"Why is genetics only third in line for me? Because I’ve seen so many truly gifted athletes not beat those with a very different gift: the ability to outwork their competition."

The fundamental premise seems to be that the psychological ability to work hard has nothing to do with genetics. Hmm...

In most cases that I've seen, the ability to work hard doesn't have anything to do with genetics once you get past predisposition to injury.

---

Swimming Workout of the Day:

Favourite Swim Sets:

2020 National Masters Champion - M50-54 - 50m Butterfly

I don't mean to be difficult, but how can you tell? It seems rather challenging to separate nature from nurture here, i.e. the role of genes from environmental inputs.

Wait, soooooo....one’s physical traits are genetic but ones personality / mental traits (work ethic, attitude, or mental disposition, let’s go sub conscious and talk about pain thresholds etc) is um....🤔. I guess that’s devine?

Unless you're talking about elite athletics.

Then it's 100% wrong.

I would have to say yes, I think that genetics might allow you to be physically capable of running fast, but without the choices being made to carry the training load necessary to coax out that performance, genetics is of no value. I believe that work ethics, pain threshold, mental disposition and the such are more individual decisions that someone makes and are not a result of genetics.

So by taking the opposite, are the children of lazy parents going to be lazy because of the lazy Gene and they can't do anything about it? Nonsense.

But only to a point. I could dribble a basketball for 24/7/365 year after year and never become a professional basketball player. That is a genetic handicap for me. If Michael Jordan didn't work hard and train hard, he would not of had the career he had somehow based solely on genetics alone.

Yogi Berra, "Baseball is 90 percent mental, the other half is physical".

Hard to separate the physical from the mental. If you don't have the physical tools it's even harder to get their mentally.

---

Indoor Triathlete - I thought I was right, until I realized I was wrong.

No, not only to a point.

As your examples alludes to, you will never be an NBA player. You cannot become an elite-level athlete without superior genetics. Just doesn't work.

You can do everything else perfectly, but without the genetics, you're just wasting your time if you're striving to be an elite/pro-level athlete.

I'm not so sure about that as i think the ability to absorb high work loads and get faster is indeed a genetic trait. Lots of guys can do big work loads w/o injury but some get overtrained and go slower, some don't improve and just stay stagnant, and then the talented few go on to much faster times.

---

"Anyone can be who they want to be IF they have the HUNGER and the DRIVE."

Reread the article. Towards the end, Dan specifically adds a note excluding elites from this whole thing.

Got anything else other than anecdote or op/ed?

---

no sponsors | no races | nothing to see here

Totally agree with you. There are reasons kids of top athletes tend to be top athletes. I know plenty of folks with great work ethics etc but with no genetics and will never be good. I do not know a top racer i compete against that has basically not been top there entire careers. Some can do well with hard work but they are the exception

---

Dave Campbell | Facebook | @DaveECampbell | h2ofun@h2ofun.net

Boom Nutrition code 19F4Y3 $5 off 24 pack box | Bionic Runner | PowerCranks | Velotron | Spruzzamist

Lions don't lose sleep worrying about the sheep

Read the first sentence of the article:

I didn't get that "genetics is overrated" as a blanket statement. He specifically mentioned "at the half distance triathlon" and also: "However, genetics are only important at the highest levels, and at younger ages."

???

Excluding elites kinda kills the whole exercise.

Yeah, I took it to mean that these 8 traits were all important factors for everyone, thus included in the original forum poll.

The actual article was defending why genetics only scored third...that most AGers just need the discipline to train more. Youngsters and elites benefit from genetics. Elites are tops on all 8.

So, not quite internally contradictory, but not too clear either.

Nonsense. My son is my spitting image in almost everything, including all the "soft skills" you mention. And its driving me insane, because I recognize how he's squandering the larger than average engine he has and the higher than average pain threshold because he procrastinates and decides other things are more important (today's anecdote: he needs to learn three songs on guitar for band practice. He procrastinates the entire fucking day, including spending an hour cleaning out his room of stuff he doesn't want anymore. That could have been me, 40 years ago).

The positive thing is that if he is really like me he'll eventually get it - just blowing his best/fastest years and the opportunity to for example race provincial XC championships like his (in my opinion) less talented, but more persistent friend.

