Is it true that the "best" athletes in the USA are in the NFL, NBA, MLB or NHL?

The poster pointing out that it's highly likely that those who'd likely rise to the top in soccer don't because they end up playing sports other than soccer which they do not excel at and therefore wash out long before they get to the pros.

Too many answers are trying to address whether the best players in other sports would make the best soccer players had they started playing soccer at an early age.

gestev wrote:

There are 0 athletes in the MLB, let alone "best athletes".

Can you spell Samardzija?

The best athletes usually like to play the sports where you actually score.

gestev wrote:

There are 0 athletes in the MLB, let alone "best athletes".

Not true. Many good athletes there. Of course they've put on a little weight because strength is important and cardiovascular fitness is not.

OP,

If we could identify the 10,000 most athletic (defined as greatest amount of athleticism) people in the world, of course we would find them over-represented in certain activities. However, you would also likely find a few of the 10,000 in professions you were not expecting.

For instance, while the NFL and NBA are likely over-represented, it may just be that there are more professional dancers (ballet, jazz, etc.) among the top 10,000 than the MLB and NHL combined.

I wholly agree with the notion that the percentage of truly international level elite athletes is very low among USA soccer compared to the NFL and NBA. If you took the best running backs and receivers from the NFL and could some how computer generate how good they would be at soccer with 15+ years experience, I have to imagine they would destroy the USA soccer team, and likely every other team in the world.

Did you guys see the video of the 10.3-100m athlete (or thereabouts in terms of speed) get into rugby and just destroy it?

1] Low resistance surface sports like hockey are not athletics.

2] Doped sports like MLB and NFL are not athletics.

In America, the best athletes go where the society creates a life of fame and fortune.

Exp: Lebron, Kobe, Tiger

the three fastest growing sports.

Go to many inner city h.s. track programs and you'll have tons of kids lining up for the 100 and 200, and maybe even the 400. But after that it gets much less, and after the 800 it's almost down to about 5% of the entire team.

The television hype is NBA first. NFL second, golf third and baseball fourth. Yes, soccer fans, soccer is growing, but here is the problem. For all the little kids who play, they typically lose interest when in high school or just graduated. Most "think" they can play basketball and are convinced they are good.

These same kids insist they are a sprinter on a track team, when they might be better at the 800, steeple, high jump or whatever.

I hope golf continues to grow. It is embarrassing watching LPGA (I watched one, the U.S. open)and seeing 70% Asians, and less and less Americans.

Let's push the future into golf and lacrosse and yes distance running.

Less head injuries (lacrosse, I know), better futures.

We need to define "most athletic". Webster: athlete; a person trained or skilled in exercises, sports, or games requiring physical strength, agility, or stamina.

So from that we could say that a person who has the most athleticism will have the greatest combination of those capabilities?

But how can we be sure that those 10000 most athletic individuals will necessarily perform at the highest level in soccer, NBA or the NFL?

If we could run the experiment, would they (the 10000) also be the best dancers, tennis players, gymnast or track & field athletes? By the way , Track & field is athletics.

This raises another question; is a 10.0 100m, 1:44 800m or a 27 min 10k runner less an athlete than a top NFL RB?

What about the athlete's size...do you get special consideration if you're physically larger and have great strength, agility & stamina?

Decathletes are right up there with the worlds best overall athletes.

Sure money persuades some, but I still think the top guys in track would still be the best even if every NFL,NBA, and MLB player never played there sport and trained for track their entire lives.

It goes the other way around too. There are probably track guys that could be great at other sports if they focused on that sport only. I for one gave up varsity basketball and baseball just to be a mediocre HS runner(4:45) because I enjoyed it way more.

Me2 wrote:In America, the best athletes go where the society creates a life of fame and fortune.

This is BS. Occasionally you see a very good athlete at the age of 18 choose to be a baseball player instead of a football player for financial reasons, or something like that, but for the most part, kids are not choosing their sports because they want to make money at it or because they think they will. Besides, there's huge, huge money in soccer. Man City pays the highest wages in all of world sport, ahead of even the Yankees.

As for kids losing interest in soccer after graduating, that's pretty much irrelevant. Soccer is a high skill sport, and anyone who's going to have a good professional career is going to know it by the time he's 15 or 16. Future stars are often starting in the biggest leagues in the world by the time they're 19.

I'm tired of hearing the excuse that "our best athletes don't play soccer." There's no siphon that drains off the best soccer talent into other sports. There are communities where soccer is popular, and communities where it isn't. But there's a wide distribution of athletic talent all over. With around 20 million youth players, we have more than enough people playing the game to be very good at it.

US soccer has two main problems. First, We still have too few academies. While the very best players are identified and nurtured early, we need to have a larger pool of players getting high level training, because predicting future stars isn't an exact science. If you look at the top European clubs, they all have academies, but their youth programs only provide a small portion of their top players. Many of the best players in the world were not obviously future superstars at a young age.

