[noahc]

Do you really believe this?

Genetics help, sure. But it is just potential. Can you provide an example where one person was so genetically talented that they didn’t train and still were competitive at some semi-professional level?

[mooseburger]

Sure, Karsten Braasch seems like one such example:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Sexes_(tennis)#1...

"Another event dubbed a "Battle of the Sexes" took place during the 1998 Australian Open[51] between Karsten Braasch and the Williams sisters. Venus and Serena Williams had claimed that they could beat any male player ranked outside the world's top 200, so Braasch, then ranked 203rd, challenged them both. Braasch was described by one journalist as "a man whose training regime centered around a pack of cigarettes and more than a couple bottles of ice cold lager".[52][51] The matches took place on court number 12 in Melbourne Park,[53] after Braasch had finished a round of golf and two shandies. He first took on Serena and after leading 5–0, beat her 6–1. Venus then walked on court and again Braasch was victorious, this time winning 6–2.[54] Braasch said afterwards, "500 and above, no chance". He added that he had played like someone ranked 600th in order to keep the game "fun".[55] Braasch said the big difference was that men can chase down shots much easier, and that men put spin on the ball that the women can't handle. The Williams sisters adjusted their claim to beating men outside the top 350.[51]"

[moufestaphio]

Pretty bad example. Dude was a semi-retired PROFESSIONAL tennis player. Who had been ranked as high as 38th in the world.

He obviously had a fuck ton of training, was just 'retired' when he played the game.

[mannykannot]

Given the punishing training regimen the Williams sisters follow, it is good evidence of biological limits on the boost training can give in tennis. I doubt it has much relevance for creativity.

[moufestaphio]

I think it's pretty well accepted that Men better at physical activities almost across the board. I don't think that's what the original point was about though.

The original question was asking for an example of a "genetically talented that they didn’t train" losing to someone who was a "pro" and this is clearly not an example of it.

That said, I'm not trying to make the argument that there aren't 'genetic' limits.

[mannykannot]

The original question, however, was a loaded one in the context it was asked, in that the person asking the question was using it to dispute the claim that individuals have biological limits that training cannot surmount. Even if this answer does not fully satisfy the excessively stringent terms of the question, it still works as a counterexample to the questioner's position.

[noahc]

Of course there are biological limits that training can’t surmount.

My point, more broadly, is that the idea that, “I can’t do that....genetics!” is misplaced defeatism.

[rifung]

I also wonder though how much of a difference it makes that the Williams sisters presumably only train with or to play against other women.

Let me say that I don't disagree in the advantages of genes and sex, but from my own experience competing at a moderately high level and knowing players who competed at the highest levels, you more or less train with an expectation of what your opponents will do in mind.

At least in badminton, the way men and women play the game is completely different, but I would be very surprised if it's merely due to physical differences. I don't think it's due to physical differences because the difference in style shows up across the skill level, and I imagine a professional female player who consistently did weight training should be able to achieve the same level of strength as a male who isn't nearly as serious.

[mannykannot]

I am a bit skeptical that any such effects have not already been mined out in the relentless search for competitive advantage.

[Anderkent]

Why compare with semi-professionals? Being a semi-professional already suggests a certain degree of talent. You should be comparing someone really talented but having no interest at X with someone who is very interested in X and does it regularly, but has no relevant talent and as such it's at best a hobby they are bad at.

[noahc]

I agree, I was trying to be generous.

[indubitable]

The problem with this is that people like this then tend to train and go on to do phenomenally well with extreme ease. In the physical domain, Mike Tyson is a good example. He was 'discovered' by a detention counselor when he was 13. 2 years later he would be the junior olympic world champion for two years in a row. Then he went professional and won his first 19 fights by knockout, 12 in the first round. He then went around and won every world championship belt there was - getting his first world championship title 8 months before he was old enough to legally buy a beer.

For the mental realm you have people like Srinivasa Ramanujan [1]. He had next to no formal training in mathematics yet would contribute immensely to a wide array of mathematical fields before the end of his brief life, dying at 32.

[rifung]

Indeed Mike Tyson is probably a very poor example of this because even though he is no doubt immensely talented, he also was not only trained by but adopted by Cus D'amato, a very famous boxing coach who dedicated those final years of his life to making sure Tyson became a world champion.

[mooseburger]

One sees this with some frequency in art. Consider Haruki Murakami:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haruki_Murakami#Writing_career

"Murakami began to write fiction when he was 29.[19] "Before that", he said, "I didn't write anything. I was just one of those ordinary people. I was running a jazz club, and I didn't create anything at all."[20] He was inspired to write his first novel, Hear the Wind Sing (1979), while watching a baseball game."

[almost_usual]

Everything that makes you is genetics. Desire to train is genetics.

There isn’t a “genetics only helps so much” argument.

[guskel]

Modeling