I’m involved in a heated ongoing debate with a good friend of mine who Coaches Basketball at the College level. He maintains that the best athletes in the world are Basketball players.
Now don’t get me wrong, I have a ton of respect for those who can really play the game. They are strong, fast, agile can jump etc.
But to say that they are the BEST athletes in the world is simply not true in my opinion.
I also it’s difficult to compare “apples to oranges” but it is for fun…
So…I turn to my T-Nation brothers to give me some ammunition.
Do you think my friend is correct?
If not…
how about a short list of athletes that you would place higher than B’ ball players?
And if you could give the reasons why, that would be quite helpful.
But quite frankly, what his criteria for saying they are the best? A football quarterback also needs agility, speed, power and strenght, in no particular order. Same for a hockey player, although in these two cases, the duration of the effort is not the same as in basketball.
No, I don’t think they are and I don’t think they’re really even close actually.
In terms of overall anaerobic athleticism, I think American football players are the highest as a group. The combination, of strength, speed, jumping ability and anaerobic endurance is really unmatched by any other sport.
Olympic weightlifters I’m sure are way up there and you could easily make a case that they are the best athletes, although they have very little endurance of any sort to speak of. Track and field sprinters, jumpers or throwers could also be considered.
Most basketball players are really not THAT athletic when compared to other elite athletes.
In terms of overall anaerobic athleticism, I think American football players are the highest as a group. The combination, of strength, speed, jumping ability and anaerobic endurance is really unmatched by any other sport.
[/quote]
I agree with this. If I was looking for an athlete that could run fast, who is very strong and could maintain that effort for more than short bursts, I would look to a football field.
When it comes to Team sport, I’d say Basketball players are the most well-rounded, physically capable, diverse and functional athletes. They might not be the best or most elite at various specific tasks, and in the greater sense of athleticism, they might not stand up to some tests. But overall, they really have a lot going for them.
Stamina comparable to a soccer player, strength comparable to a football player, coordination comparable to a hockey player, plus the ability to jump AND to maneuver a very small field of play.
While all these things might be lesser than their counterparts, their counterparts are less likely to have as high levels of all those things.
When it comes to highly specialized sports, olympic level, basketball players don’t even compete. But as far as a very broad look of athleticism, especially with team sports. I’d place basketball players pretty much at the top, although, football players are close, and are in some views superior.
In terms of overall anaerobic athleticism, I think American football players are the highest as a group. The combination, of strength, speed, jumping ability and anaerobic endurance is really unmatched by any other sport.
I agree with this. If I was looking for an athlete that could run fast, who is very strong and could maintain that effort for more than short bursts, I would look to a football field.[/quote]
I agree that football players are very well rounded and capable athletes. I give the edge to basketball players, but it’s only barely, in a lot of ways they are pretty equal. But, how can you say “maintain that effort for more than short bursts” when that is practically all football is? short bursts of athleticism punctuated by endless setting up and planning.
Granted, the physical conditioning they endure goes above and beyond what is asked of them in a real game situation. Basketball players are the same way, only their sport involves a lot more constant athleticism.
I think it’s a toss up between basketball players and football players. I’d personally give the edge to basketball players, but I could see how someone would give the edge to football players as well.
It’s a silly comparison to make in the end, all sports require different skills, mentally and physically, and there really isn’t any ‘best’, but we all know that I’m sure.
I have to go with Football Players on this one (overall).
I put up a pic of T.O. because some think that he has exhibted the skills in BASKETBALL to probably start on any Division 1 team and probably make most Teams in the Pros.
Stamina comparable to a soccer player, strength comparable to a football player, coordination comparable to a hockey player, plus the ability to jump AND to maneuver a very small field of play.
.
[/quote]
Gotta disagree.
BB players are, IMO, pretty weak pound for pound. Their strength is nowhere near a football players.
Yes, they have great stamina. But believe it or not, most BB players verts aren’t as awesome as you would think. Your average BB players squat is pretty pathetic, and I’d bet most backcourt players can’t bench or squat much over their own bodyweight. (not really there fault, they are exausted by hours of cardio) Your average linebacker, despite being alot heavier, is alot faster and JUMPS HIGHER than your average BB player.
[quote]Malevolence wrote:
But, how can you say “maintain that effort for more than short bursts” when that is practically all football is?[/quote]
Because that isn’t all it is. A football player isn’t only on the field for 10 minutes. Many are on the field for the entire game. That takes more endurance than you are making it seem.
“Athleticism”? Please describe what “athleticism” is increased in basketball that isn’t there at all in football? Basketball isn’t even a contact sport unless someone gets fouled. Being able to take hits as well as give them is more “athleticism” by itself.
