PDA

View Full Version : Tennis players are the best athletes, says Sampras


diggler
10-23-2009, 09:21 PM
http://www.smh.com.au/news/sport/tennis/Tennis-players-are-the-best-athletes-says-Sampras/2009/10/17/1255624762979.html

Apologies if this was posted before but I couldn't find it on the search.

Personally I don't think Fed would last 1 minute of a boxing match.

DownTheLine
10-23-2009, 09:25 PM
http://www.smh.com.au/news/sport/tennis/Tennis-players-are-the-best-athletes-says-Sampras/2009/10/17/1255624762979.html

Apologies if this was posted before but I couldn't find it on the search.

Personally I don't think Fed would last 1 minute of a boxing match.
The boxer wouldn't last one point against Federer...

McBrat
10-23-2009, 09:28 PM
:confused:

Dreamcastin
10-23-2009, 09:30 PM
"This is the very man whose clutch serve, breathtaking backhand and unrivalled work ethic delivered him 14 grand slam titles, a record six successive year-end No.1 rankings and $US43 million in prize money during a career statistically inferior only to the mighty Roger Federer."

whoops, lol.

Cantankersore
10-23-2009, 09:31 PM
I can't imagine him being that bad at boxing. Good hand-eye coordination, strength, physical conditioning et cetera. On the other hand, it isn't like boxers would get many points off of Federer, or that Federer would get many Points in a basketball match with LeBron or Kobe or something. They're all incredibly skilled, specialized athletes.

NonP
10-23-2009, 09:36 PM
Personally I don't think Fed would last 1 minute of a boxing match.

The boxer wouldn't last one point against Federer...

And both wouldn't have a snowball's chance of executing a half-somersault in diving. There seem to be a little too many best athletes.

ChrisCrocker
10-23-2009, 09:39 PM
considering in professional tennis the players cannot last that long on the tour, i would say he has a very strong arguement.

Vermillion
10-23-2009, 09:41 PM
They have the best VO2 Max from what I've heard

*Compared with other college athletes

Dark Victory
10-23-2009, 09:48 PM
Among tennis players, Pete is the best athlete ever.

lambielspins
10-23-2009, 09:50 PM
I stopped reading once I got to "breathtaking backhand".

jserve
10-23-2009, 09:50 PM
It very much depends on what your definition of athlete is. Tennis players have great agility and hand eye coordination, but don't have the same physical strength or aerobic fitness as a lot of other sports.

Personally I think MMA fighters top the list as the most athletic people in the world. Strength, both aerobic and anaerobic fitness, speed/agility, hand eye coordination, mental toughness.

Pretty much any sport can make claims to having the best athletes since at the top of any sport are some of the worlds fittest competitors.

doom
10-23-2009, 09:52 PM
Tennis players are some of the most rounded athletes, but would not be the best at many athletic skills, except maybe hand eye coordination.

helloworld
10-23-2009, 10:27 PM
They are the most all-rounded athletes, but I'm not sure about being the best. If by best means most balanced then tennis players are indeed the best athletes.

lawrence
10-23-2009, 10:55 PM
I believe 1 on 1 sports bring out the most in athletes, you have the most pressure, everything is down to you.. No teammates to fall back on, no one to carry you, it's all you.

That said, he might actually have a point. The main 2 sports that come to mind in this situation are boxing and tennis; however, boxing seems to be one of the sports where there is a real dependence on your physical ability. Fast twitch muscle fibers, reach, etc. While tennis is more technique, and is probably the hardest solo sport to learn and play even at an amateur level.

David L
10-23-2009, 11:06 PM
http://www.smh.com.au/news/sport/tennis/Tennis-players-are-the-best-athletes-says-Sampras/2009/10/17/1255624762979.html

Apologies if this was posted before but I couldn't find it on the search.

Personally I don't think Fed would last 1 minute of a boxing match.

That's because Federer is not a boxer. He's a tennis player. A boxer is going to get crushed by Federer on a tennis court. Since when does boxing define what athleticism is?

diggler
10-24-2009, 01:56 AM
The boxer wouldn't last one point against Federer...

The boxer wouldn't win a point, but it sure as hell beats getting your head punched in.

Ultimately this argument is just as idiotic as all those GOAT discussions that pervade this message board.

Perhaps the real test is how well a sportsman would be able to compete in other sports. Given that tennis players need speed, endurance, eye hand coordination, mental toughness, maybe they would do well in most sports

ac3111
10-24-2009, 02:17 AM
Federer could last 1 minute boxing because boxer could not catch him. Boxer could not win a point though against Roger on a tennis court... I mean a heavy weight boxer.

raiden031
10-24-2009, 02:47 AM
I don't agree with Sampras. If that were the case, I wouldn't routinely lose to 60 year olds. No way these 60 year old tennis players that can beat me are more athletic than me. They have just put in more time on the court and have developed more consistent shots. Thats a skill, not athleticism.

kOaMaster
10-24-2009, 02:52 AM
Among others, elite boxers, gymnasts, cross-country skiers, surf lifesavers, triathletes, basketballers, handballers, cyclists, squash and soccer players and AFL footballers - in no particular order - could all argue they'd be the most supreme athletes on the planet.

and sampras is a tennis player, therefore he certainly says tennis. a footballer would say football too. a squash player squash and so on.

Lotto
10-24-2009, 02:58 AM
I don't agree with Sampras. If that were the case, I wouldn't routinely lose to 60 year olds. No way these 60 year old tennis players that can beat me are more athletic than me. They have just put in more time on the court and have developed more consistent shots. Thats a skill, not athleticism.


We're talking about tennis at the highest levels, are you saying you're a world class professional? Not trying to attack you or anything, just making a point that there's a big difference between Pro tennis and Amateur tennis.

David L
10-24-2009, 03:26 AM
I don't agree with Sampras. If that were the case, I wouldn't routinely lose to 60 year olds. No way these 60 year old tennis players that can beat me are more athletic than me. They have just put in more time on the court and have developed more consistent shots. Thats a skill, not athleticism.
Yes, but you're an amateur. Most points at the amateur level are won or lost on unforced errors, because technique is not sufficiently developed. At the professional level, technique is considerably better, so points are mainly won or lost by the force of play, which is where one's athleticism can play a significantly bigger role.

McBrat
10-24-2009, 04:57 AM
and sampras is a tennis player, therefore he certainly says tennis. a footballer would say football too. a squash player squash and so on.And Tiger?

kOaMaster
10-24-2009, 06:00 AM
tiger would say tennis, as he strongly believes in federer's abilities adn certainly knows it's not golf provides the best athletes ;)

Bjorn99
10-24-2009, 06:07 AM
I think Federer is the greatest athlete of all time. Certainly the most enjoyable to watch.

raiden031
10-24-2009, 06:12 AM
Yes, but you're an amateur. Most points at the amateur level are won or lost on unforced errors, because technique is not sufficiently developed. At the professional level, technique is considerably better, so points are mainly won or lost by the force of play, which is where one's athleticism can play a significantly bigger role.

Still, it takes more effort to become a pro tennis player than probably every other sport because skill is more important than athleticism and takes a long time to develop, especially because there are many skills needed to be learned for the game.

raiden031
10-24-2009, 06:17 AM
and sampras is a tennis player, therefore he certainly says tennis. a footballer would say football too. a squash player squash and so on.

In the article he said he wasn't being biased. I'll tell you one thing, some of the comments made by Sampras the last few months show what an ego he has. He says things like, "I would take out Federer on grass in my prime", blah blah. The guy is trying to make himself feel more important by making statements such as these. No doubt he was one of the greatest tennis players ever, but I question his motives for making the comments he makes.

borg number one
10-24-2009, 06:19 AM
Bjorn Borg is the greatest pure athlete in the history of Tennis. Roger Federer is not the athlete Bjorn Borg was for many reasons. He is not as fast or quick as Borg, and he has much less stamina, hands down.

Federer does possess unbelievable racket control and eye hand coordination overall. In that one "athletic department", I would put him in the very top tier with McEnroe, Borg, and Laver.

Watch Borg on video run back for overheads for example. Just watch how Borg could lace first serves, hit stretched returns extremely hard and dipping with topspin, hit running passing shots outstretched from everywhere, as well as serve and volley at Wimbledon against McEnroe/Connors, while being able to hit any shot in the book on the red clay of the French Open. He did all this without hardly EVER getting really tired on the Court. When does he look like he's even breathing hard?

NO PLAYER could ever outlast Borg in terms of stamina. Just look at his record in five set matches where his opponents, guys like Vilas, McEnroe, Connors, and Lendl would be tired, facing a surging, stronger Borg.

I would put Borg at #1, with Nadal (though quite injury prone may be #2. Federer is possibly top five, maybe #3 in my book.

helloworld
10-24-2009, 07:02 AM
Borg was hands down the best athlete in the world. He once beat an olympic hurdler in a hurdling race!! The dude was a superhuman.

zagor
10-24-2009, 07:47 AM
Bjorn Borg is the greatest pure athlete in the history of Tennis. Roger Federer is not the athlete Bjorn Borg was for many reasons. He is not as fast or quick as Borg, and he has much less stamina, hands down.

Federer does possess unbelievable racket control and eye hand coordination overall. In that one "athletic department", I would put him in the very top tier with McEnroe, Borg, and Laver.

Watch Borg on video run back for overheads for example. Just watch how Borg could lace first serves, hit stretched returns extremely hard and dipping with topspin, hit running passing shots outstretched from everywhere, as well as serve and volley at Wimbledon against McEnroe/Connors, while being able to hit any shot in the book on the red clay of the French Open. He did all this without hardly EVER getting really tired on the Court. When does he look like he's even breathing hard?

NO PLAYER could ever outlast Borg in terms of stamina. Just look at his record in five set matches where his opponents, guys like Vilas, McEnroe, Connors, and Lendl would be tired, facing a surging, stronger Borg.

I would put Borg at #1, with Nadal (though quite injury prone may be #2. Federer is possibly top five, maybe #3 in my book.

I'm not sure if I'd put Fed so high in the athleticism department(top five of all time)because IMO one of Fed's greatest assets is his amazing anticipation,how well he reads the game and the opponent.That's why he reaches balls some players who arguably have better footspeed and are more explosive than him can't,he also has great hands that when he reaches those balls he does something special with it and transitions from defense to offense in the blink of an eye.

LiveForever
10-24-2009, 08:51 AM
lol. Nadal is probably the greatest athlete ever in the sport of tennis. Injuries have messed him up but he is faster, more powerful, and has more stamina than Borg.

akv89
10-24-2009, 09:08 AM
Borg was hands down the best athlete in the world. He once beat an olympic hurdler in a hurdling race!! The dude was a superhuman.

Source? :shock:
It would be more believable if Borg was running a dash and the hurdler was running hurdles simultaneously.

tennisdad65
10-24-2009, 09:16 AM
And Tiger?

His competition includes Daly, Michelson, Waldorf, Stadler. Not exactly well toned athletes. :) Tiger may be a great athlete and probably would be great at tennis, but golf does not need great athletic ability.

btangel
10-24-2009, 10:10 AM
I agree with Sampras.

To be a top tennis players you have to possess a bit of everything. You need the footwork of a boxer, stamina of a marathon runner, speed of a sprinter, hand eye coordination of a archer on a horseback, court sense of a NFL QB, and the mental strength of a gladiator to go out there and fight on your own. In a sense, they may not need to be amazing on every front, but they need to be very good at every department.

In other words, a tennis player that plays at the top requires you to be a more complete athlete than other sports.

I strongly believe someone with the athletic ability the likes of Federer has the capacity to go pro at pretty much any sport he chooses.

maddogz32
10-24-2009, 11:17 AM
if fed got in a boxing match he would start crying before they even punched him

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_JYnju_tDnIA/SYj9uagrrxI/AAAAAAAABso/z1EycDjh56o/s400/Federer_Crying.JPG

ubermeyer
10-24-2009, 11:35 AM
i don't agree with him at all.

soccer, anyone?

jackson vile
10-24-2009, 11:42 AM
It very much depends on what your definition of athlete is. Tennis players have great agility and hand eye coordination, but don't have the same physical strength or aerobic fitness as a lot of other sports.

