Josh Hamilton's Addiction wrote:
body master wrote:Here's the thing. That's why i said on an ISLAND. Did you not read that part?
But because we don't live on an island, the athletes best suited for island survival are not the best athletes in the real world. Football players are.
In order for your original argument to mean fvck-all, you need to explicitly define what 'best athletes' means in objective terms.
Didn't think you could.
I don't think foosball players are all that great of athletes. Great wrist strength, though.
Go look up discus thrower Matt Lamb from Washington State. He was top 20 easy in all combine events at the 2010 WSU proday comparing him to LB's. He also ran 10.86 FAT in high school. And I a pretty sure he weighs around 235-250 looking at his size.
Dennis Reynolds wrote:
LOL! A dominating NFL RB (we will say top 5) makes between 5 and 8 million dollars a year. A world class sprinter who is not named Bolt makes less than a million a year. Why haven't they made the switch?
LOL! So, we're in agreement that every runningback to ever compete in the NFL is genetically inferior to Bolt?
Dr. Rosenrosen wrote:
LOL! So, we're in agreement that every runningback to ever compete in the NFL is genetically inferior to Bolt?
That's not even close to true. Bolt would break like a twig on a football field. He'd last 4 games, max.
Dr. Rosenrosen wrote:
LOL! So, we're in agreement that every runningback to ever compete in the NFL is genetically inferior to Bolt?
Every human being that has ever walked this earth is genetically inferior to Bolt when it comes to running fast in a straight line for 100/200m. Being an NFL running back requires the ability to change direction quickly, have explosive drive and power, durability, flexibility, unbelievable strength, leaping ability and yes, some straight line speed. Bolt only has one of those things, he is not even close to the level of even a below average NFL running back in any of the other categories.
This is true. Look at Jeff Demps: he's a 9.96 guy and should theoretically be dominant as he's much faster than everyone on the field. In reality, Demps was really only an asset in open-field situations, because being a solid running back requires power and technical skill beyond simply being able to run fast.
Ultimately, arguing which athletes are superior is pointless as they're all training for optimal ability in their own sports. A distance runner couldn't play in the NFL any more than a linebacker could run a 13 minute 5k. Each of these athletes has gravitated toward the sport they were naturally inclined toward (e.g. bigger guys go for football, skinny and uncoordinated guys run) and worked to be the best they could from then on. This apples and oranges comparison makes no sense.
Dennis Reynolds wrote:
Dr. Rosenrosen wrote:LOL! So, we're in agreement that every runningback to ever compete in the NFL is genetically inferior to Bolt?
Every human being that has ever walked this earth is genetically inferior to Bolt when it comes to running fast in a straight line for 100/200m. Being an NFL running back requires the ability to change direction quickly, have explosive drive and power, durability, flexibility, unbelievable strength, leaping ability and yes, some straight line speed. Bolt only has one of those things, he is not even close to the level of even a below average NFL running back in any of the other categories.
And you have decided that the above criteria determine if someone is a 'better' athlete? For starters, you don't KNOW if a running back is more flexible than Usain Bolt. Secondly, why is that a criterium for someone being a better athlete anyway? You just came up with a random list of attributes that you had predetermined were indicators of athletic ability because you knew that your favored type of athlete met them. Your logic is crap. I can only conclude you must have a very small penis.
If I said that Charlie Watts is a better musician than Keith Richard because he can play the drums, it would make me look a bit of a moron, wouldn't it?
Fail.
NBA players kick butt on NFL players. Much more interesting sport all around.
Your typical NBA guard could step on a track and run a very fast 400 (well, they have to be advised to save something for the last 100).
I never said anything about RBs being better athletes than Bolt. I was just pointing out that Bolt does not have the skills to be even a low level RB in the nfl which was counter to what that moron had posted saying bolt would dominate. i can conclude that you have horrible reading comprehension skills and since you went straight to thinking I had a small di ck yours must be microscopic.
coach wrote:
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.
You could also say that this is proof the NFL players are more easily replaced than their NBA counterparts. There are only 12 roster spots per NBA team, and yet some of the spots don't turn over often, even though the NBA pays high salaries.
And why does incredible hand eye coordination get discounted when we are determining who the best athletes are?
Here is what American football players lead the world in: fatness and steroid usage. I mean, have you looked at these men? Do you really think men grow to weigh 350 pounds by eating lots of meat and potatos and working hard in the weight room? There is a reasonthe standard speed measurement in the NFL is the 40 yard dash. If some of those guys tried to run 50 yards they'd collapse from the exertion. When broadcasters praise the "athleticism" of NFL players, this is what they mean: If they removed all the equipment and got into a purer form of competition -- track and field-- they might be able to hold their own. That's the highest praise they ever give a football player.
Scroll down for Bryan Clay's SPARQ results:
ath·lete (thlt)
n.
A person possessing the natural or acquired traits, such as strength, agility, and endurance, that are necessary for physical exercise or sports, especially those performed in competitive contexts.
They lack endurance
Decathlete wins as demonstrates best all round athleticism
ath·lete (thlt)
n.
A person possessing the natural or acquired traits, such as strength, agility, and endurance, that are necessary for physical exercise or sports, especially those performed in competitive contexts.
They lack endurance
Decathlete wins as demonstrates best all round athleticism
Dennis Reynolds wrote:
Every human being that has ever walked this earth is genetically inferior to Bolt when it comes to running fast in a straight line for 100/200m. Being an NFL running back requires the ability to change direction quickly, have explosive drive and power, durability, flexibility, unbelievable strength, leaping ability and yes, some straight line speed. Bolt only has one of those things, he is not even close to the level of even a below average NFL running back in any of the other categories.
What makes you think Bolt doesn't have the ability to "change direction quickly, have explosive drive and power, durability, flexibility, unbelievable strength, leaping ability?"
Put 30 pounds on Bolt and he's unstoppable. That would make him 6'5" 240-250 pounds. Foster is 6'1" 225 or so.
This is what you get when you put a football player against a real athlete
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qDtmFXiINfs
Not even in his best event
You see that just show you know nothing about sports because if you get caught using PEDs in the NFL you get suspended indefinetly
Tracksters and Basketball players are the most physically fit of all athletes.
I played soccer in my twenties and could go on all day since the ball
does most of the traveling and when the ball is away from your side
of the field,you're mostly standing around.I ran the Qtrs in my twenties
and was more exhausted than I was in 90 mins of soccer.I also played
a little bit of basketball and I tell you after about 5 mins,I am usually
sucking wind.Basketball just takes so much energy since you have to
play both ends of the floor and you're always in motion.I never played
football so can't tell what shape football players are in but I doubt many
of them can run a decent Qtr.
I play both soccer and basketball for a corporate league. I find basketball to be demanding, with some pushing and shoving involved, and with a decent amount of running during the course of a full game..even if its just 50-60 feet back and forth. Even so, I dont feel quite as brutalized as after a full soccer game after the long running bursts, the quick back and forths, and the hits. If you're standing around more than 10 seconds in soccer, there's something wrong, or you're the goalie.