Basketball Players?

Off Topic
21

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Malevolence wrote:
But, how can you say “maintain that effort for more than short bursts” when that is practically all football is?

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.[/quote]

I’ve always had a hard time watching football(I like playing it at parks and the likes) because it is so start and stop. Yes, a player might be on the field all game, but he has a lot of time to catch his breath. Heck, after a goal is scored they have time to do victor dances. Basketball players immediately run back to defense. Although, there is legitimate criticism of modern NBA games with questionable free throws being awarded every 30 seconds(dwayne wade anyone?) Still though, on average, I’d say basketball is a more active game than football.

[quote]Basketball players are the same way, only their sport involves a lot more constant athleticism.

“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 all there in football, but I personally think Basketball is using it more. Football games are only 12 minutes longer than basketball games, but basketball games involve less stopping, contact may be limited, but that doesn’t mean that any player can get away with being weak. Having strength and power is vital for a basketball player.

Although, I would note the distinction between professional NBA/NFL and the skills that requires versus pickup basketball/football. The pickup basketball games I play are rough, and people get hurt, and fouls aren’t called, same with the pickup football games I play.

[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.

I agree, this may be a retarded argument…but so were most wars.[/quote]

Still makes the world go round, though don’t it? heh.

In the end, I’m bias towards basketball because I play it more, I play football too whenever, but I’m more tuned into basketball than I am to football, so, whatever, I’m just shooting my mouth off really.

22

[quote]ZEB wrote:
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.

Thanks,

Zeb[/quote]

Great question Zeb. It all boils down to what you consider as valid traits for a “great athlete.”

Do you want to take into account raw power, strength, speed, agility, stamina, handling skills, kicking skills, etc. How many factors do we want to look at?

I say rugby players, specifically loose forwards and backline players. But I am VERY biased :stuck_out_tongue:

23

[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.
.[/quote]

But, you have to take into account that dunking a basketball means virtually nothing in an NBA game, and if you’re 6’7 you’re facing off against guys that are 6’7-6’10 all the time and getting a rebound means a lot more than dunking ever will.

24

Rugby League players or a Rugby Union flanker or full back.

Great strength, speed and endurance.

American Football players, whilst absolutely monstrous strength and power athletes they are, in my opinion, lacking the endurance component that I think is essential to be considered the best overall athlete.

How about a decathlete…

Stu.

25

[quote]Stuey wrote:
Rugby League players or a Rugby Union flanker or full back.

Great strength, speed and endurance.

American Football players, whilst absolutely monstrous strength and power athletes they are, in my opinion, lacking the endurance component that I think is essential to be considered the best overall athlete.

How about a decathlete…

Stu.
[/quote]

Well, no shit stuey! You must remember an american linebacker is lugging around 220 lbs or more, while your rugby guys are MUCH smaller. Thats gonna have a mucho factor when it comes to endurance. Its difficult to build extreme endurance like that and maintain quality muscle mass. The very nature of training for endurance is going away from anaerobic towards aerobic, and some muscle will fall off. Thats just a fact of life.

26

[quote]Stuey wrote:
Rugby League players or a Rugby Union flanker or full back.

Great strength, speed and endurance.

American Football players, whilst absolutely monstrous strength and power athletes they are, in my opinion, lacking the endurance component that I think is essential to be considered the best overall athlete.

How about a decathlete…

Stu.
[/quote]

Interesting point Stu.

How would the following rank compared to Basketball players:

-Gymnasts

-Wrestlers

-Track/Field stars

-Boxers

I think as Americans many of us (including my Coaching friend) are biased toward “ball sports.”

Very good points made about the vertical leap of the B’ball player being nothing spectacular compared to Football players…it’s a height thing.

I’m certainly in agreement with those who have stated that Football players (certain positions and overall) are better athletes than Basketball players.

27

I would say a guy like Dave Winfield would have to be called a great athlete. Anyone who is drafted in basketball, football, and baseball out of college must have some fantastic athletic ability.

28

During wrestling season(in highschool) I could easily go play a couple hours of basketball with no problem, now I currently play basketball 3 or 4 times a week for around two hours everyday and I can go balls out for the entire time we are playing. If I were to go to 1 wrestling practice and tried to go like I used to, I would fucking die.

We need more criteria. In my experience wrestlers are horrible at sports requiring dexterity associated with a ball(basketball, soccer.) Football players are strong and fast no doubt, but you have to include your lineman(who aren’t aerobically capable for the most part,) quarterbacks(with the exception of the new breed of running quarterbacks who are also big and strong) who tend to be slower and weak, and kickers who tend to smaller as well.

In terms of overall ability you could make a very good case for basketball players, however, I’d have to go with wrestlers as possessing the best attributes associated with strength and conditioning as the best athletes in the world.

If its necessary to be good with the fundamentals of handling a ball as well, Rugby would win out hands down, my opinion anyways.

29


Nic:

Agree…just using T.O. as an example.

There are a LOT of strong, fast, mobile and talented young guys who were drafted this year and who often put up scary Combine numbers.

Watch out for Vernon Davis.

