05-02-21 12:40 PM - Post#910063    

Interesting article comparing various sports and recreational activities. I think it's reasonable though some points are arguable. Thoughts?

"Coyote is always waiting, and Coyote is always hungry."

Edited by Steve Rogers on 05-02-21 12:40 PM. Reason for edit: No reason given.

05-02-21 02:32 PM - Post#910067    

So much head shaking at that article.

Just for starters interesting that he picks what must be the most doped sport on the planet as some sort of ultimate expression of athleticism.

Bolt did play football. He was rubbish. And isn't that strong based on his posted training videos.

On the Hierarchy of Sports
05-02-21 07:32 PM - Post#910069    

I don't believe in a hierarchy, but my brother and I once hashed out our own definitions of various competitive activities. These definitions do not imply a hierarchy -- any hierarchy depends on the subjective values of the individual.

Sport
A competition that meets the following criteria:
1. A ball or ball-like object.
2. Defense.
3. No horses, boats, or other vehicles.
4. Sticks are optional.
5. Can not be played while smoking a cigarette and/or holding a beer.

Note: While arguably meeting all the other criteria for a sport, polo is disqualified on the basis of horses, and therefore does not meet the definitions of any of these categories.

Contest
A competition decided by performing an activity better than one's competitors by some objective standard of measurement. Contests include races, field events, golf, weightlifting/powerliftin g, etc.

Pageant
A competition decided solely by judges.

Fight
A competition that can be won by rendering one's opponent unconscious, incapacitated or in a specific compromised position.

Many fighting competitions have elements of a pageant, but a fight is not a pageant.

In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice; in practice, there is. Just because it happened to you doesn't make it interesting.

Edited by Steve W. on 05-02-21 07:38 PM. Reason for edit: No reason given.

05-02-21 07:48 PM - Post#910070    

I agree with the author on his interpretation of recreational pursuits.

A couple of others had me scratching my bald head. No mention of High jump or hurdles in Tier 1?

Tier 2 had Football. I interpreted that as Gridiron however Rugby, Gaelic football and Aussie rules were classified as Tier 4? Mmmmm. Interesting.

It was a well written article. He achieved the desired result. Got the reader thinking.

I noticed the author had speed ahead of strength. However to gain speed (as an adult) you require a good deal of strength and power. Most world class shot putters would have Olympian sprinters covered in a 30m sprint.

Andrew Gunn

05-03-21 01:02 AM - Post#910074    

"pound for pound, better athlete" - what does that mean, in concrete terms?

Athletic Club East Strength in numbers

05-03-21 04:04 AM - Post#910077    

I love the idea that you can take a good pro baseball player and he or she would probably have the ingredients to have played professional rugby union - OK where, prop? Flanker? Centre?

And don't get me started on the 'heirarchy' of combat sports. Did this guy get obsessed with Street Fighter back in the day?

On the Hierarchy of Sports
05-03-21 08:55 AM - Post#910083    

Thanks for sharing Steve. The intent of the article was successfully achieved.

Can we discuss 2 sports. Basketball and Baseball.


I played both with moderate success as well as soccer.

Being able to throw a baseball 95 MPH is natural ability. Having the eye sight to identify a pitch in .4 seconds is natural ability. Being born over 6 ft, being quick and having the ability to jump is natural.

Having the speed to play soccer is natural.

The only way I can make this comparison is to take Joe Average and put him in a professional game.

Football. You would get killed physically by a 235 lb. flying missle with the intent to take your head off.

Basketball: Steve W. in spite of being a New York Giants fan might be able to because he's a stud, there is no chance you could defend anyone or get a shot off. When I go to watch even a college game, I can't believe how anyone gets a shot off because the court is so small.

Soccer: The speed would be too much. I played for years with a guy who played on the US World Cup team in 1994. He was LIGHTNING. On that team he played right defense. On every other team, he was center mid.

