The Most Impressive, Well-Rounded Athletes?

Off Topic
242

[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:

You either don’t get what’s 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 don’t 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. That’s it. That’s the definition.

[/quote]

Ok, you’re clearly here to try and argue. That’s fine, but you couldn’t be more wrong. Read the original post. We’re 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]

I get what you are saying. I’m saying you are wrong. What you are talking about isn’t athletics.

243

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:

You either don’t get what’s 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 don’t 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. That’s it. That’s the definition.

[/quote]

Ok, you’re clearly here to try and argue. That’s fine, but you couldn’t be more wrong. Read the original post. We’re 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]

I get what you are saying. I’m saying you are wrong. What you are talking about isn’t athletics.
[/quote]

What you’re talking about is sporting skill. What WE’RE talking about is athleticism. They ARE NOT the same thing. I’m done arguing with you 'cause you don’t know what you’re talking about and you’ve proven over the years that you won’t admit it, so no point in wasting time. Be easy.

244

[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:
What you’re talking about is sporting skill. What WE’RE talking about is athleticism. They ARE NOT the same thing. I’m done arguing with you 'cause you don’t know what you’re talking about and you’ve proven over the years that you won’t admit it, so no point in wasting time. Be easy.[/quote]

No. Athletic means to be good at a sport. I’m sorry, but that is the definition. If you do not compete, you are not athletic or an athlete. Having good woodworking tools doesn’t make you a carpenter. Having the better tools doesn’t mean you are a more carpenter than someone else. That is nonsense.

Strength, agility, power, speed, est. are the tools of an athlete, they do NOT make one an athlete, nor do they define what an athlete is.

When I played soccer, I got pretty damn good at endurance running. But, it was only done to get better at soccer. It was just the sharpening of a tool. But there were much better athletes that outplayed me whom I could outrun.

Tools do NOT make an athlete.

245

Hands down football.

Some of the best athletes in the world play basketball, but it wasn’t basketball that made them so athletic. Half the time it was natural talent - combined with height and a basic training(if not football/soccer training). Plus basketball players aren’t nearly as fearless or play through as much pain. Not that that’s good but it is an incredible athletic quality.

Training for football however will make a person incredibly athletic. That’s the only sport that can make a 6’1 300+ lb guy dunk off 2 feet.

Crossfit, just doesn’t compare. Doesn’t produce nearly the explosiveness or agility. It could but all it would be doing is throwing more shit in what it already does.

Soccer could’ve been up there but doesn’t require much from the hands.
Baseball doesn’t require the endurance.

Athletic does not mean good at a sport. There are plenty of athletic people who suck at any sport. To be a good athlete you need athletic ability and skills.

246

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[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 “Well-Roundness” 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 “athlete” or classifications of one rather than saying someone who “picks something up and put it down” (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 “pressure”. 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 doesn’t 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 “aim” their body when tackling someone, but the fact that there are so many calls for illegal blows to the head indicates that their aim isn’t very good. How does “aim” come into play in rugby?

Rehearsal? What does that have to do with anything?[/quote]

Aim is literally in all mainstream sports and is measured through success rate. You just said that aim is used for quarterbacks that throws an object. I can name other 5 sports that use aim…

Rehearsal with eyes closed, imagining the movement you will be doing.

What sports have you played DB?

247

If we are talking about pure athleticism here and not skills, then I would go with football/rugby/ or hockey. Take back my previous posts that are irrelevant to this discussion.

248

[quote]roybot wrote:

[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 → attributes that I would consider some of the most important for athleticism.

[/quote]

Except gymnasts aren’t lacking in any of those attributes. Speed, quickness and lateral movement aren’t 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]

Never said that they were lacking in those areas. simply that they are NOWHERE NEAR the top NFL/NBA guys when it comes to them.

Good point about the high bar/ uneven bar routine. Had thought of that, but I see those events more as total body awareness than hand eye coordination.

Yea you can lump foot speed and agility into one category if you want to, but when it comes down to it that is probably the most important category. If I had to narrow it down to two categories that broadly define athleticism I would probably go with ability to move in space and strength.

249

[quote]socrplyr09 wrote:

[quote]roybot wrote:

[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 → attributes that I would consider some of the most important for athleticism.

[/quote]

Except gymnasts aren’t lacking in any of those attributes. Speed, quickness and lateral movement aren’t 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]

Never said that they were lacking in those areas. simply that they are NOWHERE NEAR the top NFL/NBA guys when it comes to them.

Good point about the high bar/ uneven bar routine. Had thought of that, but I see those events more as total body awareness than hand eye coordination.

Yea you can lump foot speed and agility into one category if you want to, but when it comes down to it that is probably the most important category. If I had to narrow it down to two categories that broadly define athleticism I would probably go with ability to move in space and strength.
[/quote]

You didn’t have to say it when your criteria for defining a well-rounded athlete are based in the ability to play ball. Pardon the pun, but that’s not an even playing field, so of course NFL/NBA players are going to dominate when the parameters give them a home advantage .

