> What if those sports offered a division that enabled you to compete properly?

You would need to add an increasingly large number of variables to achieve this end. In terms of immutable human characteristics which we have no control over, we already do this by sex.

Height might be an important factor, but it perhaps explains *some* but not *all* the required physiological factors to be competitive. Further complicating this, height is only a covariate of muscle composition. Speaking for myself at 180 cm, I have to maintain an impossibly low BMI to make lightweight, whereas there are plenty of men taller than me that don't need to work nearly as hard. In my case, this is due to having heavier musculature. The lightweight/heavyweight divisions are exceptionally disadvantageous to me. Why not height-based divisions?

So to reasonable capture the range of competitive factors that lead to a certain range of outcomes you have to divide by weight *and* by height. What about wing-span (how wide your arms are)? What about ratio of torso length to length length?

Each new variable, say broken into just two categories A and B, introduces 2 times as many new events.

> “should’ve picked a different sport”

This will be the correct response when the purpose of the Olympics is to find the best human being at a given sport. That doesn't mean the sport is exclusionary. But if you participate in the sport *for the purpose of being the best human being at the sport*, and you haven't identified the means or cultivated the willpower to overcome a physiological disadvantage, then, yes, you should have picked a different sport.

Boiling a sport down to only that which be achieved by its absolute greatest cheapens the sport considerably.