Is there a genetically determined limit to athletic performance?

In most "ball" sports, specific skills require hand and eye coordination that is almost purely inherited. I guess I disagree almost completely based on my experience as a kid who played baseball and as a parent. I have never seen a young child intuitively throw a football with a a spiral without a great deal of practice. Hitting a pitched ball is definitely a hand eye thing but practice practice practice seems to have a lot to do with success at this. I don't doubt that genetics has a role - just like it does with IQ, cancer risk, and damn near everything else. But I was a pretty decent ball player, and my boys (swimmers) are terrible. Then again their hand eye coordination with Halo just blows me away.

I believe there are certain genetic preferences for certain sports. I think that being able to throw, or hit a 95 MPH fastball is one of them. For the majority of sports (running and swimming included) I think the primary factor is desire. Don't look for excuses, Most champion's stories are those of extreme adversity and incomprehensible human suffering during training. They all tell of a crossroads where they choose to win at all costs to everything going on around them. At this point they sacrafice most everything else that is important to them; work, relationships, anything that gets in the way of their ultimate goal. I think in most circumstances it is this person that gets the gold. Someone told the scrawny Jeremy Wariner NO to football. That lit a fire in his belly so he decided to win the NCAA indoor/outdoor, Olympic and World Championships instead at age 20.

I think what rtodd said is valid if we're talking about who wins the Olympic gold medal versus who is third at Olympic Trials, but it's only valid when were talk about the elite of the elite. My feeling is most of us could never get to that level and this supports Wilson's view. I know I worked as hard or harder than the "top dogs" in college, but there was no way I could ever swim as fast. The only reason I can scrape into the USMS top ten now once in a while is because the competition is very diluted compared to those "non-Masters" days.

I agree it is not the sole contributor, but my original point is that is is more of a contributor in certain ball sports. By the way, where have you been? The NBA drafts the "gifted" out of HS and the NFL would do it if permitted. They scout and draft prior to the abundance of practice you say is necessary. For the rest of us, yes we can get there with determination. Pete Rose would be a good example. I just think it is alot more difficult to, for instance, "learn" how to pitch when someone already does. (i.e. Brian Taylor....signed by the NY Yankess at the age of 17. Clocked at 0ver 95 mph....right, 95 mph at 17 YEARS OLD!) Most major league pitchers, regardless of age, can't throw that hard. My original point is I think running and swimming is based more on mental determination than "ball" sports. I think that the heart, lungs and energy systems can be developed to an elite level in most of us if we have the mental fortitude to train hard enough. Am I that messed up here in my thinking?

Yes, I believe you are messed up. All sports require great skill and practice to achieve even a moderate level of success in. Many people can throw a baseball really really fast, only a few who practice for decades can actually get it over the plate. I don't believe that's purely inherited. After all, a golf ball never moves. I've seen quite a few pitchers stink it up on the golf course.

Originally posted by rtodd I think that the heart, lungs and energy systems can be developed to an elite level in most of us if we have the mental fortitude to train hard enough. I disagree (and I believe Professor Wilson would, too). Reread my original post.

We are not robots. Each and everyone of us has their own strengths and weaknesses. I know it's not PC to say there are genetic predispositions enabling us to excel at some things, and not at others, advantages over someone and disadvantages. Or as Forest Gump's Momma said, "Don't ever let anybody tell you they're better than you, Forrest. If God intended everybody to be the same, he'd have given us all braces on our legs." I don't know how you can make a distinction between genetic advantage to baseball, but not swimming. Where'd the term 'he was born to ...." come from? Competitive swimming is as much a skill as serious baseball. Why is it, olympic swimmers gravitate to a specific stroke? Typically a sprinter won't do as well against a long distancer, and vice versa. You'd think the sprinter has no chance against the world record holder of the 1500m in the 100 free.

In a recent interview, Tigers Woods explained that he practices golf 14 hours a day. This is a guy who was considered a "phenom" at the age of 3.

There are several biological factors that hard has no effect on. Like height. Everyone has a range to how good they can be, the range is smaller than what we want to believe, and success is personal measurement.

I started swimming at 10 and have TERRIBLE hand-eye coordination. As a matter of fact I think I really took to swimming for two main reasons: I thought the swimming team had really cool suits (they were actually ugly, but I was 10, what did I know?) and, I was really atrocious with anything that required a ball (catching, throwing, batting....whatever). I think that I probably would have gotten a little better with ball games had I bothered to put in any practice...but, I'm afraid a lot of the lack of talent in that area was inherited...no one else in my family (including my daughter) can do hand-eye stuff either. An important issue is self-selection; I think people naturally gravitate to what they think they are good at and avoid those things that they don't do well. Who wants to subject themselves to continual humiliation? I attend all "ball" games only as a spectator. I'm not sure I have a whole lot of talent for swimming either...maybe I just liked it a lot better.