Sports Science to determine the real greatest athete ever


Forum devoted to track & field items of an historical nature.

Re: Sports Science to determine the real greatest athete eve

Postby j-a-m » Mon Oct 15, 2012 3:29 am

jhc68 wrote:Well, at least the final 16 will be determined by a vote of the fans, who will, no doubt, apply rigorous scientific criteria in their decisions...

Yeah, that would seem to defy the purpose.
j-a-m
 
Posts: 2449
Joined: Thu May 24, 2012 8:21 pm

Re: Sports Science to determine the real greatest athete eve

Postby j-a-m » Mon Oct 15, 2012 3:32 am

dbirds wrote:I was wondering which 5 they will choose from track.

You can make a valid for argument for the greatest pure t&f athlete to come from any of the following: multi events, pole vault, sprints. So whoever's the greatest in those three areas should be among the top five.
j-a-m
 
Posts: 2449
Joined: Thu May 24, 2012 8:21 pm

Re: Sports Science to determine the real greatest athete eve

Postby preston » Mon Oct 15, 2012 3:48 am

jazz, you keep bringing up this "inability to carry baton in left hand" as if it is the de facto litmus test for the pinnacle in athletic achievement (slight sarcasm). It's not, and it's irrelevant to how much of an athlete Bolt is - if in fact athletics ability can be measured by science. One other thing: Carl Lewis also changed hands.

I also don't put a hell of lot of weight in throwing a javelin or high jumping (you wouldn't, or I should say shouldn't, be surprised to know that a LOT of basketballers have tried high jumping and weren't that successful...); plus, many of the best "athletes" in the decathlon are great first day people...javelin is on day 2 along with the pole vault and discus and many of the multi event "athletes" don't usually do too well in these events.

I recently read where Bolt could bench press 308 lbs (impressive, and believeable) and squat over 700 lbs (utter horseshit); his cricket and soccer skills are also "good", as noted. But, this may not be enough to make him the greatest athlete...but it doesn't disqualify him from that title either.

And, I wouldn't discount Eaton's ability to the point that I would say that there are NFL'rs out there who could be better. They might be, but that's a tall ask. Eaton has sub-44.50, sub-10.10, sub-13.10 and 28' ability. That's great anywhere. Everywhere. But, also don't out look some of the plus 280 pounders (NFL and T&F) who have fairly impressive verticals, agility and start speed. The one thing that we (read: me) know is that the "best" athletes are certainly not long distance runners by most people's measure. :wink:

j-a-m wrote:You can make a valid for argument for the greatest pure t&f athlete to come from any of the following: multi events, pole vault, sprints. So whoever's the greatest in those three areas should be among the top five.

Not and maintain any shred of credibility. There are very few pole vaulters who would qualify. MOST are a unique subset of athletes with unique skills. And, most of the multi eventers are average athletes who have worked to learn enough capability in the other events to maximize the points from the scoring system (which benefits some events more than others). The reasons why O'Brien, Thompson, Huffins, Eaton, Hardee, Clay and a few others stand out over their peers is that they have raw explosive ability that the average elite decathlete just doesn't have. It's called real speed.
preston
 
Posts: 1075
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2011 1:09 pm

Re: Sports Science to determine the real greatest athete eve

Postby Marlow » Mon Oct 15, 2012 3:50 am

j-a-m wrote:You can make a valid for argument for the greatest pure t&f athlete to come from any of the following: multi events, pole vault, sprints.

I see MANY abilities at play in the the multis and PV . . .. I think Houston McTear demonstrated that one can excel at the sprints first time out of the blocks (literally!). I'm not sure that's 'athleticism', per se. Speed is one asset for a great athlete. If Bolt were also a hurdler or LJer, then I'd agree he's more than just a sprinter. He might be!
Marlow
 
Posts: 21126
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: Sports Science to determine the real greatest athete eve

Postby preston » Mon Oct 15, 2012 4:16 am

Though the unitiated might assume that hurdling is an athletic ability it's really a speed ability. There are many "hurdlers" who have been more fast than technical (see: Mayo, G. and Woodson, R.).
preston
 
Posts: 1075
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2011 1:09 pm

Re: Sports Science to determine the real greatest athete eve

Postby Marlow » Mon Oct 15, 2012 7:24 am

preston wrote:Though the unitiated might assume that hurdling is an athletic ability it's really a speed ability.

