It made me think of the cheetah as an interesting counterpoint: cheetahs ended up with extraordinarily low genetic diversity through historical population bottlenecks, while thoroughbreds seem to have arrived at a similar narrowing through deliberate selection for performance.
In one case, nature forced the constraint upon the species; in the other, it is the consequence of optimization - a system moving from exploration to exploitation, getting ever closer to a peak while narrowing the number of paths available to find a higher one. In both cases, reduced variation may ultimately shrink the genetic “search space” from which the next breakthrough could emerge. Loved the essay!!
"This is the paradox of the thoroughbred: breeders have spent centuries trying to create a faster horse, but in doing so, they may have bred away the very genetic diversity that would allow the horse to keep improving, or even to remain robust."
Couldn't the same thing be said about humans? Have our athletes gotten faster from better training, better diets, better sleep?
Or have records been broken simply because athletes keep getting bigger?
A 6'4" runner will ALWAYS be faster than a 5'6" person, given equal ability and training.
The same applies to sports like tennis and basketball. Athletes in these sports are almost all significantly taller than they were 20-30 years ago. Yet they play on the same sized courts with the same height nets/baskets and of course, easily break past records set by smaller people.
Why shouldn't the baskets on a basketball court be higher than they were 30 years ago?
If TPTB don't want to change the measurements of courts and accessories, then perhaps a handicap system should be put into place. where say, basketball players have to wear extra weight for each inch they are over average? Then competition would be more equal.
>A 6'4" runner will ALWAYS be faster than a 5'6" person, given equal ability and training.
This is manifestly false. Taking the first 25 runners (men) from the World Athletics 2025 toplist (for the vast majority there is height data, though not all), we get the following averages:
100 meters: ~181 cm
400 m: ~183 cm
1500 m: ~178 cm
10000 m: ~172 cm
marathon: ~170 cm
While the sprinters are on the taller side, it still doesn't hold that taller is better like in high jump where the athletes are extremely tall.
I will also note that the difference in the average height between men in the US born in 1996 vs 1950 is +0.07 cm (177.13 - 177.06). According to ourworldindata.org:
IF the significant difference in height in tennis and basketball compared with far-off past of 25 years ago actually exists outside of OP's recollection, it is probably downstream of differences in scouting/selection. But that's neither here nor there.
My last point is that sports which unequivocally favor shorter builds (eg. singles figure skating) also saw huge improvements in the technical level at the top.
I would like to note that that you failed to engage with the argument.
You challenge me to go through a lot of effort to conduct a race which wouldn't change your mind (nor should it, a 1 vs 1 comparison like that doesn't have much evidential value for reasons that should be obvious).
In any case, athletics races are being conducted all the time. And if you, good Sir, are not blind either (or BLIND, if you prefer) you might notice the runners are not all the same height. If the benefit of height is as large and consistent as you claim, taller runners would finish faster and those with the very best times (like from the World Athletics toplist) would be very tall indeed.
If you take an average of those purported tall & fast runners, you would observe that said average would indicate a tall group. This is not what we observe.
On the off-chance that you are not trolling, would you consider telling me why you think my reasoning is wrong? Or why you believe what you believe about the effect of height on short/long-distance running?
Thank you for the very thought-provoking piece!
It made me think of the cheetah as an interesting counterpoint: cheetahs ended up with extraordinarily low genetic diversity through historical population bottlenecks, while thoroughbreds seem to have arrived at a similar narrowing through deliberate selection for performance.
In one case, nature forced the constraint upon the species; in the other, it is the consequence of optimization - a system moving from exploration to exploitation, getting ever closer to a peak while narrowing the number of paths available to find a higher one. In both cases, reduced variation may ultimately shrink the genetic “search space” from which the next breakthrough could emerge. Loved the essay!!
I think there's a typo here (the parens are supposed to end after 'species'). Feel free to delete this comment if you fix it or if I'm wrong.
