I have a hypothesis.
Is a sporting legend worthy of the title if their sport has high barriers to entry? Also if large barriers exist how can we be sure that they are the even one of the best?
For example many would agree that Aryton Senna was one of the greatest F1 drivers of all time. Given the barriers to entry is it feasible that the greatest F1 driver never drove a car?
A more extreme example would be showjumping. Is the Olympic champion really the greatest or are they simply the best amongst those with access to stables and horses worth huge sums.
Contrast that to other sports with very low barriers to entry. Running for example (my sport)
Does this mean that Haille Gebrselassie really is the fastest marathon runner of all time given that those with the ability, drive and commitment to beat him would likely have shown their hand by now.
Does it mean the latter has more of a claim to be the greatest (in their discipline)
I could have been a sporting legend but I didn't have access to the appropriate genes.
speak to your pharmacist, there may be ointment available?I have a hypothesis.
Formula 1 isnt a sport anyway, so it doesnt matter
Surfer I've long postulated this theory. The contrast I normally use is between F1 and football. It is statistically almost certain that the greatest ever footballer (whilst open to debate precisely who this is) is a household name.
I remember some F1 driver, possibly Mansell, commentating on the driving skills of joyriders in Blackbird Leys (Oxford) in the early 90's. He noted that much of the driving he'd witnessed on the news, displayed handling skills worthy of top level motor racing.
Most people would consider it a sport and it is often refered to under the umbrella of "Motor sport" which would appear to contradict you.
The analysis still stands however
Football is a good example of a sport with very low barriers to entry. Kids even prove you dont even need a ball!
And despite what we say about footballers chances are they are the best amongst their peers although unlike other sports its not a requirment that an individual stands out.
I think it would be hard to declare that someone is less of a legend simply because they were legends in a sport where having the opportunities to participate are less open. But you are right in some respects, kids who have risen from poverty for example to become champions [u]despite[/u] their upbringing may be even more worthy of respect. In this i guess I'm saying that being a legend doesn't necessarily make you likeable or worthy of respect? I think you can be a legend and still an utter <insert non-sweary word here>
On the other hand what about sports where an impoverished upbringing is actually a benefit. Manny Pacquaio for example; does his background give him a headstart over other 'better off' fighters? Should we be more praiseworthy of a kid who has risen from a middle class background to the same level? Oscar de la Hoya, for example.
And despite what we say about footballers chances are they are the best amongst their peers.
innit.
I agree with your hypothesis. If poor people struggle to do a given sport, the best is only a big fish in a small pond. Gebrselassie is a legend among legends.
does his background give him a headstart over other 'better off' fighters?
Thats a good point and their are sports where environment may play a significant part. It is clear that in Kenya and Ethiopia that poor infrastructure and relatively few opportunities drive huge groups of children to excel in middle and long distance running.
Here's another sport with high barriers to entry...
A friend at school was in the top 10 pole vaulters for his age group in the country. Why? Well he was exceptionally fit, but actually there were only 10 people competing in his age category in the discipline.
well I think we've saved UK athletics a lot of development money!
Runners who live / train / were brought up at altitude seem to be unfairly represented in endurance events too. Less worthy than a sea level runner achieving similar status?
Bit of a pointless hypothesis IMO - you can never know that everyone on the planet has had their potential at every sport fully evaluated.
Bit of a pointless hypothesis IMO - you can never know that everyone on the planet has had their potential at every sport fully evaluated.
Which makes any comparison between sports impossible, and where would be the fun in that 😆
cynic-al where were you all those years ago when the ancient Greeks were getting all philosophical?
The fact that there are 6bn people on the planet and the statistically inevitable fact that at least one of them is better than me at anything is why I chose not to attempt to excel at anything. If you know that inevitably you cant be the best, what's the point in trying eh?
you're pretty good at sheds.
but bruneep is better so Ive failed. Im used to it. Dont dream too much and you cant have your dreams shattered 🙁
Bloody hell Stoner is it being so cheefull that keeps you going 😉
Stoner you are Shirly the best at the "2nd post put-down"?
you can ****-off n'all.
😛