I think that there are two distinct ways of looking at the game (any game, really), i.e., skill vs. brawn.
that is an interesting point. at the same time, it is imperative for the natively skilled to become brawnier, and for the natively brawny to become more skillful. and these things (their definitions) evolve over time...
Every sport has had brilliant examples of each: Rod Laver and Ivan Lendl
Laver was before my time, but i think Lendl is a good example of how skill/brawn can evolve. he was the first player to have what i would call a modern approach to fitness and training. he was in fact quite skilled, but his acquired endurance set him apart from other players of the time who didn't train as hard. nowadays, the Lendl level of fitness is just a starting point, and people couldn't get away being in the lousy shape of many players in the 70s and early 80s (not to mention the days when Laver played).
however, sometimes brawn evolves to the point in a game where it obviates skill. that is what happens when you have one guy on the b-ball court who has 120 lbs of muscle more than the next guy and can dunk at will. or when you have some 6-6" guy with a 140-mph serve but no backcourt game go out and make the quarters or semis of a grandslam tournament. when those things happen, i think it's time to rejigger the rules of the game back in favor of skill.
De gustibus, non disputandum est.
latin is even more b4 my time, but i guess this is like, to each his own? |