Have you ever coached hurdling? There are many (many!!) sprinters who simply can't hurdle. I have also become similarly disappointed to find out that a great many bball talents - with prodigious dunking abilities - can't High Jump. :( On the other hand, almost everyone can Long Jump somewhat close to their native speed/jumping ability. Triple jump, not so much.
Marlow
 
Posts: 21126
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: Sports Science to determine the real greatest athete eve

Postby jazzcyclist » Mon Oct 15, 2012 7:39 am

preston wrote:jazz, you keep bringing up this "inability to carry baton in left hand" as if it is the de facto litmus test for the pinnacle in athletic achievement (slight sarcasm). It's not, and it's irrelevant to how much of an athlete Bolt is - if in fact athletics ability can be measured by science. One other thing: Carl Lewis also changed hands.

Not being able to do something simple like carry a baton in your non-dominant hand, which most sprinters can do, does indicate a deficiency IMO, though I agree with you that it doesn't disqualify Bolt and Lewis from consideration as the greatest athlete, assuming they can make up for it in other areas. Speaking of Lewis, it's my understanding that he stunk at ball sports.
preston wrote:I also don't put a hell of lot of weight in throwing a javelin or high jumping (you wouldn't, or I should say shouldn't, be surprised to know that a LOT of basketballers have tried high jumping and weren't that successful...); plus, many of the best "athletes" in the decathlon are great first day people...javelin is on day 2 along with the pole vault and discus and many of the multi event "athletes" don't usually do too well in these events.

I put stock in the javelin and high jump because they require a whole different type of ability than what's required for running fast and jumping far. High jumping requires body control, and the javelin requires quickness and rhythm.
preston wrote:I recently read where Bolt could bench press 308 lbs (impressive, and believeable) and squat over 700 lbs (utter horseshit); his cricket and soccer skills are also "good", as noted. But, this may not be enough to make him the greatest athlete...but it doesn't disqualify him from that title either.

I don't think 308 on the bench is impressive for someone Bolt's size, and I don't know enough about cricket to give an informed opinion on an athlete's cricket ability.
preston wrote:And, I wouldn't discount Eaton's ability to the point that I would say that there are NFL'rs out there who could be better. They might be, but that's a tall ask. Eaton has sub-44.50, sub-10.10, sub-13.10 and 28' ability. That's great anywhere. Everywhere. But, also don't out look some of the plus 280 pounders (NFL and T&F) who have fairly impressive verticals, agility and start speed. The one thing that we (read: me) know is that the "best" athletes are certainly not long distance runners by most people's measure. :wink:

The 100 and 400 are very similar events, and the 100, 110H and long jump are somewhat similar events, but all of these events put a premium on speed/explosiveness. What about upper body strength and hand-eye coordination? Also, I rate Kenenisa Bekele as high as I rate Bolt because both the sprints and distance races require equally limited talent.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Sports Science to determine the real greatest athete eve

Postby jazzcyclist » Mon Oct 15, 2012 7:44 am

Marlow wrote:
preston wrote:Though the unitiated might assume that hurdling is an athletic ability it's really a speed ability.

Have you ever coached hurdling? There are many (many!!) sprinters who simply can't hurdle. I have also become similarly disappointed to find out that a great many bball talents - with prodigious dunking abilities - can't High Jump. :( On the other hand, almost everyone can Long Jump somewhat close to their native speed/jumping ability. Triple jump, not so much.

Of all the jumping events, the long jump would seem to be the one that requires the least amount of body control which is whole different talent than speed/explosiveness.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Sports Science to determine the real greatest athete eve

Postby preston » Mon Oct 15, 2012 7:45 am

Marlow wrote:
preston wrote:Though the unitiated might assume that hurdling is an athletic ability it's really a speed ability.

Have you ever coached hurdling? There are many (many!!) sprinters who simply can't hurdle. I have also become similarly disappointed to find out that a great many bball talents - with prodigious dunking abilities - can't High Jump. :( On the other hand, almost everyone can Long Jump somewhat close to their native speed/jumping ability. Triple jump, not so much.

