Is there a genetically determined limit to athletic performance?
Former Member
In his autobiographical book The Naturalist, E. O. Wilson suggests that there is a genetically determined limit to an individual's athletic performance which cannot be overcome regardless of the amount of training. Using himself as an example, he describes how he became a serious runner several years after graduating college. The gap between his times and those of the top runners in his age group (expressed as a percentage) remained what it was in college.
I looked at my current times (three years after joining USMS) and found that I am 12% behind in the 1000 and 15% behind in the 500. These percentages are exactly the same as they were in 1978, the last year I swam in college. I know there are exceptions within the ranks of USMS, but I wonder how valid this "rule" really is.
Parents
Former Member
Originally posted by rtodd
In most "ball" sports, specific skills require hand and eye coordination that is almost purely inherited.
You need only look at the slobs (looks like the average joe from next door) in the majors that can 1) throw a 95 mph fastball and 2) put it on the outside corner of the plate, or the guy that picks up a football and can throw a tight spiral and lead the receiver intuitavely. This type of talent emerges with little or no practice. It shows up early in pre-teens and young adolcent kids.....kids that DONT practice.
Of course many of these kids go nowhere unless discovered and nurtured in the game.
I think in the "strength" sports, i.e sports that, in addition to good coaching, require a commitment to intense training like swimming and running, my above comments are true.
I've seen too many athletes, whether they are short, tall, thin, muscular, big hands, small hands, good starter, good finisher, athsmatic, diabetic, bald, blonde, this ethnicity, that ethnicity, share the same stage, IN THE SAME SPORT, at the elite level.
Just my opinion.
There are hundreds of studies that suggest eye-hand coordination is a learned trait.
My mother grew up in Iowa. She was rather short. However, she played basketball. she played what we would now call a power forward. She could jump, she was muscular, and she had excellent ball control. I'm 6ft 6in, I can't dribble a ball if I had to and I've never been able to do so. When people tried to teach me to dribble, it seemed to me that they were speaking in toungues. However, I understand swimmigninstructions very well.
Originally posted by rtodd
In most "ball" sports, specific skills require hand and eye coordination that is almost purely inherited.
You need only look at the slobs (looks like the average joe from next door) in the majors that can 1) throw a 95 mph fastball and 2) put it on the outside corner of the plate, or the guy that picks up a football and can throw a tight spiral and lead the receiver intuitavely. This type of talent emerges with little or no practice. It shows up early in pre-teens and young adolcent kids.....kids that DONT practice.
Of course many of these kids go nowhere unless discovered and nurtured in the game.
I think in the "strength" sports, i.e sports that, in addition to good coaching, require a commitment to intense training like swimming and running, my above comments are true.
I've seen too many athletes, whether they are short, tall, thin, muscular, big hands, small hands, good starter, good finisher, athsmatic, diabetic, bald, blonde, this ethnicity, that ethnicity, share the same stage, IN THE SAME SPORT, at the elite level.
Just my opinion.
There are hundreds of studies that suggest eye-hand coordination is a learned trait.
My mother grew up in Iowa. She was rather short. However, she played basketball. she played what we would now call a power forward. She could jump, she was muscular, and she had excellent ball control. I'm 6ft 6in, I can't dribble a ball if I had to and I've never been able to do so. When people tried to teach me to dribble, it seemed to me that they were speaking in toungues. However, I understand swimmigninstructions very well.
