Obama affirms teh gay.

[Lukie]

Pros no, but people have passed out at the wheel before. A 70 year old man would put himself into an early grave if he was constantly racing F1 cars.

Also most people have the required physical skills to compete at the highest level of most sports. I could get as fit and strong as a professional rugby player. It'd take a few years of work, but there's no reason I couldn't do it if I put the work in. So that point is a bit null.

This whole thing about sports requiring some physical element is complete bullshit and just comes around as when people think of the most popular sports (football in england for example) they require physical fitness.

I completely disagree. Most people could not play NBA basketball for example, no matter how hard they tried. Same goes for other extremely well established sports that are very popular and very lucrative. The sports have a natural selection where the absolute best of the best are funneled to the top, etc. There are a lot of extremely talented people who work equally hard that still aren't good enough to make it into the best leagues in the world.

[Savy]

I completely disagree. Most people could not play NBA basketball for example, no matter how hard they tried. Same goes for other extremely well established sports that are very popular and very lucrative. The sports have a natural selection where the absolute best of the best are funneled to the top, etc. There are a lot of extremely talented people who work equally hard that still aren't good enough to make it into the best leagues in the world.

Physical requirement is what we were talking about. Not the skill involved.

I don't think I could ever play rugby at club level, however I do think I could get fit enough and strong enough to if I wanted to.

The whole point about skill is different, the same way I don't think I could have ever been a rugby player I don't think I could have been a grand master (although if I played from a kid I think I'd be capable of playing very high level chess, but I wouldn't know the equivalent level between club rugby and chess)

[boost]

First the geezer. Fucking Nascar, I knew I shouldn't have included it. It's definitely the weak link in my argument. Can we pretend I didn't list it and continue from there?

The woman. Again Nascar. But you're right, she also was successful at open wheel racing, but this doesn't necessarily betray my point. The forces you are fighting most in kart racing are probably mental fatigue and g-forces. G-forces are multipliers of gravity. A smaller person weighs less and is fighting less overall force, but an equal relative force. Still there is a threshold of entry, since a certain level of strength is needed to simply steer the car. So you won't a weak person piloting an F1 car.

But whatever, you're just cherry picking again. Motocross, different forms of enduro, and even motorcycle road racing are not just twisting a throttle and riding over some bumps and through some turns.

Furthermore, in my opinion, a true sport isn't a simple test of strength. I wouldn't scoff at the idea of weight lifting being called a sport. There certainly is technique, but it's predominantly a test of brute strength. So your argument only really shows that motor sports aren't purely a test of brute strength.

Many motor sports, particularly motorcycle oriented ones, require a difficult mix of strength, stamina, agility, mental fortitude, and dedication that rivals that of widely accepted "real sports." Anyways, I think this all started with baseball. And I find it hard for someone to argue that baseball requires this sort of comprehensive conditioning in the same way as Moto Gp racing, soccer, some positions in American football, basketball, etc. Again, if we were going to draw up a line graph with "game" on one end and "sport" on the other, baseball should rightly be placed on the game side of the other sports I just mentioned.

[boost]

I completely disagree. Most people could not play NBA basketball for example, no matter how hard they tried. Same goes for other extremely well established sports that are very popular and very lucrative. The sports have a natural selection where the absolute best of the best are funneled to the top, etc. There are a lot of extremely talented people who work equally hard that still aren't good enough to make it into the best leagues in the world.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...iation_history

Explain this.

I can't imagine what other hard limiter you'd be referring to besides height. Everyone can get fit, do exercises to work on agility, study film, and run drills. Yes, you are more likely to make it to the NBA if you have height as well, but it's not an absolute.

Also, if you aren't aware, which you should be if you read the articles you posted from Wikipedia, there are tons of lesser race associations filled with amateurs, semi-pros, and less than elite pros. What separates them from the elite pros is

a difficult mix of strength, stamina, agility, mental fortitude, and dedication.

How is this different from the NBA?

[Lukie]

I don't have much time to debate this right now but for starters, as long as we are talking about physical requirements, compile the following lists for me:

- The best white sprinters
- The best white extreme long distance runners (e.g. marathons)
- The best white american football cornerbacks

Are whites just not working hard enough, not trying hard enough? Not smart enough? Or are there other genetic caps going on here involving things like speed and power production?

And compliling a list that includes literally a few men significantly below mean height in the history of a sports league doesn't change the rather obvious fact that height is a hard limiting factor in 4 of the classic positions, and still a big factor in the last one (point guard)

[boost]

It does go counter to your apparent claim that it's a hard limiting factor for entry into the NBA.

You posted a link to one woman and one geezer that won some Nascar races in the 60's and 70s when he was well below the age which would make such accomplishments significant to your argument, and now he races in some minor league of Nascar.

When talking about the top levels of competition, short point guards are certainly more common in basketball than "small women" or senior citizens in auto racing.

