PDA

View Full Version : Are athletes born or built?


SickwithIt1010
12-13-2010, 09:40 PM
Hey fellas, thought i would come to the world of SWDC and see if they could help me out with the current frustration. For my final paper in Physiology of Sport an Exercise I am writing a 6-10 page paper on the topic "Are Athletes Born or Built" dealing mainly with the Genetics, training, what athletes can get away with? what they need to do and what not.

Im currently stuck on page 5 and would try to get to the 7 or 8 page area. Any ideas people have would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks!

Rosebud
12-13-2010, 09:45 PM
both......

CJSchneider
12-13-2010, 09:50 PM
Have you written at least 2 pages about John Locke and "tabula rasa" yet? Your take on that theory should take up some space.

SickwithIt1010
12-13-2010, 09:51 PM
both......

yes obviously. I guess my question is, what things do you believe are unteachable? and what do you think are things that have to be gained through training, and work?

Can you be an elite athlete just off your genetics and god given abilities?

Obviously i have my thoughts and opinions but im looking for some other thoughts. any type of idea i can use for a paragraph or a page in this paper ya know?

Splat
12-13-2010, 09:52 PM
yes obviously. I guess my question is, what things do you believe are unteachable? and what do you think are things that have to be gained through training, and work?

Speed you have it or you don't.

SickwithIt1010
12-13-2010, 09:52 PM
Have you written at least 2 pages about John Locke and "tabula rasa" yet? Your take on that theory should take up some space.

I havent yet, I have quite a bit on Yannis Pitsiladis, who is a sports scientist who has worked with the runners over in Kenya. So far he is the most notable guy I have used.

Definitely helpful!!

Crickett
12-13-2010, 10:00 PM
yes obviously. I guess my question is, what things do you believe are unteachable?

I would say height would definitely be something that you can't teach. You can teach someone to catch. You can teach someone how to throw a football or a baseball.

And yes, you can even teach speed to a small extent. If you couldn't, combine training institutions might not exist.

You can't teach someone to be a seven foot three NBA center. Although even there, giving someone human growth hormone as children are growing up can help with that, although that is not something I would recommend without medical reason.

Mr. Goosemahn
12-13-2010, 10:04 PM
Hey fellas, thought i would come to the world of SWDC and see if they could help me out with the current frustration. For my final paper in Physiology of Sport an Exercise I am writing a 6-10 page paper on the topic "Are Athletes Born or Built" dealing mainly with the Genetics, training, what athletes can get away with? what they need to do and what not.

Im currently stuck on page 5 and would try to get to the 7 or 8 page area. Any ideas people have would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks!

This is just my opinion.

I think you mean professional athletes, and it's both. Players who are in the NFL, NBA, and so on are born with the proper genetics to do so, and were built by coaches and others to be there as well.

I'm pretty sure there are many people out there with the physical attributes required to succeed in a sport, but they weren't built. In a similar situation, I'm pretty sure there are many out there who could be built to be great players, but sadly don't possess the physical attributes to do so.

From things such as height, weight, type of body (ectomorph, endomorph, mesomorph), etc., one can say athletes are born that way.

Even the less athletic players in leagues still have an advantage over others. Using the NFL as an example, the only position where one could argue that the athletes could only be built is kicker. If you train hard enough, I think you could be a pretty good kicker, and you don't really need great genes for that, just regularly train your legs. Not to say it's easy, just the position it's easiest for.

Going into more detail, the elite skill positions, such as WR and CB, are basically defined by speed and athleticism. If you aren't born with it, you won't get very far. The only receivers who can get away with mediocre speed are the big ones, but they've got the physical advantage with height and whatnot.

For linemen, you need to be able to carry a huge amount of weight while still be athletic. Nimble feet, raw, core strength and power, things of that nature.

For QB's, you need to be tall (usually), and have a pretty damn good arm. As well as intelligent.

These traits usually start to show from a young age. It's easy to notice who's faster than who, who's stronger than who, who plays better than who, etc. Not the best example, but look at the second play of this football game of very young kids:

rt5VjxF7NZM

Some kids couldn't even bend down right, some didn't need to bend at all and still did. The kid who makes the tackle looks bigger and faster than anybody else. Don't know the specifics, but I doubt he's much older than the other kids.

Ultimately, I believe that the athletes found in leagues are built from a pool of candidates born with the necessary attributes. Very rarely are they simply just built.

brat316
12-13-2010, 10:07 PM
Ability to digest a playbook.

