Guest on ESPN Radio this morning said NBA players are best athletes in the world.

Decathletes.

The good ones.

I can agree with it. A fantastic mixture of speed, strength, skill and agility in a physical game where they are practically sprinting the entire game.

Sorry, but running is, to me, far from being a good "athlete". The skill component to running is pretty basic compared to sports like gymnastics or even dancing. Every 3 year old can run (leaving aside those with a disability).

Basketball players must mix some endurance with bursts of speed. They must have reasonably good hand-eye coordination. They also have someone trying to stop them from achieving their goal--runners, not in the same manner.

Citius, Altius, Fortius. You'd be hard pressed to find a sport that mixes all three of these better than NBA-caliber basketball.

"They also have someone trying to stop them from achieving their goal--runners, not in the same manner."

Pro runners have to find a way to get by WADA.

Lots of people on this board have made the same argument about basketball players, but it's really a meaningless claim. When you say some is the "best" athlete without referring to measurable standards it's a meaningless statement. Michael Jordan may be the best basketball player ever or even the best combination basketball and baseball player, but that only makes him the "best" if basketball and baseball ability are your standards. If your standards include 100m speed or marathon speed or swimming ability or how far you can throw a shot, then you get a different result. And the best "all around" athlete is not going to be the best basketball player, sprinter, swimmer or whatever because being an allrounder inevitably means that you abilities in some areas are compromised.

In other words, as soon as you put some actual standards on it, I think it's obvious that no one is the "best" at everything, and the answer to the question is just just a matter of what events you pick as your standards.

They are the worst athletes of all the major sports. The main reason is a statistical one. You have to be tall to be a good basketball player. Average height of an NBA player is within the top .5 percentile. This means the majority of men do not have a chance, so therefore if you are disqualifying most men from the sport due to height, you will miss many of the top athletes.

When basketball gets a good athlete (ie Michael Jordon), he looks like a better athlete than he is because he is competing against only the top very tall athletes.

The best athletes in the US are playing football and baseball. In Canada they are playing hockey, and in the rest of the world they are playing soccer.

Canada Coach wrote:

The best athletes in the US are playing football and baseball.

Baseball? You really think our best athletes are in a sport that requires less athletic ability than NASCAR?

Archimedes wrote:

Baseball? You really think our best athletes are in a sport that requires less athletic ability than NASCAR?

You, sir are a scandalous fraud. Your comment is stupid beyond belief. And your body does not smell so good either.

Please return that name to its rightful owner.

Dud3 wrote:

I can agree with it. A fantastic mixture of speed, strength, skill and agility in a physical game where they are practically sprinting the entire game.

Please watch a game. Follow one player's movements the entire game. You will see that they are perhaps NEVER sprinting, and instead are often at a virtual standstill or moving at a walking pace.

I agree.

I agree with him. NBA athletes have an unbelievable amount of fitness and fine motor co-ordination. Much better athletes than the best pro runner.

seems obvious you never played competitive basketball. Oh, btw, what makes them the best athletes is that they are so tall and yet still so athletic. Also, baseball is laughable. I mean, I have a hard time calling some of those guys athletes. Are they good at doing something that is incredibly difficult? yes. Does that make them the best athletes? No. Football could get a claim for some positions, but I think basketball is the best overall.

Flatulus wrote:

I agree with him. NBA athletes have an unbelievable amount of fitness and fine motor co-ordination. Much better athletes than the best pro runner.

So are those the standards? "Fitness" and "fine motor co-ordination"? Does "fitness" = endurance or something else? Wouldn't the best athlete then be the fastest marathoner who is also the best ping pong or darts player because he combines endurance with fine-motor coordination?

My real point is what is "fitness" and how do you measure it in an objective way to decide who is "best"? What is "fine motor coordination" and how do you measure it in an objective way to decide who is best? And how and why do you pick those two standards to define "best athlete"?

It really comes down to what tests determine "best athlete" and who can then do those tests the best. If you pick different tests you get different results. For example, if you lowered the basket in basketball to 5 feet, you would get an entirely different set of "best athletes."

Pull up a rugby 7's match on YouTube. You might have a new nominee for greatest athlete.

wazzzup wrote:

seems obvious you never played competitive basketball. Oh, btw, what makes them the best athletes is that they are so tall and yet still so athletic. Also, baseball is laughable. I mean, I have a hard time calling some of those guys athletes. Are they good at doing something that is incredibly difficult? yes. Does that make them the best athletes? No. Football could get a claim for some positions, but I think basketball is the best overall.

Things that seem obvious to the stupid seem obviously false to the intelligent.

I played basketball for a DIII school. That makes me one who has played more competitive basketball than 99.9% of the population.

By the way, I do not disagree that great basketball players are great athletes. Only that sprinting (running at top speed) is something that is done far less than 1% of the time on a basketball court (at least when serious basketball players are involved). Of course, if you ever played competitive basketball you would know that already.

poiuy wrote:

[quote]Flatulus wrote:

It really comes down to what tests determine "best athlete" and who can then do those tests the best. If you pick different tests you get different results. For example, if you lowered the basket in basketball to 5 feet, you would get an entirely different set of "best athletes."

Arent you arguing a point that's already been determined? The best all around athlete" would appear to most reasonable people to be someone that has endurance, speed, technique/skill, strength.

Basketball requires all of those.

JackOfAss wrote:Arent you arguing a point that's already been determined? The best all around athlete" would appear to most reasonable people to be someone that has endurance, speed, technique/skill, strength.

Basketball requires all of those.

If you are saying that the test for being the "best athlete" is the ability to play basketball, then yes, by definition, the best athletes are the best basketball players. I don't think however, that ability to play basketball is necessarily any less an arbitrary test than, for example, the decathlon.

For example, as someone has already pointed out, basketball has a strong bias toward greater height. If Michael Jordan had been 5'3" he would have been a worse basketball player, but would that have made him a worse athlete? Or would it just mean that he wasn't tall enough to excel at a particular game that arbitrarily includes a high basket as part of its rules.

But what about the strong drug and crime culture in the NBA? Shouldn't that be taken into account?