Top 10 Athletes of Today

sardines12 · August 17, 2010, 3:12am

[quote]gregron wrote:

[quote]sardines12 wrote:

[quote]gregron wrote:
^^someone mentioned pacman earlier… But I would have to put some of the top level MMA guys over some of the top level pure boxers as far as “athleticism” goes just because they train more genres… plus i just really dont like boxing at all. (not to say that boxers arent really good athletes)[/quote]
any single discipline martial art will be more refined as far as talent. In other words Pac would be better at mma than the top mma guy would be at boxing. [/quote]

not true at all drewdines…

If the MMA guy was a good boxer (as some are former golden glove boxers) he could be able to go a few rounds with a boxer.

If the top level boxer got in the ring with a top level MMA guy he would be taken down and submitted or KO’ed within a minute or two.

BTW I’ve missed you inane ramblings since the NBA thread kinda died out.[/quote]

Uh no, thats idiot logic right there. The question is who is a better athlete, I say boxers because boxing has been around longer and is more refined. And there are very very few mma fighters who were golden gloves champs, Stephan Bonnar and Brian Johnson, lmao both would get wrecked badly in the ring.

sardines12 · August 17, 2010, 3:13am

[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:
^^^ So then throwing a dart - which requires both technique and a physical movement - is a sport and requires athleticism by your definition. Awesome. There’s no need to continue this any further. You clearly think everyon deserves a medal. And, I don’t know many golfers names off the top of my head but do know that quite a few of 'em suck down some drinks before hitting the links.[/quote]
So a pitcher in baseball isn’t an athlete?

WhiteFlash · August 17, 2010, 3:23am

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:
^^^ So then throwing a dart - which requires both technique and a physical movement - is a sport and requires athleticism by your definition. Awesome. There’s no need to continue this any further. You clearly think everyon deserves a medal. And, I don’t know many golfers names off the top of my head but do know that quite a few of 'em suck down some drinks before hitting the links.[/quote]

You don’t know that at all. You’re making shit up because you’ve made an asinine, inaccurate statement and I called you out on it. As far as darts, it requires some athleticism, yes, but the amount is miniscule. Golf requires more, which still isn’t a whole lot when compared to the other athletes in question.

But it is still a hell of a lot more athleticism than you give golfers credit for, namely none. To say that it requires none because you played a few times and maybe stayed coherent long enough to make it through a round is not proof positive whatsoever that golf requires no athleticism.[/quote]

You have no idea of what the fuck you’re talking about. I actually never once drank when I played as I don’t like drinking during the day. I gave golf and golfers plenty of credit saying that it requires skill, hand/eye coordination and a bit of body control. But you arguing that it requires more than that makes you look like you don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about. Hell, I’ll even add that it requires flexibility, and even with that golf is an unathletic game. And no, I’m not making it up. I went to the Shell Open and got a first hand look at quite a few people, jackass.

WhiteFlash · August 17, 2010, 3:24am

[quote]sardines12 wrote:

[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:
^^^ So then throwing a dart - which requires both technique and a physical movement - is a sport and requires athleticism by your definition. Awesome. There’s no need to continue this any further. You clearly think everyon deserves a medal. And, I don’t know many golfers names off the top of my head but do know that quite a few of 'em suck down some drinks before hitting the links.[/quote]
So a pitcher in baseball isn’t an athlete?[/quote]

Being able to put a ball anywhere you want to when it’s going 80+ miles an hour is really impressive and requires athleticism.

DBCooper · August 17, 2010, 3:36am

[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:

[quote]sardines12 wrote:

[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:
^^^ So then throwing a dart - which requires both technique and a physical movement - is a sport and requires athleticism by your definition. Awesome. There’s no need to continue this any further. You clearly think everyon deserves a medal. And, I don’t know many golfers names off the top of my head but do know that quite a few of 'em suck down some drinks before hitting the links.[/quote]
So a pitcher in baseball isn’t an athlete?[/quote]

Being able to put a ball anywhere you want to when it’s going 80+ miles an hour is really impressive and requires athleticism.[/quote]

But to do it with a steel stick doesn’t? Who’s the jackass now?

