4 ms·

"That is a far smaller pool of people" The population of England in 1801 was ~7.75M people (versus today's 53M). "For example, someone with the right super at

"That is a far smaller pool of people" The population of England in 1801 was ~7.75M people (versus today's 53M). "For example, someone with the right super athlete genes may never know it because all he does is sit around writing compilers." Very unlikely. Most people are exposed to a decent amount of physical activity as teenagers. Some "potential top athletes" end up never having a career as an athlete, but the kind of person who has the predisposition to be a "super athlete" at something like running a mile, can be spotted very easily among his/her peers while doing normal "school physical activities". Also, no one achieves extraordinary results without being highly motivated and training extremely hard on their speciality. That is something that people "in those days" certainly didn't do. Working physically hard in general wouldn't have helped them to achieve extraordinary results at specific events.

brudgers 12y ago
The 8 million people of 1801 England is more than double the current population of Uruguay. Uruguay has won twice as many FIFA World Cups as England. [1] This may be because its "super athletes" are often found on the streets rather than in schools and academies. The English sense of sport leads them to vilify ruthless competitors rather strive for their level of passion. Training hard is a way for a person to achieve their maximum potential. A person whose maximum potential is 140% of average and who trains to 80% of it will outperform someone whose maximum potential is 110% of average who trains to 100%. If the 110%'ers are winning it's a sign that access to the competition is limited. Fletcher was better than his peers and that is why he was given an opportunity, but that opportunity was reserved for him and his peers. Once people could make a living from track and field, English gentlemen mostly ceased winning elite competitions for largely the same reasons that they are disappearing from the world's top footballing clubs. [1]: And four fourth place finishes versus England's one. Uruguay's success has been consistent.

brudgers 12y ago

The 8 million people of 1801 England is more than double the current population of Uruguay. Uruguay has won twice as many FIFA World Cups as England. [1] This may be because its "super athletes" are often found on the streets rather than in schools and academies. The English sense of sport leads them to vilify ruthless competitors rather strive for their level of passion. Training hard is a way for a person to achieve their maximum potential. A person whose maximum potential is 140% of average and who trains to 80% of it will outperform someone whose maximum potential is 110% of average who trains to 100%. If the 110%'ers are winning it's a sign that access to the competition is limited. Fletcher was better than his peers and that is why he was given an opportunity, but that opportunity was reserved for him and his peers. Once people could make a living from track and field, English gentlemen mostly ceased winning elite competitions for largely the same reasons that they are disappearing from the world's top footballing clubs. [1]: And four fourth place finishes versus England's one. Uruguay's success has been consistent.