No way Shane hamman could run that fast but he does have an impressive vertical leap of 36" when he weighed 360lbs - YouTube
I understand that gymnastics are incredible athletes but no well-rounded. There are more athletics attributes that one needs to consider more than just on the physical side (ie; strength, power, agility, and flexibility).
Examples;
-Hand-eye coordination (catching, throwing)
-Object manipulation (hitting a stationary object, hitting a moving object)
-Object Tracking
-Anticipation
-Reaction time
-Emotional control
-Rehearsal
-Aim
-Many many more
Yes, gymnastic athletes may or may not have some of these other attributes but are not honed in as well as other athletes in other sports. Everyone can from some decent amount of physical attributes. Each sport lacks and excels in areas when compared to another sport. This debate here will not be the last one. Unless the sporting world can make a standardize test for āWell-Roundnessā I think a single answer will be agreed upon (thesis paper idea). People are thinking way to simple and really need to form a proper definition of āathleteā or classifications of one rather than saying someone who āpicks something up and put it downā (take with a grain of salt) as an athlete.
[quote]BIG-GEORDIE wrote:
No way Shane hamman could run that fast but he does have an impressive vertical leap of 36" when he weighed 360lbs - YouTube
His vert was NOWHERE NEAR a 36". Jumping on a box and vertical jumping are 2 completely different things. There was no fucking way he could dunk, either. He was an impressive athlete and strong as hell, but there is no fucking way his fat ass was doing even a quarter of the shit thatās claimed.
[quote]Fuzzyapple.Train wrote:
I understand that gymnastics are incredible athletes but no well-rounded. There are more athletics attributes that one needs to consider more than just on the physical side (ie; strength, power, agility, and flexibility).
Examples;
-Hand-eye coordination (catching, throwing)
-Object manipulation (hitting a stationary object, hitting a moving object)
-Object Tracking
-Anticipation
-Reaction time
-Emotional control
-Rehearsal
-Aim
-Many many more
Yes, gymnastic athletes may or may not have some of these other attributes but are not honed in as well as other athletes in other sports. Everyone can from some decent amount of physical attributes. Each sport lacks and excels in areas when compared to another sport. This debate here will not be the last one. Unless the sporting world can make a standardize test for āWell-Roundnessā I think a single answer will be agreed upon (thesis paper idea). People are thinking way to simple and really need to form a proper definition of āathleteā or classifications of one rather than saying someone who āpicks something up and put it downā (take with a grain of salt) as an athlete.
[/quote]
First of all, eye-hand coordination, object tracking, reaction time and maybe even anticipation can all be lumped into the same category.
Secondly, emotional control is entirely arbitrary and based on what someone would define as āpressureā. Emotional control is necessary in all sports and I think we can assume that the best athletes in their respective sports, especially the ones that perform well in big games/contests, all exhibit superior emotional control. But to say what sport requires more of it than others is too arbitrary. We may all think that the Super Bowl is the most pressure-packed situation possible, for instance, but when an athlete is at the pinnacle of his/her sport, regardless of what that pinnacle is, there is immense pressure.
Aim? That doesnāt apply to most sports and therefore is not a universal quality that can be measured in all sports. Aim is entirely irrelevant in football except for quarterbacks, punters and place-kickers. I suppose defensive players have to āaimā their body when tackling someone, but the fact that there are so many calls for illegal blows to the head indicates that their aim isnāt very good. How does āaimā come into play in rugby?
Rehearsal? What does that have to do with anything?
[quote]USMCpoolee wrote:
I think gymnastics is one of those sports that is definitely incredibly tough (difficult, hard, etc) but due to the physical requirements (being on the smaller side) it is hard to compare to other sports. I think of it like jockeys. No disrespect to the sport meant.[/quote]
Physical requirements? Name one sport that does not have physical requirements. Apply your logic to many other sports and all of a sudden half of them become irrelevant. Physical height is a requirement in basketball. No matter how athletic a player is, if he isnāt 7ā0" he isnāt going to be a good center. No matter how well a player handles the ball and passes, if heās 7ā0" he isnāt going to be a good point guard.
There are a few quarterbacks out there who are under 6ā2", but realistically, if you arenāt at least 6ā3" youād better be a freak of nature in other aspects if you plan on succeeding as a QB in the NFL. For every Drew Brees thereās a dozen QBs who put up huge numbers in college and never even get a look in the NFL because theyāre too short.
In baseball, if youāre above 6ā4" or 6ā5" and you arenāt a pitcher then you have a huge disadvantage as a hitter. Longer arms make it very, very hard to be quick with the bat through the zone. Likewise, with pitchers, if they arenāt 6ā0" or more the deck is severely stacked against them, especially if they want to be a starter and not a reliever. Thereās a reason why Tim Lincecum is called The Freak: heās literally the smallest pitcher in the bigs.
