Sports Science to determine the real greatest athete ever

[Vielleicht]

Glad to see you've become a fan of combat sports ... even though I'd say that wrestlers are better athletes than boxers. And then of course MMA fighters are even better athletes, because they combine the different skills.

And perhaps water polo - there's lots of struggling involved as well as immense coordination in the water

[gh]

i had no idea that grabbing balls was a measure of athleticism!

[18.99s]

That "wrenching his arm out its socket" took a ton of skill to get into position and execute the hold in a manner that would be inescapable by somebody with the strength and experience of his opponent. That move probably was practiced hundreds of times in training.

Excuse me, I can barely read that, what with the BS Meter going off so loudly in my ear!

There's not a word of BS in what I wrote. There's a method to what looks like madness in MMA; that "random" rolling on the ground is really a series of attempts to get in position to apply or counteract an extensively practiced fight-ending hold like a rear naked choke, guillotine choke, triangle choke, keylock, or armbar.

[Marlow]

There's not a word of BS in what I wrote.

From what I read about MMA/UFC many matches are won or lost on 'fluke' attacks, not unlike when a boxer's jab suddenly hits just the right point and dazes the fighter enough to subsequently knock him out.

[j-a-m]

Do golfers qualify as athletes? For if they do, we might as well called ball room dancers athletes also.

They shouldn't. Or if they do, at least they should have zero chance of winning.

[jazzcyclist]

Do golfers qualify as athletes? For if they do, we might as well called ball room dancers athletes also.

The fact that women can't compete with men tells me that there is some athleticism involved in golf, though John Daley proved that you don't have to be in shape. Also, I can't think of another sport that places as a high a premium on hand-eye coordination as golf does.

[j-a-m]

Most boxing matches of the 19th and first decade of the 20th were much longer and allowed for more standing grappling and pushing that tremendously taxed the athletes stamina.

Exactly; and in today's MMA you frequently hear commentators and interviewed fighters talk about the wrestling/grappling part being the one that requires more stamina than the boxing/kickboxing part.

[j-a-m]

There's not a word of BS in what I wrote. There's a method to what looks like madness in MMA; that "random" rolling on the ground is really a series of attempts to get in position to apply or counteract an extensively practiced fight-ending hold like a rear naked choke, guillotine choke, triangle choke, keylock, or armbar.

That's correct. 18.99s knows what he or she is talking about, Marlow doesn't. Simple as that.

[j-a-m]

Most soccer players have very little upper body strength and average or less hand-eye coordination. having said that, they do hit your other criteria quite well

Good point; the criteria to determine the best overall athlete should apply both to lower body and upper body strength/muscular endurance/etc.

[Marlow]

That's correct. 18.99s knows what he or she is talking about, Marlow doesn't. Simple as that.

Actually, the correct distinction is that 1899 has a vested interest in the sport being perceived as 'legitimate' whereas I don't and don't even think it deserves the appellation 'sport' (though I agree that it is a very athletic endeavor). Brutal beat-downs (which is exactly what it is) has no place in our consciousness any more. Even the NFL realizes it has to get control of itself.

[j-a-m]

Also, I can't think of another sport that places as a high a premium on hand-eye coordination as golf does.

Including hand-eye coordination as one of the many criteria to determine the best athlete is fine with me. What we should also include then is auditory reaction time, which is something sprinters are particularly good at.

[Marlow]

Also, I can't think of another sport that places as a high a premium on hand-eye coordination as golf does.

The golf ball is not moving. Try hitting a 103mph fastball or a big-league curve.
Or hitting a 4.3 wide-receiver, covered by a 4.3 DB, on a deep crossing pattern.
Or pulling up at the top of a key with a defender in your face, and hitting a jumper, nuttin but net!

[jazzcyclist]

Also, I can't think of another sport that places as a high a premium on hand-eye coordination as golf does.

The golf ball is not moving. Try hitting a 103mph fastball or a big-league curve.
Or hitting a 4.3 wide-receiver, covered by a 4.3 DB, on a deep crossing pattern.
Or pulling up at the top of a key with a defender in your face, and hitting a jumper, nuttin but net!

All of those things are a lot easier to do and done with a lot more frequency than hole-in-ones on par-3 holes on the PGA Tour.

[lonewolf]

True, but those things are deliberate... has anyone ever made a hole-in-one on purpose?

[jazzcyclist]

True, but those things are deliberate... has anyone ever made a hole-in-one on purpose?

I'm not a golfer but I thought all pro golfers aimed for hole-in-ones on par-3's, since they are usually short holes with few hazards. Perhaps bambam can weigh in.