Personally I think MMA fighters top the list as the most athletic people in the world. Strength, both aerobic and anaerobic fitness, speed/agility, hand eye coordination, mental toughness.

Pretty much any sport can make claims to having the best athletes since at the top of any sport are some of the worlds fittest competitors.

And how often do they even actually compete in any given year? To realy see how good their hand eye coordination is you would have to see what percentage of strikes are landed.

I guarantee that a tennis player is landing way more strikes than the average MMA fighter. As for speed, are you refering to striking or running speed. Once again MMA are not that fast at all, compare to Olympic level boxer or wrestler and they will be faster than the MMA fighter.

As for mental toughness, a fighter does not fight for 8hrs, does not compete as much as other sports in any given year, does not fight around the world at6:00am 12:00am, then fly some where else and do it again the next day.

big bang
10-24-2009, 01:25 PM
tennisplayers are not even close to being the greatest athletes on earth.. not at all

big bang
10-24-2009, 01:31 PM
And how often do they even actually compete in any given year? To realy see how good their hand eye coordination is you would have to see what percentage of strikes are landed.

I guarantee that a tennis player is landing way more strikes than the average MMA fighter. As for speed, are you refering to striking or running speed. Once again MMA are not that fast at all, compare to Olympic level boxer or wrestler and they will be faster than the MMA fighter.

As for mental toughness, a fighter does not fight for 8hrs, does not compete as much as other sports in any given year, does not fight around the world at6:00am 12:00am, then fly some where else and do it again the next day.

you are comparing matches vs fights.. MMA and boxingtraining is so much tougher than tennistraining and matches, these guys have an insane schedule everyday all year long. they train their fighting-skills, they run, they work out. many fighters say they dont have a life besides fighting, you must be 100% fit at all times.. AND you can never tank a fight!!!!

edmondsm
10-24-2009, 01:54 PM
Hey look, an athlete patting himself on the back, trying to say that he is superior to other athletes. Jeez, I haven't seen this before.

Here's my argument:

Soccer players have the largest pool of competitors to play against. To be an elite soccer player means that you proved yourself against more athletes than any other sport. Therefore soccer players are the best athletes in the world.

End thread.

big bang
10-24-2009, 03:03 PM
soccerplayers?? no no no thats even more ridiculous.. but it depends how you define greatest athlete? its not about what kind of competition you have to face at all. the greatest athlete is the one thats faster, stronger(both physical and mentally), has more endurance, has that winner-instinct that makes him believe he can win no matter what and has more skills than the rest..
not many posses all these factors.. lets take tennis: Federer has more skills than the rest, but Nadal is bar far the best athlete in tennis today.. why? hes faster, stronger(again both physically and mentally) and his stamina is among the best out there, but his biggest force is the killer-instinct he posseses. that you can never learn, its something only very few are borned with.
when you posses that you are a winner by nature and you are able to befeat other athletes that is more talented than you. thats why Nadal had his brekthrough as early as he did. had he been boxing, playing soccer or something else he would have been very good at it..

you can find great athletes in pretty much every sport, but some more than others.. in boxing and MMA you will find more of them than in tennis and soccer for sure..

LiveForever
10-24-2009, 03:09 PM
MMA and boxing is a joke compared to soccer. Soccer players run their asses for 90 minutes and have to work on their conditioning like maniacs. Soccer and Basketball athletes are top.

MMA and boxing are pathetic sports IMO. Both sports bring out the savage nature in humans. Watching two people beat the crap out of each other is sick and twisted.

Tilden
10-24-2009, 03:22 PM
Ellsworth Vines. #1 in tennis #1 in college basketball and #1 in golf

kOaMaster
10-24-2009, 05:26 PM
Here's my argument:

Soccer players have the largest pool of competitors to play against. To be an elite soccer player means that you proved yourself against more athletes than any other sport. Therefore soccer players are the best athletes in the world.

End thread.

best argument so far.

NamRanger
10-24-2009, 05:38 PM
And how often do they even actually compete in any given year? To realy see how good their hand eye coordination is you would have to see what percentage of strikes are landed.

I guarantee that a tennis player is landing way more strikes than the average MMA fighter. As for speed, are you refering to striking or running speed. Once again MMA are not that fast at all, compare to Olympic level boxer or wrestler and they will be faster than the MMA fighter.

As for mental toughness, a fighter does not fight for 8hrs, does not compete as much as other sports in any given year, does not fight around the world at6:00am 12:00am, then fly some where else and do it again the next day.



This is a joke. You seriously think tennis is harder than MMA?

lawrence
10-24-2009, 05:46 PM
Hey look, an athlete patting himself on the back, trying to say that he is superior to other athletes. Jeez, I haven't seen this before.

Here's my argument:

Soccer players have the largest pool of competitors to play against. To be an elite soccer player means that you proved yourself against more athletes than any other sport. Therefore soccer players are the best athletes in the world.

End thread.

You mean football, right? :D

quest01
10-24-2009, 06:21 PM
Of course Pete is going to say that hes a former professional tennis player. I don't think tennis players are the best athletes, I would say football, hockey, and soccer players are more physically demanding then tennis. Tennis is tough physically but not a contact sport like football and hockey.

TheFifthSet
10-24-2009, 06:39 PM
A (former) Tennis player said that Tennis players are the best athletes.

Huh.

quest01
10-24-2009, 06:52 PM
A (former) Tennis player said that Tennis players are the best athletes.

Huh.


Ahh very clever, I like that.

Falloutjr
10-24-2009, 06:55 PM
Tennis players ARE the best athletes. How many people can perform their sport in 100+ degree weather, on multiple different surfaces and with about 20+ muscularly memorized motions in split seconds, on a 95% basis? In basketball, football, baseball, soccer (on a smaller scale for goalies), hockey (with, again, smaller scale for goalies), if you did what you were trying to do and did it on a 95% basis, you would be GODS! 95% hitting in baseball is mind blowing for TEE BALL let alone MLB. 95% shooting is about the highest % in the NBA for free throw shooting and layups. In football, if you threw 95% completion percentage in a game, you would set an NFL record. So the fact that pro players can hit forehands and backhands generally with a 95% success percentage is amazing and under the circumstances they must do it in (balls coming at them very fast, sliding depending on the court, etc.) is amazing.

In terms of conditioning, it's not even close. No athlete really has to do what tennis players do, with maybe the exception of soccer players. In basketball, you play 40-48 minute games (and very rarely do basketball players play full games, I believe the highest mpg avg in the nba was in the low 40s last season) and you have timeouts, turnovers, quarterly and halftime breaks, tv breaks, foul breaks all to rest. Tennis players have a few seconds between serves and a couple minutes between change of court to take breaks. Some matches last under an hour for women's matches or an hour and a half in men's, but thats when someone is completely overmatched and it's not even really a competition anyways. Most pro matches are about 2+ hours with very little interruption in play. Also, you have to run full speed just about nonstop in tennis, whereas sports like basketball you can setup a half court offense and generally be able to stand around half of the possession or baseball where you're standing in place on defense 70% of the time or, in your team's batting portion of the inning, only hitting once every nine times and generally only hit every other inning, or in some cases, every three innings.

And how many athletes can claim they have to react to objects flying at them at over 100+ mph? Baseball hitters don't face pitchers that can throw 100 on a regular basis; there are very few people who can throw a baseball 100mph, but you can go anywhere and find someone with a 100mph serve.

So, in reality, we are the best athletes. When you play tennis, you're competing in sprints which together total a marathon. You must be able to complete more difficult athletic feats on a more consistent basis than any other athlete, and you must be better conditioned than any athlete, and those are the things that pretty much define athleticism.

Noveson
10-24-2009, 07:04 PM
Tennis players ARE the best athletes. How many people can perform their sport in 100+ degree weather, on multiple different surfaces and with about 20+ muscularly memorized motions in split seconds, on a 95% basis? In basketball, football, baseball, soccer (on a smaller scale for goalies), hockey (with, again, smaller scale for goalies), if you did what you were trying to do and did it on a 95% basis, you would be GODS! 95% hitting in baseball is mind blowing for TEE BALL let alone MLB. 95% shooting is about the highest % in the NBA for free throw shooting and layups. In football, if you threw 95% completion percentage in a game, you would set an NFL record. So the fact that pro players can hit forehands and backhands generally with a 95% success percentage is amazing and under the circumstances they must do it in (balls coming at them very fast, sliding depending on the court, etc.) is amazing.

In terms of conditioning, it's not even close. No athlete really has to do what tennis players do, with maybe the exception of soccer players. In basketball, you play 40-48 minute games (and very rarely do basketball players play full games, I believe the highest mpg avg in the nba was in the low 40s last season) and you have timeouts, turnovers, quarterly and halftime breaks, tv breaks, foul breaks all to rest. Tennis players have a few seconds between serves and a couple minutes between change of court to take breaks. Some matches last under an hour for women's matches or an hour and a half in men's, but thats when someone is completely overmatched and it's not even really a competition anyways. Most pro matches are about 2+ hours with very little interruption in play. Also, you have to run full speed just about nonstop in tennis, whereas sports like basketball you can setup a half court offense and generally be able to stand around half of the possession or baseball where you're standing in place on defense 70% of the time or, in your team's batting portion of the inning, only hitting once every nine times and generally only hit every other inning, or in some cases, every three innings.

And how many athletes can claim they have to react to objects flying at them at over 100+ mph? Baseball hitters don't face pitchers that can throw 100 on a regular basis; there are very few people who can throw a baseball 100mph, but you can go anywhere and find someone with a 100mph serve.

So, in reality, we are the best athletes. When you play tennis, you're competing in sprints which together total a marathon. You must be able to complete more difficult athletic feats on a more consistent basis than any other athlete, and you must be better conditioned than any athlete, and those are the things that pretty much define athleticism.

Lol first of all please don't compare yourself with a professional tennis player. Anyway...

The 95% argument is ridiculous. Maybe baseball players don't hit 95% because the ball is going faster than in tennis? or because they have a shorter distance to see the ball? or MAYBE JUST MAYBE because they are hitting with something that has a tiny surface area compared to a tennis racquet. I'm not even going to start the arguments for all your other ridiculous stats.

Then you follow that up with another brilliant argument, the stamina of tennis players compared to basketball players, where you talk about how many breaks they get. Tennis players get 20 second breaks between EVERY POINT, plus between games and sets. Running full speed in tennis? Are you kidding me? Almost never is a tennis player running at full speed, and if they are it's for a tiny distance

Falloutjr
10-24-2009, 07:09 PM
Lol first of all please don't compare yourself with a professional tennis player. Anyway...

The 95% argument is ridiculous. Maybe baseball players don't hit 95% because the ball is going faster than in tennis? or because they have a shorter distance to see the ball? or MAYBE JUST MAYBE because they are hitting with something that has a tiny surface area compared to a tennis racquet. I'm not even going to start the arguments for all your other ridiculous stats.

Then you follow that up with another brilliant argument, the stamina of tennis players compared to basketball players, where you talk about how many breaks they get. Tennis players get 20 second breaks between EVERY POINT, plus between games and sets. Running full speed in tennis? Are you kidding me? Almost never is a tennis player running at full speed, and if they are it's for a tiny distance

I didn't compare myself to a professional tennis player. I meant as a populus, us tennis players are generally better athletes than those who play other sports at an equal level (high school tennis vs high school basketball, etc.). Now there are exceptions, but generally, I hold this true.

Ultra2HolyGrail
10-24-2009, 07:10 PM
Long distance running is alot tougher than playing tennis. That's the toughest imo. Soccer is also harder. Basketball is even harder than tennis.