Overall hurdling time, imo, depends more on speed - especially at the high school/collegiate level. Even some elites get away with very poor "hurdling" (Thomas, D - who is much improved; Brathwaite). I used Mayo and Woodson as "fast" hurdlers (I think both were NCAA Champs...) who couldn't "hurdle" in the classic sense. I would agree that there are many sprinters who can't hurdle but there are also a LOT of sprinters who could, if they wanted to. In fact, there is a woman that I know (well, we all know...), who owns an olympic gold medal below 400m, who has never run an in competition hurdle race of any kind, but proved that she has sub-13 ability based upon her practice times.

As for hurdling...what is more shocking to me is NOT true sprinters not being able to convert to short hurdlers, it's 400m runners who can't convert to long hurdles.
preston
 
Posts: 1075
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2011 1:09 pm

Re: Sports Science to determine the real greatest athete eve

Postby jazzcyclist » Mon Oct 15, 2012 8:00 am

preston wrote:As for hurdling...what is more shocking to me is NOT true sprinters not being able to convert to short hurdlers, it's 400m runners who can't convert to long hurdles.

I agree with this 100%. The 400H doesn't place nearly the premium on rhythm and body control that the 100H and 110H do. Didn't Irina Privolova win an Olympic gold medal in her seventh race or something like that?
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Sports Science to determine the real greatest athete eve

Postby preston » Mon Oct 15, 2012 8:05 am

jazz, I disagree with you about UB and KB, but that's my opinion, and we could both debate the issue to moot standstill I'm sure. However, what I wanted to add, which I think you missed, is the 280+ pound linebacker, DE or SP'er who is a REAL ATHLETE!!!! Some of these guys are as good as any for the first 20m...and have some impressive agility. NFL defenses are littered with them and old skoolers like Oldfield were quite impressive outside of the ring.
jazzcyclist wrote:
preston wrote:As for hurdling...what is more shocking to me is NOT true sprinters not being able to convert to short hurdlers, it's 400m runners who can't convert to long hurdles.

I agree with this 100%. The 400H doesn't place nearly the premium on rhythm and body control that the 100H and 110H do. Didn't Irina Privolova win an Olympic gold medal in her seventh race or something like that?

Privalova is one of those who falls in my top-5 athletes! Period. She is not typical by any means; she also made an attempt at one point to make the Russian team at 800m! :shock: (started out as a speedskater)
preston
 
Posts: 1075
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2011 1:09 pm

Re: Sports Science to determine the real greatest athete eve

Postby TN1965 » Mon Oct 15, 2012 8:33 am

preston wrote:...what I wanted to add, which I think you missed, is the 280+ pound linebacker, DE or SP'er who is a REAL ATHLETE!!!! Some of these guys are as good as any for the first 20m...and have some impressive agility.


But I bet that I (a middle aged mediocre rec runner) can beat every single one of them in a 1500m race. :)

And in Bolt-Bekele comparison, Bekele's 100m should be far more impressive than Bolt's 10000m based on the scoring table.

And that brings up the question: what exactly is athleticism? Most people agree speed and strength should count. But does it include endurance? Or flexibility?
TN1965
 
Posts: 1186
Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2009 8:38 pm

Re: Sports Science to determine the real greatest athete eve

Postby jazzcyclist » Mon Oct 15, 2012 8:46 am

preston wrote:jazz, I disagree with you about UB and KB, but that's my opinion, and we could both debate the issue to moot standstill I'm sure. However, what I wanted to add, which I think you missed, is the 280+ pound linebacker, DE or SP'er who is a REAL ATHLETE!!!! Some of these guys are as good as any for the first 20m...and have some impressive agility. NFL defenses are littered with them and old skoolers like Oldfield were quite impressive outside of the ring.

I agree with the NFL being littered with freaks like the ones you describe. Those are the types of guys I was thinking of when I made my list on on page one of this thread. One guy in college who fits this mold is South Carolina's man-child DE Jadeveon Clowney.
Last edited by jazzcyclist on Mon Oct 15, 2012 9:24 am, edited 1 time in total.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Sports Science to determine the real greatest athete eve

Postby preston » Mon Oct 15, 2012 8:52 am

jazzcyclist wrote:
preston wrote:jazz, I disagree with you about UB and KB, but that's my opinion, and we could both debate the issue to moot standstill I'm sure. However, what I wanted to add, which I think you missed, is the 280+ pound linebacker, DE or SP'er who is a REAL ATHLETE!!!! Some of these guys are as good as any for the first 20m...and have some impressive agility. NFL defenses are littered with them and old skoolers like Oldfield were quite impressive outside of the ring.

