Proof of Evolution by Natural Selection in Sports

 

Proof of Evolution by Natural Selection in Sports

There was a time that the governing body of tennis was forced to limit the size of the racket. Players were playing with rackets with ever larger hitting surface and were ostensibly compensating for the speed of the passing shots – increasing their reach at the net. By using a racket of a larger hitting surface they were unintentionally advertising their weakness and broadcasting their inability to play the net game, this cynic says.

The ruling body of tennis was in a hurry not to let players of slightly older era to evolve and develop slowly the defence against the bigger rackets; the passing shot arrow in their quiver was being rendered ineffective. The regulators of tennis could have increased the size of the court, breadth-wise. No, that would eat into the revenue of the clubs that host the two-week long tournaments, the so-called majors, as they had to cram more and more courts over the years in the limited area made available by a Royal Charter or by municipal authorities.

From a perspective I employ, mostly unthinking, I will try to justify my judgement–evolutionary time passes at its own rate, unlike clock time.

Take volleyball. The height of the net has not increased ever since I started playing, in the 1960s. I was so tall that I could go across the net below it without crouching! The height of the top of the net has remained the same, depending only on the sex of the players and their age group. In the mean time, the height of the players has gone up–now, I am only knee-high for them! Therefore, I should expect more irretrievable smashes across the net.

This does not happen. The smash is blocked at the net or people have become adept at retrieving the same, I have seen the obverse of the palm slid under the ball in retrieving. The court size has remained the same. Rules of scoring have changed, but these affects both sides sans any bias.

What gives? Evolution, by natural selection.

Basketball has retained the basket at the height Dr. James Naismith nailed it, nearly a century ago. In the meantime, players have become ever taller, and none shorter than seven feet is almost unacceptable for the post players. The guards are no shorter than six feet six inches. I recall a player who was five feet eleven inches who could dunk the ball. That spectacle is off-limits to today’s audience. And, the scoring has not gone through the roof. Again, what gives?

Evolution, by natural selection.

Similar situation in competitive Table Tennis, the playing surface has not become larger and athletes are taller and can reach the net side almost casually, and smash a back-spinning return (as long as the ball has not crossed back).

It is one sport that seems to have accommodated some changes in the dimensions, not of the table (the area in which the ball is in play), but of the ball. Yet, this change was not in response to height and reach of the players but for the ball to be more visible to the spectators. How would this play out under the rubric, “Evolution by Natural Selection”? It would if you recognized that spectators are part of the competitive Table Tennis “ecosphere” (Oh, how I hate that word!).

Not to stretch this write-up unnecessarily, soccer, hockey and in some other sports (ice hockey, water polo), the target area (width x height) does not seem to have increased.

In swimming and track and field events, the World Records are inching up, surely, but by a few hundredths of a second until an Australian swimmer or a Jamaican runner does a smash-up job, but by merely two tenths of a second or so. These swimmers have a sculpted physique, yet ... 

Here, evolution by natural selection is not between competitors, at least in the first order, but between the winner and time; not Father Time, but record time. TV broadcasts take any race in which any Record Time (Meet, Olympic or World) is not bested is taken with a blasé “So what?” Almost the same with gymnastics.

Now, I come to a home–grown sport, IPL. Note that I did not say T20, the nomenclature indicating 20 overs per team. What is IPL noted for? The bowling side shall be (a business imperative) burdened with negative handicap! There is another write−up that is in the works that deals exclusively with IPL.

Here it is bringing up the rear, as an exception that proves my thesis. We have boundary lines that range between 59 m and 75 m. You heave the ball just about two thirds of the maximum distance allowed from the center of the pitch to the boundary marker, you are credited with six runs. Tut, tut ... Almost no effort and the biggest reward?

More to the point, it needs no big effort on the part of the batsmen as they are weight trained and have arms like the traditional stone grinder. The stouter side (at the bottom) is where the elbow is and the narrow end is the wrist side, if you didn’t catch the comparison!

This is what I mean when I said that bowlers are loaded with negatives, even before they start to bowl.

This has nothing to do with evolution by natural selection. It is, precisely the opposite, sudden and drastic change through artificial selection.

With that I have proved the hypothesis that is evident in the heading, with positive correlations with it, and the required negative correlation also, which proves the positive.

I am off to playing tennis with my single broom-stick thick arms. Bye!

Raghuram Ekambaram