Questioning the Underdog Hypothesis? An introduction

Why are we questioning the Underdog Hypothesis

The Underdog Hypothesis (UH) suggests that later born players benefit from greater challenge during development because they are training/playing with relatively older peers. Gibbs, Jarvis & Dufur (2012) when studying ice hockey stated ‘relatively younger players are thought to benefit by more competitive play with their older counterparts’.

It is used to explain two things, a. when relatively more later born players transition from junior sport into senior sport and b. if relatively more later born reach the highest levels in sport.

This series examines UH research.

For junior/senior transition the series suggests that relatively higher later born become professional because this transition is part of a slow RAE decline that begins when early RAE advantage no longer exists and that the over-selected early born start to be deselected at a greater rate than the late born, rather than via the UH.

The series also questions what evidence there is that relatively later born reach the highest levels in sport. If this is questionable or even a myth.

Perhaps the relationship between percentage of over or under selection is the main determinant of the outcome rather than the development process of enhanced challenge for later born. Perhaps this is the ‘Fall of the Top Dog’ and not the ‘Rise of the Underdog’.

Examining the UH, for which there is perhaps weak evidence, is important in the player ID and development space because the UH is often used as a reason for not addressing RAE, for which there is 40 years of strong evidence.

Series:

#1 Gibbs, Jarvis & Dufur (2012)

#2 Fumarco, Gibbs, Jarvis, & Rossi (2017)

#3 Ford & Williams (2011)

#4 McCarthy, Collins & Court (2016)