WhiteFlash · August 17, 2010, 3:39am

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:

[quote]sardines12 wrote:

[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:
^^^ So then throwing a dart - which requires both technique and a physical movement - is a sport and requires athleticism by your definition. Awesome. There’s no need to continue this any further. You clearly think everyon deserves a medal. And, I don’t know many golfers names off the top of my head but do know that quite a few of 'em suck down some drinks before hitting the links.[/quote]
So a pitcher in baseball isn’t an athlete?[/quote]

Being able to put a ball anywhere you want to when it’s going 80+ miles an hour is really impressive and requires athleticism.[/quote]

But to do it with a steel stick doesn’t? Who’s the jackass now?[/quote]

Where did I say it didn’t? I said golf doesn’t require much athleticism. And honestly, how many pitchers can do anything other than pitch? Pitching requires athleticism but I wouldn’t call them athletic.

cct · August 17, 2010, 3:40am

It seems that we are now arguing which sports are superior to others.
In that case, I’d say sprinters, football players, basketball players, strongmen, boxers (and other fighters), and soccer players have the overall best physical conditions.
To even have a top ten list means that you will be discriminating against some sports. The only possible way to have a list like that is too see who has the most money/fame.

DBCooper · August 17, 2010, 3:55am

[quote]cct wrote:
It seems that we are now arguing which sports are superior to others.
In that case, I’d say sprinters, football players, basketball players, strongmen, boxers (and other fighters), and soccer players have the overall best physical conditions.
To even have a top ten list means that you will be discriminating against some sports. The only possible way to have a list like that is too see who has the most money/fame.[/quote]

In that case:
Tiger Woods
Kobe Bryant
Kimi Raikkonen
David Beckham
Lebron James
Phil Mickelson
Manny Pacquiao
Valentino Rossi
Dale Earnhardt, Jr.
Ronaldhino

WhiteFlash · August 17, 2010, 3:57am

Honest question: Do you think Pacquio is more famous than Mayweather, or just more well liked?

rasturai · August 17, 2010, 4:03am

[quote]sardines12 wrote:

[quote]gregron wrote:

[quote]sardines12 wrote:

[quote]gregron wrote:
^^someone mentioned pacman earlier… But I would have to put some of the top level MMA guys over some of the top level pure boxers as far as “athleticism” goes just because they train more genres… plus i just really dont like boxing at all. (not to say that boxers arent really good athletes)[/quote]
any single discipline martial art will be more refined as far as talent. In other words Pac would be better at mma than the top mma guy would be at boxing. [/quote]

not true at all drewdines…

If the MMA guy was a good boxer (as some are former golden glove boxers) he could be able to go a few rounds with a boxer.

If the top level boxer got in the ring with a top level MMA guy he would be taken down and submitted or KO’ed within a minute or two.

BTW I’ve missed you inane ramblings since the NBA thread kinda died out.[/quote]

Uh no, thats idiot logic right there. The question is who is a better athlete, I say boxers because boxing has been around longer and is more refined. And there are very very few mma fighters who were golden gloves champs, Stephan Bonnar and Brian Johnson, lmao both would get wrecked badly in the ring.[/quote]

Bingo…some of the guys picking guys like GSP and what not…over present fighters like Pacman, Floyd Mayweather are completely out of their mind. Yes GSP is a great fighter…but you gotta realize the guys he fights are NOT world class athletes…you really think Dan Hardy is a world class athlete? No. The top elite boxers are world class athletes…you have MMA guys who tried boxing…but gave up and went to MMA…I don’t care what anyone says, to do boxing is much more of a skill sport than MMA. In MMA you can use strength and whatnot to your advantage…it’s not the same in boxing. Yes you train different aspects in MMA…but boxing is called the sweet science for a reason. It’s not an easy sport to master, although the concept of it is very simple.

I’d say boxing is definatel up there…someone gave that link for the studies with all the top sports and boxing was number 1 on the list for toughest compared to all other sports. I’d say it’s true. Going round after round, throwing punches, ridiculous conditioing, getting hit, co-ordination, speed, agility…there’s so many factors and you can’t fall short on anything. ANyways I’ve gone completely off topic.sorry lol

gregron · August 17, 2010, 4:07am

[quote]sardines12 wrote:
any single discipline martial art will be more refined as far as talent. In other words Pac would be better at mma than the top mma guy would be at boxing.