[dbirds]

http://espn.go.com/sportsnation/chat/_/ ... ce-brenkus

Brenkus on Sport Chat tomorrow

[Marlow]

I'm not a golfer but I thought all pro golfers aimed for hole-in-ones on par-3's, since they are usually short holes with few hazards. Perhaps bambam can weigh in.

You didn't watch the Ryder Cup. Only desperate golfers (coming from behind) go for the pin on Sunday when the pin placement is on a precarious piece of real estate. Better somewhere on the dance floor than blasting out of the trap or fishing your ball out of the water. Discretion is often the better part of valor.

[Vielleicht]

Also, I can't think of another sport that places as a high a premium on hand-eye coordination as golf does.

Table tennis!

[jazzcyclist]

I'm not a golfer but I thought all pro golfers aimed for hole-in-ones on par-3's, since they are usually short holes with few hazards. Perhaps bambam can weigh in.

You didn't watch the Ryder Cup. Only desperate golfers (coming from behind) go for the pin on Sunday when the pin placement is on a precarious piece of real estate. Better somewhere on the dance floor than blasting out of the trap or fishing your ball out of the water. Discretion is often the better part of valor.

No I didn't watch the Ryder Cup. How many par-3's are located on what you would call precarious pieces of real estate that demand caution? Based on a cursory glance of the map, on three of the course's four par-3's (holes 2, 13 and 17), the water hazard is right before the hole, so erring on the short side is not an option, and the fourth par-3 (hole 8) seems fairly wide open based on my layman's opinion. Here's the link:

http://www.rydercup.com/usa/course/tour/1

[cullman]

1. Carl Lewis - has to be there

He won't be getting too many votes if they show the clip of him throwing out the first pitch at Safeco Field in 2003.

[Pego]

As a young neurologist, I had a good fortune to sit once in an informal chat with Sir John Eccles, perhaps the greatest neurophysiologist of the 20th century. To him, the greatest example of coordination was Henry Aaron. I still think it is a coloratura soprano .

[Marlow]

To him, the greatest example of coordination was Henry Aaron.

In 1934 Lou Gehrig had 579 at-bats. He batted .363 with 49 home runs and only 31 strike-outs.
Think about it.

[Conor Dary]

I would go with Ted Williams on this.

[Marlow]

I would go with Ted Williams on this.

And Rod Carew always seemed to get wood on the ball.

[dbirds]

Here's what John Brenkus said on SportsChat today about the greatest athlete project:

Each week for the next 16 weeks, 5 athletes from each of these categories will be chosen: football, basketball, baseball, hockey, tennis, golf, boxing, combat, soccer, track and field, Olympics, endurance, auto racing, action sports and then two special categories: game changers and multisport athletes.

The public will vote on one each until 16 athletes remain then they will be matched head to head until there is a winner.

The metrics used to determine this are: Strength, power, speed, quickness, reaction time, endurance, durability, in addition to weighing in on an athlete's resume, clutch performances and the overall difficulty of their sport. Each athlete will be scored in each category, not only against their peers (the other athletes they played with during their era) but also against every athlete who has ever played the sport (position).

He said, the data for these come, "Through historical biomechanical studies and video analysis. We have a very effective way of coming up with very accurate numbers even for athletes we haven't had in our lab. We devised a ranking metric that allows us to put an athlete's ability in a historical context."

Regarding the distinction between greatest player and greatest athlete, John said, "There have been a lot of lists that have determined the greatest player. But being an athlete is a different analysis. We are not discounting how great of a player an athlete was, but we're factoring in different aspects, for example, we will look at strength, power, speed, quickness, reaction time, endurance, durability, in addition to weighing in on an athlete's resume, clutch performances and the overall difficulty of their sport. We feel this is a comprehensive metric that covers every aspect of being a great athlete."

He also indicated women are included and his team has been working on it for 6 years; he acknowledged Lebron James is one of the 5 finalists in basketball and he implied that Jim Brown and Wilt Chamberlain would be included as well. On the initial podcast, the host listed Jackie Robinson, Billie Jean King, Jesse Owens, Mia Hamm and Wilma Rudolph as example of the "game changers" category. I am not sure if these are examples or the exact finalists chosen although I am leaning towards the latter. He encouraged the fans to vote and he added, "We are comfortable with the five athletes we've nominated in each sport. I'm not worried about the popularity contest, because having a lasting impact on the public is part of being the best athlete. Each athlete should be a part of the discussion. I think you'll like the candidates, but if you don't, write in your own."

Here's the full chat: http://espn.go.com/sportsnation/chat/_/ ... ce-brenkus

[dbirds]

Based on this, I think track will be represented well: Owens & Rudolph in the game changers catergory. Thorpe and Zaharias will probably be in the multi-sport category. I can see Geb and perhaps Nurmi, Zatopek, Bekele or Radcliffe in the endurance category. I'm assuming Olympic category will have other Olympic sports like swimming and gymnastics. I am guessing track will have Lewis, Bolt, Bubka, JJK and Eaton perhaps although there are a dozen other worthy choices.