---

Citizen of the world, former drunkard. Resident Traumatic Brain Injury advocate.

I don't think he could be more wrong. Genetics puts a ceiling on what can be obtained no matter how good your work ethic is. I really don't get the training partner thing either. I see it regularly: guys that train more consistently, with more volume, that are less injury prone, are younger, etc. that are just slower.

I also don't quite understand the distinction about distance. The ranking of amateurs seems pretty consistent at all distances. The guy that does a 1:00 sprint does a 2:10 olympic, a 4:30 half and a 9:45 full (when sufficiently trained and healthy.) Similarly, a 2:30 olympic guy is not going under 11:00 for a full.

I've experienced and observed the genetic thing for 30+ years. On the downside, I swam on a top-ranked team in my youth. I was as committed and dedicated as the guys breaking 4:20 for the 500, but I never went under 5:05. On the upside, I've managed to balance work, family and training and still qualify for Kona. But I wouldn't call 99th 40-44 year old that exceptional either. But the point is: there are plenty of guys that work harder, eat better, etc., etc. that will never get there. They drew the wrong genetics card.

If your goal is just to compete as an age grouper or non-pro ... genetics are somewhat irrelevant and it does come down to who works harder "AND" Smarter.

However, in the grand scheme of things ... genetics are "EVERYTHING" in the world of sports at the pro levels. Even average pro's would kick my butt in pretty much any cycling event training on a few hours a week ... while, I'm spending 17 hours a week on a bike. Their genetic potential is just that much superior than mine. Heck ... I get beat by local guys training 4-6 hours a week, just riding, and racing CAT 1/2, which is something I'll never be able to do, regardless of how hard I work.

I'd ask him ... if genetics are not key to athletic performance, I challenge him to some time in the weight room ... where, I'm way more genetically gifted than on a bike. Doing no lifting, I'm guessing I'm stronger than most triathletes, due entirely to genetics ... give me 6- 8 weeks of training and they wouldn't stand a chance (had a 455 bench and 600 squat in college, training in a less than efficient way and on a diet of chocolate milk and moon pies!).

Take a look at any sport and none of those athletes are there without the proper genes to compete at that level of competition.

It's the combination of both genetics and hard work that make people top in the sport. However, without the genetics to begin with you will never make it. You might be good, but never great.

It's always the people who have the genetics that say it's hard work that gets people over the top ... because they have the proper genetic make up to begin with, so it's less of a factor for them.

I do agree though ... some of the greatest genetically gifted people are sitting on couches playing X-Box and will never realize their potential.

It's gotta suck having all that parental pressure.... ;)

I don't think the distance or age matters at all, as genetic talent matters at all distances and all ages. Let's take a look at Dan's 10K example: assuming that 3/5 of 25 yr olds can run a 10K in 38:20, 1/5 slower, and 1/5 faster than 38:20. Since the WR is 26:17, it is a long way from 38 down to 26, going from a good AG runner to truly elite. Making the analogy to a half iron tri, you might say that 3/5 of healthy 30 yr olds can go just under 5 hr for a flat, non-windy half iron, but that still leaves the 1/5 who well under 5hr, the 0.1% who can go under 4 hr, and the 1/5 who can not beak 5 hr no matter how much they train.

Certainly, raw talent is far from everything since even the most talented have to work hard to develop that talent. "The Sports Gene" by David Epstein does a great job in getting this point across for multiple diff sports. Epstein ran track for Columbia, going 1:54-ish for 800 m, IIRC.

---

"Anyone can be who they want to be IF they have the HUNGER and the DRIVE."

I couldn't agree more.
By working hard I can place in my age group, but the top age groupers have a genetic ability I will never have.
I get at what Dan is trying to say, but how much is hard work vs genetics is splitting hairs.
Dan need only look at his 60-64 age group. The guys winning his (our) age group have been fast since our twenties and thirties. Doing well is motivational. Those that won races as kids liked that feeling and worked at it. Slow kids tend to find other activities that reward different skills. Only a few of us that were slow but had fun, stuck with it.
I ranked genetics second, but third on his ranking is close enough.

---

Team Zoot So Cal