Anybody who can even thing for a second that this is not incredible athleticism is wrong.
Also, I'm not in any way doubting your athletic ability but if you fail to see the correlations amongst the aforementioned than it seems your actual understanding of said sports are limited.
How much do you think average 40 times amongst professional athletes have changed over the decades. Again, the influences due to prior stars is what grew all sports to what they are today.Originally Posted by Duality
Laughable statistic when it comes to relevance. If I had you try to complete a 15 yard pass while your receiver is being defended by an moderately familiar athlete you'd be able to do it quite quickly. If I placed you in the fairway from 100 yards out, a very, very short approach shot, and told you to hit the green you'd be much less likely to do it...let alone get within the 12-15 foot range that most skilled amateur players would. The precision required to hit a golf ball is above and beyond that of any other individual task in any professional sport. Think of every angle that is measurable during the act of throwing a football. While such important attributes to a throwing motion such as arm angle, plant and release points, and establishing a strong center of gravity are important, many other biomechanical measurements are considered afterthoughts. Yes, if something becomes unstable within a quarterback's release, said changes will be videotaped, magnified, analyzed, etc...but I can guarantee you that professional golfers have at least 12 figures (joint angles, COG's, clubhead angle, torque...) measured at 8 different points of their golf swing constantly. They know this data they're given, they know what it means, and they will change things to the degree if it means hitting a few hundred balls a day in order to correctly make such an emphatic shift in their swing.Originally Posted by Duality
Again, you don't seem to be understanding the differences in pressures from sport to sport, nor are you even attempting to. You're perspectivist umbilicus is quite limited in scope.Originally Posted by Duality
Pot, meet kettle. Kettle, meet pot.Originally Posted by Duality
EDIT: If we're going to get silly, where's the love for Dean Karnazes? He ran 50 marathons in 50 days in 50 different states. What arguments do we have against his capabilities as a top athlete?
Also, I may not think much about golf... but Tiger Woods came and dominated that sport and still does. He is also in great shape, so although the sport may not require much athleticism I still think he is truly an amazing athlete.
i read your post Line and this a partial response to what you wrote last as well.
these are very good points. a good example would be something ironslave brought up: who do you think is the greatest bodybuilder of all time? many say arnold, because (and this is going on the line of though Line is using) he brought the sport to fruition, was the first man to dominate the Olympia, and was wildly successful mostly as the result of bodybuilding and that in turn benefited the sport greatly. however while his exploits make him the most important bodybuilder ever, it does not make him the best. Ronnie, despite having the era difference and the chemical advantage, must be viewed as the greatest because competitvely he was simply unbeatable in his prime. you just can't say arnold was better in shot by shot comparisons.
this is where i believe line's reasoning is different than mine. he views ruth as a superior athlete because of the historical advancements he brought to the sport. and that is not a bad nor incorrect view. however i do not have pity for him (ruth) when comparing him to athletes of now due said "era". the fact of the matter is that there have been and are currently far superior athletes and they should not be knocked for playing in the era they play in today just as ruth should not be given special consideration for his. the playing field should be even and we should be measuring the athletes on their physical capacity and their accolades in the sport. i mean ruth isn't even the greatest baseball player ever, Barry Bonds is from from a statistical and physical standpoint. yet ruth is the only representation the MLB has on this list. that in and of it self should eliminate ruth right off the bat because he's not even the best athlete in his sport .
question for Line; do you think a given sport is less challenging, physically demanding, and the quality of athlete lower, if said player can compete at the highest level possible, while in their 50's and 60's?
you responded to that question but incorrectly sometime ago. you said something like "you can't be 60 and shoot a jump shot" and that was waaayyy off the point. point being, you can't be 60 and compete in the NBA. if a 60 year old can still play competively at a professional level, this doesn't make the level of difficulty in the sport less in your eyes?
i have immense respect for you, but this is the absolute silliest, absurd, thing i have heard yet in this thread. have you ever played football? been to practices for a whole season including preseason 2-a-days (btw don't ask me if i have, because i have)? seen how physically beaten to shit the players are after games? there is a MAJOR reason the NFL season is only 16 games and the NFL players' career is FAR shorter than the PGA golfer (didn't jack nicklaus compete relatively recently, and isn't he in his 60's? the day you see someone playing at that age in the NFL or NBA is the sign of the apacolypse) just as you say i am ignorant to the "plights" the pro golfer faces to be successful, i echo that sentiment to you about the NFL player, and multiply it by 10.
