namelesstavern.net

by **Lyion** » Fri May 05, 2006 4:00 pm

Which athletes are in better shape?

Why?

Enquiring minds want to know

by **vonkaar** » Fri May 05, 2006 4:01 pm

You don't see any fatass 350lb NBA players :dunno:

by **mofish** » Fri May 05, 2006 4:05 pm

Depends on the NFL position.

You dont see any NBA players run 4.3 40 yard dashes, catch passes 70 yards downfield either, or break 10 tackles to run 105 yards for a touchdown. And we arent even talking about good Quarterbacks yet.

The best athletes are football players, but not every football player is a better athletes than an NBA player. IMO anyway. Maybe I just dont appreciate basketball :dunno:

by **vonkaar** » Fri May 05, 2006 4:08 pm

mofish wrote:Depends on the NFL position.

But you can't say the same thing for the NBA.

Sure, the cream of the crop NFL might be badass athletes, but the bottom of the (huge) barrell is filled with 350 lb fatass linemen who can't play past 33 because of their weakened heart.

by **Arlos** » Fri May 05, 2006 4:41 pm

Robert Traylor was a svelte individual?

Sean Kemp too?

And wasn't there a reason Barkley was known as the "Round Mound of Rebound"?

In all honesty, probably the most in-shape sport athletes are soccer players, especially midfielders. They basically spend 45 minutes straight running at near top speed, then they get a short break, then 45 minutes more of running. Bet you that you could find soccer players with < 4.4 40 times, too.

-Arlos

by **Rotj** » Fri May 05, 2006 4:55 pm

it depends on what your definition of 'better shape' is.. i guess. different sports require different types of athleticism. nba players have to work hard on their plyometrics and gaining a ton of weight wouldn't be totally beneficial (unless they were already way too small). mind you the current trend of athletes seem to be power / performance based factors.. getting bigger and bigger.

by **Spliffs** » Fri May 05, 2006 6:48 pm

I would say NBA players are in better cardiovascular condition. NFL players are stronger and faster though.

by **Tikker** » Fri May 05, 2006 9:22 pm

Hockey players ftw!

Soccer players are generally in pretty good shape too

actually, I change my mind

Rugby players are probably the toughest, most in shape big fuckers out there

by **Phlegm** » Fri May 05, 2006 9:24 pm

Water polo players are probably the fittest.

by **Tuggan** » Fri May 05, 2006 11:51 pm

SHAQ ATTACK

by **vonkaar** » Sat May 06, 2006 12:29 am

arlos wrote:Robert Traylor was a svelte individual?

Sean Kemp too?

And wasn't there a reason Barkley was known as the "Round Mound of Rebound"?

In all honesty, probably the most in-shape sport athletes are soccer players, especially midfielders. They basically spend 45 minutes straight running at near top speed, then they get a short break, then 45 minutes more of running. Bet you that you could find soccer players with < 4.4 40 times, too.

-Arlos

k.... you picked 3 people out of the 2,000 that played in the last 20 years.

That's in comparison to the 15% of the NFL that would fall under 'obese' by normal standards.

But yeah... Soccer players...

or track and field stars for that matter

by **Xaiveir** » Sat May 06, 2006 12:39 pm

Each sport is completely different with the muscles and requirements to play at a high level. I dont think you can define one sport as more athletic as the next. Apples and Oranges.

Now if you wanted to narrow it down alittle more to something specific, endurance, speed, power, agility etc then you can make arguments for that.

by **Thon** » Sat May 06, 2006 4:22 pm

spazz's thread made me think, UFC fighters have to be right up there with nfl/nba, if not in a lot better shape.

running after a ball for an hour is one thing, but two guys trying to beat the shit out of each other for 15 minutes takes a lot more

by **Tikker** » Sat May 06, 2006 8:11 pm

it's different conditioning

it's really hard to compare different sports that way

by **Harrison** » Sat May 06, 2006 8:15 pm

You don't measure liquids with a ruler.

You don't compare volume with length.

by **Thon** » Sat May 06, 2006 11:03 pm

but you do need length to find volume

by **Harrison** » Sun May 07, 2006 8:43 am

I knew someone was going to post that.

I was going to make a disclaimer at the bottom in tiny-assed print, but I didn't think someone would get so technical.

by **Drem** » Sun May 07, 2006 4:07 pm

the most in-shape athletes are gymnasts or ppl in ballet

by **Thon** » Sun May 07, 2006 4:37 pm

send a ballet dancer into the octagon then

LETS GET IT ON C'MON!!!

by **Phlegm** » Sun May 07, 2006 4:43 pm

Thon wrote:send a ballet dancer into the octagon then

LETS GET IT ON C'MON!!!

You're mistaken being in shape for fighting prowess.

by **Zanchief** » Mon May 08, 2006 7:35 am

Yea, Sean Kemp was a terrible athlete.

by **Arlos** » Mon May 08, 2006 12:15 pm

I didn't say that, Zanchief. I just said that he was not a svelte individual, at least later in his career. Many of the linemen that Vonk is discussing are also great athletes, despite the fact that they're f'ing huge.

-Arlos

by **Zanchief** » Mon May 08, 2006 12:28 pm

Basketball players ARE the most athletic. I don't know exactly what you mean by "in shape". If it's solely a measure of endurance, than it would probably go to soccer players or cyclists, but for all around athletes, its basketball. No doubt about it.

by **mofish** » Mon May 08, 2006 1:19 pm

What sport would the most successful Olympians come out of?

Football.

by **Tikker** » Mon May 08, 2006 1:26 pm

Zanchief wrote:Basketball players ARE the most athletic. I don't know exactly what you mean by "in shape". If it's solely a measure of endurance, than it would probably go to soccer players or cyclists, but for all around athletes, its basketball. No doubt about it.

I'd put any basketball player against any rugby player and bet on the rugby player every time~

namelesstavern.net

NBA vs NFL

NBA vs NFL

Who is online