[runawaybottle]

Just want to reiterate this. Tyson, in no uncertain terms, was a pure physical phenom. He in no way satisfies the nature vs nature debate (more or less makes it undebatable in his case, as it’s pure nature at work there).

[Balgair]

> He in no way satisfies the nature vs nature debate

I'll assume you meant nature v. nurture. If so, then the Tyson family is absolutely an edge case in the debate. Mike was famously in and out of trouble in his younger years, having been arrested 38 times as a teenager. He was a bit of a child of the streets, so to speak.

What is fascinating and much lesser known is his older brother, Rodney. (Their sister unfortunately died at 24 from a heart attack)

Rodney Tyson is a pediatric trauma surgeon.

Two men who grew up eating the exact same food, in the exact same rooms, watching the exact same TV shows grew up to have radically different lives and careers. Yet both are accomplished in their choices.

I don't know what to exactly make of the Tyson family in the nature v nurture debate, but the differences between the brothers are some of the widest that I have seen.

[kmonsen]

I mean for sports that’s a given. Most sports requires a very special body type. A short person cannot win Olympic gold in swimming or basketball. A large person cannot win cycling over mountains. I’m sure there are tons more but I don’t have the knowledge.

For sports you need to work hard, but you cannot compete without the right boost in the first place.

[rowanG077]

This doesn't hold only for sport. Take a person with an IQ of 90. He will never become a fields medalist. I don't see how that is different then a small player not being able to win olympic gold in basketball.

[throwaway2245]

People often said that a tall person cannot be the fastest man in the world - until he was.