what sport makes the best athletes?

[tocino]

I dismiss basketball out of hand for the simple reason that they never sustain. They burst, rest, burst. If you've seen them run up and down the court maybe 4 times in succession they're ready to heave their guts out on the floor. They may have skill, but they don't even come close to being world class athelets.

I have to disagree with this statement. a really fit team will be bursting all the time. it's not like you only sprint to each end of the floor and that's it. you're constantly setting picks and running through the key to get open or you're chasing someone on defense. fighting for position down low isn't exactly a picnic either. being tall AND coordinated is actually a pretty rare combination.

 

[Silence]

The muay thai guys in their homeland are pretty insane in terms of physical conditioning as well. One of my ex's older brother was an amateur savat champ or something or rather and he rained death down on me (he was 6'5"+ and I'm 5'10") every time I sparred with him. The *ONE* time I managed to get a good hook in, he happily exclaimed, "GOOD!" and proceeded to pound me into the ground.

The thing about competitive martial arts is that given that two opponents are equally experienced/skilled and have equivalent physical characteristics (no David vs Goliath scenarios), the one with greater endurance will most likely prevail.

 

[m_asim]

(he was 6'5"+ and I'm 6'10")

Sumi you have grown a lot!

 

[MrCrash]

MMA fighters. Tons of cardio, weights, fighting of all types, etc. At least until they get their asses beat too many times, then they turn dumb like retired boxers.

I talked with a friend of mine about this - she's been doing CrossFit for a while, and is currently training for her first MMA fight. It's her opinion that the striking aspect of MMA allows for some sloppiness that won't exist in wrestling, so she rates wrestling and gymnastics 1st and 2nd.

The CrossFit program identifies 10 measures of fitness - if you're in agreement with them, you can probably narrow down the options on the poll quite a bit:

1. Cardiovascular/respiratory endurance- The ability of body systems to gather, process, and deliver oxygen.

2. Stamina - The ability of body systems to process, deliver, store, and utilize energy.

3. Strength - The ability of a muscular unit, or combination of muscular units, to apply force.

4. Flexibility - The ability to maximize the range of motion at a given joint.

5. Power - The ability of a muscular unit, or combination of muscular units, to apply maximum force in minimum time.

6. Speed - The ability to minimize the time cycle of a repeated movement.

7. Coordination - The ability to combine several distinct movement patterns into a singular distinct movement.

8. Agility - The ability to minimize transition time from one movement pattern to another.

9. Balance - The ability to control the placement of the body's center of gravity in relation to its support base.

10. Accuracy - The ability to control movement in a given direction or at a given intensity.

 

[Silence]

Caught me before I fixed my typo!

And Miran...

 

[JMack]

soccer, no doubt

 

[Eldritch]

Swimming. Full-body muscular workout, combined with a brutal cardio regime.

Nah, no impact in Swimming. Water Polo on the other hand makes for an iron man, but as far as I'm concerned if you don't' take any hits, you're not a real athlete.

 

[Aluisious]

How do you measure which athlete is "best" anyway?

That said, I bet your typical MMA fighter is a lot better at basketball than your typical basketball player is at doing anything while getting kicked in the face.

 

[Motohaulic]

I talked with a friend of mine about this - she's been doing CrossFit for a while, and is currently training for her first MMA fight. It's her opinion that the striking aspect of MMA allows for some sloppiness that won't exist in wrestling, so she rates wrestling and gymnastics 1st and 2nd.

The CrossFit program identifies 10 measures of fitness - if you're in agreement with them, you can probably narrow down the options on the poll quite a bit:

1. Cardiovascular/respiratory endurance- The ability of body systems to gather, process, and deliver oxygen.

2. Stamina - The ability of body systems to process, deliver, store, and utilize energy.

3. Strength - The ability of a muscular unit, or combination of muscular units, to apply force.

4. Flexibility - The ability to maximize the range of motion at a given joint.

5. Power - The ability of a muscular unit, or combination of muscular units, to apply maximum force in minimum time.

6. Speed - The ability to minimize the time cycle of a repeated movement.

7. Coordination - The ability to combine several distinct movement patterns into a singular distinct movement.

8. Agility - The ability to minimize transition time from one movement pattern to another.

9. Balance - The ability to control the placement of the body's center of gravity in relation to its support base.

10. Accuracy - The ability to control movement in a given direction or at a given intensity.

Interesting. I do agree with those 10 characteristics. They cover all aspects of athleticism very well.

Per your other comment, I understand your freind's point of view, but only partially agree. I can see how the striking would let the wrestling skill-set get sloppy. However, if you use boxers as an example, for the striking argument, you still need (from list above) each of those characteristics to be good. On top of that, as MMA, you would still need the seperate and similar skill-set of a wrestler, which would need all aspects as well, but with more balance and strength for take-down avoidance, etc.

A plain striker would be (in my eyes) a boxer, and a wrestler would be WWF laughing j/k) but more Olympic or Collegiate style wrestling. So, in essence you may not be as strong skill-wise in either of the categories as an MMA, but you would have to have the overall fitness/athleticism from both, thus making you a 'better' athelete per the criteria above, IMO.

