6 ms·

In MMA, pretty much everyone who gets into the octagon is already training as hard as they can, so in this case you're correct that innate advantages dominate o

In MMA, pretty much everyone who gets into the octagon is already training as hard as they can, so in this case you're correct that innate advantages dominate outcomes. I was more thinking outside the top 1% of any particular skill, for example when you're hiring a designer or sales staff in a normal company (as in, a not-1% company, such as a refrigerator manufacturer or something). I'm willing to concede that if you're looking exclusively at top 1% or top 0.01% candidates, you may profit best by taking their innate abilities into account, but if you're trying to find a top 80% or top 70% candidate (if you're trying to play moneyball with your organization or something) I personally would weight the depth and breadth of experience most.

bluedino 9y ago
And at the elite level, that disparity is still huge. The NFL has 32 football teams. Any quarterback outside the top 10 or so is considered 'bad' by most people. Assuming each team has a backup quarterback, out of the 64 'best' people in the world to do that job, only the top ten are so are safe from being called 'bad at their job' on any given Sunday. There's also a story about a UFC fighter who went 0-3, and people called him a terrible fighter. Someone from his hometown mentioned how he was the toughest guy in town and one day beat up 4 guys and 5 cops at a bar all by himself, and he was only a 155lb fighter.
- wickawic 9y ago
  You are proving the point though. Sure, there is variance among 64 out of the (say) 1000000000 people who could possibly be a quarterback. But most people could probably be in the top .1% of quarterback talent in the population if they trained hard for it. EDIT: I think I may have uncharitably read your comment as being argumentative instead of informative.
slavik81 9y ago
It's not just among the elite. I did some wresting in school and trained for 148lbs (68kg), but I guarantee I would lose to literally anybody in the 198lbs (90kg) bracket, even if they had never wrestled before. I also knew an incredibly good 97lbs (44kg) wrestler. He was technically much, much better than me, but I could throw him around like a rag doll so I always won. With weight comes strength. Any competition that rewards strength but does not penalize weight will end up dominated by heavyweights. Westling is particularly brutal as weight itself is beneficial for inertia.
- pmoriarty 9y ago
  "I did some wresting in school and trained for 148lbs (68kg), but I guarantee I would lose to literally anybody in the 198lbs (90kg) bracket, even if they had never wrestled before." Really? This runs counter to what I've heard from BJJ and other martial arts practitioners -- that a trained fighter could beat an untrained fighter in a fair fight (ie. no weapons, eye gouging, etc) using technique any day. You're saying that doesn't hold for wrestling?
  - slavik81 9y ago
    I mean a heavy beginner wrestler vs a smaller intermediate or advanced wrestler. You would need to at least know the basics of the sport to compete without breaking the rules.
projektir 9y ago
Here's a difference for you where you don't need to even look at 1%: men and women.

bluedino 9y ago

And at the elite level, that disparity is still huge. The NFL has 32 football teams. Any quarterback outside the top 10 or so is considered 'bad' by most people. Assuming each team has a backup quarterback, out of the 64 'best' people in the world to do that job, only the top ten are so are safe from being called 'bad at their job' on any given Sunday. There's also a story about a UFC fighter who went 0-3, and people called him a terrible fighter. Someone from his hometown mentioned how he was the toughest guy in town and one day beat up 4 guys and 5 cops at a bar all by himself, and he was only a 155lb fighter.

wickawic 9y ago
You are proving the point though. Sure, there is variance among 64 out of the (say) 1000000000 people who could possibly be a quarterback. But most people could probably be in the top .1% of quarterback talent in the population if they trained hard for it. EDIT: I think I may have uncharitably read your comment as being argumentative instead of informative.

slavik81 9y ago

It's not just among the elite. I did some wresting in school and trained for 148lbs (68kg), but I guarantee I would lose to literally anybody in the 198lbs (90kg) bracket, even if they had never wrestled before. I also knew an incredibly good 97lbs (44kg) wrestler. He was technically much, much better than me, but I could throw him around like a rag doll so I always won. With weight comes strength. Any competition that rewards strength but does not penalize weight will end up dominated by heavyweights. Westling is particularly brutal as weight itself is beneficial for inertia.

pmoriarty 9y ago
"I did some wresting in school and trained for 148lbs (68kg), but I guarantee I would lose to literally anybody in the 198lbs (90kg) bracket, even if they had never wrestled before." Really? This runs counter to what I've heard from BJJ and other martial arts practitioners -- that a trained fighter could beat an untrained fighter in a fair fight (ie. no weapons, eye gouging, etc) using technique any day. You're saying that doesn't hold for wrestling?
- slavik81 9y ago
  I mean a heavy beginner wrestler vs a smaller intermediate or advanced wrestler. You would need to at least know the basics of the sport to compete without breaking the rules.

projektir 9y ago

Here's a difference for you where you don't need to even look at 1%: men and women.