Actually cricket is one of the most popular sports in the world as a whole. To become a professional cricket player requires plenty of athleticism.
Actually cricket is one of the most popular sports in the world as a whole. To become a professional cricket player requires plenty of athleticism.
I suspect you won't get a response from Bad Wigins here - he's gone home DEVASTATED!!
Harambe wrote:
Dude you didn't even look at the links you asked for. Which I suppose answers my request above.
They have done many studies on this stuff. From things as generic as "athlete status" to specific tests of ability.
You're just moving my goalposts here. Of course if you conjure up an imaginary ability that you define as unknowable then you won't be able to test for it?
VO2 max is heritable. Strength is. Likelihood of making a national team in a sport is. The list goes on and on. You don't need to point to a gene or trait to measure the heritability of outcomes. I mean, you could devise a study where you measure the heritability of mile PRs. That's a direct measurement of your "talent" term. The fact remains that "talent" is a composite of biological and psychological factors. Many of which have been measured and shown to be highly heritable.
westbeast GOAT wrote:
Russell Westbrook would dominate hockey if he played it from a young age. No one in the NHL would stand a chance against him.
You could be right. Id definitely take him over lebron in hockey. Russel is a beast for sure but basketball still doesn't demonstrate all the necessary skills to make it in the nhl. Hockey requires a lot more dexterity, physical toughness and sense for the game. Not to say he doesn't have them but just to say that being as good at basketball as he his doesn't guarantee he could be good at hockey. If I had to pick one athlete from another sport to dominate at hockey it would probably be him though
Sportly Portly wrote:
Sports that are not real sports.
Golf
Darts
Bowling
Basically anything where 50 year-olds have a chance.
Ouch.
Distance running
dressage
Bowling
comedyrelief wrote:
Golf,
Any sport where John Daly can be considered an elite athlete proves you don't need athletic talent. Just enough of an economic hurdle to keep most of the world's population from competing. Same can be said for most of the white guy sports.
You are disproving your own point.
John Daly was an elite TALENT, not and elite athlete.
The fact that he won in spite of his lifestyle shows how much talent is involved.
bladerunner wrote:
Wrong and wrong. John Daly won 3 tournaments in his entire pga career. He is not and would not be considered one of the top 500 players ever. He lost his tour card several years ago and was getting into tournaments on sponsors exemptions.
Five, actually, including two majors. That puts him in the top 250 of all time for wins. If you had as many wins as Jack Nicklaus had major wins, you'd be in the top 50. It's really, really hard to win one.
It depends on which level you're talking about. If you want to be top 25 in a sport, pick the one with the smallest talent pool. That may be a sport primarily for the rich (equestrian sports, sailing, Indycar, etc) or a niche sport like for instance ultra running.
If you want to make a living from a sport pick the most popular. Worldwide that's without comparison soccer. Around the world there are tens of thousands of people earning their daily bread from soccer. Compare that to running. Well, don't...
But if you want to get rich and famous there's no options for the untalented, no matter how hard you work.
all is relative wrote:
If you want to make a living from a sport pick the most popular. Worldwide that's without comparison soccer. Around the world there are tens of thousands of people earning their daily bread from soccer. Compare that to running. Well, don't...
But if you want to get rich and famous there's no options for the untalented, no matter how hard you work.
Actually, in the USA, if you want to have a pro career coming out of college, your best options statistically are baseball and hockey.
http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/research/estimated-probability-competing-professional-athleticsCurling.
reason is obvious wrote:
Distance running
dressage
Bowling
Um , ..... ever heard of Pokemon Go ?
its a good question. a relative such.
i think also it depends a lot on the opportunities. and competiton.
i wud say running is one of the most dependent on talent. sad but true.
my vote wud be on soccer. cos the opportunities are pretty vast. you can play in a lower division n still make some decent money. and work on specifics....
What categorizes as a sport is an important consideration. Of those with in the Olympics I would say equestrian, followed by curling, shooting sports, luge/bobsled, and ski-jumping in some order. Of non-Olympic, but still generally considered sports, I would vote for ultra-running.
Pick up a stick wrote:
all is relative wrote:If you want to make a living from a sport pick the most popular. Worldwide that's without comparison soccer. Around the world there are tens of thousands of people earning their daily bread from soccer. Compare that to running. Well, don't...
But if you want to get rich and famous there's no options for the untalented, no matter how hard you work.
Actually, in the USA, if you want to have a pro career coming out of college, your best options statistically are baseball and hockey.
http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/research/estimated-probability-competing-professional-athletics
Baseball has (roughly) a million minor league teams and hockey has relatively few D1 teams (about 60) and a number of minor leagues. So, yeah, makes sense.
Sailing has to be up there on the list for sure. Also, I'd think you could get prett darn good at checkers if you made it your life's work.
NFL/Gridiron/American Football or whatever the hell its called would have to be up there.
over eat, learn the playbook, get a contract.
Ebonics. You probably take more time to deliberately misspell words and knuckledrag grammar rules than it would require to do it correctly.
Fake study. Cite it or it didn't happen
Just wow... wrote:
Sailing has to be up there on the list for sure. Also, I'd think you could get prett darn good at checkers if you made it your life's work.
You could get darn good at checkers, but you couldn't be elite unless you had gifted mathematical capacities (e.g., do a search for "Marion Tinsley'") -- and some studies indicate higher-level mathematical capacities are genetically determined. I would rate checkers more like soccer in terms of the need for "talent" v. "hard work" -- sort of a 50/50 proposition. But elite checkers players are a pretty self-selecting bunch. To what extent is intention genetically linked? If you were to make checkers your life work, you probably have some compelling attraction to it.
Coach wrote:
Curling
Requires high tolerance for alcohol.