Baseball: The only thing you would be able to do is catch a fly ball. Most ground balls would be hit too hard and you would not have the arm strength to throw the ball quick enough to beat the runner. Especially out of the left handed batters box.

I don't pretend to know track and field.

George Carlin had a great skit on real sports. it would rub some people the wrong way here, but it was pretty funny.


Edited by BChase on 05-03-21 08:59 AM. Reason for edit: No reason given.

05-03-21 09:06 AM - Post#910084    

Back in college when I was racing bicycles I met this guy that had been a starting pitcher for a MLB team. Blew his arm out by his late 20's and wanted to stay active. Started racing bicycles and we were both racing in the middle category of racers, not beginners but not quite elite.

He laughed that he spent more time training to be a middle of the pack bicycle racer than he did to be ready to pitch on opening day for a MLB team.

05-03-21 09:44 AM - Post#910087    

Another thing that doesn't transfer between sport is mindset. Had a couple low level pro/semi pro rugby players turn up to Muay Thai a few times over the years and apart from appalling endurance in their arms, the thing that struck me most was they just didn't like the rough stuff - despite coming from a sport where you can pretty much flying headbutt the oppo with impunity.

05-03-21 09:50 AM - Post#910089    

This article is dumb, of course, as almost all of these types of exercises are. This one was dumber and worse than most, in my opinion.

In this particular case, he should have titled it "On the Hierarchy of Athletes," or athleticism, not sports, since that seems to be what he is actually getting at: the participants in X or Y activity are the best athletes and would be most successful at other sports. He basically says skill isn't important in judging a sport, which is absurd. Maybe Bolt would have been a great hockey player if he grew up in Manitoba, maybe not. To me, the skill element is what makes a great sport. Being able to show up and run fast shows you're a great athlete.

The Economist ran the only one of these type of articles I've ever enjoyed about 20 years ago, which unfortunately I can't find online. Their conclusion was biased in a different direction, and was in part focused on the democracy of the sport: could people of different body types and different natural abilities play at a high level if they put in enough effort?

Perhaps unsurprisingly given the publication's nature and probable biases, cricket was named the #1 sport, but I can't say I disagreed with their conclusion.

ESPN also published a hierarchy of sports difficulty awhile back: https://www.espn.com/espn/page2/sportSkill s

ESPN picked boxing, and again, I have no issue with that choice.

Sprinting, in addition to being the most doped sport in the world (maybe cycling) is also the least democratic; if you weren't born a ton better, you just have no chance.

05-03-21 02:55 PM - Post#910099    

It was a fun article...got me thinking. The correct answer:

1. Discus throwing
Only sport SPECIFICALLY mentioned in the Bible...and it is in Homer's Odyssey.

2. All other sports.

There is no bias in my answer.

Daniel John Just handing down what I was handed down... Make a Difference. Live. Love. Laugh. Balance work, rest, play and pray (enjoy beauty and solitude) Sleep soundly. Drink Water. Eat veggies and protein. Walk. Wear your seat belt. Don’t smoke. Floss your teeth. Put weights overhead. Pick weights off the floor. Carry weights. Reread great books. Say thank you

05-03-21 03:54 PM - Post#910100    

I was never Elite (or close) in anything. I was a Pole Vaulter - high and long jumper and sprinter in HS (best was a 10 flat 100 yards). Fairly good at the level school I attended but on the occasions I moved up I got spanked handily. I've played sandlot ball against several good college athletes - never any pros - and quickly realized where I stood in the scheme of things. The only thing I thought I might have been OK at was the Decathlon - I was better than average at almost everything I ever tried - but that's a lot like saying I wasn't too good at anything LOL. It's very humbling to actually try to go up against the Elites of the world. for example Bolt would be doing his interview when I finished up the 200 meter :).

05-03-21 04:14 PM - Post#910101    

• Matt_T Said:

I would argue that it's the most DOPE-TESTED sport on the planet. But it's place in everyone's minds was about where it is now 50 years ago or 100 years ago.