I agree with the NFL being littered with freaks like the ones you describe. Those are the types of guys I was thinking of when I made my list on on pade one of this thread. One guy in college who fits this mold is South Carolina's man-child DE Jadeveon Clowney.

Then we are in complete agreement. I saw a youtube clip of Jason Pierre-Paul doing back handsprings (though you would have to google "back flips") and obviously he's an athlete. Vernon Davis running a 4.38 at 250? Athlete!
preston
 
Posts: 1075
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2011 1:09 pm

Re: Sports Science to determine the real greatest athete eve

Postby Marlow » Mon Oct 15, 2012 9:00 am

TN1965 wrote:what exactly is athleticism? Most people agree speed and strength should count. But does it include endurance? Or flexibility?

We've been over this several times, and it is our very inability to agree on what it is that is the reason you can't 'measure' it, much less 'scientifically' (sic) come up with a meaningful list of athletes.
To me speed, strength, endurance, and flexibility are all in the mix, but my prime ingredient is 'coordination adaptability'. If you put ten athletes in a brand new sport that put a premium on all the aforementioned qualities, which athlete would be the best at this new sport. Sports Illustrated did a study and decided that the best overall athletes were . . . boxers! Mano a mano fighting! Ya gotta admit, that's an intriguing idea. Maybe Ali was right: he is The Greatest.
Marlow
 
Posts: 21126
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: Sports Science to determine the real greatest athete eve

Postby j-a-m » Mon Oct 15, 2012 9:07 am

Marlow wrote:To me speed, strength, endurance, and flexibility are all in the mix, but my prime ingredient is 'coordination adaptability'. If you put ten athletes in a brand new sport that put a premium on all the aforementioned qualities, which athlete would be the best at this new sport. Sports Illustrated did a study and decided that the best overall athletes were . . . boxers! Mano a mano fighting! Ya gotta admit, that's an intriguing idea. Maybe Ali was right: he is The Greatest.

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.
j-a-m
 
Posts: 2449
Joined: Thu May 24, 2012 8:21 pm

Re: Sports Science to determine the real greatest athete eve

Postby j-a-m » Mon Oct 15, 2012 9:18 am

TN1965 wrote:And that brings up the question: what exactly is athleticism?

It includes strength, power, speed, muscular endurance, cardio, flexibility, balance, coordination, agility.
j-a-m
 
Posts: 2449
Joined: Thu May 24, 2012 8:21 pm

Re: Sports Science to determine the real greatest athete eve

Postby jazzcyclist » Mon Oct 15, 2012 9:28 am

j-a-m wrote:
Marlow wrote:To me speed, strength, endurance, and flexibility are all in the mix, but my prime ingredient is 'coordination adaptability'. If you put ten athletes in a brand new sport that put a premium on all the aforementioned qualities, which athlete would be the best at this new sport. Sports Illustrated did a study and decided that the best overall athletes were . . . boxers! Mano a mano fighting! Ya gotta admit, that's an intriguing idea. Maybe Ali was right: he is The Greatest.

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.

Neither wrestiling nor MMA require the hand-eye coordination and stamina that boxing does, especially back in the days when they were still fighting 15 rounds.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Sports Science to determine the real greatest athete eve

Postby marknhj » Mon Oct 15, 2012 9:30 am

As I've mentioned before, the most "athletic" female I've ever encountered is my friend who was on the USA figure skating team in ice dance. For all around "athletic" ability, she was a step above any track & field athlete I've been around.

Before I read one of j-a-m's earlier posts, free style rock climbers came to mind. Their "athleticism" simply boggles my mind.
marknhj
 
Posts: 5070
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Sports Science to determine the real greatest athete eve

Postby jazzcyclist » Mon Oct 15, 2012 9:35 am

TN1965 wrote:
preston wrote:...what I wanted to add, which I think you missed, is the 280+ pound linebacker, DE or SP'er who is a REAL ATHLETE!!!! Some of these guys are as good as any for the first 20m...and have some impressive agility.


But I bet that I (a middle aged mediocre rec runner) can beat every single one of them in a 1500m race.

I guess that depends on how you define "middle aged mediocre rec runner".

TN1965 wrote:And that brings up the question: what exactly is athleticism? Most people agree speed and strength should count. But does it include endurance?