[Lukie]

I never said height was a hard limiting factor in the NBA. Carefully re-read what I posted. I said that most people do not have the ability to play at the highest levels of professional athletics, no matter how hard they try. That implies that there is a genetic cap to several things, and height is obviously a big factor in basketball.

There are a myriad of other possible factors including performance enhancing drugs (which are common, so just using those doesn't necessarily make somebody 'special'), genetic doping, etc.

People who suck get weeded out every year in pee wee sports, high school, college, then pros.

There is also the point to be made about the talent pool that certain sports/activities are drawing from. For example in my area, just about every kid played baseball (which happens to not really be a height limited sport), yet I don't know a single person who was afforded the opportunity to compete in extensive auto racing training and comptition. Just run of the mill go-carts stuff at fun n stuff.

[jackvance]

Somewhat related, on the topic of talent. I'm taking a psychology class this year (technical aspects of the brain, for engineers), and apparently practice >>>> talent. In fact, people can't even recognize talent. Not even teachers and experts. All they look at is results and call this "talent" (as studies show). The professor gave the following example: Among dutch professional football (soccer) players, over 30% are born in september, october or november. And over 60% are born in the months september-january (50% of the year). This has been adjusted for the average amount of people being born each month. The reason is simply that they're older than their peers at the crucial young formative stages in their life where their performance is compared to others, as the football season starts in september. And small things like social approval, encouragement and better support for the best players (many of whom are only doing better because they're slightly older) has an exponential effect on their skill. Similar results were found in ice hockey where the season starts in the winter, and a disproportionate amount of professional NHL players are born towards the beginning of the season.

Another thing, what all the most famous artists, painters, musicians, football players and so on have in common is that they practice way more than average. When you practice something, your brain physically changes, much like your muscles would if you train them. Neurologists can even see, just by looking at a brain, if someone is a left-handed or right-handed violin player. If you stop practicing something at the edge of your ability, your skill will decrease. That is why "standing still is going backwards". Your brain will physically change back, same as never working out anymore and seeing your muscles disappear. There are ofcourse genetic factors for IQ, body stuff etc that matter, but they matter less than is generally assumed.

[Lukie]

Somewhat related, on the topic of talent. I'm taking a psychology class this year (technical aspects of the brain, for engineers), and apparently practice >>>> talent. In fact, people can't even recognize talent. Not even teachers and experts. All they look at is results and call this "talent" (as studies show). The professor gave the following example: Among dutch professional football (soccer) players, over 30% are born in september, october or november. And over 60% are born in the months september-january (50% of the year). This has been adjusted for the average amount of people being born each month. The reason is simply that they're older than their peers at the crucial young formative stages in their life where their performance is compared to others, as the football season starts in september. And small things like social approval, encouragement and better support for the best players (many of whom are only doing better because they're slightly older) has an exponential effect on their skill. Similar results were found in ice hockey where the season starts in the winter, and a disproportionate amount of professional NHL players are born towards the beginning of the season.

Another thing, what all the most famous artists, painters, musicians, football players and so on have in common is that they practice way more than average. When you practice something, your brain physically changes, much like your muscles would if you train them. Neurologists can even see, just by looking at a brain, if someone is a left-handed or right-handed violin player. If you stop practicing something at the edge of your ability, your skill will decrease. That is why "standing still is going backwards". Your brain will physically change back, same as never working out anymore and seeing your muscles disappear. There are ofcourse genetic factors for IQ, body stuff etc that matter, but they matter less than is generally assumed.

I have seen those studies and they are interesting indeed.

but physical talent can be easily quantified, and every sport and even position favors certain physical attributes

things like height, wingspan, xx yard dash, vertical jump etc. all have heavy genetic dispositions and depending on the sport, the ability to produce power (think speed or strength expressed quickly) can be enormously helpful and that isn't even close to being equal among the population

[boost]

Yeah, somehow this turned into a nature vs nurture chat.. But economically troubled races/countries producing more than their share of elite athletes in sports which require little investment should not come as a shock. Similarly economically fortunate races/countries producing the top athletes in sports which require a lot of financial investment should not be shocking either.

[Lukie]

Yeah, somehow this turned into a nature vs nurture chat.. But economically troubled races/countries producing more than their share of elite athletes in sports which require little investment should not come as a shock. Similarly economically fortunate races/countries producing the top athletes in sports which require a lot of financial investment should not be shocking either.

That is a bit of a copout. There is certainly some truth to that, but it doesn't explain why there are literally thousands of blacks of west african descent who are faster sprinters than the fastest white person in the world. Similarly all of the best long distance runners are of east african descent (think kenya, ethiopia) and there is no shortage of cross country teams and marathon runners here in the states. It's genetics dude.

long-winded 4 part series on talent vs work: http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/tra...rk-part-1.html

Or take the racial breakdown of positions in American Football (hopefully we are all mature enough to handle this?)

