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 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.
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)
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)
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.
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)
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.)
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.
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 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)
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
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!
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!
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
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!
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 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.
fortyacresandamule wrote: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.
user4 wrote: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.
18.99s wrote: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.
dbirds wrote: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.
j-a-m wrote: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.
jazzcyclist wrote: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.
jazzcyclist wrote: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 wrote: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 wrote: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.
jazzcyclist wrote: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.
jazzcyclist wrote: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: