Natural Athlete

[Anonymous]

Stupid comments, who is the best female gymnast?
Surprisingly the best soccer players in a top teams are short or average size.
Every sport is different, yes to be a top athlete the first thing you need is discipline.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Stupid comments, who is the best female gymnast?
Surprisingly the best soccer players in a top teams are short or average size.
Every sport is different, yes to be a top athlete the first thing you need is discipline.

John Daly and his $10,000,000 in life time earnings disagrees

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Natural athletes more often than not have more LENGTH than most people. Meaning longer limbs than average athletes. Longer legs and wingspan is something that is looked at in the elite natural athletes. most people have a wingspan either equal to or 1-2 inches more than their height. The elite natural athletes tend to a plus 4" or more up to +10 in wingspan to height ratio. Its not sport specific its athletes across the board.

This is hokum as a general principle. There are definitely certain extreme attributes that are beneficial for specific sports but that is the whole argument AGAINST a ideal body type. The concept of a ideal athletic body type is outdated. Sports have their own very specific range of body types that put athletes in the upper extreme that gives them the advantage of being "elite" in their chosen sport.

NBA players are not only tall but yes, have longer wing spans in relation to the rest of population that shares their same height. Michael Phelps is another example of a extreme body type that in particular excels at swimming.

Elite Marathon Runners have longer, thinner legs than most normal people. Their torsos are also shorter than average.

When athletes get so fine tuned for the most elite levels this is why the whole "but our best athletes play basketball" fails to hold water. The actual best of the best in their chosen sport are elite in their chosen sport due in part to the very specific body type differences that give them an edge in those sports. Those advantages are not transferable across all sports. The attributes that make one person a great basketball may in fact be a detriment on the soccer field.

True to an extent, However a 5'7" soccer player with longer legs and a natural body composition of better fast twitch muscles is genetically disposed to possibly have the advantage over the same 5'7" player with shorter legs and less dominance of fast twitch muscle.

So much comes down to the advantage of DNA. You still have to work hard, But your DNA gives you the natural advantage if you chose take advantage of it.

Like other sports have their ideal body type soccer has its ideal body type. But, overall, outside of keepers, elite soccer players fall inline with a normal height distribution among the general population than do the other sports discussed. While professional soccer players may be taller than the general population, excluding keepers, the difference is not nearly as extreme as NFL, NBA etc. And with such a wide range of size in professional soccer it is really hard to hone in on particular measurables as a baseline.

Length is not the same as thing as height.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Stupid comments, who is the best female gymnast?
Surprisingly the best soccer players in a top teams are short or average size.
Every sport is different, yes to be a top athlete the first thing you need is discipline.

John Daly and his $10,000,000 in life time earnings disagrees

Love it^^^^ and proves talent is the most important part

[Anonymous]

Genetics first and greatest advantage great genetics that work hard is what you see in elite athletes.

[Anonymous]

Usain Bolt wouldn't make a very good lawyer

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Natural athletes more often than not have more LENGTH than most people. Meaning longer limbs than average athletes. Longer legs and wingspan is something that is looked at in the elite natural athletes. most people have a wingspan either equal to or 1-2 inches more than their height. The elite natural athletes tend to a plus 4" or more up to +10 in wingspan to height ratio. Its not sport specific its athletes across the board.

This is hokum as a general principle. There are definitely certain extreme attributes that are beneficial for specific sports but that is the whole argument AGAINST a ideal body type. The concept of a ideal athletic body type is outdated. Sports have their own very specific range of body types that put athletes in the upper extreme that gives them the advantage of being "elite" in their chosen sport.

NBA players are not only tall but yes, have longer wing spans in relation to the rest of population that shares their same height. Michael Phelps is another example of a extreme body type that in particular excels at swimming.

Elite Marathon Runners have longer, thinner legs than most normal people. Their torsos are also shorter than average.

When athletes get so fine tuned for the most elite levels this is why the whole "but our best athletes play basketball" fails to hold water. The actual best of the best in their chosen sport are elite in their chosen sport due in part to the very specific body type differences that give them an edge in those sports. Those advantages are not transferable across all sports. The attributes that make one person a great basketball may in fact be a detriment on the soccer field.