It’s like judging agility on the ability to back flips and nothing else. The gymnasts would have the advantage there, but it’s not really a fair or objective comparison of athletic ability.

250

in my mind a the term “great athlete” has 2 meanings. michael phelps is a great athlete…at swimming. is he pretty good and does he stand out throwing horseshoes, playing ping pong, covering a wide reciever in a game of flag football?we dont really know, cause we dont know him. i doube it cause he spends all his time perfecting what he is great at … swimming…local guys in my hood are good at their sports and are good at everything else they play. it all comes natural…some people just have the god given tallent to be good/great at everything they do. those are great athletes in my book. maybe not great enough to be pro, but a great athlete.they day basketball players are great athletes. i say, yes, they are great at basketball… never see the b ball players in the top or anywhere near the top in these compititions…

251

[quote]roybot wrote:
Sort of relevant to the thread:

I don’t see this as any kind of proof a gymast is a great all around athlete. I was a very good baseball player but I’d say I could come a heck of a lot closer to doing those courses than I could to playing Major League Baseball. The only things in that video I don’t think I could do are the jump off the sliding bar (I have no idea how he made that, and I’m not talking about strength on the one legged landing) and the tower climb. I think I could do the tower climb, just not nearly fast enough to make it before the walls split.

252

I’m like minded with the posters who have said NFL running backs, receivers, safeties, linebackers. Those guys have elite levels of every athletic characteristic.

253

[quote]Fuzzyapple.Train wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[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 “Well-Roundness” 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 “athlete” or classifications of one rather than saying someone who “picks something up and put it down” (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 “pressure”. 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 doesn’t 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 “aim” their body when tackling someone, but the fact that there are so many calls for illegal blows to the head indicates that their aim isn’t very good. How does “aim” come into play in rugby?

Rehearsal? What does that have to do with anything?[/quote]

Aim is literally in all mainstream sports and is measured through success rate. You just said that aim is used for quarterbacks that throws an object. I can name other 5 sports that use aim…

Rehearsal with eyes closed, imagining the movement you will be doing.

What sports have you played DB?[/quote]

I played baseball at the Division 1 level in college (pitcher). I also played baseball, soccer and football in high school and I mountain bike as often as possible. I golf about once a month although my handicap is dog shit (14) and I’ve been known to hold my own in Ping Pong against all the neighborhood Charlies and Mongs.

254

LOL @ Babe Ruth being a great athlete.

255

[quote]gregron wrote:
LOL @ Babe Ruth being a great athlete.[/quote]

Or that “tools don’t make an athlete”. That’s PRECISELY what makes an athlete. That was so comically stupid I didn’t know how to respond.

256

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]Fuzzyapple.Train wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[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 “Well-Roundness” 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 “athlete” or classifications of one rather than saying someone who “picks something up and put it down” (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 “pressure”. 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 doesn’t 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 “aim” their body when tackling someone, but the fact that there are so many calls for illegal blows to the head indicates that their aim isn’t very good. How does “aim” come into play in rugby?

Rehearsal? What does that have to do with anything?[/quote]

Aim is literally in all mainstream sports and is measured through success rate. You just said that aim is used for quarterbacks that throws an object. I can name other 5 sports that use aim…

Rehearsal with eyes closed, imagining the movement you will be doing.

What sports have you played DB?[/quote]

I played baseball at the Division 1 level in college (pitcher). I also played baseball, soccer and football in high school and I mountain bike as often as possible. I golf about once a month although my handicap is dog shit (14) and I’ve been known to hold my own in Ping Pong against all the neighborhood Charlies and Mongs.[/quote]

If you and I ever meet I’m going to kick your ass in ping pong.

257

[quote]gregron wrote:
LOL @ Babe Ruth being a great athlete.[/quote]

He dominated a sport in a way no one else ever has in pretty much any sport I’m aware of. One of the greatest batters and pitchers of all time. He had an amazing amount of body coordination, hand eye coordination, dexterity, and yes, even explosive power.

If, athlete is being twisted into the qualities that might make you good at a sport, he absolutely had that. Imagine what he’d have been if he’d trained hard, not been an alcoholic, then add in to performance enhancing drugs. He could have been a dominate athlete in any sport. He absolutely had the qualities that would make him great in anything.

But now it seems like there is even further twisting of the word to somehow mean fit and healthy. You don’t have to be muscular with abs to be a great athlete. There have been some pretty fat NFL running backs too.

258

[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:

[quote]gregron wrote:
LOL @ Babe Ruth being a great athlete.[/quote]

Or that “tools don’t make an athlete”. That’s PRECISELY what makes an athlete. That was so comically stupid I didn’t know how to respond.[/quote]

You’re right the fastest most agile guy always does better than anyone else.

259

^^good home run hitter =/= a great athlete

260

dominating a pro sport in every aspect of the game doesnt?

Yeah, this guy I guess isn’t an athlete either.

261

[quote]gregron wrote:
^^good home run hitter =/= a great athlete[/quote]

Hitting requires a ton of those athletic skills, so does pitching.

But could you define athlete for me?