Hmm, of all the marathoners to pick, Meb...what about Wilson Kipsang?
Hmm, of all the marathoners to pick, Meb...what about Wilson Kipsang?
RunWild wrote:
Endurance - Meb and other top Marathoners
Speed - Gaitlin and other top Sprinters
Strength - Top Powerlifters
You forgot skills and power/explosiveness.
If I'd have to rate someone like Froning on a scale of 0-10, this would look like:
Endurance: 8
Speed: 9
Strength: 10
Skills: 10
Power/Explosiveness: 9
Total: 9.2
Compared to Ashton Eaton:
Endurance: 7 (he suffers quite a bit just with the 1500)
Speed: 8 (his 100/110 is decent but we don't know much about 40 yard sprints)
Strength: 5 (I doubt he bench presses)
Skills: 7 (pole vault, hurdles, but not much else)
Power/Explosiveness: 7 (he is not the best out of the blocks)
Total: 6.8
Now compare this to:
GALEN RUPP:
Endurance: 9.5 (not Bekele or Farah, but close enough)
Speed: 6 (covers 100m in 12s with flying start)
Strength: 1 (can you spell WEAKLING?)
Skills: 1 (no skills required in distance running)
Power/Explosiveness: 2
Total: 3.9
So in the end, decathletes are great compared to long distance runners but they don't compare to real CrossFit athletes.
This list is a joke in many, many ways already listed. But, in my opinion, the worst part of this is the scoring within the same sport. The poster who compared the Lebron/Ray Allen numbers is spot on and that goes for ALL the same-sport rankings.
One other thing I noticed because they were relatively close in the list: Roger Federer is as strong as Rich Froning. I am absolutely not a cross fit person and truly feel those guys are not even close to the discussion of fittest human being, but c'mon, Roger Federer and Rich Froning have the same strength? What a joke.
Xfit_guy_the_real_1 wrote:
If I'd have to rate someone like Froning on a scale of 0-10, this would look like:
Endurance: 8
Speed: 9
Strength: 10
Skills: 10
Power/Explosiveness: 9
Total: 9.2
Compared to Ashton Eaton:
Endurance: 7 (he suffers quite a bit just with the 1500)
Speed: 8 (his 100/110 is decent but we don't know much about 40 yard sprints)
Strength: 5 (I doubt he bench presses)
Skills: 7 (pole vault, hurdles, but not much else)
Power/Explosiveness: 7 (he is not the best out of the blocks)
Total: 6.8
So in the end, decathletes are great compared to long distance runners but they don't compare to real CrossFit athletes.
Are you on crack? You think Rich Froning could beat Aston Eaton at 40yds or 1500m? Eaton has run 6.66 for 60m by the way.
this list has so many holes in it I don't have time to point them out...i'll just say 2.
1.) the world record holder in the decathlon...THE BEST DECATHLETE EVER...is ranked behind a $hitload of football and basketball players
2.) Meb is ranked ahead of Mo and Galen, who are way more rounded than him in terms of strength, agility, speed, endurance
Gosh, I love Xfit_guy_the_real_1 !!
One of my favorite posts ever. Especially because it's impossible to know whether he is being ironic.
I would love to see Mr. Fronning try the high hurdles with his stumpy little legs.
Kinda shocking they make a list without any women on it? Is this 1920?
Floyd a 9/10 in Endurance?
Less than Lebron, who somehow has a 10/10 rating?
What kind of an idiot actually believes a pro-bball player has more endurance than a boxer?
With Bolt's speed and Meb's endurance, Lebron may be the one to break the 2 hour marathon!
I still can't believe of all the footballers in the world they could've picked Nani, NANI!, made the list. I think they might be trolling.
El Keniano wrote:
I still can't believe of all the footballers in the world they could've picked Nani, NANI!, made the list. I think they might be trolling.
Ronaldo made #2 on this list, but their choices for footballers could have been better. Nani, Howard, Forlan, Hulk?????
Having said that, there was some clear trolling involved, especially with Ice Hockey (St. Louis is not the most fit Hockey Player and where was Crosby in the discussion?)
Sports Illustrated's main intent is to make money.
Rankings such as these are a great way for them to draw interest because they know it's so idiotic people will be discussing them.
It's also why about half of their "investigative" reports turn out to be untrue.
Sports Illustrated, espn, and others have become very good at media lynchings so they always have something to write about because apparently just writing about sport itself is not that interesting.
Nice guy wrote:
For example, how does rock climber Chris Sharma rate only 3/10 in agility -- the lowest score among any of the fifty athletes!?
Agreed.
Hanging on to the basketball rim, and dropping to the floor when you can't hang on any longer; almost no agility involved.
Sitting and kicking, and not being able to hang on to the leaders, and dropping back; no agility involved.
Rock climbing and deciding you can't hang any longer--death awaits--; much more agility involved than the above "agile athletes."
LOL @ Meb's speed being anything under a 9. How many guys with a speed of higher than 5.5 could keep up with Meb's 5k pace for even a quarter mile? Rich Froning? Could he keep up with Meb's half marathon pace for even a quarter mile? I doubt it. And hahahahaha. Lebron's speed is ranked the same as Bolt's. This is hilarious.
It's a totally biased list. It's more of a popularity contest and American-centered. I'm wondering why Dalton (gymnast) is included while Kohei Uchimura is not, given that the latter is the current Olympic and World all-around champion in gymnastics. I also think there should be more gymnasts and winter athletes (like Bjoerndalen) in this list to make it credible.
RunWild wrote:
Hulk?????
Good point. Hulk is ridiculously BUFF. That guy must have spent countless hours in the gym, yet he is one of the top 5 soccer players throughout the last few years. Insane.
See what I mean:
http://media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com/736x/57/a8/ab/57a8abe78e364530b66551d9a0e3b758.jpga 6'8 250lb guy is not going to be have great endurance it just cant happen. cross country skiers, tour de france riders etc all have the lowest heart rates in the world.
if its relative strength rather than outright i think the overall winner would be a gymnast or a rock climber
strength agility speed( probably decent explosive power) stamina
Here's how you find the fittest athlete in the world. You put on a new decathlon:
1. 50m dash
2. 200m hurdles
3. 600m hurdles
4. 2000m steeplechase
5. 8K cross country run on a hilly course
6. Javelin throw
7. 100m swim
8. 400m swim
9. Bouldering competition
10. Top two from the first 9 events in a UFC fight for gold medal. You can throw in 3rd vs 4th for the bronze.
The running events get rid of the jokers like Rich Froning. Suddenly LeBron James doesn't look so good. Neither does Mo Farah. David Rudisha looks like a prospect. So do Alan Webb and MAYBE Ashton Eaton if he sacrifices some muscle mass. Maybe Alistair Brownlee. Pro soccer and tennis players also look like prospects.
The trouble with this 'sport' is that the top competitors wouldn't be anywhere near world class in any of the individual events, dramatically reducing the sexiness of the competition.
You would, however, select for athletes who can maintain a very high VO2max in spite of having significant upper body muscle and top running speed.
mk29 wrote:
if its relative strength rather than outright i think the overall winner would be a gymnast or a rock climber
False. A weightlifter would win both relatively and outright.
