Stardate 20030917.1852

(On Screen): Yobbo responds to my general comments yesterday about sports, and about how the basic characteristics of most sports tend to reward those who are physically optimized in particular ways and thus are statistical freaks relative to the population as a whole. I made the comment that Baseball is unusual in this regard in that the broad range of activities which make up the game don't tend to reward any single or small group of physical features. Because of that, most sports professionals look freakish when you meet them in person, but baseball players simply look healthy and superbly developed.

I also commented that there's also far more physical (and racial) diversity in baseball, because no single physical type grants an advantage, and no racial group has genes which give them a significant advantage. If there are any physical traits which are most valuable in baseball they would be fast reaction times and excellent eye-hand coordination. Both are needed for batting when facing 95 mph fastballs, and both come into play in fielding, especially in the infield. But coordination and reaction time don't dictate any kind of physical form, and so far as I know no racial group is better at them than others. (In yesterday's article, I cited several examples of sports where particular physical traits are valuable and where some racial groups disproportionally excel for genetic reasons.)

Yobbo says:

Obviously, being an evil yankee imperialist, Steven is probably unfamiliar with Australian Rules Football, which is probably the most obvious example of a sport which is not dominated by any particular body type. Cricket is another example, but is a much less physical endeavour, so I'll stick to footy for now.

The presence of so many unrelated skills in Aussie Rules - kicking, sprinting, high marking, athletic endurance, tackling and even ruck-tapping means that it is almost impossible for any body type to excel at all the disciplines. This is why, even after many years of application of modern coaching techniques and biomechanic analysis, you still have a huge range of body types in any given team.

That's "Mister Evil Yankee Imperialist" to you.

He proceeds to give some examples of the range of body types in some more famous players.

It's true that I'm not totally familiar with "footie", but I believe it's closely related to a sport known in the US as Rugby. About 25 years ago I knew a guy who played Rugby, and he told me that American football, the sport we call soccer which everyone else in the world calls football, and rugby were all originally related. As he described it, originally someone tried to pick up the ball and run with it, and others told him he couldn't do that.

And those who said that was wrong ended up playing soccer, while those who thought it was OK went on. Then one day someone tried to throw the ball forward, and others told him he couldn't. So those who thought forward passes were OK ended up playing football, and the rest ended up playing rugby.

I said that unlike most other sports, baseball players in general don't seem like freaks in person. If footie is like rugby, and if it's players are like the one I knew, then its players would stand out as freaks due to all the scars and physical damage they wear.

...and I also specified that Baseball was unusual in this regard among major sports...

Now, where did I put that flame-proof uniform?

Update: Another sport which doesn't seem to reward any particular physical form is golf. There's no need for fast reaction time, but there's a lot of reward for whole-body strength (in driving) and precision (in putting). Given its languid pace, it's even less dependent on stamina, and doesn't even have the occasional punctuations of fast action that exist in baseball.

And golf also has a broad range of physical types amongst its players. If it is less racially diverse than baseball, that's mostly because it hasn't been opened up as much; it's not because any racial group has a genetic advantage in the game. One reason is that baseball is more accessible to kids of all socioeconomic classes. You can't play golf without a golf course, and since they're large and expensive to maintain, that puts golf outside the reach of a substantial portion of the population. Even if they might have the ability to excel in the sport, they'll never find out because they'll never have the opportunity to try. Golf is by its nature a sport primarily for the affluent.

Update 20030918: Michael Jennings comments.