People are born with different genetic makeup presaging different levels of testosterone or strength or flexibility or stamina or relative effort to maintain equal performance. We don’t call for segregating sports based on how much a person lucked out genetically, probably because no one would watch FIFA: Category 2, or because many ignore or don’t realize the extent to which genetics plays a factor.
I do wonder to what extent existing sport segregation comes down more to audience identification than just stratification of ability alone.
Suppose in some hypothetical world having some a SPORT+ allele, possessed by say 30% of the population, turned out to be a major factor in performance in multiple sports. Would they segregate sport based on that?
I think the answer might hinge upon whether the people watching knew whether or not they had the SPORT+ allele themselves. An “alternative” SPORT- competition might gain quite a lot of spectators among those who have some background belief that if they had chosen differently they could have competed, or that their children still might. This would be even stronger if there was some pre-existing cultural distinction between SPORT- and SPORT+ people.
This ties in with human chess tournaments versus computer chess. Essentially nobody culturally identifies with Komodo or Stockfish, even among chess fans. Perhaps a few are like motor racing fans who support particular car manufacturer teams—but even then, they cheer for the people in their team much more than for the cars themselves.
I also think it’s more audience identification. Actually optimizing for that would give clearer game systems, though they’d probably be much more controversial. Like having sport categories consisting of “people that would inspire marginalized classes to see performing at the highest level”. But you know, phrased in a way that won’t probably ruin the whole thing.
I think it could also be more about dominance specifically. I can’t tell if this is actually true, but it feels like chess would be less popular/exciting if there weren’t one player clearly dominant over the others. There I don’t think it comes down to identifying, because having more equal players at the top would mean broader classes of people identifying with them.
I do wonder to what extent existing sport segregation comes down more to audience identification than just stratification of ability alone.
Suppose in some hypothetical world having some a SPORT+ allele, possessed by say 30% of the population, turned out to be a major factor in performance in multiple sports. Would they segregate sport based on that?
I think the answer might hinge upon whether the people watching knew whether or not they had the SPORT+ allele themselves. An “alternative” SPORT- competition might gain quite a lot of spectators among those who have some background belief that if they had chosen differently they could have competed, or that their children still might. This would be even stronger if there was some pre-existing cultural distinction between SPORT- and SPORT+ people.
This ties in with human chess tournaments versus computer chess. Essentially nobody culturally identifies with Komodo or Stockfish, even among chess fans. Perhaps a few are like motor racing fans who support particular car manufacturer teams—but even then, they cheer for the people in their team much more than for the cars themselves.
I also think it’s more audience identification. Actually optimizing for that would give clearer game systems, though they’d probably be much more controversial. Like having sport categories consisting of “people that would inspire marginalized classes to see performing at the highest level”. But you know, phrased in a way that won’t probably ruin the whole thing.
I think it could also be more about dominance specifically. I can’t tell if this is actually true, but it feels like chess would be less popular/exciting if there weren’t one player clearly dominant over the others. There I don’t think it comes down to identifying, because having more equal players at the top would mean broader classes of people identifying with them.