True to an extent, However a 5'7" soccer player with longer legs and a natural body composition of better fast twitch muscles is genetically disposed to possibly have the advantage over the same 5'7" player with shorter legs and less dominance of fast twitch muscle.

So much comes down to the advantage of DNA. You still have to work hard, But your DNA gives you the natural advantage if you chose take advantage of it.

Like other sports have their ideal body type soccer has its ideal body type. But, overall, outside of keepers, elite soccer players fall inline with a normal height distribution among the general population than do the other sports discussed. While professional soccer players may be taller than the general population, excluding keepers, the difference is not nearly as extreme as NFL, NBA etc. And with such a wide range of size in professional soccer it is really hard to hone in on particular measurables as a baseline.

Length is not the same as thing as height.

You better believe it. I’m much taller lying down than I am standing up. LOL

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Stupid comments, who is the best female gymnast?
Surprisingly the best soccer players in a top teams are short or average size.
Every sport is different, yes to be a top athlete the first thing you need is discipline.

John Daly and his $10,000,000 in life time earnings disagrees

True. Soccer is closer to golf than say American football. Soccer and Golf are both skill sports. You have to learn the skill first before most physical attributes are applied towards it. American Football is the opposite. You have to develop your physical body first in order to play the game at a high level later. Quarterback may be a slight exception to this, but most other positions are very low skill, including receiver. You can wait until high school to play competitively and still become a pro football player. This has happened many times. Even after high school people have picked up the game and eventually played pro. Basketball and baseball have a little more skill involved than football, but both are still very low skill compared to soccer.

[Anonymous]

If parents of past and current great athletes had read these comments and thought that due to genetics, height and size their children could not become elite, well likely we would have never heard of their children.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I see many times the term "Natural Athlete" being mentioned. What 3 traits best define this when you see one.

(1) Picks up the baseline skills of any sport she tries very quickly and easily. Would probably be able to compete at a high level in whatever sport she chooses.
Makes it look easy, whatever “it” is.
(2) Very fast reaction times.
(3) Loves the physicality of sport and has a competitive, athletic mentality from a very young age. the child who always wants to go to training and chooses to do more on her own time because it’s her favorite thing to do. This is underrated IMHO — you can have the first two, but without this, it doesn’t matter. I say this b/c I have one child who had 1 & 2 but not three, and one child who had all three, and the difference between the two of them was easy to see as they grew through adolescence.

The thread is about natural athlete but quickly devolved into opinions about elite athletes--many of these comments and posts are dumb, and this one is the dumbest IMO, especially "the child who always wants to go to training and chooses to do more on her own time because it’s her favorite thing to do." That has nothing to do with natural athletic ability and potential.

A natural athlete has tremendous potential and its often due to genetics: speed, reflexes, body type (aka other advantages that can't be coached/learned like height or balance etc); they can be competitive without having to train or learn as much. If they choose to train etc then they have the better potential to become elite in their sport. But the natural athlete has nothing to do with points 1 and 3 of that prior post. Ridiculous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I see many times the term "Natural Athlete" being mentioned. What 3 traits best define this when you see one.

(1) Picks up the baseline skills of any sport she tries very quickly and easily. Would probably be able to compete at a high level in whatever sport she chooses.
Makes it look easy, whatever “it” is.
(2) Very fast reaction times.
(3) Loves the physicality of sport and has a competitive, athletic mentality from a very young age. the child who always wants to go to training and chooses to do more on her own time because it’s her favorite thing to do. This is underrated IMHO — you can have the first two, but without this, it doesn’t matter. I say this b/c I have one child who had 1 & 2 but not three, and one child who had all three, and the difference between the two of them was easy to see as they grew through adolescence.

The thread is about natural athlete but quickly devolved into opinions about elite athletes--many of these comments and posts are dumb, and this one is the dumbest IMO, especially "the child who always wants to go to training and chooses to do more on her own time because it’s her favorite thing to do." That has nothing to do with natural athletic ability and potential.