MMA is not because of very out of shape guys who can beat guys who looks like they are in incredible shape. Seen it done many times. George foreman also proved it in boxing, along with butterbean.

NonP
10-24-2009, 07:10 PM
Tennis players ARE the best athletes. How many people can perform their sport in 100+ degree weather, on multiple different surfaces and with about 20+ muscularly memorized motions in split seconds, on a 95% basis? In basketball, football, baseball, soccer (on a smaller scale for goalies), hockey (with, again, smaller scale for goalies), if you did what you were trying to do and did it on a 95% basis, you would be GODS! 95% hitting in baseball is mind blowing for TEE BALL let alone MLB. 95% shooting is about the highest % in the NBA for free throw shooting and layups. In football, if you threw 95% completion percentage in a game, you would set an NFL record. So the fact that pro players can hit forehands and backhands generally with a 95% success percentage is amazing and under the circumstances they must do it in (balls coming at them very fast, sliding depending on the court, etc.) is amazing.

In terms of conditioning, it's not even close. No athlete really has to do what tennis players do, with maybe the exception of soccer players. In basketball, you play 40-48 minute games (and very rarely do basketball players play full games, I believe the highest mpg avg in the nba was in the low 40s last season) and you have timeouts, turnovers, quarterly and halftime breaks, tv breaks, foul breaks all to rest. Tennis players have a few seconds between serves and a couple minutes between change of court to take breaks. Some matches last under an hour for women's matches or an hour and a half in men's, but thats when someone is completely overmatched and it's not even really a competition anyways. Most pro matches are about 2+ hours with very little interruption in play. Also, you have to run full speed just about nonstop in tennis, whereas sports like basketball you can setup a half court offense and generally be able to stand around half of the possession or baseball where you're standing in place on defense 70% of the time or, in your team's batting portion of the inning, only hitting once every nine times and generally only hit every other inning, or in some cases, every three innings.

And how many athletes can claim they have to react to objects flying at them at over 100+ mph? Baseball hitters don't face pitchers that can throw 100 on a regular basis; there are very few people who can throw a baseball 100mph, but you can go anywhere and find someone with a 100mph serve.

So, in reality, we are the best athletes. When you play tennis, you're competing in sprints which together total a marathon. You must be able to complete more difficult athletic feats on a more consistent basis than any other athlete, and you must be better conditioned than any athlete, and those are the things that pretty much define athleticism.

This kid apparently thinks the above is a good argument. Comedy doesn't get much better than this.

raiden031
10-24-2009, 07:13 PM
^^^ Agreed. Fallout is assuming that all shots are equivalent across sports. Too bad for him that a 100mph serve reaches the player at like half speed unlike the 100mph pitch in baseball. Not only are his comparisons not apples to apples, they are more like apples to watermelons.

NonP
10-24-2009, 07:17 PM
^^^ Agreed. Fallout is assuming that all shots are equivalent across sports. Too bad for him that a 100mph serve reaches the player at like half speed unlike the 100mph pitch in baseball. Not only are his comparisons not apples to apples, they are more like apples to watermelons.

Yes, and I think we understand whether tennis balls are apples or watermelons.

Noveson
10-24-2009, 07:31 PM
I didn't compare myself to a professional tennis player. I meant as a populus, us tennis players are generally better athletes than those who play other sports at an equal level (high school tennis vs high school basketball, etc.). Now there are exceptions, but generally, I hold this true.

Even more false. High school tennis generally sucks, in high school basketball you don't get kids making varsity that don't even have the fundamentals. I don't think you can compare Lebron in highschool to any highschool tennis athlete.

This kid apparently thinks the above is a good argument. Comedy doesn't get much better than this.

^^^ Agreed. Fallout is assuming that all shots are equivalent across sports. Too bad for him that a 100mph serve reaches the player at like half speed unlike the 100mph pitch in baseball. Not only are his comparisons not apples to apples, they are more like apples to watermelons.

Yes, and I think we understand whether tennis balls are apples or watermelons.

THank you glad i'm not the only one who realized this.

NonP
10-24-2009, 07:38 PM
THank you glad i'm not the only one who realized this.

It behooves them first to define what athleticism is, instead of assuming that we already accept their definition. Of course they don't get this, otherwise they would've seen how absurd and difficult it is to compare athletes from different sports.

NamRanger
10-24-2009, 07:42 PM
Long distance running is alot tougher than playing tennis. That's the toughest imo. Soccer is also harder. Basketball is even harder than tennis.

MMA is not because of very out of shape guys who can beat guys who looks like they are in incredible shape. Seen it done many times. George foreman also proved it in boxing, along with butterbean.



Butterbean would got rocked by any true legitimate heavy weight boxer, and George Foreman was underestimated by his opponent, who in turn showed up unfit and untrained. That's why Foreman won.

Falloutjr
10-24-2009, 08:01 PM
I wasn't comparing talent; many high school tennis teams outside of Texas, SoCal, and Florida are jokes, whereas you can find huge pools of basketball players just about anywhere, especially in inner cities. I mean athletically, from a pure physical standpoint.

Mansewerz
10-24-2009, 09:01 PM
Tennis players are not the best athletes, but they are very underestimated in terms of athleticism

NonP
10-24-2009, 09:16 PM
Too much nonsense on this thread. Again, define athleticism before you begin to argue for or against tennis players (or other athletes in a different sport). Donít assume your definition is universally accepted when itís obviously not.

Also itís one thing to argue tennis players are the best athletes in the world, but another to argue tennis is the most athletic of sports. Some of you folks are conflating the two.

Letís take one of the most idiotic claims put forth so far, that tennis players are great athletes because their chosen sport requires a high level of hand-eye coordination thatís missing in many other sports. This is like saying your local club player is a better athlete than Carl Lewis because the track-and-field great never had to worry about returning tennis balls that are coming from his opponent at 100+ mph. Which is absurd on its face, of course. And note how the dunce conflated the playerís athleticism with the requirements of the sport itself.

IvanAndreevich
10-24-2009, 09:19 PM
Tennis players ARE the best athletes. How many people can perform their sport in 100+ degree weather, on multiple different surfaces and with about 20+ muscularly memorized motions in split seconds, on a 95% basis? In basketball, football, baseball, soccer (on a smaller scale for goalies), hockey (with, again, smaller scale for goalies), if you did what you were trying to do and did it on a 95% basis, you would be GODS! 95% hitting in baseball is mind blowing for TEE BALL let alone MLB. 95% shooting is about the highest % in the NBA for free throw shooting and layups. In football, if you threw 95% completion percentage in a game, you would set an NFL record. So the fact that pro players can hit forehands and backhands generally with a 95% success percentage is amazing and under the circumstances they must do it in (balls coming at them very fast, sliding depending on the court, etc.) is amazing.

In terms of conditioning, it's not even close. No athlete really has to do what tennis players do, with maybe the exception of soccer players. In basketball, you play 40-48 minute games (and very rarely do basketball players play full games, I believe the highest mpg avg in the nba was in the low 40s last season) and you have timeouts, turnovers, quarterly and halftime breaks, tv breaks, foul breaks all to rest. Tennis players have a few seconds between serves and a couple minutes between change of court to take breaks. Some matches last under an hour for women's matches or an hour and a half in men's, but thats when someone is completely overmatched and it's not even really a competition anyways. Most pro matches are about 2+ hours with very little interruption in play. Also, you have to run full speed just about nonstop in tennis, whereas sports like basketball you can setup a half court offense and generally be able to stand around half of the possession or baseball where you're standing in place on defense 70% of the time or, in your team's batting portion of the inning, only hitting once every nine times and generally only hit every other inning, or in some cases, every three innings.

And how many athletes can claim they have to react to objects flying at them at over 100+ mph? Baseball hitters don't face pitchers that can throw 100 on a regular basis; there are very few people who can throw a baseball 100mph, but you can go anywhere and find someone with a 100mph serve.

So, in reality, we are the best athletes. When you play tennis, you're competing in sprints which together total a marathon. You must be able to complete more difficult athletic feats on a more consistent basis than any other athlete, and you must be better conditioned than any athlete, and those are the things that pretty much define athleticism.

This argument is flawed. I've highlighted one part I will debunk.

Tennis allows a BOUNCE. In volleyball you have to dig the ball before it bounces. In baseball you have to hit the ball on the fly with a bat which has a small surface area (compared to a tennis racquet). Etc etc etc.

These kinds of arguments don't lead anywhere. To excel in any popular pro sport is pretty much equally demanding.

McBrat
10-24-2009, 09:22 PM
Football players are successful because of their skills and tactics as much as their athleticism.

Traditionally, the title's been given to decathlon winners. Most professional sports reward selected athletic abilities more so players don't develop the rest.

EndLy
10-24-2009, 09:23 PM
Actually Ryan Howard of the Phillies made this comment also when he was on the Dan Patrick radio show a little while ago. I think this was sometime in May or so. Dan Patrick asked what sport has the best athletes and Howard said tennis and soccer due to the amount of endurance one must have and talent also to play the sport

McBrat
10-24-2009, 09:42 PM
^^ But it's the footballer's and tennis player's athleticism which brings out the talent. The talent itself won't be useful w/o the athletic ability to execute it.

Baikalic
10-24-2009, 09:57 PM
Even more false. High school tennis generally sucks, in high school basketball you don't get kids making varsity that don't even have the fundamentals. I don't think you can compare Lebron in highschool to any highschool tennis athlete.







THank you glad i'm not the only one who realized this.

Absolutely correct, although this is not a result of tennis players being less talented or athletic; the more cultural exposure a sport has, the larger the pool of talent exists to draw players into high school varsity teams. That is why American high school varsity tennis teams can often be sparsely talented because it's not a popular sport in the US among younger demographics compared to basketball.

I was on a high school varsity tennis team whose local community fostered tennis and had a lot of tennis programs for kids (many kids played tennis recreationally even in middle school) and our team shut out most other high school teams besides other HSs in or near the same community.

just to illustrate this there were over 100 students at our tryouts for 10 spaces on varsity and 20 spots for JV, while I heard from a friend from another school who had students walking onto the varsity team because not enough kids joined to form complete varsity and JV teams.

What this tells me is that there's no point in comparing sports' athleticism too seriously because the pools of talent are unequal, at least in the US.

Darth_Timmaayyy!!
10-24-2009, 10:24 PM
Sampras is pulling himself....

sh@de
10-24-2009, 10:49 PM
This is a stupid argument. It's like the GOAT debates. No one sport is better than the other or requires more, just like how there is no one true GOAT.

borg number one
10-25-2009, 04:31 AM
As far as comparing tennis with other sports, remember that in tennis, you can't depend on your teammates to grab a "breather". So, I think tennis is one of the most physically demanding sports there is. It combines so many challenging physical skills, sometimes all in just one point.

I doubt that the vast majority of hockey, basketball, baseball, or football players could run the same "sprints" and in effect "points" the tennis players have to run while playing. Soccer players could run that way, but then they aren't having to engage in the eye-hand coordination that tennis players have to engage in.

borg number one
10-25-2009, 05:34 AM
LiveForever, I agree that Nadal is close to Borg in terms of pure athletic ability. In addition, both Federer and Sampras are near the top as well.

If you consider that Borg and Nadal may be the top two tennis players in terms of pure athleticism, and compare the two, I think they are roughly equal in terms of stamina, with Borg having an edge in quickness and foot speed, and Nadal having the advantage in terms of pure strength. Watch Borg get this drop shot as an example of his foot speed:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZL__OcegrbY

Plus, if you don't think Borg and "those old guys" "hit the ball that hard", check this out indoor clip with some very old frames. Borg was a LOT STRONGER than he looked. He could generate considerable power and "torque" with his groundstrokes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1jZmFMUGTTU

In terms of pure "athleticism", 2 tournaments test it the most in Tennis: Wimbledon and the French Open. Wimbledon tests your eye hand coordination and "quickness" the most due to it requiring players to play on the fastest surface around. Meanwhile, the French Open is the toughest test in terms of mental and physical endurance and foot speed. I am talking more about foot speed, and not just QUICKNESS. You must be able to hit a high "top speed" to literally run down balls, and not just have a quick "initial step". Guess what, at the 2 tournaments that demand the most physicality, Borg dominated. He won 6 French Open titles and 5 wimbledon titles in a row, while winning that "double" together in three different years, during a time when there were clay court AND grass court specialists galore.

