Statistics, anyone?

If we’re a simple ‘normal’ population, your wife’s idea holds; there should be 1 in 1000 athlete in every 1000 people. to get a 1 in 1000 athletic performance with a 50% confidence you need only take 693 samples. So if many thousands have played, you’d expect to have seen peak performance.

But we aren’t distributed like that. Z score analysis of a measurable sport indicates a known top athlete like Usain Bolt is in the order of 5 standard deviations from the norm (depending what we consider the norm data set). That’s more like 1 in a million to one in 10 million to get a Bolt. Which implies millions need to try (and train) to get a Bolt level performance (3 humans in that tier so far, implies between 3 & 30 million have tried). So a Bolt seems to be reaching human limits, reinforcing the wife position position for that sport - we are approaching the human limit.

But wait - that is a popular sport, with a single simple measure. If there were multiple relevant independent measures (say hitting and pitching, or running and throwing), even just 2, the odds become astronomical of finding the best. A dual 1 in 1000 is a 1 in a million. A dual z=5 athlete is 1 in 12 trillion.

So the implication is that for more complex sports where multiple attributes apply, it is much more likely we have not yet seen peak human capabilities. It’s also much harder to measure and recognize when we do - so props to the legendary players, and keep searching for them. We won’t know how good they really were until we sample (play) the sport for hundreds or thousands of years. Finding peak is incredibly lucky/unlikely for our most popular complex sports.