"the equid family diversified into more than twenty genera (the subdivision above species living in woodlands and savannas)"
Too far east is west
"This is the paradox of the thoroughbred: breeders have spent centuries trying to create a faster horse, but in doing so, they may have bred away the very genetic diversity that would allow the horse to keep improving, or even to remain robust."
Couldn't the same thing be said about humans? Have our athletes gotten faster from better training, better diets, better sleep?
Or have records been broken simply because athletes keep getting bigger?
A 6'4" runner will ALWAYS be faster than a 5'6" person, given equal ability and training.
The same applies to sports like tennis and basketball. Athletes in these sports are almost all significantly taller than they were 20-30 years ago. Yet they play on the same sized courts with the same height nets/baskets and of course, easily break past records set by smaller people.
Why shouldn't the baskets on a basketball court be higher than they were 30 years ago?
If TPTB don't want to change the measurements of courts and accessories, then perhaps a handicap system should be put into place. where say, basketball players have to wear extra weight for each inch they are over average? Then competition would be more equal.
>A 6'4" runner will ALWAYS be faster than a 5'6" person, given equal ability and training.
This is manifestly false. Taking the first 25 runners (men) from the World Athletics 2025 toplist (for the vast majority there is height data, though not all), we get the following averages:
100 meters: ~181 cm
400 m: ~183 cm
1500 m: ~178 cm
10000 m: ~172 cm
marathon: ~170 cm
While the sprinters are on the taller side, it still doesn't hold that taller is better like in high jump where the athletes are extremely tall.
I will also note that the difference in the average height between men in the US born in 1996 vs 1950 is +0.07 cm (177.13 - 177.06). According to ourworldindata.org:
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/average-height-by-year-of-birth?country=~USA
IF the significant difference in height in tennis and basketball compared with far-off past of 25 years ago actually exists outside of OP's recollection, it is probably downstream of differences in scouting/selection. But that's neither here nor there.
My last point is that sports which unequivocally favor shorter builds (eg. singles figure skating) also saw huge improvements in the technical level at the top.
I believe my statement to be manifestly true.
I challenge you to conduct a race between two trained runners, one of 6'4" hight and one of 5' 6" height. I will be proven correct.
Averages and statistics collected under differing conditions are meaningless.
You would have to be BLIND to not see the difference.
I would like to note that that you failed to engage with the argument.
You challenge me to go through a lot of effort to conduct a race which wouldn't change your mind (nor should it, a 1 vs 1 comparison like that doesn't have much evidential value for reasons that should be obvious).
In any case, athletics races are being conducted all the time. And if you, good Sir, are not blind either (or BLIND, if you prefer) you might notice the runners are not all the same height. If the benefit of height is as large and consistent as you claim, taller runners would finish faster and those with the very best times (like from the World Athletics toplist) would be very tall indeed.
If you take an average of those purported tall & fast runners, you would observe that said average would indicate a tall group. This is not what we observe.
Sigh. welcome to the internet where there is always someone who will argue that the blue sky isn't actually blue.
On the off-chance that you are not trolling, would you consider telling me why you think my reasoning is wrong? Or why you believe what you believe about the effect of height on short/long-distance running?
I am the OP! If anyone is trolling, that would be you.
• Have athletic records and statistics in all sports improved significantly over the last 50 years? The answer is yes.
• Have playing field/court sizes changed (also including basket height, net height, diamond size, etc.)? The answer is no.
• Therefore, the the corollary must be that something is different about the athlete.
• What is different? Training, diet, clandestine drug use and clearly SIZE.
Why do you feel the need to argue about what is obvious? Do you just like to hear yourself post?
If you are looking for internet points, I award you with 10! Feel better now?
A fascinating read.
What a great read Sophie Fessl! I am looking forward to your next.
Perhaps flesh bending drugs are the new frontier.
"horses, zebras, asses, and donkeys" — um, "ass" and "donkey" are just different words for the same species.