If that is true about dwight howard, then I might be wrong about the strength. But, yes I was talking about pure strength. I remember Kevin Durant coming out of college, and the reports were he couldnt bench press 135#s, and that was what I had as a visual. That video is funny.
[quote]mbdix wrote:
If that is true about dwight howard, then I might be wrong about the strength. But, yes I was talking about pure strength. I remember Kevin Durant coming out of college, and the reports were he couldnt bench press 135#s, and that was what I had as a visual. That video is funny. [/quote]
I would bet that durant is the weakest upperbody athlete in the NBA. That dude is so skinny lol. I bet you shaq can/could bench over 400.
Yeah I saw that Howard video on a link from a thread here on T-Nation. he went higher than 315 as well
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]hungry4more wrote:
I can’t believe this BS is coming up again. How the fuck do you have an across the board definition of “overall fitness”? Fitness for WHAT? Define fit, then we can go from there. Until there is a definition of that word that we all agree on, you can’t compare a strongman competitor to an ironman. They would suck big monkey-tits at each other’s sports. [/quote]
This is what I said…FTW![/quote]
…I do believe the OP contained the words “My definition for fitness in this case a was a well rounded blend of speed, power, strength, muscular endurance, power endurance, and stamina.”
[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:
I’m not discounting football at all. Those dudes take a savage beating week after week and display a shit ton of athletic ability. But, I don’t think you understand how fast the NBA game is. These dudes have to sprint a couple of miles a game. Then you have to add in ball handling, defenders pulling on you and your jersey, shooting, etc… Watch someone run full speed while dribbling, then stop on a dime, spin past the defender, plant and explode to dunk on someone else and tell me the level of fitness and athleticsm can be matched by anyother sport. Maybe some of y’all will never agree with me, and that’s fine. But, basketball players are by far the most fit and athletic of all sports, and to me that cannot be argued.[/quote]
By now you should know we can argue anything. :P.
I agree that basketballers are great athletes, and tremendously fit. However, I think that from an objective standpoint, the sport does not require you to run more than 30m in a straight line. I don’t see it developing the specific “fitness” required for the 200m, but I’d see them running a good 40 and a great 1500. That said, few non-track sport do develop it, and it makes jack all difference to how they perform in game.
Emotionally I think Ironman competitors are the fittest humans on the planet, but I know that they would get owned in most objective tests outside of the ultra-endurance area.
Objectively, every sport has areas of fitness that the athletes are not as strong in. It’s just a matter of what value we put on them that makes us think they’re the fittest.
U guys forget wresling. I would say mma but too many wannabes in it so wresling wins. Endurance,strength,speed,flexiblity. Coordination. They play dodgeball for fun and are dam good at it witch requires lots of coordnation. Many are good endurance run ners even though its not really needed for a sport. Look at brock lesnar.
[quote]SHSU_rugger wrote:
5. Rugby Leaguers
obviously I’m biased towards rugby but if need be you could replace ARL for union[/quote]
Not even close. You had rugby ahead of NFL athletes? That’s a pretty poorly constructed list. While I would agree that rugby is an extremely tough sport, this thread is about fitness, and generally speaking NFL athletes put rugby athletes (and aussie footballers) to shame. No question.
[quote]WestCoast7 wrote:
[quote]SHSU_rugger wrote:
5. Rugby Leaguers
obviously I’m biased towards rugby but if need be you could replace ARL for union[/quote]
Not even close. You had rugby ahead of NFL athletes? That’s a pretty poorly constructed list. While I would agree that rugby is an extremely tough sport, this thread is about fitness, and generally speaking NFL athletes put rugby athletes (and aussie footballers) to shame. No question.[/quote]
It depends what aspect of fitness you’re talking about. Let’s not turn this into a rugby vs. american football thread. That would just be tedious and pointless.
[quote]smokotime wrote:
[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:
I’m not discounting football at all. Those dudes take a savage beating week after week and display a shit ton of athletic ability. But, I don’t think you understand how fast the NBA game is. These dudes have to sprint a couple of miles a game. Then you have to add in ball handling, defenders pulling on you and your jersey, shooting, etc… Watch someone run full speed while dribbling, then stop on a dime, spin past the defender, plant and explode to dunk on someone else and tell me the level of fitness and athleticsm can be matched by anyother sport. Maybe some of y’all will never agree with me, and that’s fine. But, basketball players are by far the most fit and athletic of all sports, and to me that cannot be argued.[/quote]
By now you should know we can argue anything. :P.
I agree that basketballers are great athletes, and tremendously fit. However, I think that from an objective standpoint, the sport does not require you to run more than 30m in a straight line. I don’t see it developing the specific “fitness” required for the 200m, but I’d see them running a good 40 and a great 1500. That said, few non-track sport do develop it, and it makes jack all difference to how they perform in game.
[quote]
Smokotime, I will not jump down your throat for this rather confusing comment. You may not know anything about basketball, fair enough. When asking if an athlete would be fit to run a 200m just ask if there are times in their sport when they have to bust their ass for 20 to 30 seconds straight. I promise you in high level basketball when playing defense is harder than offense this happens all the time. So yes, a basketball player would be very good at running the 200m. Do you think Michael Jordan could have run a decent 200m?
[quote]RTJenforcer wrote:
[quote]WestCoast7 wrote:
[quote]SHSU_rugger wrote:
5. Rugby Leaguers
obviously I’m biased towards rugby but if need be you could replace ARL for union[/quote]
Not even close. You had rugby ahead of NFL athletes? That’s a pretty poorly constructed list. While I would agree that rugby is an extremely tough sport, this thread is about fitness, and generally speaking NFL athletes put rugby athletes (and aussie footballers) to shame. No question.[/quote]
It depends what aspect of fitness you’re talking about. Let’s not turn this into a rugby vs. american football thread. That would just be tedious and pointless.