[quote]USMCpoolee wrote:
I think gymnastics is one of those sports that is definitely incredibly tough (difficult, hard, etc) but due to the physical requirements (being on the smaller side) it is hard to compare to other sports. I think of it like jockeys. No disrespect to the sport meant.[/quote]
I disagree. Physical requirements are the perfect way to compare the versatility of athletes in various sports. It stands to reason that a sport that produces versatile athletes would do so because those traits would have very high value placed upon them with regards to that sport. Additionally, I do not think it is illogical to assume that individuals in the higher echelons of the sport would be selected on a genetic basis in addition to skill.
This is one reason why I feel gymnasts are not the most well-rounded athletes. The build selected for by the sport is great for many other sports, but also absolutely devastating for many others.
Some physical requirements make it impossible though. I get what yaāll are saying, but there are no massive jockeys or gymnasts, while there are undersized players in basketball and football. Apok, any gymnast on the planet would be crippled in the nfl (same with a jockey), Iām just trying to point out the apples to oranges thing I guess.
DB I know about the same about baseball as I do rugby, so Iām not going to respond and show you my ignorance any more.
DB I guess I should have phrased it physical limitations. You are right they all have requirements.
A lot of this depends your personal definition of what well-rounded athleticism is. Like others have suggested, I think itās less about the sports developing athleticism than certain athletic skills being required for certain sports. A significant amount of athletic development occurs in the weight room and on the practice field doing non sport-specific work.
A sport like football that involves strength, straight line speed, cutting ability, lateral movement, hand-eye coordination, etc. is obviously going to attract better athletes than golf ā a sport which requires a tremendous amount of skill, but no āathleticā skills like speed, lateral movement, conditioning, etc.
Incentives play a huge part in this debate as well. As far as I know, there is no sport that doesnt require any specific skills, but simply pure athleticism (I think this is sorta what crossfit tries to do, but iām pretty sure they include oly lifts (among other things like hump pullups) which require a high degree of skill). Top athletes are drawn to the most popular sports with the greatest salaries. In the United States, the top paying sports that require a high degree of athleticism are clearly basketball and football. I would argue that in terms of quickness, explosiveness, and āhand skillsā the top basketball athletes would rank the highest. However, I think that the top football athletes ( rbās, receivers, cbās, some deās and lbās) rank pretty closely in quickness and explosiveness and they will typically be faster (straight-line) and stronger than the top basketball players. This is obviously a generalization, as there are some extremely strong basketball players (melo, dwight, lebron, reggie evans come to mind)-- also iām obviously not talking weight room strong here. So, anyways I guess my answer to the op is nfl players.
It would also be interesting to here who some people think are top most impressive, well rounded INDIVIDUAL athletes. For me, Iām gonna go with JPP, Von Miller, Revis, Megatron, and AP in football and Lebron, Russ, and Blake Griffin in the NBA.
Finally, just to respond to some people saying oly lifters and gymnasts are the most well rounded athletes your definition must not include speed, quickness, lateral movement, hand-eye coordination. The top oly lifters and gymnasts are not on the same planet compared to the top NBA/NFL dudes when it comes to these attributes ā attributes that I would consider some of the most important for athleticism.
Why dont we all agree to agree that this thread is just a waste of time?
By the way, how long is a piece of string?
/end thread.
tweet
Most impressively well rounded athlete, eh? Chemerkin Clean and Jerk Olympic Weightlifting World Record Atlanta 1996 - YouTube I think we have a winner here ;), look at that WELL ROUNDED GUT, an extremely heavy clean and jerk followed by a vertical leap and picked up that guy without trying.
[quote]socrplyr09 wrote:
Finally, just to respond to some people saying oly lifters and gymnasts are the most well rounded athletes your definition must not include speed, quickness, lateral movement, hand-eye coordination. The top oly lifters and gymnasts are not on the same planet compared to the top NBA/NFL dudes when it comes to these attributes ā attributes that I would consider some of the most important for athleticism.
[/quote]
Except gymnasts arenāt lacking in any of those attributes. Speed, quickness and lateral movement arenāt separate athletic abilities when they all fall under the umbrella of foot speed and agility.
Anybody who believes that gymnasts lack hand-eye coordination need to watch a high bar or uneven bar routine. A gymnast catching a bar mid-flip is just as valid a means of quantifying hand-eye co ordination as hitting or catching a ball.
Making that the gold standard of h/e co ordination is obviously going to put the athletes who participate in sports based on ball manipulation at a clear advantage.
[quote]furo wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
The ābest well-rounded athleteā is a nonsensical term. Athletics is, by definition, sport/task specific. You canāt have the best at generally at specific tasks. Athletics can only be defined by specifics. What you generally get are people like crossfitters that, without specification, are some of the worst athletes out there (not considering crossfit a sport).
That said, Iāve read pole vaulters tend to be capable of many sports traits. Agility, dexterity, strength, explosiveness, est.
However, in my opinion, because athletics really means excelling at specialization, I think football is some of the best, because the specifics of each position are so different.[/quote]
Iām afraid I donāt follow. Iām talking purely about physical traits like endurance, power, strength, agility. All of which are quantifiable and objective - a definite answer exists. I really donāt understand how a great variation in specifics of each position mean the athletes of that sport are superior.[/quote]
But endurance, power, strength, agility arenāt a sport. An athlete is someone who is good at a sport. The better athlete is the one better at the task of a specific sport.