A natural athlete has tremendous potential and its often due to genetics: speed, reflexes, body type (aka other advantages that can't be coached/learned like height or balance etc); they can be competitive without having to train or learn as much. If they choose to train etc then they have the better potential to become elite in their sport. But the natural athlete has nothing to do with points 1 and 3 of that prior post. Ridiculous.

Elite in a particular sport more and more requires measurables specific that that particular sport. Those measurables do not come into play until well after puberty. Naturally athletic can be applied to kids generically but post puberty if they don't trend towards the measurables that separate them from the general population within that sport they will never be elite.

The point with soccer is in regards to field players those measurables are more in line with the general population. This is a part of the attraction of soccer globally is that it is a tremendously inclusive sport even at the highest levels.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Speed
Agility
Strength

Coordination too. Body awareness.

My youngest is small for his age--now 13 and from the youngest of ages his eye-hand coordination was crazy ..hitting, catching, throwing long before other kids. He also was agile ---could pivot, twist off an angle, bob, weave and fast. He hit baskets with ease--ambidextrous with his feet in soccer.

He NEVER gets injured. He can play against double his size and weight and come out of a scrum unscathed and tackle hard, shield the ball. I don't know if there is anything to it ---but he has had incredibly good rhythm--dance naturally.

Older one is traditionally--more sturdy, big, strong, builds muscle (now 15.5)---but a lot of structural injuries---Osgoods, hip, groin, ankle, etc. that have had him out one way or another since he started growing. He hit a really big growth spurt at 14.5..and still going at 15.5. He's good at sports but slightly clumsier.

[Anonymous]

My brother's Dutch soccer Coach (former Ajax Academy player--U17 National team) used to say he could tell which kid would be a good soccer player by the way he walked. And he was dead serious.

He took to my brother---my brother ended up on full scholarship and going pro. He also pointed out several others over the years that had big success.

I started watching my own sons..and the one that is a natural definitely has a swagger, distinctive walk. So--I don't know if there's any truth to it--but I always found it funny.

[Anonymous]

Wife and I are not talented athletes. We have been told several times our kids are natural athletes. My definition of this:

Perseverance on and off the field/court

Ability to read the play and see the whole picture

Things just come easier. I could of never done the things my kids can do with the ease they do it. Some may say coaches are better but this isn't a coaching thing. They can pick up any ball and excel.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I see many times the term "Natural Athlete" being mentioned. What 3 traits best define this when you see one.

(1) Picks up the baseline skills of any sport she tries very quickly and easily. Would probably be able to compete at a high level in whatever sport she chooses.
Makes it look easy, whatever “it” is.
(2) Very fast reaction times.
(3) Loves the physicality of sport and has a competitive, athletic mentality from a very young age. the child who always wants to go to training and chooses to do more on her own time because it’s her favorite thing to do. This is underrated IMHO — you can have the first two, but without this, it doesn’t matter. I say this b/c I have one child who had 1 & 2 but not three, and one child who had all three, and the difference between the two of them was easy to see as they grew through adolescence.

The thread is about natural athlete but quickly devolved into opinions about elite athletes--many of these comments and posts are dumb, and this one is the dumbest IMO, especially "the child who always wants to go to training and chooses to do more on her own time because it’s her favorite thing to do." That has nothing to do with natural athletic ability and potential.

A natural athlete has tremendous potential and its often due to genetics: speed, reflexes, body type (aka other advantages that can't be coached/learned like height or balance etc); they can be competitive without having to train or learn as much. If they choose to train etc then they have the better potential to become elite in their sport. But the natural athlete has nothing to do with points 1 and 3 of that prior post. Ridiculous.

I did not post the comment you referenced, but I don't think it's that crazy. There is some research that suggests that the will to train and the tolerance and response to training has a genetic component. The book The Sports Gene talks a little about this. The book suggests that people with similar baseline skills might react differently to training - there are people who are above average athletes who do not improve as much and people with a lower baseline but a higher ceiling.