There are no noteworthy significances
for athletes born under the sign of Cancer so there are no charts for Cancer in
I did look for significances. For
instance, I thought of a crab moving sideways, so I looked at medallists in the
Gymnastics Side Horse Vault competition. And it’s true that Cancer athletes are
good at it - but not spectacularly good. Aquarius scores higher.
Then I thought of the symbol for Cancer,
which is a pair of claws. Could Cancer athletes be good in competitions
involving two in a team?
So I trawled through all the
competitions involving pairs, doubles, duets, etc. I thought I had found
something significant, before I realised I had included the Rowing Coxed Pairs
competitions which actually have 3 in a boat, and when they are excluded, the
significance goes away.
Since I could not find any a priori
link, I looked to see if there was any group of competitions that had higher
than expected Cancer medallists. Then maybe I could see the association in
Ski jumping looked promising for a
significant probability but again it just failed the significance test. Anyway,
I can see no association between crabs and either skis or jumping. It would make
a funny cartoon though!
Then it struck me. Cancer was the
control in this experiment!
Here’s Wikipedia on the subject at
“A controlled experiment
generally compares the results obtained from an experimental sample against a
control sample, which is practically identical to the experimental sample
except for the one aspect whose effect is being tested.”
So, all other Zodiac signs are the
experimental samples and Cancer is the control sample. This reassured me that
all the wide variations from chance that I had found in the other signs were
real as I could not find even one that was meaningful in this control set of
Of course, a control would have to have
an average number of medals to be a control.
There have been 21,829 medals awarded to
athletes where we know their birth signs. Divide that by 12 and you get 1,819.
There have been 1,818 Cancer athletes who have had medals awarded to them.
Also, a control in which you are testing
several hundred competitions should, just by chance, have some individual
competitions showing the control to be significant, with one even at a level of
probability as high as 1 in 1,000. Two or more competitions at this probability
level would make one suspect that there was more than chance involved.
So, for competitions with more than 30
athletes being awarded medals, the minimum number that I considered fit for
testing, Cancer is significant at the 1 in 1,000 level for one competition – the
90m ski jump. Cancer is also just significant for the Epée
team fencing competition.
I can’t see a connection between these
two competitions - which is what you would expect in a control sample.