re: Rate these sports professions based on athleticism; your opinion.

quote:

---

I don't think anyone can logically dispute that decathletes are the most athletic people. It's basically what the definition of the event is

---

But it totally leaves out certain sport specific skills that are necessary to being a great athlete.

I have seen numerous kids who blew fitness tests out of the water but looked like a baby giraffe trying to hit, throw, kick, or catch a ball.

quote:

---

I'm saying pole vaulters are all three. Maybe I don't get what you're saying. I don't know.

---

Ahhh, gotcha. Yeah, I agree pole vaulters are #2 behind decathletes.

quote:

---

Balance, agility, quickness, hand/eye coordination are all in question between the two. I can see a receiver being a little better, but not other skilled positions.

---

Body control, hand/eye, and endurance are the only traits I can see favoring hockey players.
If the other traits (speed, strength, explosiveness, agility, quickness/acceleration) are tested in common venues, I don't see hockey players keeping up, imo.

quote:

---

But it totally leaves out certain sport specific skills that are necessary to being a great athlete.

---

Only because those specific skills aren't practiced. It's no different than your argument about why baseball should be last.

Take any of the measurables that are used to measure athleticism and they ALL apply to decathletes. Somebody earlier listed Speed, strength, power, endurance, agility, hand/eye coordination, quickness, balance,

quote:

---

I'm curious to know now though. Where do you rank hockey amongst these "uncommon sports" in terms of athleticism? Keeping in mind of course that, like hockey, swimming, gymnastics, skateboarding, and pole vaulting are not natural skills.

---

Where do you? You seem to only apply your thinking to any arguments to hockey. You never felt the need to ask these questions when people said the other major sports. Not once. It wasnt until hockey was brought up that you went off in this direction.

To answer you, I dont know where you would rank those sports. I was only speaking in the major team and indidual sports.

quote:

---

because it puts far too much weight into something that, while difficult at first, is a routine action for those that participate in the sport.

---

Its not routine.

quote:

---

And you continue to miss the point. My arguments are not about hockey. They are about the idea you keep positing that hockey is the best because it requires you to be very good at an unnatural motor skill.

---

Yea, I dont think so. That argument could be made about others talking about baseball and golf but that didnt interest you.

quote:

---

Hmmm. You have called me dumb, used emoticons as responses, gone off on irrelevant rants about southerners not knowing hockey, etc. But I'm the one that's triggered? Lolok

---

I didnt go on a rant about southerners. I said it ist popular in the south and southerners dont like it. Wow man. You wonder why I called some of things you are saying dumb?

He is 6'3

I challenge anyone who doesn't think hockey requires extreme levels of athleticism, coordination and toughness to, the next time you watch a hockey game, just watch one player for one shift. 5 minutes at the most. The amount of shite they have to do out there and the amount of things they have to keep track of at all times, all while being beat on/slashed/pulled/slammed into the boards repeatedly AND wearing knives on your feet ON ICE? It's no contest.


Just for an example, when someone deflects a slap shot into net for a goal, you have to realize that the giant dude who deflected it did it on purpose, watching the puck the whole way, coming at him at 90+ mph, and caromed it off his 3 inch wide stick blade all while basically being engaged in an upright wrestling match with an equally large and strong defenseman/center who's beating the shite out of him with the shaft of his stick.

quote:

---

Only because those specific skills aren't practiced

---

To a degree yes but there are some people that are natural athletes (in a sporting sense) and others that aren't.

I'm not saying that decathletes can't be great at those things I'm just saying just because they are good at a decathlon doesn't mean that they necessarily will be.

quote:

---

To counter that argument, hurdling, pole-vaulting, discuss throwing are sport specific skills for "Athletics" aka track and field.
I get what you're saying, but I don't look deep into those sport specific skills when looking at one's athleticism.

---

I don't disagree. I just work in this field and like I was saying I have seen dozens of kids who would do great in a decathlon type competition but were very middling in any type of team sport.

Conversely it's very rare that someone with coordination and more tradition team sport skills wouldn't also be competent in the events that make up the decathlon.

I guess ultimately what I'm trying to say is that I think great basketball, football (skill position guys), even baseball (CF, 2B, SS etc..) athletes could crossover to a decathlon much easier than some decathletes could to a team sport.

quote:

---

He's fast by nba standards. Do you think he can run a 10.2 in the 100 meters? What about 45 in the 400? Because that's what the current Olympic champion and world record holder in the decathlon runs.

Just because Westbrook is capable of throwing the shot put and javelin doesn't mean he can do it at a level required to be a great decathlete. And you left out the discus, the mist technically difficult throw.

And there's that pesky 1500 meters than needs to be run at about a 4:45 mile pace. At the end of the 2nd day of competition. After 9 other events.

---

not sure on the specific numbers, but he could definitely compete with training. Think about the number of college football players than moonlight on the track field. Some athletes choose a particular sport to focus on because of money. The league is filled with guys that could dominant in other sports if they focused on it.