BallzofSkill
10-25-2009, 05:36 AM
tennis players are not the fastest, fittest, strongest, jump the highest or furthest.

while i like to watch and play tennis, nothing done athletically in tennis makes me go 'wow' like watching a running back evade 5 defense men or kobe bryant go above the rim or a marathoner finish a 3 hour race.

TheFifthSet
10-25-2009, 05:56 AM
Tennis players ARE the best athletes. How many people can perform their sport in 100+ degree weather, on multiple different surfaces and with about 20+ muscularly memorized motions in split seconds, on a 95% basis? In basketball, football, baseball, soccer (on a smaller scale for goalies), hockey (with, again, smaller scale for goalies), if you did what you were trying to do and did it on a 95% basis, you would be GODS! 95% hitting in baseball is mind blowing for TEE BALL let alone MLB. 95% shooting is about the highest % in the NBA for free throw shooting and layups. In football, if you threw 95% completion percentage in a game, you would set an NFL record. So the fact that pro players can hit forehands and backhands generally with a 95% success percentage is amazing and under the circumstances they must do it in (balls coming at them very fast, sliding depending on the court, etc.) is amazing.


You do realize that you're not even making a direct comparison? You're comparing technical ability in one sport vs. results in another.

In reality, ALL professional athletes are pretty much 100% technically polished. Mistakes are made on an insanely small scale. Using your logic, we can compare shooting a free throw or throwing a strike with hitting a first serve. The success rate of the first one is generally (on a pro level) like 70-75%. The next two are basically 60%. However, on a technical level, with a small margin of error, it is basically always executed to perfection. How often do you see a shooter air mail a free throw? Or a pitcher hit the ball in the dirt? Or for that matter, a server miss by 5-10 feet?


For a professional Tennis player, it is much easier to hit the ball cleanly CONSISTENTLY than it is for a Basketball player to sink a shot, or a baseball player to connect on a hanging breaking ball, because the margin of error is much different. There is no reason to think it is INHERENTLY more impressive just because the success rate is higher.

That's like saying the success rate for scoring on an empty-net in hockey is higher than scoring with a hand in the face in basketball, therefore it takes a better athlete to score on an empty-net, which is bizzarre reasoning. Sure it's not a perfect comparison, but you get my point.


And how many athletes can claim they have to react to objects flying at them at over 100+ mph? Baseball hitters don't face pitchers that can throw 100 on a regular basis; there are very few people who can throw a baseball 100mph, but you can go anywhere


Another strange comparison:


1. You're not taking bounce into consideration. A 100 MPH serve (in terms of reaction time) is basically a slow curveball because of how it slows down when it bounces. Imagine having to put a serve back in play before it hit the ground.

2. The distance between a pitcher and the plate is like 15% smaller than that of a server-returner. Imagine playing on a court where the backcourt was 15% smaller. Would the serve be harder to read? It would be like stepping into the service box to return a Roddick body serve.

3. A bat is much thinner than a Tennis racket, and heavier.

big bang
10-25-2009, 08:43 AM
MMA and boxing is a joke compared to soccer. Soccer players run their asses for 90 minutes and have to work on their conditioning like maniacs. Soccer and Basketball athletes are top.

MMA and boxing are pathetic sports IMO. Both sports bring out the savage nature in humans. Watching two people beat the crap out of each other is sick and twisted.

if you dont know anything about this, then stop talking BS.
soccerplayers are nowhere near the conditioned athletes, lots of tests have been made to proof that.. basketball?? good joke:)
if we talk pure conditioning then cycling tops the list, but I dont see you a great athlete because you can ride a bike 200 km.

boxing and MMA is pathetic you say?? well you cant find any other sport where you have to work as hard as these guys, you cant tank a match and there is no substitute waiting on the sideline if you get tired as in soccer. if you have not done your homework you get your face smashed in and your carreer ruined its as simple as that.
tennisplayers can play a bad match and lose, but there is another tournament next week.. a boxer need to win all his fights to be considered as a top-fighter and get the big fights. thats much tougher mentally and makes you train harder of course.
just because you dont understand a certain type of sport dont say its pathetic, it makes you seem ignorant..

once again you cant say that one sport produces greater athletes than an other, some of the factors that define a great athlete is genetic..
but you can find more great athletes in sports like MMA and boxing than any ball-sport. you are either talented with a ball or you are not, that has nothing to do about how great an athlete you are..

Noveson
10-25-2009, 09:09 AM
if you dont know anything about this, then stop talking BS.
soccerplayers are nowhere near the conditioned athletes, lots of tests have been made to proof that.. basketball?? good joke:)
if we talk pure conditioning then cycling tops the list, but I dont see you a great athlete because you can ride a bike 200 km.

boxing and MMA is pathetic you say?? well you cant find any other sport where you have to work as hard as these guys, you cant tank a match and there is no substitute waiting on the sideline if you get tired as in soccer. if you have not done your homework you get your face smashed in and your carreer ruined its as simple as that.
tennisplayers can play a bad match and lose, but there is another tournament next week.. a boxer need to win all his fights to be considered as a top-fighter and get the big fights. thats much tougher mentally and makes you train harder of course.
just because you dont understand a certain type of sport dont say its pathetic, it makes you seem ignorant..

once again you cant say that one sport produces greater athletes than an other, some of the factors that define a great athlete is genetic..
but you can find more great athletes in sports like MMA and boxing than any ball-sport. you are either talented with a ball or you are not, that has nothing to do about how great an athlete you are..

Man what great logic you have there....

MMAers and Boxers are super tough, no doubt about it, they are strong and quick and have a lot of stamina. However saying they are the greatest athletes because of the risks they take is ridiculous. Taking risks has nothing to do with how great of an athlete you are. How does being talented with a ball not mean you're athletic? Ever heard of hand eye coordination? Body control has a higher importance than anything else in almost every sport, there are no top athletes that don't have it. People that can hit an MLB curve ball, go around defenders in mid-air, and run down 60-yard throws are great athletes.

Azzurri
10-25-2009, 09:35 AM
Of course Pete is going to say that hes a former professional tennis player. I don't think tennis players are the best athletes, I would say football, hockey, and soccer players are more physically demanding then tennis. Tennis is tough physically but not a contact sport like football and hockey.

I see you missed the point. you don't actually know the difference between an athlete and a physical sport. Logging is physical..are these guys athletes? Pete was not talking about the PHYSICAL (hitting each other and rough play). While I don't think tennis pros are the best athletes (I think basketball and soccer players are), they are pretty darn close. But to compare a football player (like a 350 lb lineman) to Federer is absurd.

big bang
10-25-2009, 10:01 AM
Man what great logic you have there....

MMAers and Boxers are super tough, no doubt about it, they are strong and quick and have a lot of stamina. However saying they are the greatest athletes because of the risks they take is ridiculous. Taking risks has nothing to do with how great of an athlete you are. How does being talented with a ball not mean you're athletic? Ever heard of hand eye coordination? Body control has a higher importance than anything else in almost every sport, there are no top athletes that don't have it. People that can hit an MLB curve ball, go around defenders in mid-air, and run down 60-yard throws are great athletes.

please read my post again.. I did not say boxers and MMA-fighters are the greatest athletes, I sayd there are more great athletes by definition in these sports that probably any other.
I did not say you are athletic if you are talented with a ball, I sayd the opposit. but you can be a very great athlete and still stink at any ball-sport if you have no talent!
my last post was a reply to this guy saying that soccerplayers are the greatest athletes because of their training and because of the competition they face. thats why I replied as I did.

again you cant say one sport makes greater athletes, but in some sports you see more great athletes than other..

NamRanger
10-25-2009, 11:01 AM
Man what great logic you have there....

MMAers and Boxers are super tough, no doubt about it, they are strong and quick and have a lot of stamina. However saying they are the greatest athletes because of the risks they take is ridiculous. Taking risks has nothing to do with how great of an athlete you are. How does being talented with a ball not mean you're athletic? Ever heard of hand eye coordination? Body control has a higher importance than anything else in almost every sport, there are no top athletes that don't have it. People that can hit an MLB curve ball, go around defenders in mid-air, and run down 60-yard throws are great athletes.




http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/sportSkills



Tennis is ranked 7th according to this list, which is very high actually. Only hockey, boxing, martial arts, basketball, and a few others are higher on the list.



Also, I would dare say MMA is higher up on the list IMO. The interesting is that tennis is the highest non-contact sport (basketball still has lots of contact in it really, although it's considered technically a non-contact sport) on that list from what I can tell.

DarthMaul
10-25-2009, 11:04 AM
MMA and boxing is a joke compared to soccer. Soccer players run their asses for 90 minutes and have to work on their conditioning like maniacs. Soccer and Basketball athletes are top.

MMA and boxing are pathetic sports IMO. Both sports bring out the savage nature in humans. Watching two people beat the crap out of each other is sick and twisted.

You forgot about marathonists!

Annika
10-25-2009, 11:12 AM
In comparison to sports like Rugby and Soccer, I think tennis is nowhere near physically.

35ft6
10-25-2009, 01:00 PM
Depending on the context he's using athletes, I might sort of see his point. I do think tennis players are probably among the most highly trained and skilled athletes. But not the "best" athletes, as in the people with the most raw athletic ability.

But in terms of being highly skilled, tennis players are way up there along with figure skaters and gymnasts. No other sport requires it's professionals to start at age 5 or 7 and practice every day for 10 years to become world class. In a lot of other sports, if you're a naturally gifted athletes, you can beat guys who've been doing it for years. Not in tennis.

big bang
10-25-2009, 01:11 PM
not many athletes can keep up with the schedule boxers do.. MMA fighters train a lot of boxing and thai-boxing which is just as hard if not even harder.
of course that doesnt make them greater athletes, but they are simply in better shape..
you have to be a great athlete to keep up with their schedule and thats why you see many superior athletes in these sports.. the rest fail!

big bang
10-25-2009, 01:16 PM
Depending on the context he's using athletes, I might sort of see his point. I do think tennis players are probably among the most highly trained and skilled athletes. But not the "best" athletes, as in the people with the most raw athletic ability.

But in terms of being highly skilled, tennis players are way up there along with figure skaters and gymnasts. No other sport requires it's professionals to start at age 5 or 7 and practice every day for 10 years to become world class. In a lot of other sports, if you're a naturally gifted athletes, you can beat guys who've been doing it for years. Not in tennis.

I totally agree, tennis is more about skills than pure athletesismn.
in boxing you see a lot of pros who started out early in their teens, you have to have some talent, the rest is hard work..

kOaMaster
10-25-2009, 02:12 PM
Depending on the context he's using athletes, I might sort of see his point. I do think tennis players are probably among the most highly trained and skilled athletes. But not the "best" athletes, as in the people with the most raw athletic ability.

But in terms of being highly skilled, tennis players are way up there along with figure skaters and gymnasts. No other sport requires it's professionals to start at age 5 or 7 and practice every day for 10 years to become world class. In a lot of other sports, if you're a naturally gifted athletes, you can beat guys who've been doing it for years. Not in tennis.

yeah right, guys like ronaldo just came along with 15, thought "oh, that's funny with that ball, I'll try that" and turned into the best players on the world.

big bang
10-25-2009, 02:33 PM
did anyone say that?? Ronaldo is a great athlete and happens to be giftet with a great talent for soccer..

kOaMaster
10-25-2009, 02:54 PM
I was relating to 35ft6's sentence:
No other sport requires it's professionals to start at age 5 or 7 and practice every day for 10 years to become world class.

just not true. many many sports need this. football in particular too

some6uy008
10-25-2009, 03:22 PM
Federer could last 1 minute boxing because boxer could not catch him. Boxer could not win a point though against Roger on a tennis court... I mean a heavy weight boxer.

