What constitutes an "athletic person"... standards?

I agree that this range of abilities is probably quite rare, even among more "well-rounded" athletes. And, as others have said, squat max should be lower than deadlift by about 20-25% for most people who train both. As a fairly thin person who started lifting, it took me about about three months of serious training to hit 2x body weight in the deadlift, but, even though I think I'm better suited to running and endurance sports, I find the 5:30 mile is harder to reach than some of the lifting goals. Also, I'm not an expert on vertical jumps, but 2/3 height seems excessive. Just about no one who isn't already a runner could go out and run a marathon without training--at least without a lot of pain and serious risk of injury.

The standards the OP suggests aren't bad as fitness ideals, and that could be one entirely legitimate measure of athleticism. However, what most people think of as "athletic" involves successful competition. Personally, I think both are legitimate definitions, but, in practice, I do see them as somewhat mutually exclusive, or at least mutually counterproductive, because being an effective competitor requires specialization and not spreading oneself too thin.

As for the question of terminology, I suppose it's like being "rich." Again, most people would think of someone with a net worth of $5 million as rich, but someone with a net worth of $50 million would also be rich, but on a whole other level--an "ultra high net worth" individual. For me, I'd use the term "athletic" more broadly, even, frankly, to include people who have high levels of fitness in a few areas, not all, and perhaps below the high standards of the OP. I think it's useful to view physical ability and condition on a continuum of "fit," "athletic," and "elite." If I had to make an arbitrary definition of "elite," I'd say someone who holds their own (or could hold their own) on the national level at some form of sport. A good example might be qualifying for the Olympic trials. A good local 5k runner would be athletic. I'm sure I'm being generous by a lot of your standards, but I'd even call an adult male with a sub-20 minute 5k time athletic, because that is something probably less than 1% of the population will ever accomplish.

HardLoper wrote:

AllsportsMed wrote:

I think the standards should be more objective.

Speed - sub 12 100, sub 55

Endurance sub 5:00 and sub 18 5k

Having that range you described is probably more rare than you think. Many world-class decathletes can't break 18... many can't even break 5 and they're sprinters whose endurance drops off rapidly. And many only have mid-11 100m speed.

PS your standards are less objective not more... "be able to ride a skateboard"

HardLoper proves himself an idiot once again.

Look up the 100m times of Olympic decathletes and get back to me. Any decathlete who is truly world class can break 11. Not to mention almost all decathletes can indeed break 5 for the mile/1500 equiv. anybody who is close to 5 minutes is usually running it at the end of a decathlon anyways and is dead tired. Stating that they couldn't break 18 for a 5k is pure speculation and although not all could do it guys like beach and eaton could easily break 18.

HardLoper wrote:

Having that range you described is probably more rare than you think. Many world-class decathletes can't break 18... many can't even break 5 [/quote]

The problem with decathletes is that the really talented ones switch over to football, basketball and the CrossFit Games, where they can earn real money.

athleticism literally has nothing to do with running/lifting weights fellas!! Anybody can train to run a 530 mile. Athleticism is about explosive power, and co-ordination. You gotta be able to catch/throw, shoot a b-ball, just be generally good at sports. Endurance is a component but certainly not a very important factor. Many fatasses are great athletes. I know you guys don't like that, but it's true. Take golfers, most of them are pretty damn good athletes, and would skunk runners at any sport (excluding running or golf).

sorry running is a part of athleticism. I doubt any lineman in DIV or NFL could train to a 5:30.

Athletic = well above the norm

I kinda like what AllsportsMed sez ... bute here' my $.02

But that wouldnt be my criteria

mile = 5:00

make 3/5 freethrows

throw basketball complete full court

hit a 3 point shot 1 out of 5

make a layup with opposite dominant hand

jump rope for 90 sec

Bench = to body weight

Deadlift = 1.75 body weight

vertical = 30 (I don't think Shaq has a vertical of over 35 tops prob less)

100m = 13 sec (I think most world class athletes can't run 11s)

400m >60sec

16# shot put = 25 ft

Dive with entry fairly vertical

Throw baseball 200ft

Hit a baseball into the outfield

Don't throw a baseball like Carl Lewis

Throw football 35-40 yds

Catch a football pass @ 20 yards

Kick a Soccer ball 30yds into the net

Serve tennis ball in bounds 4/10

jump over a hurdle

handstand for 10 sec

Don't sing national anthem like carl lewis

all arbitrary and all I can think for now. Many peeps would prob not be contenders until sometime in college

arbitrary = based on experience

I agree w/ running standards but calisthenics IMO are a better test of overall athleticism, although weights test raw power more effectively. Maybe keep your protocols and add in something simple like 60 pushups, 10 pullups and at least one pistol squat on either side.

Someone can be naturally athletic and not in good enough shape to run the times that have been suggested. Seriously, we all know an athletic person when we see one. I have a friend who smokes like an idiot, never exercises, but he's the best player on our softball team (us a great bitter and fielder), the best bowler on the company team (I don't do that shit, but apparently he's good), a great golfer, and really good at bullshit bar games like pool and darts. He was able to do over ten pull-ups on a bet (remember, he doesn't work out), he's faster than most people, and he's pretty strong, too.

I'm just using this guy as an example. I can run faster than him at any distance, and do more body weight stuff, and lift more (proportional to my body weight), but that's only because I exercise every day. I'm no natural athlete, I'm just fit. That's what you guys are talking about here.