You can have 2 running backs, one with more endurance, power, strength and agility than the other. And the weaker one can be a better running back. So, even though he is has less of those traits, heās a better athlete.
Those things can be traits that can make someone more athletic, but they arenāt equivalent.
As such, athletes can only be compared within the context of a sport. A soccer player is a better athlete than the best NFL running back, in the sport of soccer.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
The ābest well-rounded athleteā is a nonsensical term. Athletics is, by definition, sport/task specific. You canāt have the best at generally at specific tasks. Athletics can only be defined by specifics. What you generally get are people like crossfitters that, without specification, are some of the worst athletes out there (not considering crossfit a sport).
That said, Iāve read pole vaulters tend to be capable of many sports traits. Agility, dexterity, strength, explosiveness, est.
However, in my opinion, because athletics really means excelling at specialization, I think football is some of the best, because the specifics of each position are so different.[/quote]
Are you fat and on disability yet?[/quote]
Untraining isnāt going that well. I keep falling off the bandwagon and finding myself in a squat rack.
Sort of relevant to the thread:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]furo wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
The ābest well-rounded athleteā is a nonsensical term. Athletics is, by definition, sport/task specific. You canāt have the best at generally at specific tasks. Athletics can only be defined by specifics. What you generally get are people like crossfitters that, without specification, are some of the worst athletes out there (not considering crossfit a sport).
That said, Iāve read pole vaulters tend to be capable of many sports traits. Agility, dexterity, strength, explosiveness, est.
However, in my opinion, because athletics really means excelling at specialization, I think football is some of the best, because the specifics of each position are so different.[/quote] I
Iām afraid I donāt follow. Iām talking purely about physical traits like endurance, power, strength, agility. All of which are quantifiable and objective - a definite answer exists. I really donāt understand how a great variation in specifics of each position mean the athletes of that sport are superior.[/quote]
But endurance, power, strength, agility arenāt a sport. An athlete is someone who is good at a sport. The better athlete is the one better at the task of a specific sport.
You can have 2 running backs, one with more endurance, power, strength and agility than the other. And the weaker one can be a better running back. So, even though he is has less of those traits, heās a better athlete.
Those things can be traits that can make someone more athletic, but they arenāt equivalent.
As such, athletes can only be compared within the context of a sport. A soccer player is a better athlete than the best NFL running back, in the sport of soccer.
[/quote]
You either donāt get whatās going on here or are arguing for the sake of arguing. Being a better player at ones chosen sport doesnāt make one a better athlete, by any definition, unless he possesses better physical attributes as well as superior skill.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
An athlete is someone who is good at a sport. The better athlete is the one better at the task of a specific sport.
[/quote]
thereās a saying in rugby, the best athletes are separated in the top 3" (the brain). I have seen many rugby players that arenāt the biggest fastest or even most skilled, but they used their decision making and tactical minds to be great players. I.e. having superb positional play, organizing players around them, best option taking etc
[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:
You either donāt get whatās going on here or are arguing for the sake of arguing.
[/quote]
And?
Yes, it most certainly does.
You can have the greatest physical attributes in the world with the best skill set, and if you donāt compete in a sport, you are entirely nonathletic.
Additionally, you can be a fat lazy sack of crap and be a tremendous athlete if you dominate a sport. Babe Ruth is one of the greatest athletes ever. The only thing that defines an athlete is the ability to complete a task in a sport. Thatās it. Thatās the definition.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:
You either donāt get whatās going on here or are arguing for the sake of arguing.
[/quote]
And?
Yes, it most certainly does.
You can have the greatest physical attributes in the world with the best skill set, and if you donāt compete in a sport, you are entirely nonathletic.
Additionally, you can be a fat lazy sack of crap and be a tremendous athlete if you dominate a sport. Babe Ruth is one of the greatest athletes ever. The only thing that defines an athlete is the ability to complete a task in a sport. Thatās it. Thatās the definition.
[/quote]
Ok, youāre clearly here to try and argue. Thatās fine, but you couldnāt be more wrong. Read the original post. Weāre talking about purely physical gifts, not skill. The two are not intrinsically related. Gerald Green is a far superior athlete to Carmelo Anthony, but Anthony is the far superior player. Get it now?
[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:
You either donāt get whatās going on here or are arguing for the sake of arguing.
[/quote]
And?
Yes, it most certainly does.
You can have the greatest physical attributes in the world with the best skill set, and if you donāt compete in a sport, you are entirely nonathletic.
Additionally, you can be a fat lazy sack of crap and be a tremendous athlete if you dominate a sport. Babe Ruth is one of the greatest athletes ever. The only thing that defines an athlete is the ability to complete a task in a sport. Thatās it. Thatās the definition.
[/quote]
Ok, youāre clearly here to try and argue. Thatās fine, but you couldnāt be more wrong. Read the original post. Weāre talking about purely physical gifts, not skill. The two are not intrinsically related. Gerald Green is a far superior athlete to Carmelo Anthony, but Anthony is the far superior player. Get it now?[/quote]