Athletics, weightlifting, swimming, and possibly rowing and gymnastics all have a kind of purity - people certainly competed in them thousands of years ago.

05-03-21 06:16 PM - Post#910106    

• Old Miler Said:

And yet...

https://tomnew.medium.com/usain-bolt-lance-arms trong-and-the-duck-test-3 03b7b891e7e

I love the idea of running as fast as one can as much as anyone and think (wish?) it should be as ubiquitous in training as the article linked above suggests, but tested or not anyone who has gone faster than Ben Johnson has had a chemical rocket for me.

On the Hierarchy of Sports
05-03-21 06:17 PM - Post#910108    

I feel like this isn’t even really a subject for serious/sober discussion. But here is my buddy’s drunk version.

A sport must have:
1. Competition against at least one other person
2. At least one of:
(A) Physical exertion; and
(B) Danger.

At the top of his hierarchy are those sports with the highest levels of physical exertion and danger (in his view combat sports are the pinnacle). Anything without either high levels of physical exertion or danger is a pastime and not a sport. Like darts or lawn bowls.


Edited by AusDaz on 05-03-21 06:18 PM. Reason for edit: No reason given.

Re: On the Hierarchy of Sports
05-03-21 06:46 PM - Post#910111    

• AusDaz Said:

Surely base jumping is the king of sports by that logic?

05-03-21 09:18 PM - Post#910116    

• Dan John Said:

In the Wester Civ courses I took in college back in the ’70s, I’d been taught that Homer only recited his poems. I few days ago, however, I read a book review about a scholar who believed there wasn’t a Homer. Here’s something from the review:

“There was no ancient poet called “Homer,” he argued. Nor were the poems attributed to him “written” by any single individual. Rather, they were the product of a centuries-long tradition of poet-performers.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/29/books/revi ew/hearing-homers-song-mi lman-parry-robert-kanigel .html...

05-03-21 11:01 PM - Post#910118    

• BrianBinVA Said:

It's an interesting take on "democratic". It implies that having access to coaches, training time etc. is equally distributed.

I've seen the reverse argument (but also cannot find my sources) - sports where talent is more important than personal background are the most democratic.

So, race car driving (arguably not a sport anyway) and polo are undemocratic - if you don't have the right family background, you have zero chance. Very few champions from less wealthy backgrounds, and quite a few family dynasties.

I think cricket is somewhere in the middle - you need a reasonable amount of gear, plus a parent/ guardian committed to watching a ridiculously long game when you are starting out.

Even though I only watch the world cup, I'd say soccer is as democratic as it gets. Anyone can play, and you see very few family dynasties. You don't need to be ridiculously huge to play like some other sports, so it's got the widest pool of talent available.

05-04-21 08:00 AM - Post#910126    

• Dan Christensen Said:

I think soccer was second, although this was a long time ago. It's another choice I wouldn't quibble with. Again from memory, I believe the main strike against it was that you don't need to learn to perform any type of coordinated movement with your upper limbs, as you do in, say, basketball or rugby (or cricket).

05-04-21 09:45 AM - Post#910129    

The original article reminds me of the early CrossFit argument that they built the best trainers because they would cope best with whatever random task was pulled from the bucket of possible tasks.

Of course, it turns out that what you think is worthy of going in the bucket matters a lot - parkour? discus? the ability to defend yourself empty-handed? the ability to defend yourself against weapons? or just box jumps and double-unders?

Same with this bloke - he's making some strong assumptions about transfer of training or talent to other activities, albeit in an utterly subjective fashion.

On the Hierarchy of Sports
05-09-21 06:31 PM - Post#910236    

Hierarchy of sports?
Ranking their importance?

We play a few little games and then we die.
The rest is conjecture.
Aw shucks.

Life's too short to worry about longevity.

Edited by Neander on 05-09-21 06:34 PM. Reason for edit: No reason given.