Bo Jackson and Jim Brown couldn't meet most of your silly criteria here, but they were undoubtedly two of the best athletes ever. Just take a look at the "Best athlete ever" thread and compare those guys to your lame standards.

Get real, guys.

Personally I've tried to maintain the Navy Seal standards as I near 50:

1.5 mile run in better than 9:20

80 situps in 2 minutes

80 pushups in 2 minutes (no rest)

25 pull-ups

500m swim side or breast stroke less than 12:00

It's endurance heavy, but that's the beauty of it--you can feel like a bad-ass as your explosive stength fades.

Or for a single test how about the Spetsnaz standard of 18 quality pull-ups with a 10 kg vest?

Someone who works out at least 3 times a week and is not overweight.

hahawow wrote:

Many fatasses are great athletes. I know you guys don't like that, but it's true. Take golfers, most of them are pretty damn good athletes, and would skunk runners at any sport (excluding running or golf).

Posts like this immediately kill credibility on any sports board.

In response to the OP, one major component that was forgotten was the lateral movement aspect. Good athletes are able to change direction quickly

It ain't rocket surgery! wrote:

Mile- 5:30 for men, 6:30 for women.

100m- 13 seconds for men, 17 seconds for women.

Marathon- capable of finishing without walking.

Squat- 2x bodyweight for men, 1.75 for women.

Deadlift- same as squat.

Bench press- 1x bodyweight for men, .75 for women

Vertical jump- 2/3 body height (men and women)

this is stupid. so i'm 6'2 and 160 lbs and am generally considered pretty athletic. you think i should be able to squat 320 lbs, deadlift 320 lbs, and have a 49 inch vertical? lmao

also the op completely left out HAND EYE COORDINATION (probably the most important things is baseball, tennis, skill positions in football, and a sh!tload of other sports)

Realism wrote:

HardLoper wrote:

Having that range you described is probably more rare than you think. Many world-class decathletes can't break 18... many can't even break 5 and they're sprinters whose endurance drops off rapidly. And many only have mid-11 100m speed.

PS your standards are less objective not more... "be able to ride a skateboard"

HardLoper proves himself an idiot once again.

Look up the 100m times of Olympic decathletes and get back to me. Any decathlete who is truly world class can break 11. Not to mention almost all decathletes can indeed break 5 for the mile/1500 equiv. anybody who is close to 5 minutes is usually running it at the end of a decathlon anyways and is dead tired. Stating that they couldn't break 18 for a 5k is pure speculation and although not all could do it guys like beach and eaton could easily break 18.

Obviously Beach and Eaton can break 18:00 in a 5k, maybe that's why I said "not all decathletes could do it" rather than "all decathletes could not do it..." a common mistake in reading comprehention.

Half the decathletes did not break 11 in the Olympics... so there are fewer than 10 "world-class" decathletes in the world?

AND back to the point of the post, the topic is about what constitutes an "athletic person..." Are you basically saying the benchmark you need to be a world-class decathlete to be considered an athletic person? Once again your attempt has backfired, you'll find the idiot in the mirror.

good kush & alcohol wrote:

It ain't rocket surgery! wrote:

Mile- 5:30 for men, 6:30 for women.

100m- 13 seconds for men, 17 seconds for women.

Marathon- capable of finishing without walking.

Squat- 2x bodyweight for men, 1.75 for women.

Deadlift- same as squat.

Bench press- 1x bodyweight for men, .75 for women

Vertical jump- 2/3 body height (men and women)

this is stupid. so i'm 6'2 and 160 lbs and am generally considered pretty athletic. you think i should be able to squat 320 lbs, deadlift 320 lbs, and have a 49 inch vertical? lmao

The vert jump is way too high, that's been pointed out enough times already. Maybe he meant 1/3.

Squat may be easier than you think. If you do squats a couple times it might be hard at first but you'll probably improve very rapidly. Getting the right form is half the battle. I can't remember what I can squat from the few times I've done it but I know I practically doubled my weight in a short time and would have kept improving.

Vertical jump is not dependent on height. Someone who is 6 feet tall doesn't have any advantage over someone 5 feet.

Your list includes a bunch of things that can be trained. Being an athlete is about so much more. Hand eye coordination is a big one. The ability to pick up a new sport and develop new motor patterns quickly is very important. You can't really train to be athletic. It isn't an absolute either. People fall on a spectrum.

good kush & alcohol wrote:

this is stupid. so i'm 6'2 and 160 lbs and am generally considered pretty athletic. you think i should be able to squat 320 lbs, deadlift 320 lbs, and have a 49 inch vertical? lmao

The vertical jump is too high, but you should EASILY be able to squat and dead lift twice your weight. If not, you are very weak.

Sub 12 is more challenging than sub 55. Sub 12 is flying especially from blocks. I do pushups 3-5 days a week and wouldn't be able to do 50 in a row. I can do 75 in sets. 10 pullups is incredibly tough. I would say I'm pretty fit and athletic. I can play basketball decently to fit your other criterion but certainly one has to have excellent genes to be able to accomplish these feats in a concurrent level of fitness. Are we talking 'athletic' in terms of innate ability or something one can train to. Even though we are dweebs on letsrun we are far on the right side of the bellcurve.