Uh no, thats idiot logic right there. The question is who is a better athlete, I say boxers because boxing has been around longer and is more refined. And there are very very few mma fighters who were golden gloves champs, Stephan Bonnar and Brian Johnson, lmao both would get wrecked badly in the ring.[/quote]

wrong again drewdines… and its funny that you would use the phrase “idiot logic”… thats funny coming from you and knowing your post history.

You didnt say anything about which athlete was more athletic. You said that Pac would be better at MMA tan a top MMA guy would be at boxing… You said nothing about which was a better athlete.

A top level MMA guy would be able to go a round or two at least in the ring but Pac wouldnt last one round. He would have no idea how to defend a takedown or submission as he doesnt train for that… top MMA guys train boxing so they are least competent at it.

DBCooper · August 17, 2010, 4:04am

[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:

[quote]sardines12 wrote:

[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:
^^^ So then throwing a dart - which requires both technique and a physical movement - is a sport and requires athleticism by your definition. Awesome. There’s no need to continue this any further. You clearly think everyon deserves a medal. And, I don’t know many golfers names off the top of my head but do know that quite a few of 'em suck down some drinks before hitting the links.[/quote]
So a pitcher in baseball isn’t an athlete?[/quote]

Being able to put a ball anywhere you want to when it’s going 80+ miles an hour is really impressive and requires athleticism.[/quote]

But to do it with a steel stick doesn’t? Who’s the jackass now?[/quote]

Where did I say it didn’t? I said golf doesn’t require much athleticism. And honestly, how many pitchers can do anything other than pitch? Pitching requires athleticism but I wouldn’t call them athletic.[/quote]

You stated clearly, unequivocally and without ambiguity in your first post on page 2 that golf requires no athleticism. To quote you “NONE”. That’s where you said it didn’t.

Regarding pitchers: If a pitcher can successfully and repeatedly perform a motion that requires athleticism to the point where they are professionals, how does that not make them athletic? You’re putting your foot further and further into your mouth here. There is no point in me continuing this debate with you.

Regarding Pacman: I put him on the list ahead of Oscar de la Hoya because according to Forbes Magazine, he made the top ten as far as highest-paid athletes and de la Hoya didn’t. de la Hoya may be more famous, but Pacman makes much more than he does, including endorsement deals.

DBCooper · August 17, 2010, 4:07am

Did I say Oscar de la Hoya? I meant Mayweather.

USMCpoolee · August 17, 2010, 4:12am

[quote]rasturai wrote:

[quote]sardines12 wrote:

[quote]gregron wrote:

[quote]sardines12 wrote:

[quote]gregron wrote:
^^someone mentioned pacman earlier… But I would have to put some of the top level MMA guys over some of the top level pure boxers as far as “athleticism” goes just because they train more genres… plus i just really dont like boxing at all. (not to say that boxers arent really good athletes)[/quote]
any single discipline martial art will be more refined as far as talent. In other words Pac would be better at mma than the top mma guy would be at boxing. [/quote]

not true at all drewdines…

If the MMA guy was a good boxer (as some are former golden glove boxers) he could be able to go a few rounds with a boxer.

If the top level boxer got in the ring with a top level MMA guy he would be taken down and submitted or KO’ed within a minute or two.

BTW I’ve missed you inane ramblings since the NBA thread kinda died out.[/quote]

Uh no, thats idiot logic right there. The question is who is a better athlete, I say boxers because boxing has been around longer and is more refined. And there are very very few mma fighters who were golden gloves champs, Stephan Bonnar and Brian Johnson, lmao both would get wrecked badly in the ring.[/quote]

Bingo…some of the guys picking guys like GSP and what not…over present fighters like Pacman, Floyd Mayweather are completely out of their mind. Yes GSP is a great fighter…but you gotta realize the guys he fights are NOT world class athletes…you really think Dan Hardy is a world class athlete? No. The top elite boxers are world class athletes…you have MMA guys who tried boxing…but gave up and went to MMA…I don’t care what anyone says, to do boxing is much more of a skill sport than MMA. In MMA you can use strength and whatnot to your advantage…it’s not the same in boxing. Yes you train different aspects in MMA…but boxing is called the sweet science for a reason. It’s not an easy sport to master, although the concept of it is very simple.

I’d say boxing is definatel up there…someone gave that link for the studies with all the top sports and boxing was number 1 on the list for toughest compared to all other sports. I’d say it’s true. Going round after round, throwing punches, ridiculous conditioing, getting hit, co-ordination, speed, agility…there’s so many factors and you can’t fall short on anything. ANyways I’ve gone completely off topic.sorry lol[/quote]

To say boxing is more a skill sport than MMA is being blind man. In GSPs last seven fights he has fought three collegiate all american wrestlers. if you think wrestling is a sport where strength outweighs skill you haven’t wrestled. that applies to just about every combat sport (to clarify, it applies to all combat sports i have experience with, certainly not all). following that, MMA is the ultimate mix of combat sports, which should lead to the conclusion MMA is a skill based sport. Even for freakish humans like Brock Lesnar, D1 wrestling champ, so he has skill to back up his natural abilities. MMA conditioning is way more intense than boxing conditioning. I have never strictly boxed, but I have kickboxed, and I have rolled for more hours than i care to remember, and i can honestly say striking does not compare to grappling in how tiring it is. Which doesnt matter, because in MMA they do both.

gregron · August 17, 2010, 4:12am

[quote]DBCooper wrote:
Regarding pitchers: If a pitcher can successfully and repeatedly perform a motion that requires athleticism to the point where they are professionals, how does that not make them athletic? You’re putting your foot further and further into your mouth here. There is no point in me continuing this debate with you.
[/quote]

Regarding Pitchers: Baseball is pretty lame sport and of all positions I think Pitcher is the least athletic. They never really have to hit (which is weird that their hand eye coordination wouldnt be that good if they can pitch) and they dont ever have to move around much. There are a lot of fat out of shape looking pitchers so thats why I dont think they are very athletic. Obviously some are athletic but for the most part I dont think they are. They just can throw well.

But like I said I’m an admitted baseball hater and I think its a super boring dumb sport so I dont really have that much of an objective view on it.

gregron · August 17, 2010, 4:18am

[quote]USMCpoolee wrote:

[quote]rasturai wrote:

[quote]sardines12 wrote:

[quote]gregron wrote:

[quote]sardines12 wrote:

[quote]gregron wrote:
^^someone mentioned pacman earlier… But I would have to put some of the top level MMA guys over some of the top level pure boxers as far as “athleticism” goes just because they train more genres… plus i just really dont like boxing at all. (not to say that boxers arent really good athletes)[/quote]
any single discipline martial art will be more refined as far as talent. In other words Pac would be better at mma than the top mma guy would be at boxing. [/quote]

not true at all drewdines…

If the MMA guy was a good boxer (as some are former golden glove boxers) he could be able to go a few rounds with a boxer.

If the top level boxer got in the ring with a top level MMA guy he would be taken down and submitted or KO’ed within a minute or two.

BTW I’ve missed you inane ramblings since the NBA thread kinda died out.[/quote]

Uh no, thats idiot logic right there. The question is who is a better athlete, I say boxers because boxing has been around longer and is more refined. And there are very very few mma fighters who were golden gloves champs, Stephan Bonnar and Brian Johnson, lmao both would get wrecked badly in the ring.[/quote]

Bingo…some of the guys picking guys like GSP and what not…over present fighters like Pacman, Floyd Mayweather are completely out of their mind. Yes GSP is a great fighter…but you gotta realize the guys he fights are NOT world class athletes…you really think Dan Hardy is a world class athlete? No. The top elite boxers are world class athletes…you have MMA guys who tried boxing…but gave up and went to MMA…I don’t care what anyone says, to do boxing is much more of a skill sport than MMA. In MMA you can use strength and whatnot to your advantage…it’s not the same in boxing. Yes you train different aspects in MMA…but boxing is called the sweet science for a reason. It’s not an easy sport to master, although the concept of it is very simple.

I’d say boxing is definatel up there…someone gave that link for the studies with all the top sports and boxing was number 1 on the list for toughest compared to all other sports. I’d say it’s true. Going round after round, throwing punches, ridiculous conditioing, getting hit, co-ordination, speed, agility…there’s so many factors and you can’t fall short on anything. ANyways I’ve gone completely off topic.sorry lol[/quote]

To say boxing is more a skill sport than MMA is being blind man. In GSPs last seven fights he has fought three collegiate all american wrestlers. if you think wrestling is a sport where strength outweighs skill you haven’t wrestled. that applies to just about every combat sport (to clarify, it applies to all combat sports i have experience with, certainly not all). following that, MMA is the ultimate mix of combat sports, which should lead to the conclusion MMA is a skill based sport. Even for freakish humans like Brock Lesnar, D1 wrestling champ, so he has skill to back up his natural abilities. MMA conditioning is way more intense than boxing conditioning. I have never strictly boxed, but I have kickboxed, and I have rolled for more hours than i care to remember, and i can honestly say striking does not compare to grappling in how tiring it is. Which doesnt matter, because in MMA they do both. [/quote]

exactlly… Rasturi has some pretty bad logic in his post. He said the guys GSP fights arent world class atheltes while giving one example out of all GSPs opponents and then says all the top boxers are world class. He has no way of knowing that but throws it out there as a fact.

This next line pretty much describes HALF of MMA… only half
“Going round after round, throwing punches, ridiculous conditioing, getting hit, co-ordination, speed, agility…there’s so many factors and you can’t fall short on anything.”

Boxing can in no way be more intense physically than MMA because MMA does box. They do all of that same stuff (not to the exact same extent) plus a lot more with the ground work.

Im not even a huge MMA fan but I know that MMA is a lot more physically demanding than boxing.

sardines12 · August 17, 2010, 5:10am

[quote]gregron wrote:

[quote]sardines12 wrote:
any single discipline martial art will be more refined as far as talent. In other words Pac would be better at mma than the top mma guy would be at boxing.

Uh no, thats idiot logic right there. The question is who is a better athlete, I say boxers because boxing has been around longer and is more refined. And there are very very few mma fighters who were golden gloves champs, Stephan Bonnar and Brian Johnson, lmao both would get wrecked badly in the ring.[/quote]

wrong again drewdines… and its funny that you would use the phrase “idiot logic”… thats funny coming from you and knowing your post history.

You didnt say anything about which athlete was more athletic. You said that Pac would be better at MMA tan a top MMA guy would be at boxing… You said nothing about which was a better athlete.

A top level MMA guy would be able to go a round or two at least in the ring but Pac wouldnt last one round. He would have no idea how to defend a takedown or submission as he doesnt train for that… top MMA guys train boxing so they are least competent at it.[/quote]
No they wouldn’t. You sound like a newb. Anyways maybe I wasn’t clear I believe that based on athleticism (get the fact that mma fighters train boxing this does not matter in my argument) Pac would do better if he had just trained in mma than a top mma fighter would do if he had just trained boxing.

WhiteFlash · August 17, 2010, 5:10am

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:

[quote]sardines12 wrote:

[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:
^^^ So then throwing a dart - which requires both technique and a physical movement - is a sport and requires athleticism by your definition. Awesome. There’s no need to continue this any further. You clearly think everyon deserves a medal. And, I don’t know many golfers names off the top of my head but do know that quite a few of 'em suck down some drinks before hitting the links.[/quote]
So a pitcher in baseball isn’t an athlete?[/quote]

Being able to put a ball anywhere you want to when it’s going 80+ miles an hour is really impressive and requires athleticism.[/quote]

But to do it with a steel stick doesn’t? Who’s the jackass now?[/quote]

Where did I say it didn’t? I said golf doesn’t require much athleticism. And honestly, how many pitchers can do anything other than pitch? Pitching requires athleticism but I wouldn’t call them athletic.[/quote]

You stated clearly, unequivocally and without ambiguity in your first post on page 2 that golf requires no athleticism. To quote you “NONE”. That’s where you said it didn’t.

Regarding pitchers: If a pitcher can successfully and repeatedly perform a motion that requires athleticism to the point where they are professionals, how does that not make them athletic? You’re putting your foot further and further into your mouth here. There is no point in me continuing this debate with you.

Regarding Pacman: I put him on the list ahead of Oscar de la Hoya because according to Forbes Magazine, he made the top ten as far as highest-paid athletes and de la Hoya didn’t. de la Hoya may be more famous, but Pacman makes much more than he does, including endorsement deals.[/quote]

How am I putting my foot in my mouth? Pitchers are great at pitching but aren’t great athletes. Golfers are great at golfing but aren’t great athletes. Both of those things require a bit of athletic ability but nothing more. Don’t know how many different times that I can say that golf involves hand/eye coordination and body control but not much else.

sardines12 · August 17, 2010, 5:12am

[quote]USMCpoolee wrote:

[quote]rasturai wrote:

[quote]sardines12 wrote:

[quote]gregron wrote:

[quote]sardines12 wrote:

[quote]gregron wrote:
^^someone mentioned pacman earlier… But I would have to put some of the top level MMA guys over some of the top level pure boxers as far as “athleticism” goes just because they train more genres… plus i just really dont like boxing at all. (not to say that boxers arent really good athletes)[/quote]
any single discipline martial art will be more refined as far as talent. In other words Pac would be better at mma than the top mma guy would be at boxing. [/quote]

not true at all drewdines…

If the MMA guy was a good boxer (as some are former golden glove boxers) he could be able to go a few rounds with a boxer.

If the top level boxer got in the ring with a top level MMA guy he would be taken down and submitted or KO’ed within a minute or two.

BTW I’ve missed you inane ramblings since the NBA thread kinda died out.[/quote]

Uh no, thats idiot logic right there. The question is who is a better athlete, I say boxers because boxing has been around longer and is more refined. And there are very very few mma fighters who were golden gloves champs, Stephan Bonnar and Brian Johnson, lmao both would get wrecked badly in the ring.[/quote]

Bingo…some of the guys picking guys like GSP and what not…over present fighters like Pacman, Floyd Mayweather are completely out of their mind. Yes GSP is a great fighter…but you gotta realize the guys he fights are NOT world class athletes…you really think Dan Hardy is a world class athlete? No. The top elite boxers are world class athletes…you have MMA guys who tried boxing…but gave up and went to MMA…I don’t care what anyone says, to do boxing is much more of a skill sport than MMA. In MMA you can use strength and whatnot to your advantage…it’s not the same in boxing. Yes you train different aspects in MMA…but boxing is called the sweet science for a reason. It’s not an easy sport to master, although the concept of it is very simple.

I’d say boxing is definatel up there…someone gave that link for the studies with all the top sports and boxing was number 1 on the list for toughest compared to all other sports. I’d say it’s true. Going round after round, throwing punches, ridiculous conditioing, getting hit, co-ordination, speed, agility…there’s so many factors and you can’t fall short on anything. ANyways I’ve gone completely off topic.sorry lol[/quote]

To say boxing is more a skill sport than MMA is being blind man. In GSPs last seven fights he has fought three collegiate all american wrestlers. if you think wrestling is a sport where strength outweighs skill you haven’t wrestled. that applies to just about every combat sport (to clarify, it applies to all combat sports i have experience with, certainly not all). following that, MMA is the ultimate mix of combat sports, which should lead to the conclusion MMA is a skill based sport. Even for freakish humans like Brock Lesnar, D1 wrestling champ, so he has skill to back up his natural abilities. MMA conditioning is way more intense than boxing conditioning. I have never strictly boxed, but I have kickboxed, and I have rolled for more hours than i care to remember, and i can honestly say striking does not compare to grappling in how tiring it is. Which doesnt matter, because in MMA they do both. [/quote]
Never did I say boxing takes less skill I merely meant it is harder to get to the top in boxing and that they have better athletes for “their sport,” due to boxings age.

sardines12 · August 17, 2010, 5:18am