[jazzcyclist]

I would go with Ted Williams on this.

There's no doubt that Williams had extraordinary hand-eye coordination but the thing to remember is that hitting the baseball with power the way Williams did (as opposed to slap hitting), requires more than just hand-eye coordination, it also requires a minimum amount bat speed/power. It's not a coincidence that baseball's greatest pure hitters (Gehrig, DiMaggio, Williams, Aaron) not only stuck out infrequently, but also hit a lot of homeruns.

[Pego]

To him, the greatest example of coordination was Henry Aaron.

In 1934 Lou Gehrig had 579 at-bats. He batted .363 with 49 home runs and only 31 strike-outs.
Think about it.

I said Sir John was a great neurophysiologist, not a baseball historian .

[Conor Dary]

To him, the greatest example of coordination was Henry Aaron.

In 1934 Lou Gehrig had 579 at-bats. He batted .363 with 49 home runs and only 31 strike-outs.
Think about it.

I said Sir John was a great neurophysiologist, not a baseball historian .

Glad we got that straightened out...

[rabalac]

I can't wait for this "scientific" experiment to run its course. I've been holding my breath for as long as I've been alive trying to know just who is the greatest (fill in the blanks) of all time.

Well if you haven't picked up on my obvious sarcasm, allow me to spell out how I really feel. The notion that science can be used to determine greatness, and on top of that, across generational lines is about as scientific (and predictive) as a two-bit palm reader predicting ones future.

Look, I, as much as the next guy, have dabbled in a few discussions over the years regarding who is the GOAT in various endeavors. And almost ALL of those duscussions-turned-arguments usually ends with the words, "We'll agree to disagree." Imagine how different those discussion will now end if we can now scientifically bring these age-old "debates" to closure. Well I for one want no part of this nonsense.

Besides, the science community did not put an end to the endless (and heated) debates on global warming (the debates have generated some of the heat to be sure), so why should we expect that these so-called sport scientists will be treated any differently?

[user4]

I would go with Ted Williams on this.

There's no doubt that Williams had extraordinary hand-eye coordination but the thing to remember is that hitting the baseball with power the way Williams did (as opposed to slap hitting), requires more than just hand-eye coordination, it also requires a minimum amount bat speed/power. It's not a coincidence that baseball's greatest pure hitters (Gehrig, DiMaggio, Williams, Aaron) not only stuck out infrequently, but also hit a lot of homeruns.

And Williams' stats dont include what could have been some of his best years (1942-1944, pilot) if played in full. He also lost 1953 to Korea again serving as a pilot. Im guessing that hand eye coordination came in handy with the plane and gun too.

[bambam]

Also, I can't think of another sport that places as a high a premium on hand-eye coordination as golf does.

The golf ball is not moving. Try hitting a 103mph fastball or a big-league curve.

Ted Williams said that to Sam Snead once. Snead told him it was true, but that he didn't have to play his foul balls. Golfers do.

[bambam]

Do golfers qualify as athletes? For if they do, we might as well called ball room dancers athletes also.

As a former pro golfer I will say that I think ball room dancers actually have to have a much greater degree of athletic skill than golfers. We just had to become automatons. Dancers are pretty athletic in many cases. There was a book in the 70s called The Ultimate Athlete and the author concluded he did not know who the ultimate athlete was, but he bet he/she was a dancer.

[Marlow]

The Ultimate Athlete and the author concluded he did not know who the ultimate athlete was, but he bet he/she was a dancer.

I am now going to admit that my wife addicted me (it's not my fault!) to So You Think You Can Dance. While most of the dancers are not doing highly athletic things, some of them, male and female, do some AMAZING leaps and lifts and spins, that only a highly talented and trained athlete could attain. Those, needless to say, are my favorites. Graceful dancers are, IMO, a dime a dozen.

[marknhj]

Do golfers qualify as athletes? For if they do, we might as well called ball room dancers athletes also.

As a former pro golfer I will say that I think ball room dancers actually have to have a much greater degree of athletic skill than golfers. We just had to become automatons. Dancers are pretty athletic in many cases. There was a book in the 70s called The Ultimate Athlete and the author concluded he did not know who the ultimate athlete was, but he bet he/she was a dancer.

I used to reside/train where the Rambert Dance Company, a leading Brit contemporary dance company, was based. In those days they were called the Ballet Rambert and I would agree with the book's author. Dancers are fabulous all-around athletes and incredibly hard workers.