The observation is that your success is based on your history.... Growing up in big breeze means that you will be a good big breeze sailor... OR vice versa... growing up sailing light air equals a light air sailor. So, this is basically a trivial observation.

The key question is.. How much time on the water and coaching are needed to compensate for the lack of experience and skill for US sailors who don't train in much breeze. And can you go both ways with this.

I have no idea where the US Team encamped for Weymouth.... Clearly it did not work. So far ... our track record stinks at this game.

So... Do you conclude that it takes too long to get the heavy air skills up to world class standards? Is it even possible to turn a weakness into a strength in a quad?
I don't know.

Of course, the US tends to focus exclusively on the next Olympic venue... Generally, these events are supposed to be light air venues.. and so Miami was deemed the right location for a training center. This is an example of working on your strength... not working on your weakness.
Rio is supposed to be a light air venue... Do you make the case that all the US has to do is qualify the country in the heavy air EU events ,... you don't have to actually win events there... So, Continue to train for your strength the light air venue of Rio.

I don't think there are easy answers on this one.
Personally, I think that time in the Olympic sailing style from a young age is fundamental to success... Then you work on your weaknesses and maintain your strengths.

The first year of results for the two new classes Woman's skiffs and N17s could shed some light on this issue of sailing background and how it matches up to performance results in breeze or light air.