BIGRAGOO wrote:
since when do u need skill to be athletic. is lance armstrong skillful pedaling a bike.
I think this is a bad point. I guess it only takes enough skill to peddle a bike for days through hills, mountains, and valleys. I’m sure that anyone could easily hop on a bike and do what Lance Armstrong has done for as many times as he has.
Oh boy…I’m really sorry…but…You guys must be on glue to think that anyone can easily do what Lance Armstrong does, and Lance can not be rated as an top athlete…which IMHO he should be…and he should be on top of the list as well.
Lance Armstrong might be rated a mediocre atlete on your side of the pond, but is a phenomenon here in Europe…and deserves nothing less then that!!
…There is nobody that can even walk in his shadow and I doubt there ever will be…he is the Pele of bike racing!
Win the tour…beat cancer and win the Tour again??..and again…kiddin’ me?? This guy is one in a million!..
[/quote]
I think they were each trying to make a point using Lance (a great athlete) as an example.
I’m sure everyone knows he’s one hell of an athlete, and much more considering what he has overcome.
The top pro bodybuilders fucking disgust me. They probably suck at training, but how would they know with the toxic levels of roids in their systems. They are more similiar to drug addicts than athletes. That is the O. I’m sure there are many bodybuilders who have great talent at what they do. But the reprasentatives of the sport look like they belong in a cicus. Athletes, HA id like to see Ronnie run fifty meters without dying of a massive heart attack.
[quote]paul bunyan wrote:
The top pro bodybuilders fucking disgust me. They probably suck at training, but how would they know with the toxic levels of roids in their systems. They are more similiar to drug addicts than athletes. That is the O. I’m sure there are many bodybuilders who have great talent at what they do. But the reprasentatives of the sport look like they belong in a cicus. Athletes, HA id like to see Ronnie run fifty meters without dying of a massive heart attack.[/quote]
I am seeing a trend here: As with the Lance Armstrong point, nobody would argue he is a superb athlete. Top athletes do what others cannot in a sport/competition venue, be it genetics, work ethic, will/drive, or simply a combination. For the simple reason that it takes a certain type of person to be a Pro Bodybuilder just as it does to be a World Renowned Cyclist they SHOULD be considered Athletes.
[quote]D-Rock112 wrote:
I am seeing a trend here: As with the Lance Armstrong point, nobody would argue he is a superb athlete. Top athletes do what others cannot in a sport/competition venue, be it genetics, work ethic, will/drive, or simply a combination. For the simple reason that it takes a certain type of person to be a Pro Bodybuilder just as it does to be a World Renowned Cyclist they SHOULD be considered Athletes.
[/quote]
I guess that this guy is the only one who can define an athlete. Just because the pro shows have become laughable does not mean that the competitors don’t train religiously. And to the fucknut who said that the competitors don’t train right because of the roids: You are a waste of brain matter. Taking drugs alone does not do a thing. You must work your ass of to get any results from them.
Ath-lete: A person possessing the natural or acquired traits, such as strength, agility, and endurance, that are necessary for physical exercise or sports, especially those performed in competitive contexts.
BIGRAGOO wrote:
since when do u need skill to be athletic. is lance armstrong skillful pedaling a bike.
I think this is a bad point. I guess it only takes enough skill to peddle a bike for days through hills, mountains, and valleys. I’m sure that anyone could easily hop on a bike and do what Lance Armstrong has done for as many times as he has.
Oh boy…I’m really sorry…but…You guys must be on glue to think that anyone can easily do what Lance Armstrong does, and Lance can not be rated as an top athlete…which IMHO he should be…and he should be on top of the list as well.
Lance Armstrong might be rated a mediocre atlete on your side of the pond, but is a phenomenon here in Europe…and deserves nothing less then that!!
…There is nobody that can even walk in his shadow and I doubt there ever will be…he is the Pele of bike racing!
Win the tour…beat cancer and win the Tour again??..and again…kiddin’ me?? This guy is one in a million!..
[/quote]
lance is my favourite athlete in this planet unbelivable!!! anyone read his boook?? im making a point that you dont need skill to be an athlete. im not a bodybuilder but those pros on stage deserve alot of credit. dont know if you would call them an athlete but alot of them do show athleticsm in strentgh, power flexibility and speed. anyone see kevin levrone sprinting with dwane chambers.
[quote]paul bunyan wrote:
The top pro bodybuilders fucking disgust me. They probably suck at training, but how would they know with the toxic levels of roids in their systems. They are more similiar to drug addicts than athletes. That is the O. I’m sure there are many bodybuilders who have great talent at what they do. But the reprasentatives of the sport look like they belong in a cicus. Athletes, HA id like to see Ronnie run fifty meters without dying of a massive heart attack.[/quote]
i regret spending the last ten minutes of my life reading this.
this reminds me of an argument that people at my school have that show choir is a sport. is it? no. is bodybuilding? i don’t know, i can see both sides of the argument. so in essence, i’ve just added to the uselessness of this thread. thank you very much, and have a nice day.
Okay, I’ll settle this. If it’s on, or has ever been on Sports Center, it’s a sport.
And yes, hotdog eating is a sport too.
I don’t like golf, I tried it out but could never understand why people enjoy it or even worse, enjoy watching it, but I don’t go around saying it isn’t a sport.
If the federations running it consider it a sport, and if there’s any physical aspect to it, it’s a sport.
You don’t have to like the sport or agree with how it’s run for it to be a sport.
Physical activity that is governed by a set of rules or customs and often engaged in competitively.
A particular form of this activity.
An activity involving physical exertion and skill that is governed by a set of rules or customs and often undertaken competitively.
An active pastime; recreation.
[quote]Chad wrote:
Curlers have talent. Bodybuilder’s don’t. Given the right genetics, training, drugs and diet anyone could be a bodybuilder.[/quote]
While I don’t think bodybuilders are athletic in the classical definition, your assertion above makes no sense. With the “right genetics, training, drugs and diet” anyone be a great athlete of ANY kind. That’s like saying if anyone with the genetics to end up at 6’ 8" with a 42" vertical and a pinpoint shooter touch, who works their ass of at basketball and eats right (drugs or no drugs) could be a great basketball player. Gee, really?
I’m beginning to see a trend on both sides, but here’s my take:
All atheletes, all sports are measured upon some sort of performance. The winner is chosen based on his action(s), on doing something better than anyone else. In soccer the winning team scored the most goals, in basketball it’s the most points, in powerlifting it’s the most weight.
In bodybuilding however, the “atheletes” are not measured by their performance, but by their aesthetic looks, their bodies (which in most sports is a byproduct of performance). It matters not what Ronnie Coleman’s bench press is compared to Jay Cutler, he still won. Yes, their performance in the gym, their diet, etc. (in essence, their dedication, which no one denies) affect and usually determines who wins, but that (their performance) in and of itself is not what determines the winner. So, through this line of reasoning, if there is no performance to base judgment upon, but rather how one looks (looks, not acts), then it is deemed preposterous to consider bodybuilders atheletes.
[quote]superscience wrote:
paul bunyan wrote:
The top pro bodybuilders fucking disgust me. They probably suck at training, but how would they know with the toxic levels of roids in their systems. They are more similiar to drug addicts than athletes. That is the O. I’m sure there are many bodybuilders who have great talent at what they do. But the reprasentatives of the sport look like they belong in a cicus. Athletes, HA id like to see Ronnie run fifty meters without dying of a massive heart attack.
that comment was so stupid its funny.[/quote]
Yeah, I would say this isn’t the most intelligent comment, but he does have a point. there are steroid users who have to take steroids because their ego is forcing them to. I would call this an addiction
[quote]nopal_juventus wrote:
I’m beginning to see a trend on both sides, but here’s my take:
All atheletes, all sports are measured upon some sort of performance. The winner is chosen based on his action(s), on doing something better than anyone else. In soccer the winning team scored the most goals, in basketball it’s the most points, in powerlifting it’s the most weight.
In bodybuilding however, the “atheletes” are not measured by their performance, but by their aesthetic looks, their bodies (which in most sports is a byproduct of performance). It matters not what Ronnie Coleman’s bench press is compared to Jay Cutler, he still won. Yes, their performance in the gym, their diet, etc. (in essence, their dedication, which no one denies) affect and usually determines who wins, but that (their performance) in and of itself is not what determines the winner. So, through this line of reasoning, if there is no performance to base judgment upon, but rather how one looks (looks, not acts), then it is deemed preposterous to consider bodybuilders atheletes.[/quote
I disagree. Bodybuilders have to train and diet and have good genetics. When a a BBer trains he finds out what works for him and then he does and does it better than anyone else in order to succeed.
