women's basketball team.

7% of the worlds population? I think the figure is lower.

Oh, of course, you're American so no other nation matters.

False.

The fact is that most top athletes in ball sports represent the best of the best of the best due to years and many layers of filtering the best from the rest. From childhood sports to middle school to high school/club to college/juniors to pro ball sports filter the best up and then the average or mediocre athletes are spit out. Not true in T&F or XC where participation is still encouraged even if you're not very good.

It's also be true that only the sprint events reflect the tip top of athleticism in T&F among the whole population since raw speed is immediately apparent among athletes whereas the best distance athletes are probably never found among the general population. One, because most young athletes despise running long distances and never get far with it and two, because most of those athletes enjoy other sports and never delve into XC or T&F. ...Its very probable that the most genetically gifted distance runner is either in another sport or on the couch. Not true among sprinters.

That’s absolutely false. Do you have some survey to back that up? Otherwise, you’re just showing how much you despise our sport.

That's how our national teams is designed. A middle blocker has to be tall. But outside hitters can compensate for the lack of height with leaping ability. Both LOVB and PVF have many OHs (and setters) who are 6 feet and under. Indy Ignite is an especially short team. 6 ft setter Sid Hilley towers over smaller hitters who surround her. (LMM is 5-8, Taylor is 5-9, Cajic and DeBeer are 5-11. ) She used to play with Dena Rettke and Anna Smrek at Wisconsin.

If 5-11 Gabi can be one of the best outside hitters in the world, there could be a place for players like 5-10 Brooke Nunneviller and 6 ft Claire Chaussee. It's all a matter of priority for the national team.

No participation medals do not matter. Parkrun is all about rankings on this message board.

soccer actually does "select" for attributes, but over years from volume. some of the kids who start out good at select U10 -- juggle kings -- turn out so glacially slow they can't stay with the speed of play, limited help on offense, defensive liabilities, and are JV level by the end. a lot of central mids are distance runners and a lot of wingers are sprinters.

if you want to play an aerial game or defend one, some teams want tall forwards and central defenders. goalkeepers too.

if you weren't willing to be physical and slide tackle my select team would wash you out.

you don't think about it at the time but the unathletic kids got cut U15, the choir boy was cut U16, and what's left are tall guys with skills, people who double at cross, people who also do track, and then a keeper.

what i noticed as i progressed was as speed of play increased it would be like you would think you had a bunch of space and it would close so fast. and if you're not up to that, you're bench or gone.

so i think it's deceptive that it seems open to anyone. if you aren't fast, highly skilled, tall, aerial ability, good GK, the older you get the less useful you are. but because it's a popular sport they can pick from high volume.

that and there might be several layers of pro from well compensated to semi-pro stuff. multiple select and college teammates played some level, and i was offered a tryout but in grad school and turned it down.