Posted: May 07, 2016 12:49 pm
Shrunk wrote:
Besides which, this does not even remotely address my argument. Unless you are now saying that baseball players are better athletes then hockey players. And basketball players better than either, since that is what the relative pay scales would suggest if it is a direct measure of athletic ability.
No just saying that in every discipline merit according to the specific rules, is used to decide who wins and pay is proportionate (gender excepted). Audiences are attracted by seeing elite performance and pay more for better performance, simply because if they were interested in mediocre performance of a sport they can watch this for less or free in their local park. Elite performance, in fact the very best is by definition rare because it reduces to just one or two individuals.
Shrunk wrote: So, according to your understanding, you live in a world where there are more girls playing competitive tennis than competitive soccer?
No I would say that womens tennis is more evolved and mature than womens soccer, provides more prominent role models, and provides a better chance of being a commercial career. I would say that more women tennis players make more money than women soccer players. These dynamics mean that more women are likely to be attracted to playing tennis than soccer. There will be exceptions, the womens US soccer team win will have caused a spike in the US.
Shrunk wrote:And, of course, we all know Jamaican sprinters are crap, because that country has such a small population. Poor Usain Bolt has been reduced to doing TV commercials in order to make ends meet
How did you arrive at this conclusion from what I have said? Your lack of understanding appears to be a combination of not understanding rational propositions, sport itself, and having a preconceived idea about what conclusion must arise.
Despite there being some interesting theories about why Jamaica has done so well in track sprints, the fact that any individual arises from a specific place of whatever scale it does not mean you can logically pose a question of this type. You might equally say that Usian Bolt should be a crap sprinter because there are only 5 people in his family. Likewise the fact that Kenyans and Ethiopians dominate middle distance track relates to other factors and not the populations of the countries. Its more about the status of the sport around the world, as well as within each country. Track sprinting has a high enough profile globally to make it likely that people from most countries who have the potential to sprint at an elite level has some chance of being found, nurtured etc, whereas for sports with lower profiles or expensive facilities this might not happen. There are many other factors, the quality of coaching etc. The basic point remains valid, depending upon the evolution and profile of any sport, you will get different rates and levels of coaching, skill and fitness.
An example of how this process works between sports happened in squash rackets in the 1980’s. South Africa, NZ Australia, GB and to some extent Pakistan and Egypt dominated squash. This meant that 2nd string players from South Africa could live in Germany and play professionally and coach because of the low standard in Europe. Once Europe encouraged the sport, it became a better commercial proposition, they attracted players from other sports and their levels became world class in time, by investing money in coaching, building courts etc.
When Hashim Khan from Pakistan won world titles in squash it spawned a crop of great Pakistani players including Jahanghir and Jansher Khan. Their profile was high and it was a means for talented young Pakistanis to lift themselves from poverty, and it also meant they developed strong skills, better than other countries who were less interested in squash over other sports, or non sporting activities.
The fact remains that elite players across various sports are at different stages. Just as women improved their track performance between 1960-1980 for multiple events was due to the previous lack of competition, good coaching, financial and status incentives.
Another example from squash. Briton Jonah Barrington won a string of consecutive world squash titles and was considered the fittest man in the world at the time, because his skills alone were not enough to win the world title so he brought in a new era of fitness to squash and other squash players followed his lead and this changed the fitness levels across the world for elite squash. Gary Player did the same for golf in terms of fitness, so it means that within every sport, its reasonable to assume they have different levels of maturity, and different status and financial profiles, all of which affect the quality of that discipline.