>Julius Erving was an artist, 100%. His accomplishments are not
>locked to but cannot be separated from his physical features.
>Basketball is an arbitrary game which favors certain features
>over others. If you don't have the height, you have bigger
>odds to overcome against 7 footers. Shorter players play a
>different game and put up numbers and stats just as impressive
>as Erving's. Would Erving perform as well today as he did back
>then? Do you think it can it be argued that shorter players
>are more "talented" in a league that is dominated by taller
>players because they can hang with the big guys?

I don't think it's "arbitrary" and there are a lot of different ways in which one could have talent, including physical gifts like height, build, size of hands, etc, along with stuff like speed, strength and coordination.

Yes I think Erving could compete today without question and no I don't think he played in an era where guys were especially small. They didn't lift weights and shit like today, but obviously he would have modern training and injury prevention available to him.

The point is that he had a ton of talent that was very rare and without it there is no way he could have accomplished all he did. Yes, there are ways he could have accomplished much less despite his talent, but that doesn't mean it didn't *exist*

>On the flip side, there are sports which favor shorter frames
>over tall ones. So, yeah, if you don't have Erving's physical
>features, you probably won't be able to come close to his
>accomplishment with basketball, but there are instances where
>he won't be able to hang with you, depending on what you
>choose to play, and which features the game favors. Basketball
>is not a measure of universal human skill.

There is no sport, absolutely none, where I could develop the same level of aptitude as Dr J. There have been a good number of professional basketball players with my same height, I wouldn't say that is what is stopping me. There are tons of people in other sports like hockey and football that are my size. The bottom line is that I just do not have the athletic ability, the *talent* to be a professional in any sport. That is true of the overwhelming majority of people.

>>you could dedicate your life to playing the piano. you will
>>never be bach.
>
>Why not? If Mozart believed that, where would he be? or
>Beethoven? or Chopin? Olympic records fall every year, and
>genius is always realized over and over again by people who
>have the same starting point as you or I. the key is not
>physical attributes but what you do with them.

Yeah, those guys (Mozart, Chopin, et al) and the record holders all had *talent*, too. That is what I am trying to say here, you can work until your fingers bleed and your brain falls out, if you don't have the talent to succeed, it ain't gonna happen.