I think there would be a 100% chance of a foul in at least one of the events. PV most likely to be the event. The win goes to Eaton by about 600-700 points. If the NFLers could break 8000 as a team, I would be impressed.
I think there would be a 100% chance of a foul in at least one of the events. PV most likely to be the event. The win goes to Eaton by about 600-700 points. If the NFLers could break 8000 as a team, I would be impressed.
The most prominent opinion on Eaton and Decatlon is "Bolt is more gifted. If Bolt wanted, he would beat Eaton, but he's no decathlete"
Faster in the 100-400
Throws= Bolt is bigger, so, better thrower if he wanted
Long jump-pole vault-hurdles= coulda-shoulda-woulda.
1500m=advantage to eaton.
pig in mud wrote:
They think Ashton Eaton is a weak athlete because Bolt can kick his ass in the 100.
Then in the next breath say that so and so NFL player is a better athlete than Eaton because he has to run and block and has multiple skills.
The other main argument is that Eaton sucks because he doesn't get paid that much compared to other athletes.
The consistent pattern in all three is that Eaton dominates a low-status discipline that doesn't get the best athletes.
Ed Reed won the '99 Big East Championships in Javelin. Not world class, but still very impressive
Oh please don't encourage him on this. Look, I agree that sometimes he has some interesting ideas to post, but his BIGGEST problem is (and there may be many, I'll let others decide that): he finds a few ideas that he thinks are original and brilliant (usually they are not), and beats them to death, repeating them over, and over, and over, and over, and over, ad nauseam. I am not sure if this is his own form of trolling, or of he is sincere, but either way it gets old real quick. Here are some of BW's most cherished, most repeated, ideas he's deigned to share with letsrun:* Tackling is easily the best way to get the upperhand in a fight (or something like that)* You can't get good amounts of minerals from food, you can only get them from drinking lots of tap water* The best, or most manly athletes, are ones that can combine running the 800 fast and throwing the javelin far* Corn and potatoes are superior to those crap grass-grains that lots of people eat, and we owe it to the native americans for intro'ing us to these foods* there is a new PED that gets people super lean without losing power/muscle, and this is the key to all the great times we are seeing in mid-D/distance events* And....what makes humans unique physically is their ability to throw objects fast and far. We are the best in this attribute, where we are far behind most animals in other physical abilities. (this is not some great original idea of his, BTW, there have been numerous articles on it recently. I am sure he read one, adopted that idea as his own, and now has to repeat it every 4th postTo answer your question on the topic, here you go-http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/27/science/evolution-on-the-mound-why-humans-throw-so-well.html?_r=0BW doesn't like to link to his ideas, because either ..A) he made it up, so there is no link, orB) he wants to take credit for the idea as his own)Those are the big 6!
LM wrote:
Bad Wigins wrote:The best criticism of Eaton's athleticism is he's not the best at throwing shit.
That's the one thing humans are really good at. Animals can run much faster and jump much higher but they live in awe of our ability to throw pointy things at them from far away.
The best human athlete should be good in events where humans are strong.
I'm always split on your posts. Sometimes you have some really thoughtful stuff to say, other times I'd swear you've got to be trolling.
This is one of the former, I'm sure many will reject it but it's an interesting perspective that is certainly true.
I'm now curious to what extent out similar cousins such as chimps, baboons, or apes can throw and to what extent.
I didn't say "mental toughness", I said "mental capacity". Something you obviously lack.
You're the amateur.
Typical runner or sockpuppet wrote:
pig in mud wrote:They think Ashton Eaton is a weak athlete because Bolt can kick his ass in the 100.
Then in the next breath say that so and so NFL player is a better athlete than Eaton because he has to run and block and has multiple skills.
The other main argument is that Eaton sucks because he doesn't get paid that much compared to other athletes.
The consistent pattern in all three is that Eaton dominates a low-status discipline that doesn't get the best athletes.
Ashton Eaton won Worlds in the DECATHLON and set a WORLD RECORD doing so. Did Bolt do that? No. Did Bolt train for that? No. Why not? Who cares... he didn't do it. Until he does, ASHTON EATON IS BETTER THAN BOLT AT THE DECATHLON.
You simply cannot generalize across disciplines.
Would Ashton beat Bolt at the open 100 if he only trained for the 100 over the next year? Doubtful. Does Ashton have the throws figured out? No. Did Ashton still set the WORLD RECORD in the decathlon? Yes, he did.
Why is anyone squabbling? He is awesome. If he wanted to play football, like his family members, he surely could. He has mental agility.
Let the man have his day.
(When you accomplish something great - better than anyone in the history of the world ever has - do people go about asking you, "Hey! But did you do L, M, N, O, or P? Huh? And are you transgendered? Have you run the 100 faster? How many ultra marathon records have you broken?")