Blacks and whites both have roughly equal height, or about a 5'10" mean (edit: talking about men in their 20s and 30s here). Other races tend to be significantly shorter e.g. mexicans around 5'6". The rest are such small minorities that we're getting into really small sample sizes, but nearly every player in the NFL is either caucasion or african-american. Whites tend to be on roughly equal footing in sports like powerlifting that involve pure, brute strength. You see a fair amount of both white and black offensive linemen. As the positions get more and more speed, agility, and power (think acceleration, vertical jump) based, they tend to be dominated more and more by blacks. At the extremes of this is cornerback, where literally 100% of corners in the NFL are african-american. The reality is that you cannot explain this descrepancy without understanding the genetics involved. Saying that it's because one certain group works harder, or excel at the activity because of circumstance and happenchance is just going the politically correct route.

[Savy]

Somewhat related, on the topic of talent. I'm taking a psychology class this year (technical aspects of the brain, for engineers), and apparently practice >>>> talent. In fact, people can't even recognize talent. Not even teachers and experts. All they look at is results and call this "talent" (as studies show). The professor gave the following example: Among dutch professional football (soccer) players, over 30% are born in september, october or november. And over 60% are born in the months september-january (50% of the year). This has been adjusted for the average amount of people being born each month. The reason is simply that they're older than their peers at the crucial young formative stages in their life where their performance is compared to others, as the football season starts in september. And small things like social approval, encouragement and better support for the best players (many of whom are only doing better because they're slightly older) has an exponential effect on their skill. Similar results were found in ice hockey where the season starts in the winter, and a disproportionate amount of professional NHL players are born towards the beginning of the season.

I say this so much to people and they just think it's rubbish. People just prefer to think the way they were born has stopped them achieving things when in reality it's laziness. And in a lot of cases it requires very pushy parents. Obviously there are genetic factors. But I'd say in most sports it's like an 80/20 split in favour of practice.

Some sports like swimming though you're never going to be really top class unless you have like size 50 feet and are 8 foot tall, but you can still be really fucking good.

[jackvance]

I have seen those studies and they are interesting indeed.

but physical talent can be easily quantified, and every sport and even position favors certain physical attributes

things like height, wingspan, xx yard dash, vertical jump etc. all have heavy genetic dispositions and depending on the sport, the ability to produce power (think speed or strength expressed quickly) can be enormously helpful and that isn't even close to being equal among the population

You are right about that, the class is about the brain so it's only looking at sports/arts/etc where you need to use sufficient amounts of your brain. I totally agree blacks have a genetic advantage for certain physical activities. You can even see in athletics how some are better sprinters (western africans and their American descendants) and others better long distance runners. I've read a lot about this, it's still controversial to publicly talk about I think.

[Lukie]

I say this so much to people and they just think it's rubbish. People just prefer to think the way they were born has stopped them achieving things when in reality it's laziness. And in a lot of cases it requires very pushy parents. Obviously there are genetic factors. But I'd say in most sports it's like an 80/20 split in favour of practice.

Some sports like swimming though you're never going to be really top class unless you have like size 50 feet and are 8 foot tall, but you can still be really fucking good.

errr

In high school I knew several 5'10"ish white guys who spent all day in the gym, but weren't tall enough, fast enough, or explosive enough to even get a sniff at division 1 college

local gym had kids doing super sets, strip sets, and all sorts of creatively hard workouts and were still lanky as ****.

Go to a crossfit box and see people working insanely hard, if for no other reason than to be part of a group and look a little better. We're not even talking about a 7 figure salary as incentive.

Working hard, in the context of professional athletics, really isn't that special of a quality. I would say it is a prerequisite, but there are some true freak athletes out there who can get by just doing what they have to.

[boost]

Yeah, I was actually just reading a little about that, and it appears to be the truth. I think circumstance plays a important roll to some extent. Auto/motorcycle/cycle/boat racing all have a fairly high price-point of entry and are often dominated by whites and the upper classes of countries like Brazil who control the vast majority of the wealth of their countries.

I agree that political correctness gets in the way of the truth too often. On the other hand, you have people who, for example, 15 years ago would have used the lack of black quarter backs as evidence that blacks are poor leaders, decision makers, etc.

[Lukie]

Yeah, I was actually just reading a little about that, and it appears to be the truth. I think circumstance plays a important roll to some extent. Auto/motorcycle/cycle/boat racing all have a fairly high price-point of entry and are often dominated by whites and the upper classes of countries like Brazil who control the vast majority of the wealth of their countries.

I agree that political correctness gets in the way of the truth too often. On the other hand, you have people who, for example, 15 years ago would have used the lack of black quarter backs as evidence that blacks are poor leaders, decision makers, etc.

I agree. Personally I wish people could just discuss things openly. I happen to find the subject fascinating (that coming from my athletic/fitness background, and no rascist implications or motives whatsoever.)

[jackvance]

I agree. Personally I wish people could just discuss things openly. I happen to find the subject fascinating (that coming from my athletic/fitness background, and no rascist implications or motives whatsoever.)

