Nearly every sport except long-distance running is fundamentally absurd(slate.com)
slate.com
Nearly every sport except long-distance running is fundamentally absurd
https://slate.com/culture/2012/06/long-distance-running-and-evolution-why-humans-can-outrun-horses-but-cant-jump-higher-than-cats.html
19 comments
>No animal can throw a spear, or even a rock, more accurately than a human.
Not only accurately, but powerfully. Chimpanzees are much stronger than humans, but we can throw far harder thanks to different shoulder structures and muscle attachments.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jq6dCFCMGq4
Baseball (a sport I love dearly) has "fundamentally absurd" rules. You have to touch the base to be safe? If someone catches the ball in the air I have to go back to the base? but then I can run again? Stealing isn't against the rules? What on earth is a balk? Yet, since the sport revolves around throwing (even batting is throwing without letting go) and we're the best at throwing it's okay to play baseball? This article profoundly misunderstands sport and why competition is fun.
Not only accurately, but powerfully. Chimpanzees are much stronger than humans, but we can throw far harder thanks to different shoulder structures and muscle attachments.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jq6dCFCMGq4
Baseball (a sport I love dearly) has "fundamentally absurd" rules. You have to touch the base to be safe? If someone catches the ball in the air I have to go back to the base? but then I can run again? Stealing isn't against the rules? What on earth is a balk? Yet, since the sport revolves around throwing (even batting is throwing without letting go) and we're the best at throwing it's okay to play baseball? This article profoundly misunderstands sport and why competition is fun.
The dogs can only outrun the human in arctic conditions, as the article mentions. In warmer weather the superior human cooling system wins longer term.
The full relevant text is "Dogs can gallop for only about 10 to 15 minutes before reverting to a trot, and so their distance-running speed tops out at about 3.8 meters per second. .. Elite human runners ... can sustain speeds up to 6.5 meters per second ... Huskies can trot up to 100 kilometers in Arctic conditions when forced to by people."
I objected to the handwaving numbers.
Handwaving #1: 42.2 km / (6.5 meters / second) = 1.8 hours for a marathon distance. The 2 hour marathon has not been broken. Hence, the 'sustain' here is for less than 2 hours, and not the day-long sled races that dogs can do
Handwaving #2: The text implies that a dog trotting speed is 'about 3.8 meters per second' then uses 'trot' for Huskies which, according to the link I gave, are able to 'average 10 to 14 miles per hour during the course of a day'. That is 6.25 meters per second, or almost as fast as elite runners, and for a longer time period.
Handwaving #3: Sled dogs can race far longer than 100km. The Iditarod is about 1,000 miles (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iditarod_Trail_Sled_Dog_Race says "the exact measured distance of the race varies from year to year, but officially the northern route is 975 miles (1,569 km) long, and the southern route is 998 miles (1,606 km) long" and that the fastest time is 8 days, 3 hours, 40 minutes, and 13 seconds and 8 or 9 days is not uncommon. That's about 180km/day, not the "up to 100km".
From http://www.iau-ultramarathon.org/images/file/March_2012_Worl... we see that the fastest human times, is over 10 days - truly impressive!, but significantly slower than sled dogs.
I just realized that 'special circumstances' is also human-centered. Humans also require appropriate climate to get those optimal speeds, and the Yiannis Kouros's 10 day record is on a road, not cross-country through snow like what the dogs run in. From the dog's point of view, humans need a special circumstances - climate and well-prepared track in order to reach their long-distance efforts.
I objected to the handwaving numbers.
Handwaving #1: 42.2 km / (6.5 meters / second) = 1.8 hours for a marathon distance. The 2 hour marathon has not been broken. Hence, the 'sustain' here is for less than 2 hours, and not the day-long sled races that dogs can do
Handwaving #2: The text implies that a dog trotting speed is 'about 3.8 meters per second' then uses 'trot' for Huskies which, according to the link I gave, are able to 'average 10 to 14 miles per hour during the course of a day'. That is 6.25 meters per second, or almost as fast as elite runners, and for a longer time period.
Handwaving #3: Sled dogs can race far longer than 100km. The Iditarod is about 1,000 miles (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iditarod_Trail_Sled_Dog_Race says "the exact measured distance of the race varies from year to year, but officially the northern route is 975 miles (1,569 km) long, and the southern route is 998 miles (1,606 km) long" and that the fastest time is 8 days, 3 hours, 40 minutes, and 13 seconds and 8 or 9 days is not uncommon. That's about 180km/day, not the "up to 100km".
From http://www.iau-ultramarathon.org/images/file/March_2012_Worl... we see that the fastest human times, is over 10 days - truly impressive!, but significantly slower than sled dogs.
I just realized that 'special circumstances' is also human-centered. Humans also require appropriate climate to get those optimal speeds, and the Yiannis Kouros's 10 day record is on a road, not cross-country through snow like what the dogs run in. From the dog's point of view, humans need a special circumstances - climate and well-prepared track in order to reach their long-distance efforts.
Humans aren't the best living creatures at something, so doing it competitively or watching others do so is absurd? I don't believe that follows.