05-10-21 08:36 AM - Post#910247    

Hockey falling under Tier 4, which includes "Sports that require some natural athletic ability and a high level of a particular skill set" is laughable if it wasn't dripping with ignorance.
The author apparently never played hockey or watched it carefully. Admittedly, I have a bias towards the sport considering I started playing when I was 7 all the way through high school and well into my early 40s, but to even suggest that it requires only "some natural ability" goes towards ignorance of the sport and the athletes that play it.

05-10-21 10:32 AM - Post#910255    

• JDII Said:

Word. I dislike what I imagine his thoughts on kabbadi, underwater rugby and jukskei to be as well

05-10-21 10:34 AM - Post#910256    

• JDII Said:

I am a native Mississippian. Due to our State's "tropicesque" heat and humidity, hockey never was an option 'til the days of indoor ice rinks. And that's only in a couple of cities in the past couple decades.

Regardless, I have realized from a young age that hockey requires speed, strength, stamina, coordination, and toughness. I am quite positive that I have omitted some other athletic attributes. Also, due to hockey having it's very own "Big League (sarcasm toward the article's author)," I always surmised that some of the Northern States' very best athletes were plying their wares in the NHL.

That's a very long way of saying that, JDII, I laugh along with you at the article's treatment of hockey.

Just my 2¢

05-10-21 10:48 AM - Post#910257    

Being at the top of any activity simply means you have the best set of attributes needed "for that activity". It's easy to make an argument for the winner of the Decathlon as the best "overall" athlete - but in all likelihood he would be good but marginal at most other things. In my opinion there is no way to say - "this is the best athlete in the world".

05-10-21 01:07 PM - Post#910265    

• Chris Rice Said:

I'm reluctant to disparage elite athletes in any competitive context, but decathlon is one I tend to discount a bit relative to many others.

Because it is a composite of events that are contested separately, and are all much more popular individually, it seems like a "jack of all trades, master of none" kind of activity that would attract people who aren't good enough to be elite at any of the individual events, but are good enough at each of them to score well overall.

The scoring system means it isn't a direct competition but one that is mediated by quirks in the scoring system and the values of the people who design it.

Fivethrityeight: Decathlon scoring

Then there is the fact that it's relatively rarely contested and not widely popular. It just doesn't seem to provide the incentives to attract a wide and deep talent pool, such that the best decathletes are the best of the best potential decathletes.

It just strikes me as an esoteric niche competition that is not particularly interesting.

In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice; in practice, there is. Just because it happened to you doesn't make it interesting.

05-10-21 01:55 PM - Post#910268    

• Steve W. Said:

Decathlon is a relic from another era, when being considered a jack of all trades (even if a master of none) was more highly valued than it is today.

05-10-21 02:28 PM - Post#910270    

Didn't Bruce Jenner win the Decathlon Gold Medal without winning a single event?

05-10-21 03:53 PM - Post#910271    

• Steve W. Said:

So, basically CrossFit

05-11-21 05:31 AM - Post#910284    

Ofcourse im biased cause of my sport, but ranking soccer as a tier 2 sport and water polo as a recreational activity makes it hard to take this article seriously...

05-11-21 06:59 AM - Post#910286    

• Matt_T Said:

Yes, except the decathlon events are actual Olympic track and field events, not party tricks like double unders and handstand walking.

Crossfit is more like the old Superstars show, except with C2 ergs instead of flat-bottomed AMF rowboats, and with washouts in their primary sports instead of, you know, superstars.

In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice; in practice, there is. Just because it happened to you doesn't make it interesting.

05-11-21 11:26 AM - Post#910294    

If it ain't about lawn bowling, count me out.

Mark it Zero.

05-11-21 03:24 PM - Post#910299    

So, next step is ranking sports by tacticalness, tacticality, tacti...? Or, if I can't wear camo, I don't want to be in your tuesday lunch-hour fitness class. Sometimes I long for the days when everybody wanted to be a SEAL and be done with it.