Originally posted by billeau2
View Post
Im going to try to simplify my argument. It is confusing. Here is the best that I can do:
1) Let us assume that genetics has two components, a long term process where undesirable traits are alienated from an organism through the environment, which is of course, natural selection, vis a vis what Darwin synonomously called "Natural Selection."
2) Now let us assume that in any given population there are different amounts of genetic variability that has nothing to do with the environment. Recessive genes, dominant genes, nutritional factors, pure circumstance.... For example, the mob had a meeting in Upstate New York and the feds caught wind...Some were arrested.
Lets say all the most brilliant mobsters were at that meeting and they all got arrested... There would be a huge impact on the efficiency and direction, the survival of the mob. Just as if all the alpha male saber tooths fell into the same tar pit... You get the idea.
3) Lets look at this variability carefully. You have general genetic characteristics BUT you are selecting for traits that are rare, and traits that are in ANY population of human beings, if we extend the population boundaries enough... Example: In Africa you have some of the tallest, most athletic people, they exist with some of the shortest, unathletic individuals. Because there is enough of a population with enough genetic diversity to have all types of traits.
Now this is important! If we go to Africa, select the tallest, strongest individuals, the real question is: Will these individuals be as strong, as able, as any other strong people from when we became modern human beings? In other words, given that whenever we are selecting athletes for a task we are taking individuals that are rare, does it make a difference if the general population selected from has more or less variability?
This has to be thought through... If we are looking for a rare genetic quality, how much of a population of human beings do I need to find it? In boxing there were always big and strong people. If the primary trait selected for in a fighter was strength and mass, I see no reason why these people could not have been selected from the general population. We even see very big strong fighters on occasion, most of them did not do so well historically until modern times.
So I am not saying that people were smaller or bigger, I am saying that the amount of people was such, that it would not make a difference if people were not as large on average... There were plenty of big strong people around IF THIS WAS WHAT WOULD MAKE A FIGHTER SUPERIOR.
Instead other traits were favored for a great fighter. And that is what was selected for: Traits like power combined with speed for one's size, endurance, tolerance to pain and adversity. Hence, trainers were looking for a different set of conditions then as compared to now.
Now with that said I hope this clarifies my position. I will respond to your post.
Your genetic arguments are not really necessary for your position because regardless of how and what genes are passed... In most human populations exposed to boxing there is a large enough amount of variability to produce the type of individual desired to be a fighter. Its just that what was desird to be a fighter has changed!
To say that athletes are bigger and stronger is a generalisation that applies to some sports and not to others. The reason for this is because we can produce certain changes well within the normal limits of genetic and operant (environmental) conditions. For example, when football players were shown how to create muscle failure on all the major muscle groups, in 15 minutes, then taught "football" the rest of the scrimmage, then given performance enhancers... Football players became much bigger and better.
The other factor for this is what has been discussed above: Because of the money and prestige, more very strong, fast athletes became football players. Football became, from being nearly a club sport in the arty donovan days, to the major income source for many Universities. Of course more athletes will play...football is getting more of the sample of big, fast, strong, men than it got before. Meanwhile boxing may well be getting less elite athletes... Because, when we take the samle of the best athletes, a lot more of them used to want to box than today. Is the sample bigger? another debate for another time I suppose.
Your last points about boxing I agree with totally. the training was also a lot more like real combat. And again... What was the ideal for a great fighter? that is what people were looking for, and it was not a guy who looks like a football player today!
1) Let us assume that genetics has two components, a long term process where undesirable traits are alienated from an organism through the environment, which is of course, natural selection, vis a vis what Darwin synonomously called "Natural Selection."
2) Now let us assume that in any given population there are different amounts of genetic variability that has nothing to do with the environment. Recessive genes, dominant genes, nutritional factors, pure circumstance.... For example, the mob had a meeting in Upstate New York and the feds caught wind...Some were arrested.
Lets say all the most brilliant mobsters were at that meeting and they all got arrested... There would be a huge impact on the efficiency and direction, the survival of the mob. Just as if all the alpha male saber tooths fell into the same tar pit... You get the idea.
3) Lets look at this variability carefully. You have general genetic characteristics BUT you are selecting for traits that are rare, and traits that are in ANY population of human beings, if we extend the population boundaries enough... Example: In Africa you have some of the tallest, most athletic people, they exist with some of the shortest, unathletic individuals. Because there is enough of a population with enough genetic diversity to have all types of traits.
Now this is important! If we go to Africa, select the tallest, strongest individuals, the real question is: Will these individuals be as strong, as able, as any other strong people from when we became modern human beings? In other words, given that whenever we are selecting athletes for a task we are taking individuals that are rare, does it make a difference if the general population selected from has more or less variability?
This has to be thought through... If we are looking for a rare genetic quality, how much of a population of human beings do I need to find it? In boxing there were always big and strong people. If the primary trait selected for in a fighter was strength and mass, I see no reason why these people could not have been selected from the general population. We even see very big strong fighters on occasion, most of them did not do so well historically until modern times.
So I am not saying that people were smaller or bigger, I am saying that the amount of people was such, that it would not make a difference if people were not as large on average... There were plenty of big strong people around IF THIS WAS WHAT WOULD MAKE A FIGHTER SUPERIOR.
Instead other traits were favored for a great fighter. And that is what was selected for: Traits like power combined with speed for one's size, endurance, tolerance to pain and adversity. Hence, trainers were looking for a different set of conditions then as compared to now.
Now with that said I hope this clarifies my position. I will respond to your post.
Your genetic arguments are not really necessary for your position because regardless of how and what genes are passed... In most human populations exposed to boxing there is a large enough amount of variability to produce the type of individual desired to be a fighter. Its just that what was desird to be a fighter has changed!
To say that athletes are bigger and stronger is a generalisation that applies to some sports and not to others. The reason for this is because we can produce certain changes well within the normal limits of genetic and operant (environmental) conditions. For example, when football players were shown how to create muscle failure on all the major muscle groups, in 15 minutes, then taught "football" the rest of the scrimmage, then given performance enhancers... Football players became much bigger and better.
The other factor for this is what has been discussed above: Because of the money and prestige, more very strong, fast athletes became football players. Football became, from being nearly a club sport in the arty donovan days, to the major income source for many Universities. Of course more athletes will play...football is getting more of the sample of big, fast, strong, men than it got before. Meanwhile boxing may well be getting less elite athletes... Because, when we take the samle of the best athletes, a lot more of them used to want to box than today. Is the sample bigger? another debate for another time I suppose.
Your last points about boxing I agree with totally. the training was also a lot more like real combat. And again... What was the ideal for a great fighter? that is what people were looking for, and it was not a guy who looks like a football player today!
Comment