 

[Joebar4000]

Gymnastics/Martial arts.

All the others are too specific. Motocross would be close...

 

[Silence]

A plain striker would be (in my eyes) a boxer, and a wrestler would be WWF laughing j/k) but more Olympic or Collegiate style wrestling. So, in essence you may not be as strong skill-wise in either of the categories as an MMA, but you would have to have the overall fitness/athleticism from both, thus making you a 'better' athelete per the criteria above, IMO.

Your examples are pretty funny because boxing (excluding muay thai) is a crippled striking form and greco-roman wrestling (even freestyle) is a crippled form of grappling. All of them have been toned down to make them safe sports. Even still an MMA fighter is no more athletic or fit than a professional boxer or wrestler. It's the absence of rigid rules that eliminate the use of entire skillsets that makes MMA fighters appear to be better. The point about "sloppiness" allowed in striking is that due to the nature of striking and the great speed at which blows are delivered, there is a greater deal of luck that comes into play that determines the effectiveness of a striking blow. Slipping past a guard, being caught off balance/mid-strike, etc--everyone that's ever sparred has experienced this. On the other hand, when you're being worked into the ground by a superior grappler, you'll realize that there is pretty much no luck involved in grappling.

 

[Motohaulic]

Your examples are pretty funny because boxing (excluding muay thai) is a crippled striking form and greco-roman wrestling (even freestyle) is a crippled form of grappling. All of them have been toned down to make them safe sports. Even still an MMA fighter is no more athletic or fit than a professional boxer or wrestler. It's the absence of rigid rules that eliminate the use of entire skillsets that makes MMA fighters appear to be better. The point about "sloppiness" allowed in striking is that due to the nature of striking and the great speed at which blows are delivered, there is a greater deal of luck that comes into play that determines the effectiveness of a striking blow. Slipping past a guard, being caught off balance/mid-strike, etc--everyone that's ever sparred has experienced this. On the other hand, when you're being worked into the ground by a superior grappler, you'll realize that there is pretty much no luck involved in grappling.

My inital thinking was that because they are the most simple form of that type of fighting. I don't necessarily think they are the best type of fighing, merely the most basic of that particular style, for use in illustrating that a rounded fighter may have an upper hand athletically. I suppose you're correct though, that one type of fighter is probably no more fit than another. Their training is all similar and would make them pretty even as far the topic of the thread is concerned.

After reading your post I am realizing that I overlooked what would define striking. I (for some wierd ass reason) thought of stiking as only punching, but standup and exchanging kicks is also striking, which would lead to more kickboxing/muay thai style.

Based off of your earlier post, I think it's safe to assume you would pick a muay thai figher, or just a fighter, as the 'best' athlete? If so, then we're both sort of saying the same thing. We're both choosing a fighter (muay thai, mma, kickboxer, boxer) to be the most athletic. If they're all roughly equal in athleticism, then it really shouldn't matter what their style of fighting be.

 

[Eldritch]

How do you measure which athlete is "best" anyway?

That said, I bet your typical MMA fighter is a lot better at basketball than your typical basketball player is at doing anything while getting kicked in the face.

It's easy, you give them a complex a varied obstacle course, if you fail any stage of the course, you're killed. At the end, everyone left has to fight to the death. Whoever is left last is the greatest athlete.

 

[Eisernkreuz]

I figured wrestling would quickly die off now that there are socially acceptable places for homosexuals to grab each other in public, such as gay bars, sex clubs, and what not

 

[uhmeebuh]

Seriously - how can 8 faggots vote for soccer and only 3 manly men vote for rugby? Has the world gone mad?!?!

Soccer is a gentlemans sport played by hooligans - rugby is a hooligans sport played by gentlemen.

 

[Climber]

Seriously - how can 8 faggots vote for soccer and only 3 manly men vote for rugby? Has the world gone mad?!?!

Soccer is a gentlemans sport played by hooligans - rugby is a hooligans sport played by gentlemen.

I have yet to meet a rugby player that wasn't a hooligan.

Sure, many of them go to hoity toity schools, but that didn't make them any less of a hooligan.

 

[Valgar]

It's easy, you give them a complex a varied obstacle course, if you fail any stage of the course, you're killed. At the end, everyone left has to fight to the death. Whoever is left last is the greatest athlete.

Sorry Eldritch, as the mall-cam clearly shows, your years of playing D&D, Paranoia, and Shadowrun have clearly left you out of that final fight.

And judging by the size of that food-court 'neutral zone' pretty damned lonely...poor Eldritch

 

[planegray]

oh fuck...Eldy...is that you ?!!?




( I vote motocross)

 

[Bad Dad]

( I vote motocross)

Smart man!


I'm shocked by everyone voting for sports that have "bursts" of activity that last a minute or 2 followed by a minutes rest.

Btw, rugby is just wrestling while running.

Soccer? wtf? It's running a lot while kicking a ball every 7 minutes. Can't get much gayer than that.

 

[Arminius]

Aren't soccer players notorious for flopping on the ground writhing in pain, only to get back on the field and run up and down a few minutes later like nothing ever happened?

My choices were between boxers and basketball players due to their conditioning and fantastic balance and hand eye coordination.