Only the most anti-social people on Earth would recommend we not have Special Olympics for handicapped persons to compete, improve themselves, feel good about the effort they put in and the results, etc. They're obviously not the greatest athletes in the world, but that does not detract from their efforts at all. I admit this is top of mind because of recent federal funding controversies.
Men's divisions generally have better numbers than women's divisions to my limited knowledge (I assume there are exceptions) but that doesn't detract from our enjoyment of women's divisions in the Olympics, nor does it detract from the accomplishments of great female Olympians.
Carried to it's natural conclusion, why does anyone watch lesser league play, like the minor leagues? Maybe because sports is about something more than proving you're the greatest at performing that task among all life forms on Earth.
(I hope my use of these groups of athletes to make the point, isn't interpreted as detracting from any of them in any way.)
Basically, I'm going to assert that the implied claim (that I am reading into the article) that any sort of physical competition is absurd if there are other humans or other forms of life who do things better than you, is ridiculous on it's face. I will continue to watch Olympic swimming, without thinking to myself "ugh, a dolphin would tear these athletes up."
Only the most anti-social people on Earth would recommend we not have Special Olympics for handicapped persons to compete, improve themselves, feel good about the effort they put in and the results, etc. They're obviously not the greatest athletes in the world, but that does not detract from their efforts at all. I admit this is top of mind because of recent federal funding controversies.
Men's divisions generally have better numbers than women's divisions to my limited knowledge (I assume there are exceptions) but that doesn't detract from our enjoyment of women's divisions in the Olympics, nor does it detract from the accomplishments of great female Olympians.
Carried to it's natural conclusion, why does anyone watch lesser league play, like the minor leagues? Maybe because sports is about something more than proving you're the greatest at performing that task among all life forms on Earth.
(I hope my use of these groups of athletes to make the point, isn't interpreted as detracting from any of them in any way.)
Basically, I'm going to assert that the implied claim (that I am reading into the article) that any sort of physical competition is absurd if there are other humans or other forms of life who do things better than you, is ridiculous on it's face. I will continue to watch Olympic swimming, without thinking to myself "ugh, a dolphin would tear these athletes up."
I don't get it - why does the fact that we're optimised for long-distance running make any other sport 'absurd'? Why is it illogical to practice something which isn't your strongest point against other animals?
Yes, your average rabbit can outrun Usain Bolt and an elephant can out deadlift the mountain. But we are also king-of-the-hill when it comes to hand-eye coordination and communication/teamwork which are essential components of many sports.
The author mentions that they are basketball fans, then goes on to compare the athleticism of Michael Jordan to a cat or a dog. And yet, any basketball fan can tell you that raw physical prowess is not the most important part of playing the sport. It's being able to help your team put the ball into the hoop more than the other team. That requires shooting, dribbling, passing and defensive skills while minimizing fouls and technicals. None of which any other animal could master.
Also, while Jordan was a great athlete, there have been even more freakish ones like Giannis, Spud Webb, Shaq, Wilt and arguably, Lebron.But why should being a freakish athlete be the measuring stick and not shooting like Stephen Curry?
Also, while Jordan was a great athlete, there have been even more freakish ones like Giannis, Spud Webb, Shaq, Wilt and arguably, Lebron.But why should being a freakish athlete be the measuring stick and not shooting like Stephen Curry?
The premise is as presented by the title is clearly ridiculous.
That said, the article itself touches on some vaguely interesting points. I enjoyed the image of early humans taking down antelopes through a combination of persistence and efficient cooling, and doing this often enough to sustain a species until it could develop tools and hand-eye coordination.
That said, the article itself touches on some vaguely interesting points. I enjoyed the image of early humans taking down antelopes through a combination of persistence and efficient cooling, and doing this often enough to sustain a species until it could develop tools and hand-eye coordination.
Much like many of the human endeavours in the article, the HN crowd similarly pushes gleefully into what its bad at without even noticing; the literalist interpretation and subsequent comments here are absurd, and oh so very HN :)
A cat might be able to jump to the top of the fridge, but basketball isn't about jumping. It's about putting the ball in the hoop.
I've yet to see a cat drop a 3 pointer.
I've yet to see a cat drop a 3 pointer.
Because we really, really need to run 25+ miles?
[deleted]
Eg, http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20140225-human-vs-animal-who... .
As such, the headline is an incorrect generalization of converting "humans are good at long-distance running" into "long-distance running is the only sport ability that humans are better at than other animals."
No animal can throw a spear, or even a rock, more accurately than a human.
I also object to the hand-waving about dogs. Long distance sled dogs average 8 miles an hour over the 1,100-mile Iditarod race." For shorter distances, sled dogs may average 10 to 14 miles per hour during the course of a day of mushing" says https://animals.mom.me/how-fast-can-dogs-run-in-dog-sled-rac... .
The objection in the article is that they are "forced to by humans."
However, the comparison with wolves and hyenas refer to the typical distance. The relevant comparison should therefore be to typical human travel distances, which is also in the 10-20km range for hunter-gather humans, as I recall.
Humans in a marathon are doing so because they want to. Thus, the third difference is that humans organize sporting events, which is not something that other animals do.