SickwithIt1010
12-13-2010, 10:11 PM
This is just my opinion.

I think you mean professional athletes, and it's both. Players who are in the NFL, NBA, and so on are born with the proper genetics to do so, and were built by coaches and others to be there as well.

I'm pretty sure there are many people out there with the physical attributes required to succeed in a sport, but they weren't built. In a similar situation, I'm pretty sure there are many out there who could be built to be great players, but sadly don't possess the physical attributes to do so.

From things such as height, weight, type of body (ectomorph, endomorph, mesomorph), etc., one can say athletes are born that way.

Even the less athletic players in leagues still have an advantage over others. Using the NFL as an example, the only position where one could argue that the athletes could only be built is kicker. If you train hard enough, I think you could be a pretty good kicker, and you don't really need great genes for that, just regularly train your legs. Not to say it's easy, just the position it's easiest for.

Going into more detail, the elite skill positions, such as WR and CB, are basically defined by speed and athleticism. If you aren't born with it, you won't get very far. The only receivers who can get away with mediocre speed are the big ones, but they've got the physical advantage with height and whatnot.

For linemen, you need to be able to carry a huge amount of weight while still be athletic. Nimble feet, raw, core strength and power, things of that nature.

For QB's, you need to be tall (usually), and have a pretty damn good arm. As well as intelligent.

These traits usually start to show from a young age. It's easy to notice who's faster than who, who's stronger than who, who plays better than who, etc. Not the best example, but look at the second play of this football game of very young kids:

rt5VjxF7NZM

Some kids couldn't even bend down right, some didn't need to bend at all and still did. The kid who makes the tackle looks bigger and faster than anybody else. Don't know the specifics, but I doubt he's much older than the other kids.

Ultimately, I believe that the athletes found in leagues are built from a pool of candidates born with the necessary attributes. Very rarely are they simply just built.

Thank you man, good post for sure and agree with you about basically all of it. video was too sick haha.

wogitalia
12-13-2010, 11:16 PM
Can you be an elite athlete just off your genetics and god given abilities?

Sure can look at half the 7 foot guys in the NBA, the ones who have made it that far being bigger than everyone.

I'd think that Romanowski would be a fantastic guy to use in this. I think he is as close to an elite athlete that has been "built" as you will find. He readily admits that he pushed his body to the absolute limits and used everything, legal or not, to get as far as he possibly could. Cushing and Matthews are both modern examples of guys that have "built" themselves up.

I think on this topic that the mental issue is probably more overlooked than the physical. You give me an athlete and I can probably find someone that is bigger or faster or both but the great athletes have the mental edge, the desire to push themselves to the limit and do everything that is required.

Obviously to a certain degree you are born to it but from that point on you are built. I knew a pair of twins, who physically were "identical" they both ran the same times in a 100m sprint, 1.5km run, a 50m swim. Had the same basic agility, that sort of thing. If you tested them for athletic ability they were comparable but one of them was an absolute moungrel, loved getting his hands dirty and as a result was a great footballer(AFL), the other was soft, didn't like contact and quite simply was not a good player. He also didn't work as hard to develop technical skills or push his body as far. Over the 8 years that I played with both, one became an excellent player and the other was just plain average. Certainly leads me to think that an athlete is built as much, if not moreso, than they are born.

There are obvious disclaimers dependent on the sport as well. Obviously a sport like volleyball or the NBA much more lends itself to being "born" into it than a sport like baseball, golf or tennis for example. Sports where if you aren't a certain size then you are going to have an epic battle obviously require more of the born element.

wogitalia
12-13-2010, 11:21 PM
the only position where one could argue that the athletes could only be built is kicker. If you train hard enough, I think you could be a pretty good kicker, and you don't really need great genes for that, just regularly train your legs. Not to say it's easy, just the position it's easiest for.

Even this position you require the natural muscles in the leg to be able to thump it. Take a guy like Sav Rocca(Eagles Punter) he grew up playing the same sport I did in AFL and no matter how much I trained I would never be able to kick like him. As someone who actually has spent a lot of time refining technique, working my legs and the like I can still not kick close to as big as him. I've been able to improve from kicking roughly 40m to around 55-60m but that still leaves me probably 20m short of where he was at and that applies to pretty much the entire AFL over here in comparison to him or Ben Graham(Cards P).

bearfan
12-14-2010, 12:48 AM
I think athletes are born, but it takes building to realize their full potential. Obviously there are guys that are born into specific sports, but take someone like Lebron or any of the NBA guys. They all are naturally going to be tall dudes. They all naturally have good hand eye coordination (taught?), and all have natural speed and jumping abilities. None of that is built, it's genetics. The building comes from them combining the two.