[/quote]
I have no interest in turning it into that, I am certain though, “generally speaking” as I said in my previous post, that NFL players would rank higher than rugby players/aussie rules players in overall fitness, by far.
[quote]WestCoast7 wrote:
[quote]RTJenforcer wrote:
[quote]WestCoast7 wrote:
[quote]SHSU_rugger wrote:
5. Rugby Leaguers
obviously I’m biased towards rugby but if need be you could replace ARL for union[/quote]
Not even close. You had rugby ahead of NFL athletes? That’s a pretty poorly constructed list. While I would agree that rugby is an extremely tough sport, this thread is about fitness, and generally speaking NFL athletes put rugby athletes (and aussie footballers) to shame. No question.[/quote]
It depends what aspect of fitness you’re talking about. Let’s not turn this into a rugby vs. american football thread. That would just be tedious and pointless.
[/quote]
I have no interest in turning it into that, I am certain though, “generally speaking” as I said in my previous post, that NFL players would rank higher than rugby players/aussie rules players in overall fitness, by far.
[/quote]
I’ll agree to disagree!
[quote]skinnyboy wrote:
[quote]smokotime wrote:
[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:
I’m not discounting football at all. Those dudes take a savage beating week after week and display a shit ton of athletic ability. But, I don’t think you understand how fast the NBA game is. These dudes have to sprint a couple of miles a game. Then you have to add in ball handling, defenders pulling on you and your jersey, shooting, etc… Watch someone run full speed while dribbling, then stop on a dime, spin past the defender, plant and explode to dunk on someone else and tell me the level of fitness and athleticsm can be matched by anyother sport. Maybe some of y’all will never agree with me, and that’s fine. But, basketball players are by far the most fit and athletic of all sports, and to me that cannot be argued.[/quote]
By now you should know we can argue anything. :P.
I agree that basketballers are great athletes, and tremendously fit. However, I think that from an objective standpoint, the sport does not require you to run more than 30m in a straight line. I don’t see it developing the specific “fitness” required for the 200m, but I’d see them running a good 40 and a great 1500. That said, few non-track sport do develop it, and it makes jack all difference to how they perform in game.
[/quote]
Smokotime, I will not jump down your throat for this rather confusing comment. You may not know anything about basketball, fair enough. When asking if an athlete would be fit to run a 200m just ask if there are times in their sport when they have to bust their ass for 20 to 30 seconds straight. I promise you in high level basketball when playing defense is harder than offense this happens all the time. So yes, a basketball player would be very good at running the 200m. Do you think Michael Jordan could have run a decent 200m?[/quote]
Oh, they will run good times. If you’re as fast as they are and in good shape, of course you’ll run a good 200m time. I’m saying that they’ll have a significantly bigger drop-off throughout than a high level sprinter; i.e. less “fitness” for the 200m.
And why on earth should they? Would a sport relying on speed, skill and agility train it’s athletes to run 20+ seconds in a straight line instead of being better at the sport?
The court is just under 29m long, and the shot clock is 24 seconds. Where is the time where they are going to sprint flat out for more than 10 seconds, let alone 20-30?
Yes, they do work hard continuously. Yes, they are moving fast, jumping and changing direction. I’m not debating that at all. I’m saying that the game itself does not develop 200m “fitness” to the same level as other types of fitness, and that there are no real benefits to an athlete getting stupidly good at it.
In short, I disagree that busting ass for 20-30 seconds automatically makes you a fitter 200m runner if it’s not maintaining top speed in a straight line.
- UPS guy
- Beer Truck Delivery Driver Guy
- Javelin Catcher
- Ball Girl at MLB Game
- NASCAR Pit Crew
- Pizza Delivery guy in a bad neighborhood
- Soccer Moms
- Vending machine filler guy
Sorry its late & I missed my workout today! Seriously I rate
- Pole Vaulters
- 400 Meter Sprinters
- Major League Catchers
- Hockey Goalies
- Tiger Woods - Stamina, speed, power, ohh i wasn’t talking about golf, you want me to talk golf?
[quote]gregron wrote:
[quote]mbdix wrote:
If that is true about dwight howard, then I might be wrong about the strength. But, yes I was talking about pure strength. I remember Kevin Durant coming out of college, and the reports were he couldnt bench press 135#s, and that was what I had as a visual. That video is funny. [/quote]
I would bet that durant is the weakest upperbody athlete in the NBA. That dude is so skinny lol. I bet you shaq can/could bench over 400.
Yeah I saw that Howard video on a link from a thread here on T-Nation. he went higher than 315 as well[/quote]
It was 185 that Durant couldn’t hit, and it was at the combine before his rookie year. He’s probably not an awful lot stronger but I bet he can bench his bodyweight or close to it now. Also, I’m the one that posted the Howard vid. I posted it to show his strength, but the vid is misleading 'cause he was using olympic training plates, so what looked like 315 was actually more like 225-245. Even though, I wouldn’t doubt at all if he could hit 315 or so, and for someone who’s that tall with that wingspan flat backed benching that’s strong as fuck.
I’ll agree both basketball and hockey players are great athletes, why not watch some videos of other random cool sports that require some skill and athleticism? I was really impressed the first time I went to a cyclocross race.
???
flag football with the ace gregron
[quote]spk wrote:
flag football with the ace gregron[/quote]
^^Im flattered that you have taken time to research and re read my posts so that you can go trolling around these threads with my information. No one thinks your funny though. Sorry
not being funny. you shouldnt have started calling me a troll first. its guys like you that ruin a forum with name calling cause you disagree with a post.