I don't know, unless Fed can move pretty well in the ring, I think even a block shot would put Fed down for the count

nfor304
10-25-2009, 03:38 PM
Even more false. High school tennis generally sucks, in high school basketball you don't get kids making varsity that don't even have the fundamentals. I don't think you can compare Lebron in highschool to any highschool tennis athlete.


Nadal was better at tennis when he was 18 than LeBron was at basketball when he was 18. Same with McEnroe, Wilander, Borg, Chang, arguably Lleyton Hewitt

salsainglesa
10-25-2009, 03:40 PM
we sure are the best lovers

35ft6
10-25-2009, 03:59 PM
yeah right, guys like ronaldo just came along with 15, thought "oh, that's funny with that ball, I'll try that" and turned into the best players on the world.Maybe you're right. I have no idea what the average starting age for pro soccer players are or if they practice systematically 2 to 6 hours a day for 10 years to develop.

Datacipher
10-25-2009, 04:14 PM
It very much depends on what your definition of athlete is. Tennis players have great agility and hand eye coordination, but don't have the same physical strength or aerobic fitness as a lot of other sports.

Personally I think MMA fighters top the list as the most athletic people in the world. Strength, both aerobic and anaerobic fitness, speed/agility, hand eye coordination, mental toughness.
.

OMG! MMA fighters....wow. What a delusion...and it's sad to see kids being tricked this way. MMA is the one sport that gets a lot of attention these days that isn't anywhere near world-class athleticism yet. If they can keep the money going up, then perhaps, in a few generations, you'll see real prodigies in there....they'll make today's fighters look like the shmucks they are. You'll have to be an Anderson Silva or Lesnar JUST to have a chance to get in the door.

But maybe you're refererring to DEMANDS of the sport, vs the actual athleticism of the current competitors, in which case, yes, MMA has a lot of all-around demands, but then again, I'm not at all sure, it's higher than many other sports. Tennis included.

Datacipher
10-25-2009, 04:18 PM
I guarantee that a tennis player is landing way more strikes than the average MMA fighter. As for speed, are you refering to striking or running speed. Once again MMA are not that fast at all, compare to Olympic level boxer or wrestler and they will be faster than the MMA fighter.

.

Yep. The level just isn't there yet. I like MMA but sometimes, the athleticism is well.....PATHETIC....it makes me cringe...to see a Chuck Lidell or Forest Griffin out there. They are SLOW as mud! They would have gotten SLAUGHTERED in high level amateur boxing. Punching bags only....to their credit, they have become wealthy and famous and worshiped, and they would never have made pros in any other sport!

Azzurri
10-25-2009, 04:44 PM
Yep. The level just isn't there yet. I like MMA but sometimes, the athleticism is well.....PATHETIC....it makes me cringe...to see a Chuck Lidell or Forest Griffin out there. They are SLOW as mud! They would have gotten SLAUGHTERED in high level amateur boxing. Punching bags only....to their credit, they have become wealthy and famous and worshiped, and they would never have made pros in any other sport!

the guy has no clue what an athlete is.

NamRanger
10-25-2009, 05:17 PM
Yep. The level just isn't there yet. I like MMA but sometimes, the athleticism is well.....PATHETIC....it makes me cringe...to see a Chuck Lidell or Forest Griffin out there. They are SLOW as mud! They would have gotten SLAUGHTERED in high level amateur boxing. Punching bags only....to their credit, they have become wealthy and famous and worshiped, and they would never have made pros in any other sport!




You're kidding me right. Fedor would destroy any boxer in the ring without even trying. Same with Crocop and other top level MMA fighters.



BTW :


http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/sportSkills


Martial Arts and Boxing are above tennis, and considering MMA is fairly intense (requires much more athleticism than professional boxing IMO), I would say MMA would easily be at the top of this list or very close to it. And don't say those people do not know what they are talking about, because they do.

Azzurri
10-25-2009, 05:37 PM
You're kidding me right. Fedor would destroy any boxer in the ring without even trying. Same with Crocop and other top level MMA fighters.



BTW :


http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/sportSkills


Martial Arts and Boxing are above tennis, and considering MMA is fairly intense (requires much more athleticism than professional boxing IMO), I would say MMA would easily be at the top of this list or very close to it. And don't say those people do not know what they are talking about, because they do.

its their OPINION. but I do agree boxing is a tough sport and a difficult skill to master. I just think of "athlete" as a soccer, basketball player, etc.

NamRanger
10-25-2009, 06:03 PM
its their OPINION. but I do agree boxing is a tough sport and a difficult skill to master. I just think of "athlete" as a soccer, basketball player, etc.




That panel happens to have Ph.D's, professional athletes, and professional athlete developers. I think they know what they are talking about. It's an opinion, but one with credentials unlike all the one's posted here.

edmondsm
10-25-2009, 09:20 PM
Depending on the context he's using athletes, I might sort of see his point. I do think tennis players are probably among the most highly trained and skilled athletes. But not the "best" athletes, as in the people with the most raw athletic ability.

But in terms of being highly skilled, tennis players are way up there along with figure skaters and gymnasts. No other sport requires it's professionals to start at age 5 or 7 and practice every day for 10 years to become world class. In a lot of other sports, if you're a naturally gifted athletes, you can beat guys who've been doing it for years. Not in tennis.

There a lot of illogical comments, like the bolded one, in this thread. How can you say that? That's absurd. You don't think every kid in Brazil is kicking a soccer ball daily from the time they can walk?

This comment is just like Sampras's. Some people love one sport so much, that they get delusions of grander about it.

I'll say it again. We can argue what defines athleticism until we're blue in the face. But it's a plain and simple fact that no other sport on the planet has a player pool like soccer. Therefore it demands the highest level of ability from its athletes.

On a side note; as much as I love MMA, I will never say that the best athletes in the world are in the sport. Combat sports will always be a niche', and therefore they will attract athletes that couldn't make it in other sports. This is why, now that there is some cash in the sport, truly good pure athletes like Anderson Silva and GSP are dominating.

edmondsm
10-25-2009, 09:51 PM
That panel happens to have Ph.D's, professional athletes, and professional athlete developers. I think they know what they are talking about. It's an opinion, but one with credentials unlike all the one's posted here.

Credentials or not, they have a pretty flawed chart there. They don't put any weight on the competition level. Example: Sport A has 1,000 practitioners, sport B has 100,000 practitioners. Doesn't sport B require a higher level of ability from its participants?

Also, on the chart each of the track & field events are ranked separately, but where does a decathlete fit in then? They aren't even mentioned. If all of those track & field events rank that high, then an athlete who competes in all of them would rank very high, probably highest, if we go by that chart.

big bang
10-26-2009, 12:49 AM
There a lot of illogical comments, like the bolded one, in this thread. How can you say that? That's absurd. You don't think every kid in Brazil is kicking a soccer ball daily from the time they can walk?

This comment is just like Sampras's. Some people love one sport so much, that they get delusions of grander about it.

I'll say it again. We can argue what defines athleticism until we're blue in the face. But it's a plain and simple fact that no other sport on the planet has a player pool like soccer. Therefore it demands the highest level of ability from its athletes.

On a side note; as much as I love MMA, I will never say that the best athletes in the world are in the sport. Combat sports will always be a niche', and therefore they will attract athletes that couldn't make it in other sports. This is why, now that there is some cash in the sport, truly good pure athletes like Anderson Silva and GSP are dominating.

not true, soccer is the most popular sport in the world, you dont have to be one of the best to make it. every national league got 10-20 teams, thats 150-400 players per legue including substitutes, how many is that worldwide then??. even if you take the best leagues you will still find players who is not great athletes. if you talk about the top teams in the world its another thing, but sometimes even they find it difficult to find players who is good enough..

combat sports do not attract athletes who couldnt make in in other sports, not even close, maybe if you mean karate, tae-kwon do and other sissy-like sports that doesnt allow full contact.
full contact sports like boxing, muay-thai and MMA attract a different kind of athlete than sports like soccer. many of these fighters could have done pretty well in other sports because of their athleticism and incredibly strong mind, they just dont feel its a challenge playing soccer and other team sports. If we look at tennis I can only name 1 player who could have been a great fighter.. Nadal got all the carecteristiks (spelled?) of a a great fighter..

Datacipher
10-26-2009, 04:06 AM
You're kidding me right. Fedor would destroy any boxer in the ring without even trying. Same with Crocop and other top level MMA fighters.
.

If you think Fedor would have any chance at ALL in pro boxing...you're so sadly foolish...I just don't know what to say. Frankly, the guy might not even be able to outbox an Orlovsky, let alone a world-class heavyweight. Yikes....they know not what they see!

Datacipher
10-26-2009, 04:12 AM
the guy has no clue what an athlete is.

Is this an attempt to define athleticism as something other than physical ability? If so, sure, that could be argued. Just as a special olympian is a competitor/athlete, in his own way. MMA fighters certainly compete, and have mental toughness....they just dont' have world-class athletic ability in general....YET.

So tough competitors. Check
Mental toughness. Check (though this opens up the door for chess players, golfers etc)

But I was referring to raw physical ability. Reflexes, hand speed, foot speed, balance, power etc. MMA? FAIL. BUT, again, if the money goes up, in 2 or 3 generations, it will get there. Just needs to develop and evolve. That's not really a knock against MMA, it's just too early at this point. What you need, is millions of kids, starting at age 5, dedicating their lives to the sport. Then the top .001 percent rises to the top, and then you'll really see something.

If you weren't referring to the things i mentioned above, and simply think today's fighters are the best athletes....ugh....well....there's no real hope I think in even discussing it then.

NamRanger
10-26-2009, 04:36 AM
If you think Fedor would have any chance at ALL in pro boxing...you're so sadly foolish...I just don't know what to say. Frankly, the guy might not even be able to outbox an Orlovsky, let alone a world-class heavyweight. Yikes....they know not what they see!



Fedor would not have any chance at all in pro boxing? You've got to be kidding me right? Fedor can go toe to toe with nearly every guy in a stand-up fight. You've got to be kidding me.



You do realize Cro Cop competed in K1 and did fairly well.




Let's not even talk about if the boxers were put into a MMA fight against one of them. It would just be total annihilation.

NamRanger
10-26-2009, 04:37 AM
Credentials or not, they have a pretty flawed chart there. They don't put any weight on the competition level. Example: Sport A has 1,000 practitioners, sport B has 100,000 practitioners. Doesn't sport B require a higher level of ability from its participants?

Also, on the chart each of the track & field events are ranked separately, but where does a decathlete fit in then? They aren't even mentioned. If all of those track & field events rank that high, then an athlete who competes in all of them would rank very high, probably highest, if we go by that chart.



They can't be perfect, and I'm sure they took some of what you said into account. However, that's pretty much the best I could come up with for evidence to support my belief that MMA/Boxers/etc. require the most athleticism. Most of the junk that's been posted in this thread has just been purely opinion with no evidence to back it up.

Azzurri
10-26-2009, 04:53 AM
That panel happens to have Ph.D's, professional athletes, and professional athlete developers. I think they know what they are talking about. It's an opinion, but one with credentials unlike all the one's posted here.

Not argueing here. I was just making a point its still an opinion and yes one that has more analysis than most others. But I still don't agree with boxing being #1.

Azzurri
10-26-2009, 04:55 AM
Credentials or not, they have a pretty flawed chart there. They don't put any weight on the competition level. Example: Sport A has 1,000 practitioners, sport B has 100,000 practitioners. Doesn't sport B require a higher level of ability from its participants?

Also, on the chart each of the track & field events are ranked separately, but where does a decathlete fit in then? They aren't even mentioned. If all of those track & field events rank that high, then an athlete who competes in all of them would rank very high, probably highest, if we go by that chart.

excellent point. while its still someone's opinion, it does have some credence to it. maybe not all of the criteria is reliable, but it does seem pretty well thought out. But I do agree there are flaws (golf should not even be listed since its not a sport).

Azzurri
10-26-2009, 04:59 AM
not true, soccer is the most popular sport in the world, you dont have to be one of the best to make it. every national league got 10-20 teams, thats 150-400 players per legue including substitutes, how many is that worldwide then??. even if you take the best leagues you will still find players who is not great athletes. if you talk about the top teams in the world its another thing, but sometimes even they find it difficult to find players who is good enough..

combat sports do not attract athletes who couldnt make in in other sports, not even close, maybe if you mean karate, tae-kwon do and other sissy-like sports that doesnt allow full contact.
full contact sports like boxing, muay-thai and MMA attract a different kind of athlete than sports like soccer. many of these fighters could have done pretty well in other sports because of their athleticism and incredibly strong mind, they just dont feel its a challenge playing soccer and other team sports. If we look at tennis I can only name 1 player who could have been a great fighter.. Nadal got all the carecteristiks (spelled?) of a a great fighter..

while I understand your point, you are way off. do you realize how many BILLIONS of people play soccer? His point was to be the best of BILLIONS is an incredible feat and to be a pro player takes special abilities/aptitude. Soccer may be as popular as every single other sport combined, then triple it. I don't have actual data to support this, but its just such a common sprt EVERYWHER in the world (except the States).

your second paragraph is senseless.

Azzurri
10-26-2009, 05:00 AM
If you think Fedor would have any chance at ALL in pro boxing...you're so sadly foolish...I just don't know what to say. Frankly, the guy might not even be able to outbox an Orlovsky, let alone a world-class heavyweight. Yikes....they know not what they see!

LOL, I don't think he meant beat up (punch out).

Azzurri
10-26-2009, 05:03 AM
Is this an attempt to define athleticism as something other than physical ability? If so, sure, that could be argued. Just as a special olympian is a competitor/athlete, in his own way. MMA fighters certainly compete, and have mental toughness....they just dont' have world-class athletic ability in general....YET.

So tough competitors. Check
Mental toughness. Check (though this opens up the door for chess players, golfers etc)

But I was referring to raw physical ability. Reflexes, hand speed, foot speed, balance, power etc. MMA? FAIL. BUT, again, if the money goes up, in 2 or 3 generations, it will get there. Just needs to develop and evolve. That's not really a knock against MMA, it's just too early at this point. What you need, is millions of kids, starting at age 5, dedicating their lives to the sport. Then the top .001 percent rises to the top, and then you'll really see something.

If you weren't referring to the things i mentioned above, and simply think today's fighters are the best athletes....ugh....well....there's no real hope I think in even discussing it then.

I was talking about jserve (I was noting "the guy"), but accidentally quaoted the wrong post. I agree with you.

Azzurri
10-26-2009, 05:05 AM
Fedor would not have any chance at all in pro boxing? You've got to be kidding me right? Fedor can go toe to toe with nearly every guy in a stand-up fight. You've got to be kidding me.



You do realize Cro Cop competed in K1 and did fairly well.




Let's not even talk about if the boxers were put into a MMA fight against one of them. It would just be total annihilation.

I am now concerned...I thought you meant his "endurance" to box..do you mean actually hitting people???

diggler
10-26-2009, 05:19 AM
we sure are the best lovers

No. Tennis players make the worst lovers. For them, love means nothing.

David L
10-26-2009, 06:23 AM
not true, soccer is the most popular sport in the world, you dont have to be one of the best to make it. every national league got 10-20 teams, thats 150-400 players per legue including substitutes, how many is that worldwide then??. even if you take the best leagues you will still find players who is not great athletes. if you talk about the top teams in the world its another thing, but sometimes even they find it difficult to find players who is good enough..

combat sports do not attract athletes who couldnt make in in other sports, not even close, maybe if you mean karate, tae-kwon do and other sissy-like sports that doesnt allow full contact.
full contact sports like boxing, muay-thai and MMA attract a different kind of athlete than sports like soccer. many of these fighters could have done pretty well in other sports because of their athleticism and incredibly strong mind, they just dont feel its a challenge playing soccer and other team sports. If we look at tennis I can only name 1 player who could have been a great fighter.. Nadal got all the carecteristiks (spelled?) of a a great fighter..
Actually, most domestic football leagues have 4 divisions of around 20 teams each, so you are really looking at 80 teams of around 20 players each per country. That's more in the region of 1600 players per league. Multiply that by only 100 countries and you have 160,000 players with a job. In tennis, if you are not amongst the best 200 on the planet, you are struggling to make a living, plus you get no team mates to help cover your screw-ups.

Also, there are many more athletes in tennis than just Nadal who would have had the raw materials to go into full contact combat sports. Just go down the list. Tsonga, Roddick, Berdych, Mirnyi, Soderling, Verdasco, Ljubicic etc. There are many strong athletes in tennis, they would just have had to develop in line with the specific combat sport, but the base is there.

NamRanger
10-26-2009, 06:46 AM
I am now concerned...I thought you meant his "endurance" to box..do you mean actually hitting people???



I'm not following what's going on. Does Datacipher mean Fedor can't last 15 rounds? If that is what he means, probably not. Fedor isn't the best stand-up fighter, but he's pretty damn good. A professional boxer would have an edge, yes. However, that's under professional boxing rules, where it's pure stand up fighting. However, I could list several MMA fighters in the world who can go toe to toe with any professional boxer in a stand up fight. We switch it over to MMA and any professional boxer in the world has no chance in hell of beating Fedor.

big bang
10-26-2009, 07:39 AM
Fedor would not have any chance at all in pro boxing? You've got to be kidding me right? Fedor can go toe to toe with nearly every guy in a stand-up fight. You've got to be kidding me.



You do realize Cro Cop competed in K1 and did fairly well.




Let's not even talk about if the boxers were put into a MMA fight against one of them. It would just be total annihilation.

Fedor is by far the greatest MMA-fighter ever, but he would get beaten badly if he faced any pro-boxer, Fedor is a fighter not a boxer and there is a big difference!
but Fedor can sure go toe to toe with any MMA-fighter no matter if you say standing up or on the ground.

yes "Cro Cop" or Mirko Filipovich (his real name) competed in K-1, but that doesnt say much at all considering only few guys in K-1 can box. most of them wouldnt even stand a chance by a journey-man in boxing. his boxing-skills is better than most K-1 fighters and he would have a slight advantage against Fedor when it comes to stand-up skills

K-1 is more of a show, just look at Alistair Overeem (MMA-fighter) beat the best K-1 fighters and legends. you would never see this in boxing!!

conclusion: K-1 sucks..

NamRanger
10-26-2009, 07:43 AM
Fedor is by far the greatest MMA-fighter ever, but he would get beaten badly if he faced any pro-boxer, Fedor is a fighter not a boxer and there is a big difference!
but Fedor can sure go toe to toe with any MMA-fighter no matter if you say standing up or on the ground.

yes "Cro Cop" or Mirko Filipovich (his real name) competed in K-1, but that doesnt say much at all considering only few guys in K-1 can box. most of them wouldnt even stand a chance by a journey-man in boxing. his boxing-skills is better than most K-1 fighters and he would have a slight advantage against Fedor when it comes to stand-up skills

K-1 is more of a show, just look at Alistair Overeem (MMA-fighter) beat the best K-1 fighters and legends. you would never see this in boxing!!

conclusion: K-1 sucks..



Tahaha, Fedor couldn't box due to endurance, not because his stand-up skills are subpar. Fedor isn't the best boxer, but you don't necessarily have to be the best boxer in the technical sense to win in boxing. Fedor is freakishly strong for his size and with some training he could easily match any boxer in a fight. Blow for blow Fedor can easily trade with nearly any of them.



Let's not even get into whether the Boxer would stand a chance against Fedor in a MMA fight. The boxer wouldn't even stand a prayer.




Cro Cop's got pretty solid boxing skills. He's a stand up fighter that does rely on his lethal left leg, but he can do some serious damage with his hands too.

big bang
10-26-2009, 07:48 AM
Actually, most domestic football leagues have 4 divisions of around 20 teams each, so you are really looking at 80 teams of around 20 players each per country. That's more in the region of 1600 players per league. Multiply that by only 100 countries and you have 160,000 players with a job. In tennis, if you are not amongst the best 200 on the planet, you are struggling to make a living, plus you get no team mates to help cover your screw-ups.

Also, there are many more athletes in tennis than just Nadal who would have had the raw materials to go into full contact combat sports. Just go down the list. Tsonga, Roddick, Berdych, Mirnyi, Soderling, Verdasco, Ljubicic etc. There are many strong athletes in tennis, they would just have had to develop in line with the specific combat sport, but the base is there.

well you get my point about soccer:)
but NON of the players you mention would have been great fighters, you can probably find a few ranked low that could be and perhaps just doesnt posses the same talent for tennis as the higher ranked players. but the ones you mention could never have made it as fighters no way..

kOaMaster
10-26-2009, 07:49 AM
Actually, most domestic football leagues have 4 divisions of around 20 teams each, so you are really looking at 80 teams of around 20 players each per country. That's more in the region of 1600 players per league. Multiply that by only 100 countries and you have 160,000 players with a job. In tennis, if you are not amongst the best 200 on the planet, you are struggling to make a living, plus you get no team mates to help cover your screw-ups.

so you think you can make a living of playing in the 4th league in azerbaijan? fail?

and now look again at the actual topic which says "tennis players are the best athletes". this is in no way related to your statement. I think you are right, turning into a professional and make a living in football is easier since there is more money in it, it's by far the most popular sport on this planet. but how does this say anything about tennis and it's athletes?

do you seriously think, that the top10 footballers (I don't think we can agree on a list here, but lets just say there would be a ranking) are "worse" athletes than tennis players? that they did not sacrify their whole life to this sport? trained and worked less to become the best players in football? becoming probably the most famous sportsmen on this planet?

you can go nowhere in football with talent only. a guy like safin would not even get close anywhere in the tops. there are too many talented AND hard working guys out there. maybe thousands of professional players, all of them great, members of national elections, participating in the world cup or champions league. this depth does not exist in tennis. there are not many tennis players that can spend the whole life playing it without risking everything.

Azzurri
10-26-2009, 08:01 AM
I'm not following what's going on. Does Datacipher mean Fedor can't last 15 rounds? If that is what he means, probably not. Fedor isn't the best stand-up fighter, but he's pretty damn good. A professional boxer would have an edge, yes. However, that's under professional boxing rules, where it's pure stand up fighting. However, I could list several MMA fighters in the world who can go toe to toe with any professional boxer in a stand up fight. We switch it over to MMA and any professional boxer in the world has no chance in hell of beating Fedor.

oh man..sorry I thought you meant FEDERER...my msitake..LOL.:)

NamRanger
10-26-2009, 08:10 AM
oh man..sorry I thought you meant FEDERER...my msitake..LOL.:)



Yeah, Fedor Emelianenko, not Federer. This guy :


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oDw3tUuoLpM

big bang
10-26-2009, 08:13 AM
Tahaha, Fedor couldn't box due to endurance, not because his stand-up skills are subpar. Fedor isn't the best boxer, but you don't necessarily have to be the best boxer in the technical sense to win in boxing. Fedor is freakishly strong for his size and with some training he could easily match any boxer in a fight. Blow for blow Fedor can easily trade with nearly any of them.



Let's not even get into whether the Boxer would stand a chance against Fedor in a MMA fight. The boxer wouldn't even stand a prayer.