A football player has to train, have good genetics, practice and eat right and do this better than anyone else in order to succeed.
many sports require good genetics to be the best therfore bodybuilders are athletes
[quote]nopal_juventus wrote:
I’m beginning to see a trend on both sides, but here’s my take:
All atheletes, all sports are measured upon some sort of performance. The winner is chosen based on his action(s), on doing something better than anyone else. In soccer the winning team scored the most goals, in basketball it’s the most points, in powerlifting it’s the most weight.
In bodybuilding however, the “atheletes” are not measured by their performance, but by their aesthetic looks, their bodies (which in most sports is a byproduct of performance). It matters not what Ronnie Coleman’s bench press is compared to Jay Cutler, he still won. Yes, their performance in the gym, their diet, etc. (in essence, their dedication, which no one denies) affect and usually determines who wins, but that (their performance) in and of itself is not what determines the winner. So, through this line of reasoning, if there is no performance to base judgment upon, but rather how one looks (looks, not acts), then it is deemed preposterous to consider bodybuilders atheletes.[/quote]
I do not agree with this statement at all. Just because you are big, defined, and symmetrical does not mean you will win. It happens time and time again where someone does not pose properly and thus looses, therefore in order to win you must also have excellent posing skills, posing in itself would be performing and thus by your statement considered a sport.
Shouldn’t an athlete be someone who is athletic? Is a beauty pagent contestant any less athletic than a bodybuilder? They both spend much time and effort in preparation for contests. I know you still have to work for gains even on steroids, but with the ammount these guys take there is not so much grueling effort involved. Their articles in fitness rags don’t show much intelligence about training. I bet most on T-Nation work as hard as they do. But do we consider ourselves athletes because we work out and pay attention to our diet?
[quote]paul bunyan wrote:
Shouldn’t an athlete be someone who is athletic? Is a beauty pagent contestant any less athletic than a bodybuilder? They both spend much time and effort in preparation for contests. I know you still have to work for gains even on steroids, but with the ammount these guys take there is not so much grueling effort involved. Their articles in fitness rags don’t show much intelligence about training. I bet most on t nation work as hard as they do. But do we consider ourselves athletes because we work out and pay attention to our diet?[/quote]
I would consider that I was an athlete if I wasn’t in such poor shape. Ask me again in 3 months and I’ll say yes I do consider myself an athlete.
[quote]paul bunyan wrote:
Their articles in fitness rags don’t show much intelligence about training. I bet most on T-Nation work as hard as they do.[/quote]
Many of those “articles” are ghost written. Also, some of the largest people I knew as far as bodybuilding couldn’t quote scientific articles to support what they did or why it worked. That should tell you more about the requirement for hard work and learning to listen to your own body over the need for amassing the most data. I also think you are discrediting the actual work involved in looking anything like these guys do on pro stages. Their entire lives revolve around this, from every meal they eat to every second spent in their free time…not just what they do in the gym. With that in mind, my guess is very few people on this forum actually put that much attention into their diet and training aside from a very small percentage.
For some of these guys, this is ALL they do from the time they get up until they go to sleep. Why trivialize it to such a degree just because you don’t agree with it? I personally would never want to live like that. I view it as a relatively pointless existance, but I won’t pretend as if they don’t work hard just because I wouldn’t take it to that extreme.
You just lumped them all into one category. I personally think Darrem Charles and Melvin Anthony may be a two out of a group who have stood out for years against those that take it to a level of insanity. Why ignore bodybuilders like that to only look at what you consider the worst images?
On some level, I do. I played sports in school. I still train. Considering the half ass training I see most people doing in the gym where they barely lift anywhere near their physical limit before they jump on the treadmill for 30min as they put no attention into how they eat all day long, yes, I would consider myself more of an athlete than them.
[quote]paul bunyan wrote:
Shouldn’t an athlete be someone who is athletic? Is a beauty pagent contestant any less athletic than a bodybuilder? They both spend much time and effort in preparation for contests. I know you still have to work for gains even on steroids, but with the ammount these guys take there is not so much grueling effort involved. Their articles in fitness rags don’t show much intelligence about training. I bet most on T-Nation work as hard as they do. But do we consider ourselves athletes because we work out and pay attention to our diet?[/quote]
You obviously have no clue as to how much effort goes into being a competitive bodybuilder if you think a beauty pagent contestant puts in as much effort.
Your post doesn’t show much intelligence about training either.
