Football players are the best athletes on earth--you're an idiot if you think otherwise.

In general NBA players are the most athletic people in the world.

Of course individual exceptions are found in every sport, and you could throw in ice hockey for the additional speed component not present anywhere else, but when you look at the physical tools a pro basketball player has to possess, the answer is clear.

rugby players are similar to football players in terms of their build and skill sets, though they play a more flowing game with less breaks in play and thus have better stamina. football players work in bursts. look at running backs in the nfl that come out of the game after two or three plays, wide receivers that "block" on certain plays. in football the best overall athletes would be DBs. but again rugby players have better endurance while having the same skill sets (plus the dont play in pads...)

also you cant talk about individuals. its rare that someone that specializes in one sports can switch to another and keep up. aston eaton would get destroyed in football because he focuses on track. ed reed would get destroyed in the decathlon because he focuses on football. if we want to argue which sport has the skill set that would best prepare an individual to perform well in any sports, i would say the best prepared would be rugby players

nba - yes

gymnasts - yes

close - rugby - soccer

but football is no clear winner vs nba and gymnasts (imho)

Best athletes on earth? Sure about that?

http://www.theoaklandpress.com/content/articles/2012/10/18/sports/doc507fd5746be266682507533.jpg

Don't you first need to clarify the definition of "Athleticism" before you can say one sport is better than the other?

It seems to me you are basing your definition of athleticism on the criteria of playing football. If that is the case then yes Football players are the best, but if the criteria for being the best athlete is someone who is the best at:

Strength

Coordination

Endurance

Balance

Dexterity

Speed

Flexibility

then you cannot say All Football player are better than All Rugby, Basketball, Decathletes, Soccer players etc..

Linemen and Kickers are Football players and they are not better then the above mentioned.

um what about boxers? thats got some crazy athletes and dedication

NBA players suck and are no way near the best. Their flexibility is atrocious, their strength is bad, their speed is bad. Sub par players. They do have some of the most "skill" of any sport though.

Josh Hamilton's Addiction wrote:

Ok so obviously no football player is gonna beat Usain Bolt in a footrace--duh. But one of the worst parts of track and field is the indignant fans who think the sport actually hosts the best athletes on earth. Ashton Eaton would be destroyed on the gridiron, as would any other Olympian. There's just no contest. Football is the biggest, fastest, strongest form of competition on earth. NFL players are absolute freaks of nature. Track stars are b list athletes, most of whom just couldn't make it in real sports where the athletes are paid real well.

All that being said, I cannot stand football. I'm not a fan and I avoid watching it whenever possible. But I do recognize the fact that football players are obviously the best athletes on earth. Being angry about that isn't gonna help the sport of track and field.

This is the most ignorant post i've ever seen on these boards. Track is purely about speed and endurance. These are CORE skills required in virtually every major sport.

You can't compared track to any other sport because it is the purest form of athleticism. Strip away all the extraneous bullshi* and you have real athletes. No other sport will your skillset help you survive in the real world. Shooting baskets at a hoop, catching a football with one hand. Society invented these forms of athleticism.

Track (and swimming as well) are pure forms of talent that society did NOT engineer.

NFL, MLB, NBA will always have better athletes than track because they ADD more skillsets to what is necessary. That is not a fair comparison.

I will say this. In the REAL world,, track athletes are the best. Period. Stamina. Strength. Endurance. Coordination between muscle groups. Track owns all other sports.

To sum this nonsense up, put everyone on an island with every man for himself and the track athletes would fare the best of them all.

the fact that you have so many NBA players in their late 30s is proof that NBA players are not as athletic as NFL defensive backs. Every NFL defensive back is an athletic beast, many nba players are above normal athletes with incredible hand eye coordination.

Ok so the major sports will "always have better athletes," according to you, but "track athletes are the best."

I'm glad you were able to make that clear.

Lastly, if we were to stage some brutal game of survival on an island, I'd wager on Ray Lewis well before any track athlete--football is a barbaric game, not for the faint of heart.

