Tweet
I don't see one's personal opinion of a sport has to do with how influential it is in depleting another sport or sports of potential talent. I'm not a massive fan of Am Football, but then I'm not a massive fan of soccer either. I won't deny, however, that their massive popularity (soccer especially) has to have an enormous amoeba-like effect on potential athletic talent everywhere.
The traits required to succeed at the upper levels are only really pertinent when discussing crossovers, guys like Mitchell and Wilder, and to a lesser extent Zbikowski and Sonny Bill. Obviously the more physical sports are going to produce more physical athletes, through training and the rigours of play, but that has nothing to do with potential ability, ie how good someone could have been were they trained as a youth. That's purely a matter of conjecture, but essentially boils down to a numbers game. The more popular and ubiquitous a sport, the more likely it'll have ****** up some potential great somewhere. Kind of obvious right?
Due to their physicality and similarity to each other, the NFL and the Rugby Union are often looked at as convenient sources of "what if?" talent, but this is a superficial look at things and mostly misses the point. With a few exceptions, the best boxers started training at an early age, whilst their minds and bodies were still pliable. At this stage in life most kids can go into any sport, and provided they have the required physical traits and adaptability (along with determination, discipline etc) they would probably do well. The end result is but one of many possibilities.
Ultimately of course, it all means nothing. You can either moan about it and fantasise about imaginary world champions, or accept the situation as it is.
The traits required to succeed at the upper levels are only really pertinent when discussing crossovers, guys like Mitchell and Wilder, and to a lesser extent Zbikowski and Sonny Bill. Obviously the more physical sports are going to produce more physical athletes, through training and the rigours of play, but that has nothing to do with potential ability, ie how good someone could have been were they trained as a youth. That's purely a matter of conjecture, but essentially boils down to a numbers game. The more popular and ubiquitous a sport, the more likely it'll have ****** up some potential great somewhere. Kind of obvious right?
Due to their physicality and similarity to each other, the NFL and the Rugby Union are often looked at as convenient sources of "what if?" talent, but this is a superficial look at things and mostly misses the point. With a few exceptions, the best boxers started training at an early age, whilst their minds and bodies were still pliable. At this stage in life most kids can go into any sport, and provided they have the required physical traits and adaptability (along with determination, discipline etc) they would probably do well. The end result is but one of many possibilities.
Ultimately of course, it all means nothing. You can either moan about it and fantasise about imaginary world champions, or accept the situation as it is.
Comment