Of course it does. Why wouldn't it?
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Sports Science to determine the real greatest athete eve

Postby jazzcyclist » Mon Oct 15, 2012 9:37 am

marknhj wrote:As I've mentioned before, the most "athletic" female I've ever encountered is my friend who was on the USA figure skating team in ice dance. For all around "athletic" ability, she was a step above any track & field athlete I've been around.

Would you mind elaborating or linking your previous post about her?
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Sports Science to determine the real greatest athete eve

Postby 18.99s » Mon Oct 15, 2012 9:49 am

jazzcyclist wrote:Neither wrestiling nor MMA require the hand-eye coordination and stamina that boxing does, especially back in the days when they were still fighting 15 rounds.


If you want to talk about "back in the day", don't forget that MMA used to have fights with no time limits and/or very long rounds, and fighters doing 3 or 4 fights in a single night.
18.99s
 
Posts: 704
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2011 5:28 am

Re: Sports Science to determine the real greatest athete eve

Postby Marlow » Mon Oct 15, 2012 9:52 am

j-a-m wrote:And then of course MMA fighters are even better athletes, because they combine the different skills.

I wouldn't say that. From the limited amount I've seen of it (it's most akin to watching a gruesome multi-car crash), 'viciousness' seems to be a prime ingredient. In one match one guy was clearly a better athlete and fighter, but the other guy was, what I would call, under other circumstances, a Sadistic Psychopath. The SP, after taking BRUTAL punishment for most of the match, finally got a hold of the other guy's arm and was wrenching it out of its socket, no skill involved at all, just a praeternatural desire to inflict pain. The ref stopped the contest and declared him the winner (sic) :shock:
Marlow
 
Posts: 21126
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: Sports Science to determine the real greatest athete eve

Postby user4 » Mon Oct 15, 2012 10:04 am

Marlow wrote:
j-a-m wrote:And then of course MMA fighters are even better athletes, because they combine the different skills.

I wouldn't say that. From the limited amount I've seen of it (it's most akin to watching a gruesome multi-car crash), 'viciousness' seems to be a prime ingredient. In one match one guy was clearly a better athlete and fighter, but the other guy was, what I would call, under other circumstances, a Sadistic Psychopath. The SP, after taking BRUTAL punishment for most of the match, finally got a hold of the other guy's arm and was wrenching it out of its socket, no skill involved at all, just a praeternatural desire to inflict pain. The ref stopped the contest and declared him the winner (sic) :shock:


You are much too bold in exposing your ignorance of the fighting arts.

Simple man to man fighting is one of the 3 or 4 most pure athletic tests there is. Mental toughness, an extreme expression of what makes NFL football so appealing, is one of the bare components of sport. And so it will ever be.
Last edited by user4 on Mon Oct 15, 2012 10:06 am, edited 1 time in total.
user4
 
Posts: 1438
Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2012 1:05 pm

Re: Sports Science to determine the real greatest athete eve

Postby 18.99s » Mon Oct 15, 2012 10:06 am

Marlow wrote:The SP, after taking BRUTAL punishment for most of the match, finally got a hold of the other guy's arm and was wrenching it out of its socket, no skill involved at all, just a praeternatural desire to inflict pain. The ref stopped the contest and declared him the winner (sic) :shock:

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.

In a professional MMA fight, what looks like random brawling to the untrained eye is really a series of heavily practiced techniques. (There are exceptions, like Mark Hunt's "atomic butt drop" and some of the antics by Kazushi Sakuraba which must have been made up on the spot.)
18.99s
 
Posts: 704
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2011 5:28 am

Re: Sports Science to determine the real greatest athete eve

Postby user4 » Mon Oct 15, 2012 10:11 am

jazzcyclist wrote:Neither wrestiling nor MMA require the hand-eye coordination and stamina that boxing does, especially back in the days when they were still fighting 15 rounds.


The 15 round fight is a very recent invention (of the early 20th century). 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. The boxing world actually became more brutal with the reduction to 15 rounds and the refs enforcing much more discipline in keeping/restraining the athletes from clinching. Once the 20+ round fight was history and the clinching and grappling removed the athletes and trainers began to focus much more of their training/strategy on knock out blows to the head.
user4
 
Posts: 1438
Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2012 1:05 pm

Re: Sports Science to determine the real greatest athete eve

Postby gh » Mon Oct 15, 2012 10:59 am

I dislocated my elbow a few years back (falling out of a tree; don't ask), and while at the Nationals with my arm in a sling I was sitting poolside with a USOC medico. He was very familiar with my problem because he said that dislocating the elbow was a classic judo move. I assume he knew of what he spoke.

