Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="connie, post: 3103747, member: 7882"] I think this way of framing the issue misses a critical component--that is, [I]whether overall performance improves across all participants[/I]. To see the point, consider a 3rd grade class of children with a class average of 92 on spelling tests over the course of a semester. Depending on the facts, this [I]could [/I]reflect tests are so easy that even children of lesser ability are able to achieve high. scores. Conversely, it [I]could [/I]reflect excellent performance by children of exceptional intelligence on tests that are exceedingly difficult. In both cases, one sees a kind of parity across the class. In athletics, "excellence" in performance has subjective as well as objective components. But both components reflect the limitations of what is humanly possible. Consider the women's deadlift. The record is 694 pounds. Will any women ever be able to deadlift 2000 pounds? Obviously not. How about 1000 pounds? Almost certainly no. How about 800 pounds? Probably not; but who knows? 750 pounds? Possibly. 725? 700? As among those women at the top of their sport who compete in the deadlift, it is reasonable to assume that the [I]average[/I] deadlift will continue to increase as performance ability approaches the wall of what is humanly possible, while the differences between competitor performance shrinks. In this respect, the "class average" may well be "C". But it hardly follows that there is mediocrity among class members (that is, unless we define "mediocre" in the narrowest sense as meaning "average"). If what we want among the best athletes is the best that can possibly be achieved given the limits of flesh and blood, then the tendency toward parity is invariably a necessary outcome. In that respect, we would certainly want a tendency toward parity. [/QUOTE]

Verification: First name of men's bb coach

Forum statistics

Threads: 164,410

Messages: 4,394,918

Members: 10,208

Latest member: jskwrite