Our second big problem is in developing players between the ages of 18 and 22. Some teenagers play in the MLS, but they have a hard time getting picked up by European teams. Work permit issues can make it tougher, too. Below the MLS, the level of competition drops off sharply here. In Europe, on the other hand, even lower division soccer is fiercely competitive and provides a better development opportunity, as well as chances to impress bigger clubs that are just down the road.

if we are going to define "athleticism" by combination of strength/agility/speed... then NFL players are easily the best athletes out there. You won't find many huge guys who are also really fast in other sports.

Realism wrote:

if we are going to define "athleticism" by combination of strength/agility/speed... then NFL players are easily the best athletes out there. You won't find many huge guys who are also really fast in other sports.

So, you believe the athlete's size counts? If so, does this mean that the heavy weight boxing champ is necessarily more athletic than the welter weight champ?

PV runner wrote:

I some areas it's not debatable. The weights and throws guys who win US and Olympic championships deserve to be recognized as "the best"; but it is just not debatable that if all of the football offensive and defensive linemen in college and the NFL focused on shot up, hammer, etc, they would dominate the sport. There was a thread earlier about Michael Carter breaking the US high school shot record by 9 feet, he went on to be a college champion and Olympic silver medalist with shot being an after-thought to his football, and he dropped it when he went pro. He would have dominated if he has concentrated on shot.

This shows a bit of a misunderstanding of the sport, IMO. There are a few that couple compete, but a guy like Ryan Whiting chose to never compete in football because he didn't like team sports. Cantwell was an extremely good football player/prospect that had a knee injury that made him focus on throwing, which he was even better at.

A lot of football/bball guys competed in track, so we can see their results. There were many good ones, but a lot of sh!t ones. The #1 pick this year and widely regarded as a great 'athlete', Clowney, didn't even throw 50ft in the shot and did fewer bench reps at 225 than Reggie Bush. Most guys that go on to be elite are easily throwing into the mid/upper 60s even if their technique is questionable. The good ones throw into the 70s.

Chris Johnson, who has the fastest 40 ever at the combine, never won a state title in track, while competing for 4 years. He got smoked by Walter Dix by .3 his senior year running 10.66.

Most of the best track guys are doing track. There are very few football guys that would have been the absolute best in track, although there are plenty that could have been 'really good.' Really good doesn't win medals or set records though.

trolololololololol wrote:

The #1 pick this year and widely regarded as a great 'athlete', Clowney, didn't even throw 50ft in the shot and did fewer bench reps at 225 than Reggie Bush.

Clowney also ran a 4.53 40 at 6'6 265, faster than many wide receivers and runningbacks.

LMFAO that cross-country skiers are athletes much less the best.

The premium skills that define athleticism cannot be developed through hard work therefore endurance sports while requiring fitness and stamina do not require athleticism.

The supreme athlete are NFL skill position players.

No question.

Look at an NFL cornerback or wide receiver.

1) They have world-class speed - most can break 11 in the 100meters some will be low 11

2) Almost all can dunk basketballs - they can jump

3) They can run all day - run miles during a game

4) They have supreme agility

5) They have supremem coordination and footwork

6) They have tremendous strength - try to bench press 225 pounds 10 times or more

7) They have very lean physiques - like thoroughbreds

8) They have tremendous explosiveness

An NFL cornerback or WR is a far better athlete on average than a worldclass soccer player - who are skill-driven not athletically driven players. Messi could never even play HS football at a high level much less Div 2 college. Same with all the best European players. Some Brazilians could play NFL though as well as some African players. But soccer is skill more than athleticism.

No the best athletes all belong to nascar. These beasts are working out in the the gym 24/7 with legends like Kali Muscle, Ronnie Coleman, Arnold Schwarzenegger so they can be killing machines while driving their cute little cars in a circles for hours.

The NBA are not good athletes - only good athletes for their size. Statistically you will find most of the best athletes in the 5'9 - 6'2" range as most North American men are in that range. Men taller than 6'4" are hard to find and are over-represented in basketball. This makes the better athletes among them seem to be among the best athletes in the country, but they are not as they are being compared to others in the 6'4" and taller group.

runn wrote:

Football players (and especially baseball players) are way overrated by the sports ignorant American public.

They're all good athletes but they are specialized.

No, MLB,NBA,NFL,NHL could not step into a track meet and be world class anymore than a world class track and field athlete could be world class in those sports.

Track and field pros are pretty specialized (except the multi sport folks).

Economics plays a role as done society.

I will venture to guess the cool factor of soccer is far greater now than 35 years ago.

Did you read the definition for athlete?? It includes stamina, you can't just discard it.

You said that NFL CB & WRs have world class speed. But then you go on to say most can break 11 and some will be low 11. But sub 11 or low 11 is not world class for 100m. Are u suggesting that world class sprinters can't bench press 225?