[watwut]

It is reality. Someone with large hands has huge advantage over someone with small ones in competitive swimming. Someone with a lot of red muscle fibre will grow stronger then someone with white one in weight lifting. Weight lifters are not small by random either. Pretending it is not so is just lying to yourself or worst if you make moral virtue out sport.

[iovrthoughtthis]

I'm not doubting effects phenotype has on abilities in specific areas. Just that the mental model of "I can't" is very limiting.

Just because your phenotype isn't ideal for a thing doesn't mean you shouldn't do it.

Also there are a large array of phenotypical that are harder to identify through testing than just giving it a go and seeing how you go / enjoy it.

[watwut]

We were talking about predictors of success. You can do sport recreationally or for fun, but that is not what is meant by "predictor of success". If your goal is to have success in competition, you will compete against people who have right phenotype. In which case it makes more sense to look at sport that might suit you.

Also, if two students start weight lift and he grows faster then you, the reason might not be that one is simply lazy and the other simply trains harder.

[mtberatwork]

Clearly you can find numerous cases in sports of individuals overcoming physical limitations by finding alternate pathways to success (take for example short/shorter NBA players). Furthermore, those with "good genes" do not always find success. In competition, preparation and luck far outweighs the gene factor.

[watwut]

> Clearly you can find numerous cases in sports of individuals overcoming physical limitations by finding alternate pathways to success (take for example short/shorter NBA players).

Maybe height disadvantage was canceled out by other genetical advantage in that case. The more popular sport is and the more competition there is, the less likely are those people will be to appear. You picked rare outliers to argue against trend.

> Furthermore, those with "good genes" do not always find success.

Of course. Nobody is saying that right genetics is the only factor. Starting to train young is oftentimes factor too. So is food quality. And quality of training. And amount of it.

> In competition, preparation and luck far outweighs the gene factor.

In modern competition, every single competing person have right genetics and tons of preparation under belt. And average sportsman is normally waaaay above average person.

Yeah, short people are on average lazier to learn basketball. That is why basketball players are disproportionally tall. And guys with white fibres are lazy to weight lift, but somehow not lazy to do different sports.

[bennyelv]

Only for sports which have a heavy "skill" bias, where at the competitive limits skill is a major determining factor.

It's not true in all sports. E.g. Long distance running, cycling etc where skill plays a much lesser role.

[mtberatwork]

> E.g. Long distance running, cycling etc where skill plays a much lesser role.

If this were the case then only those with the highest, humanly achievable VO2 max levels would dominate the sport. But this isn't the case. Why? It's just a single contributing factor (in a vast sea of contributing factors) which can lead to success. I would argue a motivated athlete with a "can-do" spirit, but lower V02 will be more successful than any unmotivated athlete with a high V02 level.

[isolli]

The alternate pathways being also genetic, contradicting your point. Spudd Webb had the 5th highest vertical leap in NBA history [0] That's not something that can be achieved by preparation alone.

[0] http://www.hoopsvibe.com/features/285345-top-10-vertical-jum...