Same here, but that isn't true for most people. Most people can't dissociate trying to find out the truth from having an agenda :/

[Savy]

errr

In high school I knew several 5'10"ish white guys who spent all day in the gym, but weren't tall enough, fast enough, or explosive enough to even get a sniff at division 1 college

local gym had kids doing super sets, strip sets, and all sorts of creatively hard workouts and were still lanky as ****.

Go to a crossfit box and see people working insanely hard, if for no other reason than to be part of a group and look a little better. We're not even talking about a 7 figure salary as incentive.

Working hard, in the context of professional athletics, really isn't that special of a quality. I would say it is a prerequisite, but there are some true freak athletes out there who can get by just doing what they have to.

I'd agree to an extent, but high school is fairly old to be getting serious about a sport. Not to mention lots of them don't have the best diets, etc etc.

Does the whole thing about black sprinters not come from the breeding of slaves btw? Remember seeing a documentary about it a while ago.

[Lukie]

take an NFL linebacker or D-end

it doesn't really matter which one, but probably use one who is pretty good.

Note their measurables (height, weight, bodyfat % and lean body mass, 40 yard dash, 10 yard split, bench press reps at 225, 3 cone drill, etc.)

We'll even assume that you have the height, there is still likely nothing you could do, or could have ever done given today's technology, to hit all of the rest of those numbers. No amount of sprints, lifting, blood, sweat, and tears, are going to push you past your genetic limits... and some of those are actually competing against each other (e.g. as weight goes up, lean body mass goes up but so does bodyfat %, and 40 time goes DOWN.)

You could add anabolic steroids and related substances to the equation, but american football is already selecting for the best of the best athletes, a lot of those actually do work extremely hard, and PEDs are already pretty damn wide spread. The only real unexplored avenue if you don't have the talent/genetics, work ethic, and possibly drugs then is some kind of genetic enhancement or some other unforeseen technology.

[kiwiMark]

There's balance to this though - I 100% agree it's by no means a level playing field but I'm also sure we all know plenty of people who decide they can't at all do something before putting effort in. While it's not going to get you to the top tier, work/practice/dedication or whatever you call it you can certainly get you decent at things that a lot of people just write off from the get go with "oh I'm not good at x" as if the ability is somehow innate. And as you're saying even in that top tier of those with the "talent", the work/practice/dedication is also still being put in

[boost]

Lukie, you're still cherry picking to prove a broad point. I'd like to point out that most of us posting in this thread probably do have the genetic make up that would have allowed us to compete at the highest level of soccer. Does that make soccer less of a sport? It most certainly doesn't, yet you could formulate a compelling argument for why it makes it more of a sport. I don't think it's more of sport, but I think there is an argument there.

[Lukie]

Lukie, you're still cherry picking to prove a broad point. I'd like to point out that most of us posting in this thread probably do have the genetic make up that would have allowed us to compete at the highest level of soccer. Does that make soccer less of a sport? It most certainly doesn't, yet you could formulate a compelling argument for why it makes it more of a sport. I don't think it's more of sport, but I think there is an argument there.

My original statement was that most people could not play NBA basketball, no matter how hard they tried. I stand strongly behind that point. The same applies to many positions in american football. Heck, baseball is an even more exlusive sport-- pulling from a larger talent pool/more countries, longer careers, smaller rosters, etc. It's just that they stand around a lot, and some have been fat, and most aren't obvious physical specimens. But how do you quantify the power behind being able to hit a baseball 400+ feet with a wooden bat? Most people simply would not be able to develop the power to be able to do that, again, no matter how long they had trained for it and no matter how hard they tried. That isn't even getting into the point about the immense skill necessary to hit a baseball, which some sports commentators suggest is the hardest skill in all of sports (not saying that I necessarily agree with that, but it is definitely up there), or the other physical aspects of the game. Think being fast and having a big arm is helpful for an outfielder? If you are reading this, you probably can't run a 4.5 40 yard dash (baseball historically measures 60 yard dash, same idea), and you probably would have never been able to get that time, again no matter how hard you tried and how much wishful thinking you put into it.

[Lukie]

There's balance to this though - I 100% agree it's by no means a level playing field but I'm also sure we all know plenty of people who decide they can't at all do something before putting effort in. While it's not going to get you to the top tier, work/practice/dedication or whatever you call it you can certainly get you decent at things that a lot of people just write off from the get go with "oh I'm not good at x" as if the ability is somehow innate. And as you're saying even in that top tier of those with the "talent", the work/practice/dedication is also still being put in

if we are just speaking in generalties, I agree. A lot of people give up too easily at things, and obviously practice and dedication will make pretty much anybody better at anything.

but at the end of the day hard work + talent beats hard work alone. Heck even extremely good talent + average work usually beats average talent + extreme dedication at the highest levels of some sports.

Go read the police blotter/turd watch on profootballtalk.com... tell me that there aren't some good NFL players who are lazy knuckleheads yet are miles better than the average person could have ever dreamed of being.

