Coronavirus Sars-CoV-2/Covid-19 Megathread

[The Larch]

I don't love cycling. 

[celedhring]

Cycling is also boring except the mountain climbing and the time trials.

Motorsports are nearly always boring. 

[The Larch]

And cycling, instead of being decided by who has the best engineers and mechanics, is decided by who has the best doctors and pharmacists. 

[crazy canuck]

For example, if you have played poker against a skilled player, the physical skills involved in the bluff are obvious after you know it was a bluff.

What are those physical skills?

The ability to control all of your natural non verbal cues. 

[Barrister]

My beef with motor sports (besides the fact that they're atrociously boring) is that success many times is far too dependent on the mechanical side rather than in the skill side. Gear will always have an effect, but in this case it's way too much. I believe some competitions make participants all use the same kind of vehicle, I see that as much more egalitarian, so to speak. I know they require a level of physical skill, fitness and extertion, but I doubt it's a real deal-breaker for success (setting myself up for failure here  ).

It's gear plus skill.  Obviously the best driver in the world won't win with a slow car, but even driving the best car in the world you won't win without a huge amount of skill.

I find it boring too, but I don't doubt that drivers have to be enormously talented.

[crazy canuck]

They're not my cup of tea, but motor sports are absolutely sports.  I understand it's very physically demanding to be behind the wheel.

You can make a distinction between sports that require physical fitness in order to perform at your peak, and sports where performance directly depends on physical attributes.  In the first category, most everyone can get fit enough to the point that it's no longer a factor in performance.  In the second category, you may just be out of luck if you didn't win the genetic lottery.  Motorsports is probably somewhere in the middle; some physical demands are merely fitness-related, but then things like reaction times and spatial awareness you're born with.  Poker and chess are probably solidly in the first category.

I don't know what you would categorize as a sport which requires physical fitness vs one which requires physical attributes.

Where for example would marathon running appears to be in your first category.  That sport is all about being the most fit.   If you assert that most everyone can become fit enough for a sport which relies entirely on fitness then surely most of us should be able to become world class marathon runners?

Where your logic breaks down is you significantly underestimate how much is involved in becoming a fit athlete.

[crazy canuck]

My beef with motor sports (besides the fact that they're atrociously boring) is that success many times is far too dependent on the mechanical side rather than in the skill side. Gear will always have an effect, but in this case it's way too much. I believe some competitions make participants all use the same kind of vehicle, I see that as much more egalitarian, so to speak. I know they require a level of physical skill, fitness and extertion, but I doubt it's a real deal-breaker for success (setting myself up for failure here  ).

It's gear plus skill.  Obviously the best driver in the world won't win with a slow car, but even driving the best car in the world you won't win without a huge amount of skill.

I find it boring too, but I don't doubt that drivers have to be enormously talented.

If the determining factor is skill then how is chess ruled out?

[Valmy]

Well if Poker can appear on sports channels I guess chess can to 

[DGuller]

For example, if you have played poker against a skilled player, the physical skills involved in the bluff are obvious after you know it was a bluff.

What are those physical skills?

The ability to control all of your natural non verbal cues.

Many of the younger generation professional poker players mock the general public's preoccupation with physical tells.  I'm not sure I completely agree with them, but maybe against competent players they have a point.  In my experience tells are only useful against people who think that tells are important, and think they're being clever by reversing them.

[Barrister]

They're not my cup of tea, but motor sports are absolutely sports.  I understand it's very physically demanding to be behind the wheel.

You can make a distinction between sports that require physical fitness in order to perform at your peak, and sports where performance directly depends on physical attributes.  In the first category, most everyone can get fit enough to the point that it's no longer a factor in performance.  In the second category, you may just be out of luck if you didn't win the genetic lottery.  Motorsports is probably somewhere in the middle; some physical demands are merely fitness-related, but then things like reaction times and spatial awareness you're born with.  Poker and chess are probably solidly in the first category.

I don't know what you would categorize as a sport which requires physical fitness vs one which requires physical attributes.

Where for example would marathon running appears to be in your first category.  That sport is all about being the most fit.   If you assert that most everyone can become fit enough for a sport which relies entirely on fitness then surely most of us should be able to become world class marathon runners?

Where your logic breaks down is you significantly underestimate how much is involved in becoming a fit athlete.

I think that marathon running is clearly in DG's second category.  Everyone (well almost everyone) could train hard enough and be able to run a marathon - but in order to compete at a high level you need some innate talent.

Contrast that to one of my favourite sports - curling.  Now there is definitely more strength and fitness than you'd think is involved in curling.  Those 40 pound rocks don't move themselves, and sweeping is a lot more hard work than it looks.  But the difference between a great curler and a merely average curler has nothing to do with how fit they are.

[DGuller]

They're not my cup of tea, but motor sports are absolutely sports.  I understand it's very physically demanding to be behind the wheel.

You can make a distinction between sports that require physical fitness in order to perform at your peak, and sports where performance directly depends on physical attributes.  In the first category, most everyone can get fit enough to the point that it's no longer a factor in performance.  In the second category, you may just be out of luck if you didn't win the genetic lottery.  Motorsports is probably somewhere in the middle; some physical demands are merely fitness-related, but then things like reaction times and spatial awareness you're born with.  Poker and chess are probably solidly in the first category.

I don't know what you would categorize as a sport which requires physical fitness vs one which requires physical attributes.

Where for example would marathon running appears to be in your first category.  That sport is all about being the most fit.   If you assert that most everyone can become fit enough for a sport which relies entirely on fitness then surely most of us should be able to become world class marathon runners?

Where your logic breaks down is you significantly underestimate how much is involved in becoming a fit athlete.

I guess the difference is in what factor limits you first.  If you're a marathon runner, the physical limit to which you can train up your endurance to is what ultimately limits you.  If you're a chess player, then ultimately your chess prowess is what limits you.  Poor fitness can lead to you making mental errors and not performing up to your chess prowess, but you can't work your way to beating Kasparov just by hitting the gym for more hours.

[celedhring]

Well if Poker can appear on sports channels I guess chess can to 

They just need to get people to gamble on it.

[crazy canuck]

For example, if you have played poker against a skilled player, the physical skills involved in the bluff are obvious after you know it was a bluff.

What are those physical skills?

The ability to control all of your natural non verbal cues.

Many of the younger generation professional poker players mock the general public's preoccupation with physical tells.  I'm not sure I completely agree with them, but maybe against competent players they have a point.  In my experience tells are only useful against people who think that tells are important, and think they're being clever by reversing them.

Ok, tell you what, if you know guys who cannot control showing that they have good or shitty hands, let me know when they are playing.  I know some guys who would love to sit in on those games.

[Valmy]

Well if Poker can appear on sports channels I guess chess can to 

They just need to get people to gamble on it.

I have 50 bucks on...that Russian guy!

[crazy canuck]

They're not my cup of tea, but motor sports are absolutely sports.  I understand it's very physically demanding to be behind the wheel.

You can make a distinction between sports that require physical fitness in order to perform at your peak, and sports where performance directly depends on physical attributes.  In the first category, most everyone can get fit enough to the point that it's no longer a factor in performance.  In the second category, you may just be out of luck if you didn't win the genetic lottery.  Motorsports is probably somewhere in the middle; some physical demands are merely fitness-related, but then things like reaction times and spatial awareness you're born with.  Poker and chess are probably solidly in the first category.

I don't know what you would categorize as a sport which requires physical fitness vs one which requires physical attributes.

Where for example would marathon running appears to be in your first category.  That sport is all about being the most fit.   If you assert that most everyone can become fit enough for a sport which relies entirely on fitness then surely most of us should be able to become world class marathon runners?

Where your logic breaks down is you significantly underestimate how much is involved in becoming a fit athlete.

I think that marathon running is clearly in DG's second category.  Everyone (well almost everyone) could train hard enough and be able to run a marathon - but in order to compete at a high level you need some innate talent.

Contrast that to one of my favourite sports - curling.  Now there is definitely more strength and fitness than you'd think is involved in curling.  Those 40 pound rocks don't move themselves, and sweeping is a lot more hard work than it looks.  But the difference between a great curler and a merely average curler has nothing to do with how fit they are.

So now we are talking about something we are going to call an "innate skill" to perform at a high level.  Aside from the fact that that is meaningless dodge - how would one separate out the "innate skill" of being a master at anything.