That isn't a very good comparison. Lifting weights isn't a competition in the way that basketball is. I want to say the latter is more "zero-sum", but I'm not sure if that's correct terminology.
I would probably have fun shooting free throws with Steph Curry, even though I would be lucky to make as many as he missed.
That's more like the weight lifting you're comparing it to - the competition involves artificially choosing the other person as a benchmark, and I can work against whatever internal benchmark I want.
This is very different than a game of one-on-one, where it's his job to change how I interact with the ball (which he would, to the point of meaninglessness) and vice-versa (which I would fail at to the point of triviality).
It's not strange (or a personal failing) to find that less interesting.
" I would probably have fun shooting free throws with Steph Curry, even though I would be lucky to make as many as he missed." I think you're underselling yourself (or Steph) with it. He makes over 90% freethrows, which would mean - for the sake of your argument - that you'd be "lucky" to make more than 10% of your freethrows. I think you are better :) (sorry for this nitpick)
I had meant to restrict my weight lifting comments to the kind of weight lifting that goes on in gyms (what was being discussed upthread). And I have to confess I don't know much about those sports you named, but do the participants really interact with each other like they would in, say basketball or soccer? Maybe there really is a rule like "there are a finite number of weights, and each can be lifted by at most one person", which would be pretty similar to "there's only one ball, therefore only the player with the ball can score"? And therefore being paired with someone who vastly outclasses you wrt lifting weights will effectively render you unable to participate (by taking all the weights you can lift, similar to taking 100% of the possessions of the ball).