[boost]

My original statement was that most people could not play NBA basketball, no matter how hard they tried. I stand strongly behind that point. The same applies to many positions in american football. Heck, baseball is an even more exlusive sport-- pulling from a larger talent pool/more countries, longer careers, smaller rosters, etc. It's just that they stand around a lot, and some have been fat, and most aren't obvious physical specimens. But how do you quantify the power behind being able to hit a baseball 400+ feet with a wooden bat? Most people simply would not be able to develop the power to be able to do that, again, no matter how long they had trained for it and no matter how hard they tried. That isn't even getting into the point about the immense skill necessary to hit a baseball, which some sports commentators suggest is the hardest skill in all of sports (not saying that I necessarily agree with that, but it is definitely up there), or the other physical aspects of the game. Think being fast and having a big arm is helpful for an outfielder? If you are reading this, you probably can't run a 4.5 40 yard dash (baseball historically measures 60 yard dash, same idea), and you probably would have never been able to get that time, again no matter how hard you tried and how much wishful thinking you put into it.

I'd have to disagree, your original point was to try to counter my point, which is that many motorsports are truer sports than baseball. I was admittedly throwing stones at the beehive... but here we are. And here you stand, on this premise that genetic exclusivity is a hallmark of a true sport. I think this to be false-- look at soccer, surely it's a far more genetically inclusive sport than basketball or maybe even baseball, but does that make it less of a sport?

I think a big part of why I push baseball towards "game" is because there is no endurance, just sprinting very occasionally. It seems to me, an uninformed critic, to be a game largely based on skill. More so in my opinion than auto racing, and certainly more so than dirtbike arena/track racing, motorcycle rally enduro racing, motorcycle road racing, etc. These all have a very balanced mix and intense requirement of skill, strength, stamina, agility, mental fortitude, and dedication.

[Lukie]

No, you are putting words into my mouth. The topic in threads change, just look at this one. What started out about politics and DOTA morphed into questions about what the definition of sports is, to physical requirements, to genetics, etc. I never said that genetic exclusivity is a hallmark of a true sport. I don't think that. Topics changed rapidly in this thread and you are transposing my later posts onto my earlier ones.

Of course baseball is largely based on skill. There is also more of an elite physical set than any form of racing. That is that if you were to raise a son and had resources to place him into any sport and train him as you wanted, he would have a far, far higher chance of making it to the highest levels of any motor sport than he would be to make the MLB. Don't even try to debate that lol.

And I still don't see what is so difficult PHYSICALLY about racecar driving, that is what about the activity is it that you or I couldn't do, with some training? I have already acknowledged that racing BIKES is different, so let's ignore that for now.

At the end of the day, it is most likely that we are just going to go around in circles over and over again and annoy each other, so this is pointless.

[Lukie]

Lol.. that last crack about going in circles over and over again wasn't even intentional. Freudian slip??

[boost]

No, you are putting words into my mouth.

I was sorta afraid I was doing this while I was writing that post, but I didn't really see where the topic change was.. but I apologize for that.

Of course baseball is largely based on skill. There is also more of an elite physical set than any form of racing. That is that if you were to raise a son and had resources to place him into any sport and train him as you wanted, he would have a far, far higher chance of making it to the highest levels of any motor sport than he would be to make the MLB. Don't even try to debate that lol.

Wait. You're saying that if I had unlimited funds and raised my son to be a f1 driver, he'd have more of a shot than being a baseball player? You could be right, but I doubt it. There are 23 drivers this season. An f1 driver's career can easily last a decade. How many hundred players are in the MLB?

And I still don't see what is so difficult PHYSICALLY about racecar driving, that is what about the activity is it that you or I couldn't do, with some training? I have already acknowledged that racing BIKES is different, so let's ignore that for now.

All I can say to this is "go give it a try, you'll see." Fighting G-forces is no joke.

Oh, and why do we ignore the strong part of my argument? I'd rather not. Thanks.

At the end of the day, it is most likely that we are just going to go around in circles over and over again and annoy each other, so this is pointless.

True, true..

[Lukie]

There are tens of millions of people who play or have played baseball in the U.S., Japan, dominican, etc. 750 MLB players.

How many people got a serious crack at racecar driving? It is a tiny fraction of that. Draw appropriate conclusions.

[boost]

There are tons of feed race associations, less prestigious associations, and all the way down to seven and eight year olds in race karts.

The thing with baseball is that it's a team sport. I'd imagine the minors are filled with players who don't and never had a crack at the majors, but are needed to form a system in which the players who ultimately do come along and rise through the minors can do so. So no, I won't agree that there are tens of millions of people who have had a serious crack at the MLB.

[Lukie]

There are tons of feed race associations, less prestigious associations, and all the way down to seven and eight year olds in race karts.

The thing with baseball is that it's a team sport. I'd imagine the minors are filled with players who don't and never had a crack at the majors, but are needed to form a system in which the players who ultimately do come along and rise through the minors can do so. So no, I won't agree that there are tens of millions of people who have had a serious crack at the MLB.

