Views on genetics vs training/nature vs nurture
- Thread starter Spartan 117
- Start date
To get this thread back on topic.
Do genetics play a roll in "talent/performance"? Yes.
Are genetics the deciding factor in how successful an athlete can be? No.
Sure there are people who are just "built" for certain sports. As a strength coach at various universities, there are always the freaks -
18 years old, 300lbs, 6'6", run a 4.8 40, clean and press 300+ without ever having trained in the weight room. Sure these people exist. There are, however, not that many of them.
Most are average "talent" and had good "training" early on, (read: played sports at a young age, were in martial arts/gymnastics at a young age, or were just significantly more active than other kids) and acquired a strong base to build off of.
Having seen some of these "gifted" people. Many do not really reach their full potential given that they never had to try that hard, up to a certain point.
On the flip side. There are many, MANY, less "talented" people who learn how to train, learn, work, and get the most out of what they have. These people often catch and surpass the "genetically gifted".
Every once in a while we will see a truly "gifted" athlete who has embraced their training and strives to be the best they can be. This is when we see something really special.
As many of you have seen in the past, I am not really big on the genetics thing. Mostly because, in real life, it does not matter. There is no way to know what we are genetically destined to be. Sure there is genetic testing, but that is never extensive enough to tell what lies ahead in an athletes career. Who says that we are even testing for the right things? Once we find out, does that mean that we press on, or give up? Most will not give up, so knowing has no bearing on what might happen anyhow.
Sure, there are some people who are in the shallow end of the gene pool and who, despite their efforts, are not likely to be impressive specimens. There are about as many of them as there are of the 300lb gorilla I described in the beginning of this post. There are also countless examples of how someone beat the odds.
The vast majority of us fall in between the shallow end and the deep end, since nobody knows exactly were we "should" be, most, given the right environment, can get much farther than the naysayers are willing to admit.
"Most" athletes are here to prove that more can be achieved if the mind is in the right place than if the genetics happen to be there. "Most" of the time, that is a true statement.
Do genetics play a roll in "talent/performance"? Yes.
Are genetics the deciding factor in how successful an athlete can be? No.
Sure there are people who are just "built" for certain sports. As a strength coach at various universities, there are always the freaks -
18 years old, 300lbs, 6'6", run a 4.8 40, clean and press 300+ without ever having trained in the weight room. Sure these people exist. There are, however, not that many of them.
Most are average "talent" and had good "training" early on, (read: played sports at a young age, were in martial arts/gymnastics at a young age, or were just significantly more active than other kids) and acquired a strong base to build off of.
Having seen some of these "gifted" people. Many do not really reach their full potential given that they never had to try that hard, up to a certain point.
On the flip side. There are many, MANY, less "talented" people who learn how to train, learn, work, and get the most out of what they have. These people often catch and surpass the "genetically gifted".
Every once in a while we will see a truly "gifted" athlete who has embraced their training and strives to be the best they can be. This is when we see something really special.
As many of you have seen in the past, I am not really big on the genetics thing. Mostly because, in real life, it does not matter. There is no way to know what we are genetically destined to be. Sure there is genetic testing, but that is never extensive enough to tell what lies ahead in an athletes career. Who says that we are even testing for the right things? Once we find out, does that mean that we press on, or give up? Most will not give up, so knowing has no bearing on what might happen anyhow.
Sure, there are some people who are in the shallow end of the gene pool and who, despite their efforts, are not likely to be impressive specimens. There are about as many of them as there are of the 300lb gorilla I described in the beginning of this post. There are also countless examples of how someone beat the odds.
The vast majority of us fall in between the shallow end and the deep end, since nobody knows exactly were we "should" be, most, given the right environment, can get much farther than the naysayers are willing to admit.
"Most" athletes are here to prove that more can be achieved if the mind is in the right place than if the genetics happen to be there. "Most" of the time, that is a true statement.
My parents were both geeks and I ended up being a geek athlete
But the athlete thing was a fluke because I'd started in ballet and liked it, but didn't have the right body type to make any money doing it, so I chose gymnastics and the rest is history ... albeit bad history
Last edited:
I see where you are coming from, for most people, environmental factors are probably more important. Most people, no matter their genetic makeup, will be able to increase their speed, muscle mass etc. However, when it comes to elite performances, the best of the best i.e Bolt and Maurice Green, then genetics will determine if you have the potential to compete at this level. Of course, training is unequivocally important; someone with the best genes for a 100m sprint will get beat by someone else who is good, although not as good genetically speaking, but has state of the art training.
For closed skill sports like powerlifting, weightlifting, sprinting, throwing, and most other track and field sports I can agree with this.
However, open skill sports are different, genetic "talent" helps less in these cases. It is great to be fast and strong in sports like soccer, football, basketball, rugby. Basic strength and speed does not make a great athlete in these sports though. This opens up the "talent pool" for athletes who are not the strongest, fastest, or "most gifted".
In this case understanding the sport is extremely important. Knowing your teammates, how to read opponents, the game plan, and the dynamics of your position are necessary to get to the elite level.
IMO, the more closed skill sports will favor the genetically gifted. The more open skill sports leave the door open for a lot more people to make it through.
That's true. Having good knowledge of a game like cricket and experience can play an important role in talent. Although it should be pointed out that decision making and internal and external peripheral awareness are probably determined somewhat by how their brain is connected. I suspect to, that some people just have better decision making capabilities, awareness etc than others. Of course training will help, but people like Zidane really have to have some special about them that make them as good as they are.
But I think by saying genetics plays a bigger role in closed sports is a pretty good statement.
But I think by saying genetics plays a bigger role in closed sports is a pretty good statement.
I'd agree that
but is this connection all genetic? The number of neurons, axons, etc, probably are, but synapses have great potential for adaption and change through learning.
Yeah for sure, the brain is very plastic. It's very complex but all I meant is that training endlessly won't gaurantee you that you'll have the same skills as Zidane for example; just like a physicist trying to be as good as Hawking, i'm sure they're good from all thei study and learning, but I doubt most of them could reach his standards
nature and nurture go hand in hand,ie if two parents with good genes have a child that child is "likely" to have those genes(nature),most likely they will bring the child up in a similar way as they have been brought up exercise/food etc(nurture).
as far as africans go you could also use the same argument.
most west africans were taken as slaves and sent to america/west indies and these make the best sprinters and have naturaly good physiques,that is probably because when slave owners picked a slave male/female he would pick the fittest/strongest obviously,they would then marry amongst each other and produce genetically stronger children(nature) and (nurture)
other africans such as ethiopia etc are better distance runners,not naturally good strong ohysiques,thats because they dont need to be carrying around all that muscle so (nature) and (nurture) make the difference here.
IMO not having good genetics doesnt mean you cant build a good physique,but having good genetics is a big head start.
as far as africans go you could also use the same argument.
most west africans were taken as slaves and sent to america/west indies and these make the best sprinters and have naturaly good physiques,that is probably because when slave owners picked a slave male/female he would pick the fittest/strongest obviously,they would then marry amongst each other and produce genetically stronger children(nature) and (nurture)
other africans such as ethiopia etc are better distance runners,not naturally good strong ohysiques,thats because they dont need to be carrying around all that muscle so (nature) and (nurture) make the difference here.
IMO not having good genetics doesnt mean you cant build a good physique,but having good genetics is a big head start.