doug in co wrote:
The study was reproduced quite recently, with identical results. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/17461391.2020.1824020?journalCode=tejs20 The summary is disappointing because it just says that no coaching characteristic made a difference. It doesn't say how well they did generally. (E.g. maybe they all got perfect scores, and that's why coaching characteristics didn't help).
That could presumably all be easily cleared up in the full text, which I couldn't immediately get at.
n=1 I think I'm great at it! My case study was I showed up at a local, small-time triathlon like 15 years ago, thinking I might do well overall. As I parked, pre-dawn, I saw a flash out of the corner of my eye of someone running to warm up. And in that instant I knew I was not going to win the overall. Sure enough, I look around at the swim start, and there's Chris McCormack, who decided to show up at a little local triathlon...
Edit: Of course I wasn't estimating "economy" or scientific things. Just "baller." It's pretty easy, I think, to recognize baller runners or swimmers. Cycling is much harder.