Rega

I deleted the example of a boxer of a particular sign

This may actually be the worst thread on the entire internet. And you are the one reacting to it.

There is an explanation for this in malcolm gladwells books, kids are scouted usually all during the same one year period age range for various sports. Now when these scouts look at these kids they pick ones who at that period in time are bigger, more athletic etc. Now the kids born in January are older and have had more time to develop as oppose to kids born later in the year so naturally those kids get picked up for school teams and whatnot. So because the kids born earlier in the year tend to be bigger they get picked and trained and get ever more athletic rather than the kids who may go on to become just as athletic but aren't picked at a young age because they were born later (they did a statistical analysis of Hockey in the USA or Canada I can't remember and this held true) It's a circular problem thats only started being addressed in scouting recently since scouts tend to be stuck in their ways and refusal to change what they "know." Since the kids who are born earlier get more sports, exercise and training they tend to go on to be the statistical bulk in professional sports. It happens in all sports at the start of their scouting period. It has nothing to do with astronomy in my opinion (which for the record I think is complete bull) This is crap. The Capricorn is not the best sports sign at all. It only excels in boxing and golf but is bad in basketball and other sports. The Aries does best when many different sports are involved. How does he explain that? This is not astronomy but astrology which is based on astronomy. But you have every right to think it is bull. Even though you cannot tell why because you have not studied it.

@ Stokely Why would I do that? Because both sports and astrology is a hobby of mine. And to me it is fun to combine the 2. To me it is about the facts. And because I bet on sports and astrology is a factor in that. Because I am able to advise which young talented sports people which sport suits them best from an astrological perspective. The astrology is only a factor and should never be the deciding factor. I have data from other sports too. The Capricorn might do good in heavyweight boxing (Ali, Foreman, Patterson, Frazier, Willard, Morrison for example) but has no basketball players in the top 50 NBA players (until 2003). "Nobody believes in that stuff". That is not true at all. Many people "believe" in astrology. It is not a belief system. To believe is a religion. It is either true or not and not half true. But you must be able to interpreter it. Astrology is just a factor and not everything and certainly not life deciding (you decide). You do not even know what it is based on. Give me arguments. Astrology is not based on the stars as many people think. I know nothing about stars. It is based on our own solar system (The Sun, The Earth, The Moon, Mars, Venus etc.) and in particular on the 360 degrees cyles of The Sun, The Moon and the planets around The Earth. The Capricorn to me is not 12-22 to 01-19 to me but 270 to 300 degrees in the seemingly cycle of The Sun around The Earth. The Earth cycles The Sun of course but we live on The Earth so The Earth is the starting point.

@ Stokely Oh you do believe that astrology is valid after all (after reading your second post). Yeah do not mess withe Capricorn or they might punch you and they know how to do it. Astrology is not scientifically proven. But that does not necessarily mean that it is not true. You would have to have the right equipment to measure the energy and we do not have that. So that is why I am not laying any claims and just stay to the facts. Everybody has the right to believe otherwise and should if they think it is not valid. But of course I personally believe that the Capricorn is - on average - the best boxer or best suited for boxing. The Aries has 6 of 27 gold medals in marathon running. The Scorpio never won the 100 meter sprint gold medal.