Cro Cop's got pretty solid boxing skills. He's a stand up fighter that does rely on his lethal left leg, but he can do some serious damage with his hands too.

look you dont have to tell me who of them can do what, I started with muay-thai at 15 years old, then started to box at 18. I have won several national championships. I started fighting MMA when I was 25 and trained the next 7 years.. injuries forced me to stop, today I work as boxingcoach and personal trainer

Azzurri
10-26-2009, 08:19 AM
Yeah, Fedor Emelianenko, not Federer. This guy :


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oDw3tUuoLpM

oh man..:shock: that guy is a beast. you put that guy against any BOXER, any top 5 ranked boxer in any weight class and this guy destroys them. Boxing is a skilled, very technical sport. You get a guy like Fedor and he manhandles anyone. This is street fighting..ala Rocky V. Even that idiot manager for Tommy Gunn told him to to fight outside the ring. This guy is an animal and this sport should not be compared to boxing. Not saying these guys are tougher or better fighters (technical aspect they are not), but they have so many ways to beat you it would be tough for a true boxer to battle a guy like Fedor.

big bang
10-26-2009, 08:24 AM
oh man..:shock: that guy is a beast. you put that guy against any BOXER, any top 5 ranked boxer in any weight class and this guy destroys them. Boxing is a skilled, very technical sport. You get a guy like Fedor and he manhandles anyone. This is street fighting..ala Rocky V. Even that idiot manager for Tommy Gunn told him to to fight outside the ring. This guy is an animal and this sport should not be compared to boxing. Not saying these guys are tougher or better fighters (technical aspect they are not), but they have so many ways to beat you it would be tough for a true boxer to battle a guy like Fedor.

hes the greatest ever.. sure he can kill any boxer, but still he wouldnt stand a chance in boxing.

NamRanger
10-26-2009, 08:25 AM
oh man..:shock: that guy is a beast. you put that guy against any BOXER, any top 5 ranked boxer in any weight class and this guy destroys them. Boxing is a skilled, very technical sport. You get a guy like Fedor and he manhandles anyone. This is street fighting..ala Rocky V. Even that idiot manager for Tommy Gunn told him to to fight outside the ring. This guy is an animal and this sport should not be compared to boxing. Not saying these guys are tougher or better fighters (technical aspect they are not), but they have so many ways to beat you it would be tough for a true boxer to battle a guy like Fedor.




Boxing is indeed a very skilled and technical sport, but Fedor's monstrous strength, ability to absorb blows, and his ferocity would translate very well to boxing. You don't necessarily have to be the best boxer from a technical standpoint to be the best boxer in the world.


Under MMA fights Fedor wins hands down. Not even close. Under professional boxing rules, I'm not even sure the boxers would be able to take Fedor in a fist fight, especially if Fedor trained prior to the fight to learn how to box. Highly adaptable fighter, and arguably the best in the world.

big bang
10-26-2009, 08:34 AM
Boxing is indeed a very skilled and technical sport, but Fedor's monstrous strength, ability to absorb blows, and his ferocity would translate very well to boxing. You don't necessarily have to be the best boxer from a technical standpoint to be the best boxer in the world.


Under MMA fights Fedor wins hands down. Not even close. Under professional boxing rules, I'm not even sure the boxers would be able to take Fedor in a fist fight, especially if Fedor trained prior to the fight to learn how to box. Highly adaptable fighter, and arguably the best in the world.

thats like saying a badminton or squash player could beat Federer if they trained for it:) Fedor is a fighter not a boxer, he will never be, dont get confused..

NamRanger
10-26-2009, 08:35 AM
thats like saying a badminton or squash player could beat Federer if they trained for it:) Fedor is a fighter not a boxer, he will never be, dont get confused..


I say give Fedor 6 months to train for a boxing match and he could probably take on most boxers. You can't say the same for a squash player going pro at tennis.

big bang
10-26-2009, 08:46 AM
I say give Fedor 6 months to train for a boxing match and he could probably take on most boxers. You can't say the same for a squash player going pro at tennis.

not trying to insult you but you clearly dont know much about boxing..
I was one of the top amateur boxers in Denmark once and I have never met any MMA-fighter who would even get close of winning one round of boxing against me. and I met some pretty sick fighters along the way..

MMA-fighters can throw punches no doubt about that, but they cant box..
Fedor would never get close of winning in boxing, he doesnt have the skills, talent or technique..

Azzurri
10-26-2009, 08:47 AM
hes the greatest ever.. sure he can kill any boxer, but still he wouldnt stand a chance in boxing.

was I not clear? I said OUTSIDE the ring like in Rocky V (again, very clear example) he would kill these guys. But in a ring its a completely different story...did I just repeat myself?? I would say yes. Please learn how to read.

big bang
10-26-2009, 08:49 AM
was I not clear? I said OUTSIDE the ring like in Rocky V (again, very clear example) he would kill these guys. But in a ring its a completely different story...did I just repeat myself?? I would say yes. Please learn how to read.

uhmm didnt I say exactly the same thing??? maybe you should read before posting BS!

big bang
10-26-2009, 09:12 AM
try watching Vitor Belfort in some of his early UFC fights. he is the only UFC fighter who could box as well. once he was part of the brazillian olympic team, but couldnt make it as a boxer. still he is the best they had by miles when it comes to boxing..

Azzurri
10-26-2009, 09:14 AM
uhmm didnt I say exactly the same thing??? maybe you should read before posting BS!

again, you are clueless. your response to me showed your complete lack of comprehension. I, on the other hand, have not read one of your posts so could care less about you.

purple-n-gold
10-26-2009, 09:14 AM
Fedor is a FREAK, go back and watch that knockout at @ 3 min mark and then tell me he stands no chance against any heavyweight boxer, .....yeaah riiight.

Azzurri
10-26-2009, 09:15 AM
not trying to insult you but you clearly dont know much about boxing..
I was one of the top amateur boxers in Denmark once and I have never met any MMA-fighter who would even get close of winning one round of boxing against me. and I met some pretty sick fighters along the way..

MMA-fighters can throw punches no doubt about that, but they cant box..
Fedor would never get close of winning in boxing, he doesnt have the skills, talent or technique..

LOL..an internet tough guy.:rolleyes:

David L
10-26-2009, 09:17 AM
well you get my point about soccer:)
but NON of the players you mention would have been great fighters, you can probably find a few ranked low that could be and perhaps just doesnt posses the same talent for tennis as the higher ranked players. but the ones you mention could never have made it as fighters no way..
I don't see why not. Obviously, they are tennis players now, but in a parallel universe where they had an interest in and trained to become fighters, what exactly is the glaring flaw in their physical make up?

mtr1
10-26-2009, 09:43 AM
Cross Country skiers are the best athletes. Pushing their bodies to the limit, and in the freezing cold!

ps Bjorn Daehlie, one of the greatest Cross Country skiers, holds the record for the highest Vo2 max measurement ever recorded.

big bang
10-26-2009, 09:45 AM
LOL..an internet tough guy.:rolleyes:

so you think Im a tough guy because I had a lot of fights LOL, just shows you are a ignorant little boy.
a good advice in life is, if you dont know what you are talking about then shut up and listen and you might learn..

jazzyfunkybluesy
10-26-2009, 09:49 AM
Great Boxers would say boxers are the best athletes football players would say they are the goat and on and on.

big bang
10-26-2009, 09:54 AM
just too many ignorant ppl in this thread, waste of my time..
try posting your oppinions in any boxing/MMA forum and you will hear exactly the same as I sayd. you should clearly stick to tennis..

bet if I made a poll on this site saying: would Federer beat Fedor in MMA. you guys probably would vote Federer!

have fun in your dreamworld..

big bang
10-26-2009, 09:59 AM
I don't see why not. Obviously, they are tennis players now, but in a parallel universe where they had an interest in and trained to become fighters, what exactly is the glaring flaw in their physical make up?

you actually seem like pretty much the only only one who is interested in this subjekt.
if you want me to explain please send me a mail..

JoshDragon
10-26-2009, 10:00 AM
I don't agree with Sampras. If that were the case, I wouldn't routinely lose to 60 year olds. No way these 60 year old tennis players that can beat me are more athletic than me. They have just put in more time on the court and have developed more consistent shots. Thats a skill, not athleticism.

There's more to sports than just pure physical strength and fitness, you also have to have talent, skills, and ability. If you were to fight a 60 year old boxer, it wouldn't be the equivalent of fighting some random 60 year old, the boxer would still be able to fight well, he would just be slower because of his age.

Azzurri
10-26-2009, 10:18 AM
so you think Im a tough guy because I had a lot of fights LOL, just shows you are a ignorant little boy.
a good advice in life is, if you dont know what you are talking about then shut up and listen and you might learn..

yep, you are an internet tough guy.

Azzurri
10-26-2009, 10:19 AM
just too many ignorant ppl in this thread, waste of my time..
try posting your oppinions in any boxing/MMA forum and you will hear exactly the same as I sayd. you should clearly stick to tennis..

bet if I made a poll on this site saying: would Federer beat Fedor in MMA. you guys probably would vote Federer!

have fun in your dreamworld..

bye bye, Internet Tough Guy.

David L
10-26-2009, 10:25 AM
so you think you can make a living of playing in the 4th league in azerbaijan? fail?

and now look again at the actual topic which says "tennis players are the best athletes". this is in no way related to your statement. I think you are right, turning into a professional and make a living in football is easier since there is more money in it, it's by far the most popular sport on this planet. but how does this say anything about tennis and it's athletes?

do you seriously think, that the top10 footballers (I don't think we can agree on a list here, but lets just say there would be a ranking) are "worse" athletes than tennis players? that they did not sacrify their whole life to this sport? trained and worked less to become the best players in football? becoming probably the most famous sportsmen on this planet?

you can go nowhere in football with talent only. a guy like safin would not even get close anywhere in the tops. there are too many talented AND hard working guys out there. maybe thousands of professional players, all of them great, members of national elections, participating in the world cup or champions league. this depth does not exist in tennis. there are not many tennis players that can spend the whole life playing it without risking everything.
Who mentioned Azerbaijan?

Also, I was just providing more accurate numbers for big bang's example.

As for the topic, professional tennis players are great athletes regardless, as are footballers. I also think they have very similar physiques, they just compete in very different sports. No need to choose between them. As a whole, footballer's athletic gifts are just as variable as tennis players, but you select the best 10 and obviously they will be up there. Even so you still get outstanding players like Lionel Messi who is 5 ft 7 and considered by many the best footballer of his generation, Maradona at 5 ft 5, considered the GOAT by many, and Juninho Paulista, also 5 ft 5 and one of the best when he was playing. All great athletes, but I see no great advantage they have over tennis players. Likewise, I see no great advantage tennis players have over them. Both, provided they had the required skills, would be athletically equipped or have the potential to physically compete in either sport.

Who said anything about the best footballers not having to work very hard to become the best? Obviously they do. All of them would have been outstanding juniors, just like tennis players, and hard workers. The only thing about football is that there is no objective and systematic ranking system, so there is no real way of knowing who would be ranked where if there were. Any number of players can be considered to be in the top 10, so one can kind of hide behind the ambiguity. You can choose amongst any number of players you consider top 10, plus they have the support of a team. A good player surrounded by a great team will probably be able to shine more than a player of the same quality in a poorer team. Look how Michael Jordan's or Maradona's team mates benefited from having them in the team, both mentally and physically. In tennis there are no places to hide, the ranking system is objective and systematic, plus you cannot lean on anyone else in matches. You are much more exposed. Even practice is a much more solitary event, without the camaraderie and motivating support you get in football.

Also, I don't think you can say Safin could not get close to the top as a footballer. Maybe he could, maybe he couldn't, but you certainly cannot tell from here. Had he not picked up a racket, but instead followed the development path of an Ibrahimovic or Messi, who can really say how good he would have become? Maybe he would have been crap, maybe he would have been great, but no one can know. He certainly has the physique to become a great footballer. Ironically, Safin was turned away by Bollettieri himself, from his academy, when he was 9 or so, and told he did not have a chance of making it. He sure proved him wrong.