I think this question deserves to be seperated too. Athletes should not be specified into specific sports, an athlete who is born or built is someone who just has athletic ability. Take skill in Xsport out of the eqaution and you have the basic athlete.

And I agree with the mentality argument because it is largely important, but I wouldn't apply the mental aspect to someone being an athlete. I think that is more of an acquired skill.

Brodeur
12-14-2010, 01:03 AM
Have you written at least 2 pages about John Locke and "tabula rasa" yet? Your take on that theory should take up some space.

Actually, Tabula Rasa was a Kate Centric episode. The first John Locke centric didn't come until the following episode in Walkabout. Sorry, I felt the need to do this.

NotRickJames
12-14-2010, 01:05 AM
both......

This. You can be born with tremendous talent, but you have to cash in. Conversely, those with great work ethics can compensate for their lack of pure talent.

CJSchneider
12-14-2010, 05:46 AM
Actually, Tabula Rasa was a Kate Centric episode. The first John Locke centric didn't come until the following episode in Walkabout. Sorry, I felt the need to do this.

It's all good. I got the joke

http://asset0.venuszine.com/article_image/image/2046/viewer_wide/no-country-for-old-men-tommylee.jpg

Gay Ork Wang
12-14-2010, 06:02 AM
work ethic, tenacity as well as leadership are things that could be taught but are very very hard to do

senormysterioso
12-14-2010, 09:29 AM
I think you should basically just give a synopsis of Rocky IV and be done.

http://www.sallysfriends.net/Pix/Ivan_Drago_v_Rocky.jpg
"I will break you."

CJSchneider
12-14-2010, 10:08 AM
He's basically picking a side and describing "Nature vs. Nurture".

descendency
12-14-2010, 10:57 AM
I know this is a very touchy subject and I'm not trying to be funny, but seriously, why are all of the fastest people in the world (in almost any track event for that matter) black?

The research into that answer could give us a lot of good information as to how people develop.

But yea, I can personally tell you that summer conditioning turns sorry, frail nerds into pretty decent athletes.

edit: Another touchy subject that could help writing your paper is to discuss why different athletes take steroids. Obviously, the tour de france champion isn't looking to become the best fastball thrower, nor is he looking to hit a golf ball 400 yards.

LizardState
12-14-2010, 11:11 AM
He's basically picking a side and describing "Nature vs. Nurture".

Well described CJ.

Put my vote down for nurture. Nature provides a certain set of DNA-hardwired predispositions toward good athletic skills, like those non-measurables they talk about at the Combine.

But an even better head start is coming from a fb family where that experience is emphasized by a father or older brother, uncle, etc.

Look at Andrew Luck, his father's experience as a former NFL starting QB & pro coach gave him that headstart in college & it showed in his advanced game mgmt. skills as well as that gorgeous tight spiral on his precisely accurate passing as an 18-yr-old Stanford freshman. That's learned behavior of the best kind.

killxswitch
12-14-2010, 11:13 AM
I'm not able to view this video at work, but I'm pretty sure it's one that would fit your topic: http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CBMQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fvideosift.com%2Fvideo%2FIncredibl e-Basketball-Phenom&rct=j&q=This%20kid%20is%20amazing.%20Not%20only%20is%20h e%20coordinated%20but%20apparently%20his%20V02&ei=7qMHTf2ZF4vSngf7sZn5DQ&usg=AFQjCNEnfT5XAVvQfJqUbz3twE-GUPP5sQ&sig2=WUlWe4BydwV9-d153jntPQ&cad=rja

If it's the one I'm remembering it highlights a kid that just naturally has a significantly higher lung capacity and efficient cardiovascular system. The athletic benefits of this should be obvious.

As with nature vs. nurture, it is not one or the other but both, on a sliding scale. You've got a guy like Antonio Gates with very little football background who is able to dominate at his position because of his natural athletic ability. Bo Jackson was a fantastic baseball and football player but obviously couldn't devote skill training time to both like a single-sport athlete could. On the flipside a kid with average athletic genetics can train from a young age and develop his motor pathways to become as efficient as possible, and with good coaching, focus, and hard work he might maximize his potential and become a good athlete in a specific sport.

Obviously the best athlete is the guy born with genetic advantages that has the mental toughness and desire to maximize it to the fullest. The problem is that the guys who want it most often don't have the most athletic potential, and the guys with the most potential can get lazy and rely strictly on their gifts.

Interesting topic.

IndyColtScout
12-14-2010, 12:12 PM
100% born. If your born with no legs your not an athlete. If you get fat at some point in your life its your own fault due to work ethic. If you were never an athlete and suddenly become one, its your parents and your own fault for not experimenting with different hobbies.

Coaches build your skills, but unless your born with a certain skillset to succeed the skill cannot be built.

CJSchneider
12-14-2010, 12:29 PM
I know this is a very touchy subject and I'm not trying to be funny, but seriously, why are all of the fastest people in the world (in almost any track event for that matter) black?


Genetic predisposition for a higher volume of fast twitch vs slow twitch muscles. It is why you see more Caucasians in things like World's Strongest Man competitions.

SickwithIt1010
12-14-2010, 01:11 PM
I know this is a very touchy subject and I'm not trying to be funny, but seriously, why are all of the fastest people in the world (in almost any track event for that matter) black?

The research into that answer could give us a lot of good information as to how people develop.

But yea, I can personally tell you that summer conditioning turns sorry, frail nerds into pretty decent athletes.

edit: Another touchy subject that could help writing your paper is to discuss why different athletes take steroids. Obviously, the tour de france champion isn't looking to become the best fastball thrower, nor is he looking to hit a golf ball 400 yards.

yeah i was going to go into detail about steroids, but the paper is not allowed to have anything to do with that. Steroids was such an easy subject to write about that he just kinda threw out the idea of using it.

Bob Sanders Dreadlock
12-14-2010, 01:23 PM
I know this is a very touchy subject and I'm not trying to be funny, but seriously, why are all of the fastest people in the world (in almost any track event for that matter) black?

The research into that answer could give us a lot of good information as to how people develop.

But yea, I can personally tell you that summer conditioning turns sorry, frail nerds into pretty decent athletes.

edit: Another touchy subject that could help writing your paper is to discuss why different athletes take steroids. Obviously, the tour de france champion isn't looking to become the best fastball thrower, nor is he looking to hit a golf ball 400 yards.

If you have time this is a great article on that subject http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1169440/1/index.htm

slightlyaraiderfan
12-14-2010, 01:26 PM
They are borilt.

SickwithIt1010
12-14-2010, 01:34 PM
If you have time this is a great article on that subject http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1169440/1/index.htm

yeah that was one of my main sources. great read!

senormysterioso
12-14-2010, 05:07 PM
yeah that was one of my main sources. great read!

You're allowed to use Sports Illustrated as a source for an academic paper? Dang, I wish my profs were that laid back.

SickwithIt1010
12-14-2010, 05:16 PM
You're allowed to use Sports Illustrated as a source for an academic paper? Dang, I wish my profs were that laid back.

One of the sources could be wiki or a non scholarly journal.

wogitalia
12-14-2010, 08:16 PM
yeah i was going to go into detail about steroids, but the paper is not allowed to have anything to do with that. Steroids was such an easy subject to write about that he just kinda threw out the idea of using it.

Sounds like your lecturer is looking for a born answer because he has effectively banned your strongest case for built. Steroids are effectively a way for someone with lesser "born" abilities to enhance and build what they need to get where they want. They wont do it for you but they will enable someone who wasn't born to it to build it.

East vs West Africa could be an interesting thing to include as well, essentially East Africans are genetically blessed towards extreme endurance whilst West Africans are genetically blessed towards short burst exercises. As with anything there are always exceptions but as a whole it holds up.

Cool topic to get to write on though and really there is no correct answer, it is very much a discussion topic that requires you to present both sides.

Twins may be something worth looking at as you essentially have the same genetic starting point which essentially means that any differences from that point are all built. Barber Twins(NFL) or Lopez Twins(NBA) both come to mind.

You could also do a bit of a flipside to that and use brothers to show that slight born differences can overcome otherwise similar situations. Just look at a guy like Michael Jordan compared to his average sized family or the Griffin Brothers in the NBA where despite them growing up together, being coached by the same people and going to the same college that one had significantly more natural talent than the other.

Brent
12-14-2010, 08:43 PM
One of the sources could be wiki or a non scholarly journal.
wikipedia? christ, what's the point of being academically honest? what a joke.

ESVAburnout
12-14-2010, 08:46 PM
Well. I would say both. I'm 5'9" and 140. Will I ever been in the NFL? No. But can I run fast? Yes. I run a 4.6 forty untrained and less than 4.5 trained. Around a 4.47. Also I've literally juked people out their shoes in football and he fell of course. I'm more quick than fast, the first step I'm full speed, also literally.

Yes, I would probably be able to get 5'9" 160 and run a 4.5 flat. Due to where I live, scouts would never come anyway. I would never get a scholarship although I'm pretty sure I could play college football at a high enough level. But I'm going to the Army to Box. Being a fighter runs in the family, I assume that's where I get my athletics from. But yes while you can't run a 6.2 forty and work you're to a 4.4 to be in the NFL. You can work your way from being an "good" athlete to being a "NFL caliber" athlete.

sweetness34
12-14-2010, 08:57 PM
The real answer is both. But if you have to pick one side or the other athletes are born and then built. You have to have the athletic ability, coordination and size to be a good athlete in the first place. I'm a good athlete because of my coordination and decent athletic ability. Without those two things I'd be a 5'11 skinny white kid.

In junior high/high school and even college an athlete can get by on athletic ability (see: Miles, Darius or Russell, JaMarcus). However, the great ones have the drive, intangibles and dedication to get the most out of their physical talents (see: Jordan, Michael or Rice, Jerry).

It's rare that you find a player with both dominant physical tools and dominant work ethics. When you find one though it's pretty spectacular to watch.

Ghost of Juice
12-14-2010, 09:09 PM
A lot of people can get to the college level with tremendous work ethic and football smarts or amazing natural athleticism, but you need a combination of everything to make it to the pro level.
I remember Boston College's MLB Mike McLaughlin, the guy worked as hard as someone could work and had very good instincts but he just was not a good enough athlete to make it. Then you have Jamarcus Russell who had all the physical skills you want but didn't have the desire to work hard enough and now he has to resort to selling codeine syrup.

Ravens1991
12-14-2010, 09:16 PM
Id start off with what do you consider an athlete. I know people who are ranked in the nation for HS wrestling and they cant do a cart wheel. But I know people who can do backflips at will and they suck at wrestling.

That could be a way to add stuff in the paper.

SickwithIt1010
12-14-2010, 11:25 PM
wikipedia? christ, what's the point of being academically honest? what a joke.

Whoa man, im sorry that Lewis-Clark State isnt on the same academic standard as A&M lol

LizardState
12-15-2010, 11:33 AM
Genetic predisposition for a higher volume of fast twitch vs slow twitch muscles. It is why you see more Caucasians in things like World's Strongest Man competitions.

Touchy subject indeed CJ, but well worth discussing (just don't shut the thread down b/c of obvious racial connotations to the aspects of the discussion).

I've hear the fast- vs slow-twitch argument many times as it relates to race, both sides of it have merit IMO. Of greater importance is the choices available to a young player at the HS or even middle school levels, & that's where the discussion diverts from genetics to sociology.

Where do most good FB players come from? More from the lower levels of society ranked by income, poor kids basically. Most of them come from primarily rural poor families where they did hard physical work every day & it developed some of these awesome physical specimens, both black & white, who we see at the pro level. Jerry Rice caught bricks every yr falling from rooftops as a helper for his bricklayer father in Mississippi, both Frank Gifford & Troy Aikman worked with fathers who did very hard work in the oilfields 12-15 hrs/day, Toni Boselli 1st had surgery on his leg in a lumberjack accident doing logging when it was chainwhipped, & the Dick Butkus worked with his brothers hauling heavy appliances like refrigerators up many flts of stairs in Chicago. The Ryan bros. grew up in FB true, but they were raised on an Oklahoma ranch under thier super-tough ex-Sgt. Korean War veteran father Buddy where they did daily hard work that they later said made playing FB seem like recreation & fun.

And in the era of globalization now that includes both the Pacific Islands & Nigeria. Look at Samoa, which has been turned into a FB factory for American college programs in < 2-3 generations of playing it there under horrible conditions of financial support & weather with substandard facilities. And Nigeria, as a former British colony, has a substantial English-speaking population that gives their players a leg up on non-English immigrants.

Again being from a FB family can transcend having ESL drawbacks, look at how many members of several generations of the Zendejas family who immigrated from Mexico to Arizona did so with scholarships to NCAA schools as kickers.

mitchaldavis
01-11-2011, 08:25 AM
Depends largely on the success of sport a combination of genetic, training and diet, adaptive analysis and psychological preparation. In some cases, to identify and overcome obstacles is one of the biggest advantages of athletes and coaches of the major role. Although it is more likely blessed with all the characteristics of elite athletes, even in casual.