(he made it sound relatively "ordinary," but I ended up having to have an ulnar nerve transfer a year later)
gh
 
Posts: 46335
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Re: Sports Science to determine the real greatest athete eve

Postby Pego » Mon Oct 15, 2012 11:43 am

gh wrote:I dislocated my elbow a few years back (falling out of a tree; don't ask), and while at the Nationals with my arm in a sling I was sitting poolside with a USOC medico. He was very familiar with my problem because he said that dislocating the elbow was a classic judo move. I assume he knew of what he spoke.

(he made it sound relatively "ordinary," but I ended up having to have an ulnar nerve transfer a year later)


Any loss of hand function?
Pego
 
Posts: 10203
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: beyond help

Re: Sports Science to determine the real greatest athete eve

Postby fortyacresandamule » Mon Oct 15, 2012 2:01 pm

If athleticism is about, strength, power, endurance, body coordination etc.The only sport I know that truly defines all that is soccer.
fortyacresandamule
 
Posts: 23
Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2012 4:24 pm

Re: Sports Science to determine the real greatest athete eve

Postby dbirds » Mon Oct 15, 2012 2:29 pm

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
dbirds
 
Posts: 514
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2010 8:54 am

Re: Sports Science to determine the real greatest athete eve

Postby gh » Mon Oct 15, 2012 2:30 pm

Pego wrote:
gh wrote:I dislocated my elbow a few years back (falling out of a tree; don't ask), and while at the Nationals with my arm in a sling I was sitting poolside with a USOC medico. He was very familiar with my problem because he said that dislocating the elbow was a classic judo move. I assume he knew of what he spoke.

(he made it sound relatively "ordinary," but I ended up having to have an ulnar nerve transfer a year later)


Any loss of hand function?


I had to switch hands, but it feels so much better that way! :twisted:
gh
 
Posts: 46335
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Re: Sports Science to determine the real greatest athete eve

Postby Marlow » Mon Oct 15, 2012 2:51 pm

18.99s wrote: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! :D
Marlow
 
Posts: 21126
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: Sports Science to determine the real greatest athete eve

Postby aaronk » Mon Oct 15, 2012 4:07 pm

"Sports Science to determine the real greatest athlete ever"

Huh!!

And the winner is.......

Marvin Frankenstein III of Transylvania!!

Coached by his "father", Dr Baron Von Frankenstein.

Dad calls his son "a self-made" man!!

:lol:
aaronk
 
Posts: 3362
Joined: Sun May 06, 2012 9:39 am

Re: Sports Science to determine the real greatest athete eve

Postby cullman » Mon Oct 15, 2012 6:31 pm

Are they going to do blood analysis and drug testing on the candidates? Just asking.
cullman
 
Posts: 2065
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: ...in training...for something...

Re: Sports Science to determine the real greatest athete eve

Postby fortyacresandamule » Mon Oct 15, 2012 8:14 pm

Do golfers qualify as athletes? For if they do, we might as well called ball room dancers athletes also.
fortyacresandamule
 
Posts: 23
Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2012 4:24 pm

Re: Sports Science to determine the real greatest athete eve

Postby Vielleicht » Mon Oct 15, 2012 8:47 pm

j-a-m wrote: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
Vielleicht
 
Posts: 370
Joined: Sat Dec 06, 2008 4:11 am

Re: Sports Science to determine the real greatest athete eve

Postby gh » Mon Oct 15, 2012 9:15 pm

i had no idea that grabbing balls was a measure of athleticism!
gh
 
Posts: 46335
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Re: Sports Science to determine the real greatest athete eve

Postby 18.99s » Tue Oct 16, 2012 4:33 am

Marlow wrote:
18.99s wrote: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! :D


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.
18.99s
 
Posts: 704
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2011 5:28 am

Re: Sports Science to determine the real greatest athete eve

Postby Marlow » Tue Oct 16, 2012 5:06 am

18.99s wrote: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.
Marlow
 
Posts: 21126
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: Sports Science to determine the real greatest athete eve

Postby j-a-m » Tue Oct 16, 2012 7:03 am

fortyacresandamule wrote: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.
j-a-m
 
Posts: 2449
Joined: Thu May 24, 2012 8:21 pm

Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests