<p>I think we’re all missing a really key part of the set-up. What are the rules with regards to this confrontation? Said roommate can beat up Michael after 1000 years of training and leave him unconscious. Then, said roommate can hopefully make 10 shots.</p>
<p>No, he wouldn’t beat Michael Jordan. There are innate limits to how good your muscle memory can be, how athletic you can be.</p>
<p>
A lot of people are totally naive about how good pro athletes are … and MJ is the best (or darn close) of all-time.</p>
<p>If MJ is at his prime and played all out your friend would be lucky if he EVER got an uncontested shot off never mind score a hoop or actually win a game. MJ would be quicker, taller, longer, and faster … he would totally smother him.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>so what are you trying to say with this post? MJ wins or said roommate, or something else? And yeah, no punching allowed.</p>
<p>I agree with some of the others. Tons of practice means nothing. Unless your friend spends it researching how to transform his body and his genetic makeup, its useless.</p>
<p>Practice sounds great, but in the end you need athleticism and talent. Michael would win every time with no exception.</p>
<p>It’s possible to refine your shooting touch with practice, even if your athleticism is limited.</p>
<p>obviously you can refine ur shooting, but would it matter when a 6’6 guy who can jump insanely high is guarding you?</p>
<p>As I think about this even more, I think the roommate might win the first game with the trick shots he’s prepared (bouncing the ball between Jordan’s legs, long arc, shot over his shoulder, shot from lying on the court, etc.). But then he’d lose all the rest of the games, because Jordan wouldn’t let him get any of those shots any more.</p>
<p>Your roomate is clearly wrong. First of all there are many physical factors in basketball that Michael Jordan has that your roomate will never be able to overcome no matter how much he practices, height, arm length, foot size, twitch muscles, just many factors. This arument is kind of like asking if your roomate trained at swimming for 1000 years could he ever beat Michael Phelps? NO, these people are the greatest ever not because necessarily they trained the hardest which they arguably did, but because they were built for these sports. Sports is more a combination of Nature and nurture, but it really is more like if nature then nurture then greatness. You cant just nurture nurture nurture and expect to be great at a sport doesnt work like that, you need the physical base, even if I train for 1000 years there is going to be a limit to how fast I am, high I can jump etc, and your roomy will face those limits.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yeah. There are ways to get off shots that are nearly unstoppable. Assuming he has the proper means to learn the techniques, there are ways to get shots off against Michael Jordan.</p>
<p>Hmmm. What if, instead of Michael Jordan and basketball, it was Tiger Woods and golf?</p>
<p>He’d be preparing specifically to face Michael Jordan though, so after studying his weaknesses in addition to getting into top shape it should be possible as long as Jordan wasn’t doing the same.</p>
<p>Oh c’mon! This is a lot bigger than genes vs. environment.</p>
<p>First of all, you are all wildly overplaying genes in game like basketball. You say MJ has a lot of ‘genetic’ athleticism and talent, but I say that very ‘talent’ is in large part because of his countless hours of practice (including the exclusive practice afforded against hardened top oponents in pressure situations - aka not everyone can simply play in their backyard and have the same ‘practice’).</p>
<p>Has anyone here ever read Outliers? The book reveals that competence in activities such as playing hockey or playing the violin are based a great deal on “playing time” or practice. He studied these violin players at top school and found their ability was a direct correlation with how often they practiced and when they started playing. The “innate talent” thing was a myth. The book also showed a study where the overwhelming majority of pro hockey players were born in January, February, or March - since the cutoff for hockey leagues age-wise is January, kids born in Jan, Feb, March are the biggest kids (almost a year older than Dec kids) while they are very young, thus they are better <em>at first</em> - thus they get countless playing time throughout their youths. It seems practice is a lot bigger than individual talent like you’d like to believe.</p>
<p>Plus, this isn’t a question of nurture versus nature. It’s a question of super-ultra-on-unbelievable-superhuman-steroids-nurture versus nature.</p>
<p>Michael Jordan may have had 20-25 years of basketball practice behind him at his prime. And much of that wasn’t all day every day.</p>
<p>On the other hand, no human being has ever lived 1000 years, let alone be time-frozen at their prime age for that long. <em>And</em> he gets to have game tapes?</p>
<p>Provided your friend was motivated to practice all day every day for 1000 years, he would utterly destroy Michael Jordan. Completely annihilate him. They wouldn’t be even close to the same league. Of course, he’s also had 980 years of practice on Michael.</p>
<p>I mean think about the possibilities — your friend would probably be able to shoot 90% or something from anywhere behind the half court line.</p>
<p>After 1000 years of training, ur roomate would go completely insane and probably not even be able to stand the sight of a basketball.</p>
<p>Money’s on Michael</p>
<p>ok lets assume Micheal was in his prime at 27 and had been practicing everyday since he was 12 thats fifteen years of practice plus great genetics. Now, during Micheals prime he played agaignst many many many players in the NBA who were not as tall as him or as athleticly gifted, were these players better than him no, but they did score on him and keep him from scoring.</p>
<p>All of the less gifted and talented pros he played had probebly practiced for 15-20 years. No assuming your roomate is 6.2 and a slightly above average athlete with a 1000 years of training (lifting, plyrometrics, shooting, video, coaching ect) he would become a very good athlete, mayble not an athletite at the extreme right corner of the graph but still very good. He would also have a mastery of basketball almost unimagnable greater than any human being has of any given activity. He would more than make up for the 4 inches he lacked and all his other athletic deficits. </p>
<p>Now in the game Micheal Jordan would play and score yet your roomate would almost certanly win.</p>
<p>Everyone is making an assumption that 1000 years of practice means 1000 years of improvement. That may not be the case–there may be a plateau that a person would reach, and after that his ability to improve any more might be minimal, limited by his genetic potential.</p>
<p>Change it to a better example, like Michael Phelps, who’s literally a mutant. Double jointed ankles, large feet, and longer arms than would be normal in proportion.</p>
<p>Nature can overcome nurture for many things. Tell your room-mate to take a course on genetics (or even intro-psych).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I haven’t taken either of those courses but my educated guess is that neither goes over basketball very much.</p>
<p>Swimming is not the same as basketball, because it’s arguably not a sport or a skill really but just athleticism, like running or weightlifting. There is no mental aspect involved really, besides will power.</p>
<p>^ Take an intermediate level swimming class taught by a preliminary round Olympic finalist and you’ll be thinking a lot differently about swimming not being a skill or a sport.</p>