I would bet there are more 7 and 8 year old kids playing baseball this summer than 7 and 8 year old kids consistently racing go-karts, and by a factor of thousands.

I didn't say 10s of millions had a serious crack at MLB, just that many have played (and in the world, possibly currently *are* playing).

The barrier of entry is so insanely lower in baseball. Players get funneled up from (my experience, minus the professional leagues) minor B, minor A, majors, pony/travel leagues, high school baseball, college baseball, minor league baseball, major league baseball. Each step up the competition rises and there is an enormous financial incentive on the back side (starting with scholarships). The american sports sytem in is very strong and extremely good at picking out the top talents.

In baseball for example if you are a right handed pitcher, you better be throwing in the 90s MPH (at least), or you don't have much of a chance.

[Lukie]

How are we even arguing this? Did you not make basically the same points earlier in this page?

Yeah, somehow this turned into a nature vs nurture chat.. But economically troubled races/countries producing more than their share of elite athletes in sports which require little investment should not come as a shock. Similarly economically fortunate races/countries producing the top athletes in sports which require a lot of financial investment should not be shocking either.

Yeah, I was actually just reading a little about that, and it appears to be the truth. I think circumstance plays a important roll to some extent. Auto/motorcycle/cycle/boat racing all have a fairly high price-point of entry and are often dominated by whites and the upper classes of countries like Brazil who control the vast majority of the wealth of their countries.

Racing = higher cost of entry and less people participating in it = less competition

http://www.freakonomics.com/2011/10/...acecar-driver/

Q So far, how big is the sunk cost you have devoted to racing?

if you include personal money and money raised from sponsorship, it has probably been around $2 million, probably more.

A It would be hard to estimate with dollars what the sunk cost has been to this point. The majority of the dollars that have helped support my career have come from the little bit of sponsorship I have raised. So if you include personal money and money raised from sponsorship, it has probably been around $2 million, probably more. But sunk costs include time and emotional energy as well. I have spent the past 6 years convincing myself that I have a future career as a driver, pitching and selling my persona to companies around the country and trying to motivate myself and others around me to make this distant hope a reality. But racing is not an all or nothing proposition in terms of value gained. I have learned an immense amount through my racing career to date. How many people at 25 have been traveling the country, giving live media interviews, pitching Fortune 500 companies for millions of dollars and helping lead a team of people? If you expend the effort to explore all the different aspects of being a racecar driver, there are many applicable skills that can be applied to a future career.

Contrast that to paying $20 to sign your kid up for little league, or some MLB stars whos background included playing baseball on an old dirt field with sticks and milk cartons.

[boost]

Ha.. you're skewing things a ton. Cut it out.

But either way we're comparing apples to steroids. I'm pretty satisfied with you acknowledging that motorcycle racing is something more than twisting the throttle, turning sometimes, and going straight sometimes.

Let's talk about Oatmeal.

[Lukie]

haha, I was actually going to say something to the effect of enjoying the food convo better than comparing baseball to racing, but didn't want it to spill over into that thread. It's all good my friend. Needing to get in the last word is a bad habit of mine.

[kingnat]

you guys are a bunch of fags for fucking up my thread.

[BennyLaRue]

Does this open up all kinds of opportunities for you to bone male students too?

[Lukie]

you guys are a bunch of fags for fucking up my thread.

tell that to this guy and he will stomp your goofy ass!

[boost]

Fucking Nascar...

[Lukie]

I admit that was uncalled for...

[boost]

Nah, it was pretty awesome, I laughed a disgruntled laugh.

[boost]

couldn't help myself, esp since it's a Bengals player...

[boost]

That being said, it is amazing how the linemen positions have evolved over the last decade+ There used to be some really fat fuckers on the grid 10 or so years ago. Even this Andre guy is pretty ripped despite his lolgrossbelly and girlytits.

[Lukie]

I would be curious to see definitive trends on that... weight and bodyfat % would be a good place to start. I think you are onto something.

There are probably a lot of small reasons for it, and one big one. We're seeing, among the best teams, the passing game tends to dominate and that tends to favor slightly leaner/quicker linemen (they're still huge.) bigger population, plus better/more comprehensive scouting and occasionally pulling a foreigner into the NFL. Perhaps better or at least better applied training/nutrition.

The biggest reason though, in my opinion, is just the overall prevalence of anabolic drugs. They have been around in sports for 50 years or so but today they are just so easy to get, they know what tests they have to beat, and there are chemists out there who are very good at beating them (see recent biogenesis scandal in baseball)

Oh, and the NFL and NBA don't even test for artificial growth hormone. They essentially go on the honor system. Really. Some of the benefits include increased lean body mass, lower bodyfat %, improved recovery from training sessions/injury, etc.

[CoccoBill]

And I still don't see what is so difficult PHYSICALLY about racecar driving, that is what about the activity is it that you or I couldn't do, with some training?

http://www.formula1.com/inside_f1/un...port/5298.html

"...the physical endurance required to drive a Formula One race is not dissimilar to that required to run a marathon."

[Lukie]

I have almost lost complete interest in debating this anymore but if I did have any interest I would point out that it's an uncited comment on F1's own website.

Next I would probably point out how increasing one's fitness will always lead to better times in marathons and that the vast majority of people could never be world-class marathon runners no matter how hard they tried, no matter what they did, or how great or difficult their training regimen was. Whereas I don't see any such physical limitations even in F1; increasing your physical fitness beyond a reasonably attainable point isn't going to significantly improve your times.

Anyway, what % of racecar drivers are specifically F1 drivers?

Does anybody in this thread personally know someone who was even given a chance to become a professional racecar driver?? Like I seriously would not even know where to sign somebody up for that, let alone know how to where to raise the money for it (assuming most people aren't plugged in and aren't rich.)

[Lukie]

Also I am not so sure why you were responding to my specific comment with that link. Most people, with training, can complete a marathon. Or at least they could at one point in their lives (again, with training)

[boost]

I'm not gonna hop back in, but just an observation:

Lukie, you introduce red herrings faster than a catholic auctioneer introducing his children.

[Lukie]

They look like red herrings because at this point: 1) there is no real flow to what we are even arguing about and 2) you don't agree with me

The reality is that you or I could have been successful F1 drivers if we had the right connections earlier in life. Do you agree with that?

[jackvance]

I don't know about you guys but me, for sure. But sadly now even my friends are afraid to get in the car with me because I'm such a bad driver. I blame my parents.

[Lukie]

I don't know about you guys but me, for sure. But sadly now even my friends are afraid to get in the car with me because I'm such a bad driver. I blame my parents.

ha

for what it's worth, I know you were a chess player, and I think that chess players (along with other types of professional gamers) have a lot of the skills needed to compete at the higher levels of racing. That combination of deep thinking, mental ability and conditioning, and all that seems pretty rare. So whether it be a competitive chess, starcraft, street fighter, or simulation racecar player/driver, I think they would have a better chance of breaking into competitive racing than say, a world class marathon runner, who doesn't happen to have those skills.

Note: that doesn't make racing an easy physical activity. But it's easy enough to put someone on a treadmill and hit some weights and all that than it is to train the mental stuff. just my opinion of course.

[Savy]

You watch competitive street fighter lukie?

EVO should be soon if memory serves. Year before this one I watched loads of events, but lost interest a bit this year. Still going to tune in for a bit of evo though.

[surviva316]

God, this thread got so gay. Even by my standards!

[Lukie]

You watch competitive street fighter lukie?

EVO should be soon if memory serves. Year before this one I watched loads of events, but lost interest a bit this year. Still going to tune in for a bit of evo though.

A couple years ago I watched some SF4 matches. I was really just a very casual player but was really, really impressed by the strategies and impeccable timing. The matches looked so so much more refined than the ones I played with a friend.

At the time I didn't realize how much Sagat was hated but he has been my favorite character going back the the earlier SF2 days. High/low tiger shots, tiger knee, tiger uppercut, and standing hard kick are some of the coolest things to ever grace a video game.

[Savy]

If you're interested I'll post a link to the stream when it starts. When it gets down to top32 the standard is unbelievably good.

[Lukie]

Yeah I would be interested in watching some of that.

[jackvance]

ha

for what it's worth, I know you were a chess player, and I think that chess players (along with other types of professional gamers) have a lot of the skills needed to compete at the higher levels of racing. That combination of deep thinking, mental ability and conditioning, and all that seems pretty rare. So whether it be a competitive chess, starcraft, street fighter, or simulation racecar player/driver, I think they would have a better chance of breaking into competitive racing than say, a world class marathon runner, who doesn't happen to have those skills.

Note: that doesn't make racing an easy physical activity. But it's easy enough to put someone on a treadmill and hit some weights and all that than it is to train the mental stuff. just my opinion of course.

I always got good at stuff more quickly than other people. But personally I think I don't have much of an edge in things that go fast, although I was always decent at starcraft. And the rush of driving and the risk of an accident doesn't sound appealing atm.

In terms of needing those skills for racing I totally agree, but the emotional component is huge too, I don't think just having those abilities is enough or a guarantee you could have done it.

[CoccoBill]

Also I am not so sure why you were responding to my specific comment with that link. Most people, with training, can complete a marathon. Or at least they could at one point in their lives (again, with training)

Well I mainly responded to your specific comment, because your specific comment was asking about the thing I responded about.

Out of curiosity, have you ever raced with any type of motor vehicle, like go carts? F1 drivers are among the best paid athletes in the world, they typically all start out the same way: with go carts a couple years after they learn to walk.

F1 specifically is quite different from most other motor sports: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rITHTgVt6RU

[Lukie]

Who starts out racing with go carts a couple years after they learn to walk? I say it is a tiny, tiny, tiny, tiny minority of the population.

I still say that just about any quick witted, thin boned person could be an F1 driver (and certainly any other racecar driver) given the right upbringing and training.

I only say thin boned because I don't see any 6'6" 300lb guy driving a racecar, presumably because any extra weight hinders acceleration and handling, even if only to a small degree.

[boost]

That's almost certainly not the reason you don't see 300lb f1 drivers. The reason would be the sustained high heart rate and the necessary physical endurance necessary to complete a race in an f1 car.

Also, are you really using "thin," and "thick bonned" as a basis for a serious argument?

[kiwiMark]

Wait, this argument is serious?

[Lukie]

That's almost certainly not the reason you don't see 300lb f1 drivers. The reason would be the sustained high heart rate and the necessary physical endurance necessary to complete a race in an f1 car.

Also, are you really using "thin," and "thick bonned" as a basis for a serious argument?

Wouldn't you agree that a driver who weighs 200lb. would be at a disadvantage compared to a driver who weighs 150lb.?

Maybe I am overstating the difference, but given how strictly spec'd the cars are and how tightly contested races are, I would think that even extremely small differences would be very meaningful. However I defer to you on this one, as you are obviously more knowledgeable about racing than I am.

edit: assume that both the 150lb and 200lb person are in extremely good physical shape and easily capable of finishing an F1 race. I am talking strictly about the effect of weight on acceleration and other things directly related to racing.

Are there any physics majors in here?

[Lukie]

Wait, this argument is serious?

Oh believe me, I wish it wasn't.

[Lukie]

oh forget it

[boost]

Yes, all things being equal the lighter driver has the advantage, but you're throwing red herrings all over again.

You said it's the main reason, and I would say you're wrong. If we got the weights on all the f1 drivers I'm pretty sure there would be much more disparity than among a specific weight class for boxing. Also, +/-25lbs over the wheels is a big deal, at the COG, not nearly as much.

[Lukie]

lol red herrings

There is hardly any structure or flow to this conversation. The points I am making are actually really consistent wrt how racecar drivers don't have to necessarily be elite physical athletes and questioning whether or not completing a race with a car is really as exhausting as completing a marathon on foot.

A red herring in the context of this argument would be like me talking about how I have never been in an accident as a driver, never had a ticket that stuck, don't text and drive and since I am a great [civilian] driver I am currently qualified to be a professional nascar driver. That obviously isn't the case.

[Lukie]

So apparently Nascar takes driver weight into account when figuring out the weight allowance of a car. What an incredibly silly rule-- mitigate the one physical advantage a driver can really have in a race.

Is that pretty common in racing?

Maybe the powers that be don't want small females and/or midgets dominating races (saying that half jokingly )

[WillburForce]

You have to be a physical beast to drive an F1 car. The helmet weighs a crazy amount, plus you've got G-Force pulling at your neck - neck and shoulder muscle are raw! The heat they have to take is fucking ridic. Full body fire suit, plus other protective shizzle, then sitting in a confined space in a seriously hot car.

I'd gusee you don't get any bigger driver because of the amount of weight you lose just sitting in it.

Horses are all weighted diff - can't see why it should be diff in Nascar.

[jackvance]

I don't think having the physical requirements is out of reach for most people to simply get from training for this. It makes the entry level a bit more steep but I still think you mostly some kind of "need for speed" kick to go through with all of this.

[WillburForce]

I'd say F1 drivers are as physically fit as any other athlete. But they have a raw talent for driving. Just like a footballer has a raw talent for football.

[WillburForce]

http://www.formula1.com/inside_f1/un...port/5298.html

Ps I fucking hate F1 and think it is the most boring "sport" on earth.

[Lukie]

I have said over and over again that F1 racing requires a great deal of physical fitness.

That doesn't make them elite physical athletes.

[jackvance]

I'd say F1 drivers are as physically fit as any other athlete. But they have a raw talent for driving. Just like a footballer has a raw talent for football.

Raw talent for specific skills like that doesn't exist. And we as people can't discern talent, we look at results and only think that we can see talent. Elaborately went over this in a psychology class I'm a few weeks back. And no way the physical aspect is as limiting as in say athletics, I won't believe that, although I heard it is quite a strain, but this is something most people can train for.

[a500lbgorilla]

I agree with jack.

[WillburForce]

I call BS. Someone can have a natural talent for driving same as they can for kicking a ball.

Lots of people might well be able to hit the fitness level F1 drivers have. Same as anyone can have the same fitness level as Messi. But no-one has the skill he has. Same as no-one can drive the way Senna did.

Like Lennon and McCartney. Every now and then the stars collide and it all comes together.

[boost]

Before this carries on, we'll need you to give a concise definition of "natural talent."

Once you do that, explain how you are able to discern the difference between acquired skill and natural talent using, say, Senna as a subject.

[Lukie]

If I never open this thread again it will be too soon.