Josh Hamilton's Addiction wrote:

Ok so obviously no football player is gonna beat Usain Bolt in a footrace--duh. But one of the worst parts of track and field is the indignant fans who think the sport actually hosts the best athletes on earth. Ashton Eaton would be destroyed on the gridiron, as would any other Olympian. There's just no contest. Football is the biggest, fastest, strongest form of competition on earth. NFL players are absolute freaks of nature. Track stars are b list athletes, most of whom just couldn't make it in real sports where the athletes are paid real well.

All that being said, I cannot stand football. I'm not a fan and I avoid watching it whenever possible. But I do recognize the fact that football players are obviously the best athletes on earth. Being angry about that isn't gonna help the sport of track and field.

Not the best best troll post I've ever seen.

Threads like this are beyond retarded.

"Best Athlete" is a made up title based on arbitrary criteria that no one cares about.

People care about what you can do in the context of your sport.

Do you think any NFL player could hang with 16 year old Jim Ryun in a mile race?

Not a friggin chance in hell.

Does is matter that they can't.

Nope.

They are not runners. They are *American* football players. They play a game.

The best athletes are not ones that play games.

Ashton Eaton is a "better athlete" than anyone who plays in the NFL

He is a better overall runner, jumper, and thrower.

Period.

The 15 year old gymnasts that we saw in the olympics are better athletes than people in the NFL.

Incredible coordination, conditioning, and strength relative to mass.

These are the facts. I am sorry that they do not align with the reality that you've created for yourself.

clearing the bs up wrote:

The best athletes are not ones that play games.

I agree, no games needed.

:):):):):)

Josh Hamilton's Addiction wrote:

Ok so the major sports will "always have better athletes," according to you, but "track athletes are the best."

I'm glad you were able to make that clear.

Lastly, if we were to stage some brutal game of survival on an island, I'd wager on Ray Lewis well before any track athlete--football is a barbaric game, not for the faint of heart.

Football is a barbaric game?

Survival?

Are you aware that football literally consists of two groups of large men that line up and fall down over and over and over again for several hours?

They LITERALLY Line Up, Fall Down...Line Up, Fall Down...Line Up, Fall Down...

throwing coach wrote:

When it comes to power athletes a 70 foot shotputter produces 7 plus horsepower. The closest after that is an olympic lifter snatching over 200k creates 4.5 horsepower. Sprinting speed is down the list some.

I'd like to see verification of these claims. 7hp is over 5000 watts. Seems high.

Josh Hamilton's Addiction wrote:

Ok so the major sports will "always have better athletes," according to you, but "track athletes are the best."

I'm glad you were able to make that clear.

Lastly, if we were to stage some brutal game of survival on an island, I'd wager on Ray Lewis well before any track athlete--football is a barbaric game, not for the faint of heart.

Retard, i said in the REAL WORLD without the engineered concept of "sports." You do realize that a sport is man made? If we were to take the best human beings in a natural setting doing actual natural things like climbing, running etc then track athletes would undoubtedly reign supreme.

In the grand money making concept of "sport" NFL athletes rank right up there as the best athletes because they have a larger skillset then track athletes. But strip away those extraneous skillsets that aren't useful in the natural world and track athletes are the best PURE athlete.

Nobody needs to be able to catch a hail mary with one hand while mantaining possession on the fall down. Or shoot a ball into a small hoop 50 yards away.

professional wrestlers are the greatest athletes on earth. look who they got

Brock Lesnar - NCAA wrestling champion, MMA heavyweight champion

Kurt Angle - Olympic Gold Medalist

Mark Henry - world class power lifter

Ettore Ewen - world class power lifter

April Mendez - sexy as hell

there are some more

I like how you picked out this specific player to illustrate your point. We all no he has no problem murdering a man.

Josh Hamilton's Addiction wrote:

Lastly, if we were to stage some brutal game of survival on an island, I'd wager on Ray Lewis well before any track athlete--football is a barbaric game, not for the faint of heart.

Utter nonsense. Champion professional fighters would whoop his ass. But even then, sport fighting is not the most effective form of real-world fighting. Those trained in real combat would take Ray Lewis out.

Football happens to be a sport in which many are massive, strong and short-term speedy because it emphasizes physics... running, tackling, hitting, etc.

Does this make them the best "athlete"? It all depends on how you define athletics.