i don't want this to get ugly or insulting. but maaaaannnn do we have different levels of respect for physical capacity and raw athletic ability. your only points for golf are "precision" "accuracy" "timing and coordination" "they don't need any level of physical conditioning because it's not part of the sport" (btw that's no excuse to be out of shape if not just fat). you know who else posses all of these qualities? Kirk Hammet (lead guitar, Metallica) and this was obtained through practice and not God given athletic talent, same as the golfer. your rebuttal to this would be "the guitar player doesn't have to hit a ball 300 yards" and i ask you, do these golfers look like physical specimens to you? do you not think that with practice and proper training geared towards golf at a high level, you couldn't hit the ball 300 yards with decent accuracy? these men are not blessed with more fast twitch fibers or better ability, the simply practice their ass off. while this is admirable, it pails in comparison to the NBA player who practices just as hard, and is vastly physically superior to the golfer in every aspect.
Yes, with practice, someone can hit the ball 300 yards and straight from time to time. However, to be able to do it consistently in competition, along with iron shots to the green, bunker shots, shots from the rough, and then putting, golf has much less room for error, it's not even close.
Far from the only reason those respective teams had histories as they did but I won't quibble over small matters such as this.Originally Posted by Braaq
Again, who's to say that, as a whole, today's athletes are inherently better? Yes, advancements in training recourse and technology in sport have, over the years, produced better athletes. This is because we know more about, not only the human body, but science in general and thus can produce not only more effective equipment to play with but to also train players on. Again (again) the interest in gaming generating by players of yesteryears are greatly responsible for the longing of scientists and athletes to discover what the human body is truly capable of. Such talented genetic abnormalities are the reason that every level of athletes today are playing at a higher level than in the past. The context of what those players did is immeasurable which is the difference between someone being "more athletic" and someone being "one of the greatest athletes of all time". I'll refer to the marathoner I mentioned in my prior post and how he ran 50 marathons in 50 days; his final time being his best. Who are we to say that he does not possess more trained, athletic skill than those on the list? It's a lack of contextual, that's why.Originally Posted by Braaq
Yes, but this was never my point.Originally Posted by Braaq
Dead-ball era?Originally Posted by Braaq
Which is why I'm reaffirming the importance of relevance.Originally Posted by Braaq
Which is why some of Ruth's most important record's still stand to this day and, in reality, had he played his whole career in stadiums that had foul poles he'd probably have an additional 50+ home runs to his total. Again, he's doing this with inferior batting and training equipment and comparetively long fields. Let's see how most major leaguers would fare hitting with a ball (size, winding tightness, core material, etc...) and bat (far inferior wood, not nearly as well crafted) made to the specifications of Ruth's era. The man had abilities that still make today's great players look pale in comparison yet you knock him because he appears overweight.Originally Posted by Duality
Okay, you dig up all the information you can on Ruth's VO2max and other modern tests of performance capabilities and we'll directly compare these numbers because, surely, these bland figures will tell us who's better.Originally Posted by Ruth
Originally Posted by Duality
What 60 year old is competitive professionally in golf anymore? I mean actually competitive as in winning majors. There's a reason there's a senior or "champions" tour and while golf isn't as physically tiring or wearing of a sport you continuously damn it despite how difficult it is to actually play at an elite level. I've listed several facts about the golf swing and it's complexity and, believe me, there's a reason more and more tour players are taking to exercising and training between events. There's an incredible combination of strength, balance, and control in a swing that is unduplicated in terms of difficulty of athletic movement. And yes, that's even when the ball is sitting so nicely on the tee. If you'd like me to comment further on neurological mapping and it's involvement in, not only golf but sport in general, (which I very lightly breezed over before) I'd be happy to.Originally Posted by Duality
you know what? i agree with you. the skill set a golfer must have is very hard to obtain and isn't easy. it takes many years of practice. however, that is the only aspect of the sport, meaning, there is absolutely nothing physically demanding or challenging to accompany this skill set they have. this to me makes the golfer's inclusion in the term "athlete" incomplete, there is no physical excellence or God given ability required to become the best. this is where our criteria is vastly different in that an elite athlete to you doesn't need to have any outstanding physical traits/abilities and can have the bulk of their ability if not all obtained through practice and not genetic superiority. i think this is pretty safe to say because i don't see how you can consider a golfer an elite athlete and not have standards as such.