[quote]
It’s a silly comparison to make in the end, all sports require different skills, mentally and physically, and there really isn’t any ‘best’, but we all know that I’m sure.[/quote]
I agree, this may be a retarded argument…but so were most wars.
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
I have to go with Football Players on this one (overall).
I put up a pic of T.O. because some think that he has exhibted the skills in BASKETBALL to probably start on any Division 1 team and probably make most Teams in the Pros.
Love 'em or hate 'em; he’s an amazing athlete.
Mufasa[/quote]
Forget T.O, he is old and past his prime. When I think of a beast, Im thinking Ernie Sims, Detroit Lions rookie linebacker. ANIMAL. And yes, im a biased detroit lions fan
I’d take a linebacker over a running back. There a little bit faster, MUCH stronger, and a bit more athletic, and jump alot higher. Granted, alot of that has to do with the fact that they are usually carrying around a little less fat mass due to the fact they don’t need to be as indestructable as a running back, and that may be the deciding factor that gives them the edge.
Running backs are more of a “skill” position where athleticism is only one part, and other factors like knowledge play a more important part.
[quote]Nicholas F wrote:
But believe it or not, most BB players verts aren’t as awesome as you would think.[/quote]
That’s what most people don’t get. When you’re 6’7" with ridiculously long arms and a huge wingspan, you don’t need to jump all that high to dunk a basketball. Look at a guy like Marvin Williams, who everybody was calling a freakish example of athleticism. Well maybe the fact that he’s 6’9" with a 7’2" wingspan (according to the draft preview I read). If his standing vert is over 30", I’d be surprised.
The highest standing vertical recorded at the rookie combine this past year was 35" by Ronnie Brewer. Typically combine results should be reduced by 3-5" because they’re tested 2 hands and obviously the players are going to try to keep their reach as low as possible so their verticals are higher. Anyone who’s ever participated in a combine can verify this for sure.
Compare that to the NFL draft, which recorded 20 athletes jumping 40" or higher…
Another thing to keep in mind is that due to the overwhelming advantages of height in basketball, the pool from which talent is drawn is effectively smaller than in many other sports.
Minus the category of fine motor control, football players are superior. In that fine motor control area though hockey players trounce basketball players.
[quote]jtrinsey wrote:
Nicholas F wrote:
But believe it or not, most BB players verts aren’t as awesome as you would think.
That’s what most people don’t get. When you’re 6’7" with ridiculously long arms and a huge wingspan, you don’t need to jump all that high to dunk a basketball. Look at a guy like Marvin Williams, who everybody was calling a freakish example of athleticism. Well maybe the fact that he’s 6’9" with a 7’2" wingspan (according to the draft preview I read). If his standing vert is over 30", I’d be surprised.
The highest standing vertical recorded at the rookie combine this past year was 35" by Ronnie Brewer. Typically combine results should be reduced by 3-5" because they’re tested 2 hands and obviously the players are going to try to keep their reach as low as possible so their verticals are higher. Anyone who’s ever participated in a combine can verify this for sure.
Compare that to the NFL draft, which recorded 20 athletes jumping 40" or higher…[/quote]
EXACTLY. Most people associate BB players with high verts. But the real truth of the matter is, BB players don’t have very strong legs, squat pretty pathetic, and alot get by by being tall and having a huge wingspan. Football linebackers are stronger, faster, and jump higher. Bottom line.
And again, its not really a BB players fault. The endless amount of cardio they do pretty much destroys alot of strength gains they get. Im by no means dissing BB players, Im just calling a spade a spade.
I’d take a linebacker over a running back. There a little bit faster, MUCH stronger, and a bit more athletic, and jump alot higher. Granted, alot of that has to do with the fact that they are usually carrying around a little less fat mass due to the fact they don’t need to be as indestructable as a running back, and that may be the deciding factor that gives them the edge.
Running backs are more of a “skill” position where athleticism is only one part, and other factors like knowledge play a more important part. [/quote]
Not withstanding the fact that NFL cornerbacks may be the best all around athletes, your assertion that linebackers are faster than rb’s is untrue.
I don’t know what your definition of athletic is:
but to assert that lb’s are moreso than rb’s is off base.
They are all extremely athletic, but as a general rule, I’d take a rb over a lb for overall athleticism.
Just watch the underarmour “click-clack” commercial on their website and you’ll have all the ammo you need to prove the point that football players are a better overall athletes than B’ball players.
Most pro football positions excluding some O-lineman some are great but others get by simply on being huge(ala Sumo Wrestlers, Olympic lifters/Pro Strong Man being able to not only move but use that mobilaty to move huge amounts of weight. When asking about who is more athletic look at the animal kingdom, who is more athletic a gazell or a rhino the gazell moves faster but the rhino moves a ton where ever he goes.
