
Nearly every sport except long-distance running is fundamentally absurd - fanf2
https://slate.com/culture/2012/06/long-distance-running-and-evolution-why-humans-can-outrun-horses-but-cant-jump-higher-than-cats.html
======
eesmith
The author omitted that humans are the best animals at throwing.

Eg, [http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20140225-human-vs-animal-
who...](http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20140225-human-vs-animal-who-throws-
best) .

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...](https://animals.mom.me/how-fast-can-dogs-run-in-dog-sled-
races-3170546.html) .

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.

~~~
nn3
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.

~~~
eesmith
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](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...](http://www.iau-
ultramarathon.org/images/file/March_2012_World_Best_Performances.pdf) 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.

------
jgowdy
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."

~~~
jl2718
Paralympics

~~~
jgowdy
Thank you!

------
chrisseaton
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?

------
KnightOfWords
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.

------
86carr
This article is fundamentally absurd

~~~
EliRivers
It is, deliberately so. Yet I can almost feel people taking it seriously.

------
goatlover
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?

------
jddj
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.

------
EliRivers
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 :)

------
jmull
Well, cats and dogs can out-jump Michael Jordan and any other human, but they
can't handle the ball!

As far as I'm aware, Gus is the only animal who's been successful at the
professional level.

~~~
huffmsa
You know, there's nothing in the rulebook saying a dog can't play...

------
huffmsa
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.

------
cafard
Because we really, really need to run 25+ miles?