Click clack…

Mufasa

30

[quote]oboffill wrote:

  1. NFL Running Backs
  2. NFL Linebackers
  3. Wrestlers
  4. Basketball Players
  5. CrossFit guys (lol, j/k!)[/quote]

I would put NFL cornerbacks over the other two positions. Most of those guys may be small, but most are pretty strong lb for lb and no other position on the FB field displays more athleticism.

31

[quote]sasquatch wrote:
Nicholas F wrote:
oboffill wrote:

  1. NFL Running Backs
  2. NFL Linebackers
  3. Wrestlers
  4. Basketball Players
  5. CrossFit guys (lol, j/k!)

I’d take a linebacker over a running 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.

[/quote]

In retrospect, I should’ve included that I am completely biased becase I love football and the RB position.

Nothing compares to the speed, strength, endurance, agility, flexibility, and mental toughness required of an Olympic wrestler.

RB vs LB vs CB
1st place = 0 point; 2nd = 1; 3rd = 2
Strength(-1): LB > RB > CB
Speed(-1): CB > RB > LB
Agility: CB > RB > LB
Quickness: CB > RB > LB
Size: LB > RB > CB

CB: 2
RB: 3
LB: 4

With strength and speed weighted higher (most important attritbutes IMO), CB win out in athleticism.

32

I would define athleticism as having the raw physical tools to excel at virtually any sport without significant specialization. Agility is paramount to that definition since it is an almost universal requirement for any major sport. Next would be speed, endurance (though this is widely different between sports) then strength. Of course, heart is more important than any of those things, but we’re talking purely physical here.

33

[quote]Panther1015 wrote:
I would define athleticism as having the raw physical tools to excel at virtually any sport without significant specialization. Agility is paramount to that definition since it is an almost universal requirement for any major sport. Next would be speed, endurance (though this is widely different between sports) then strength. Of course, heart is more important than any of those things, but we’re talking purely physical here. [/quote]

if we were talking about heart, basketball players wouldn’t even be able to touch the list for that matter.

34

Excellent post, Panther.

Zeb can correct me; but I really think that he was talking about OVERALL athleticism, exactly like you defined.

One thing about a lot of Defensive Backs; most Coaches agree that pound for pound, these guys are often the strongest (and most aggressive) SOB’s on the Team.

They also have to be mentally tough enough to get burned by a long-ball on one play, and be ready to play on the next… or they won’t last long.

Mufasa

35

Not overall but endurance and mentality, its triathlon competitors, cyclists and long distance runners in no particular order.

36

Decathletes anybody? I know Stuey mentioned this…

They can run, jump, and throw.

Certainly there is a big difference between decathlon and other sports, especially contact sports, but one can make a good argument for the top decathletes.

37

There is no doubt that you will find a lot of freakish athletes in basketball. I still, however, would have to agree with everyone who placed American football players at the top.

In what other sport can you find men who weigh 250 lbs at 10% body fat, run 4.5 40s, bench 450-500 lbs, and go through car-crash-type collisions on almost every play (which would describe most NFL linebackers)?

38

Mmmmm, the best athlete in the world is decathletes. They need every aspect of fitness at a high level.

39

[quote]hockechamp14 wrote:

if we were talking about heart, basketball players wouldn’t even be able to touch the list for that matter.[/quote]

Pro basketball players wouldn’t come close, but have you ever watched the Final Four tournament? Now that’s basketball.

My top five (in no particular order):

1.CB, for speed, strength, toughness and aggressiveness

2.Basketball players. Bball has a reputation as a non-contact sport, but there’s alot of bumping and shoving in the key all the time. And when you fall, it’s on hard wood, not grass. Endurance-wise, playing all 40 minutes of a high school or college game would be enough to put most people in the grave. You’ve gotta be still cutting, shooting, and defending with complete speed and control in the last seconds of the game. That takes physical and mental toughness.

  1. Long or short distance swimmers. Gotta have insane levels of aerobic and/or anaerobic conditioning, depending which races you do, gotta have speed and muscular endurance, as well.

  2. WaterPolo and Synchronized Swimming. I put these together because treading water for that long is insane.

  3. Golf. Imaging spending all day surrounded by golfers and golf fans. That’s some extreme mental toughness.

40

[quote]Nicholas F wrote:
Well, no shit stuey! You must remember an american linebacker is lugging around 220 lbs or more, while your rugby guys are MUCH smaller. Thats gonna have a mucho factor when it comes to endurance. Its difficult to build extreme endurance like that and maintain quality muscle mass. The very nature of training for endurance is going away from anaerobic towards aerobic, and some muscle will fall off. Thats just a fact of life. [/quote]

Where do you get the idea that rugby players are smaller than linebackers. I would say over a quarter of rugby players are over 220 pounds and just as strong if not stronger than a line backer and faster endurance wise and flat out speed wise. Don’t get me wrong linebackers are amzing athletes, but nowhere near Rugby players. Next time go do some reaserch before getting on someone’s back.

I would say overall best athletes are:
Team sport: Rugby players
Individual: Decathlete
Toughest training: Triathalon