David L
10-26-2009, 10:34 AM
you actually seem like pretty much the only only one who is interested in this subjekt.
if you want me to explain please send me a mail..
Why not post it here so it can be debated?

onehandbh
10-26-2009, 10:42 AM
His competition includes Daly, Michelson, Waldorf, Stadler. Not exactly well toned athletes. :) Tiger may be a great athlete and probably would be great at tennis, but golf does not need great athletic ability.

John Daly is a physical specimen. How many pro athletes can
pound a 12 pack and then go out and compete with the
best in their sport while carrying a 100 pound backpack?
(well for him it's just excessive fat)

Jordan w/a 100 lbs backpack? He'd be grounded?

Usain Bolt w/a 100 lbs backpack? He'd be in the steeplechase
instead of the 100m.

Fed? He'd be sitting on the ground beating self-rated 5.0's on
TW instead of the ATP.

LiveForever
10-26-2009, 10:42 AM
just too many ignorant ppl in this thread, waste of my time..
try posting your oppinions in any boxing/MMA forum and you will hear exactly the same as I sayd. you should clearly stick to tennis..

bet if I made a poll on this site saying: would Federer beat Fedor in MMA. you guys probably would vote Federer!

have fun in your dreamworld..
Okay sure. We will. Why exactly are you even debating with tennis fans anyways, if you are such a huge ambassdor for MMA/Boxing? You should go stick to your sport filled with athletes that have single digit IQs due to brain damage from punches. :lol:

Chadwixx
10-26-2009, 10:58 AM
not trying to insult you but you clearly dont know much about boxing..
I was one of the top amateur boxers in Denmark once and I have never met any MMA-fighter who would even get close of winning one round of boxing against me. and I met some pretty sick fighters along the way..

MMA-fighters can throw punches no doubt about that, but they cant box..
Fedor would never get close of winning in boxing, he doesnt have the skills, talent or technique..

Boxing is mma on training wheels. Keep your hands up and back away from your opponent. Its barely even a fight now adays. Plus fedor gets hit with fists, not some cushion gloves, may as well hit him with a pillow. Boxing and mma are night and day in terms of skill.

I watch mayweather and that was the last boxing fight ill ever watch. Extremely boring and unskilled unless running from your opponent into the corner for protection is considered skill. In mma he would be rocked when he balls up and crys to the ref.

David L
10-26-2009, 11:35 AM
Boxing is mma on training wheels. Keep your hands up and back away from your opponent. Its barely even a fight now adays. Plus fedor gets hit with fists, not some cushion gloves, may as well hit him with a pillow. Boxing and mma are night and day in terms of skill.

I watch mayweather and that was the last boxing fight ill ever watch. Extremely boring and unskilled unless running from your opponent into the corner for protection is considered skill. In mma he would be rocked when he balls up and crys to the ref.
This is part of the challenge of boxing, it's not simply about brutality. There is less recourse in getting your opponent to submit; you cannot kick them, knee them, elbow them, wrestle with them, strangle them, restrain them etc. On top of that, you have to solely subdue them with 'cushion gloves', which is probably going to require a lot more stamina, strategy and speed at the highest level. In a bar brawl, Fedor will probably come out tops, but in a boxing ring, where there are rules, it's not so clear. Remember, we are talking about sports here, not who has a greater capacity for violence (dispensing and receiving). Look what Ali did to Foreman in 'The Rumble in the Jungle'. In a bar brawl you would expect Foreman to win, as the more imposing looking figure, and many at the time already penciled Foreman in as the winner, but they forgot Ali was an artist in the ring and very skilled in the art of boxing. I think you need a more nuanced approach than simply inferring Fedor would destroy all the boxers because he destroys all the MMA fighters. Totally different game with nothing but 'cushion gloves' for weapons. That ESPN analysis seems to think boxing is the tougher sport, with martial arts positioned just one spot above tennis at No.6. Not that that particular study is gospel, but clearly it is not at all outlandish to surmise Fedor would have significantly less success as a boxer.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/sportSkills

NamRanger
10-26-2009, 12:18 PM
This is part of the challenge of boxing, it's not simply about brutality. There is less recourse in getting your opponent to submit; you cannot kick them, knee them, elbow them, wrestle with them, strangle them, restrain them etc. On top of that, you have to solely subdue them with 'cushion gloves', which is probably going to require a lot more stamina, strategy and speed at the highest level. In a bar brawl, Fedor will probably come out tops, but in a boxing ring, where there are rules, it's not so clear. Remember, we are talking about sports here, not who has a greater capacity for violence (dispensing and receiving). Look what Ali did to Foreman in 'The Rumble in the Jungle'. In a bar brawl you would expect Foreman to win, as the more imposing looking figure, and many at the time already penciled Foreman in as the winner, but they forgot Ali was an artist in the ring and very skilled in the art of boxing. I think you need a more nuanced approach than simply inferring Fedor would destroy all the boxers because he destroys all the MMA fighters. Totally different game with nothing but 'cushion gloves' for weapons. That ESPN analysis seems to think boxing is the tougher sport, with martial arts positioned just one spot above tennis at No.6. Not that that particular study is gospel, but clearly it is not at all outlandish to surmise Fedor would have significantly less success as a boxer.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/sportSkills




MMA is not martial arts (at least from what I can see based on their ratings). They do not clearly define martial arts at all in fact. Do they mean full contact or not? etc.




I think you clearly don't know anything about MMA if you think Fedor with a few months of training specifically dedicated to boxing couldn't step into a ring and clobber most guys.

35ft6
10-26-2009, 12:36 PM
Yep. The level just isn't there yet. I like MMA but sometimes, the athleticism is well.....PATHETIC....it makes me cringe...to see a Chuck Lidell or Forest Griffin out there. They are SLOW as mud! They would have gotten SLAUGHTERED in high level amateur boxing. Punching bags only....to their credit, they have become wealthy and famous and worshiped, and they would never have made pros in any other sport!Boxing is a totally different sport. It's like saying "boxers are horrible athletes, they would get slaughtered in a submission wrestling tournament!"

Liddell is an incredible fight. At his best, his punches were lethal. He's gotten knocked out a few times, he's getting older, he bought into the celebrity and spread himself too thin, he's not as good now.

35ft6
10-26-2009, 12:39 PM
There a lot of illogical comments, like the bolded one, in this thread. How can you say that? That's absurd. You don't think every kid in Brazil is kicking a soccer ball daily from the time they can walk? Do these kids work with a coach every day? Do they go to academies where their whole day revolves around systematically turning them into soccer machines? I know IMG has some soccer players there. Pretty sure anyways. But I always thought of soccer as being more like basketball, where kids play in parks, then start playing organized basketball, but don't necessarily have a private coach or move across the country to train with the best soccer/basketball players.

AutoXer
10-26-2009, 12:41 PM
Let's try to break this down. What makes an elite athlete? Some examples:

Endurance: Lance Armstrong types, soccer players, triathletes, decathletes, marathon runners, etc. Many I could consider with better endurance that tennis players.

Variety surfaces or conditions: Many athletes compete in a variety of conditions and multiple surfaces. NFL players can play in 80 degree temps, in\outdoors, snow. Soccer players, Tour de France cyclist, etc. Again tennis players don't seem to be at the top of this list either.

Speed: Usain Bolt, Wide receivers, etc. Not too many tennis players running a sub 4.4 40.

Quickness:Boxing, Race car drivers(hand speed is incredible. They can go opposite lock and catch a car at triple digit speeds insanely fast). MLB hitters, golfers, tennis. All have to accelerate something super quickly be it bat or body parts.

Hand\eye coordination:MLB hitters, NHL guys, tennis players, goalies.

Anticipation\reaction times:Drag racers, mlb hitters, goalies, tennis players.

Mental toughness\concentration:Race car drivers hands down. Try having to concentrate at 100% with no breaks(F1 drivers can't relax even during a pit stop) for that amount of time. How many nutcases have been ranked top10 in tennis?

Violence(I mean being physical with another person):NFL, NHL, hockey, boxing, mma, etc.

Killer instinct: Jordan

I just threw at some quick examples. Not the difinitive list. Please add examples or categories. Let's see what it takes to be an elite athlete and then where tennis players fit in each category. They don't seem to be the best in any one category, but are towards the top in a few.

David L
10-26-2009, 01:02 PM
MMA is not martial arts (at least from what I can see based on their ratings). They do not clearly define martial arts at all in fact. Do they mean full contact or not? etc.

I think you clearly don't know anything about MMA if you think Fedor with a few months of training specifically dedicated to boxing couldn't step into a ring and clobber most guys.
Well, MMA is supposed to be a mixture of martial arts. Wrestling also gets in there at No.5, so there seems to be some consistency in their assessment of combat sports. Also, given most martial arts are full-contact sports, particularly the most popular one's, I think it's safe to say they do mean and/or include full-contact disciplines.

I don't claim to know a great deal about MMA, but you also have bing bang here stating you don't know a great deal about boxing either, so who knows what? I think there's a bit more to boxing than clobbering opponents. I think that's the point. In MMA there seems to be more room to be savage and go in all helter-skelter, whereas in boxing there are more rules and restrictions. This is where someone like Fedor might come unstuck. I'm not saying I know for sure either way, only that it's not obviously a slam dunk in his favour. As I said before, this is not a competition for who can be the most violent. In that Fedor is going to win hands down. This is about whether he would be as a effective in a boxing ring with 80 odd percent of his arsenal under lock and key. It's the same principle as whether he would be as effective under wrestling, karate, judo or kendo rules in those environments. Because he's great in MMA, does not mean he would dominate all other combat disciplines.

NamRanger
10-26-2009, 01:11 PM
Well, MMA is supposed to be a mixture of martial arts. Wrestling also gets in there at No.5, so there seems to be some consistency in their assessment of combat sports. Also, given most martial arts are full-contact sports, particularly the most popular one's, I think it's safe to say they do mean and/or include full-contact disciplines.

I don't claim to know a great deal about MMA, but you also have bing bang here stating you don't know a great deal about boxing either, so who knows what? I think there's a bit more to boxing than clobbering opponents. I think that's the point. In MMA there seems to be more room to be savage and go in all helter-skelter, whereas in boxing there are more rules and restrictions. This is where someone like Fedor might come unstuck. I'm not saying I know for sure either way, only that it's not obviously a slam dunk in his favour. As I said before, this is not a competition for who can be the most violent. In that Fedor is going to win hands down. This is about whether he would be as a effective in a boxing ring with 80 odd percent of his arsenal under lock and key. It's the same principle as whether he would be as effective under wrestling, karate, judo or kendo rules in those environments. Because he's great in MMA, does not mean he would dominate all other combat disciplines.



The problem is that he is great in other combat disciplines, as evidence to the fact that he's an incredible Sambo champion where his most deadly moves are in fact kept in checked (no choke holds, etc.)




And no, not all martial arts are full contact like MMA.




Fedor is a highly disciplined and highly trained MMA fighter. He is well versed in many respects. His ability to attack from different angles and directions with different strategies is why he is one of the most feared and dominant fighters, ever. In a straight fight, Fedor would murder anyone in a 1 on 1 fight. If you gave him 6 months to a year to prepare for a boxing match, I'm pretty sure he'd clobber most guys into the ground too.

35ft6
10-26-2009, 01:14 PM
As for MMA, it does attract some sick athletes. A lot of the guys were top college wrestlers. Cung Le was a top sanshou fighter. Bas Rutten was a top Pancrease fighter. MMA fighters will often destroy K-1 superstars. Brock Lesnar, a former D-1 champ, is a freakish athlete. But MMA is almost like being a one man team. Like on a basketball team, maybe the center doesn't have to be as athletic as the power forward. And maybe the shooting guard isn't as quick as the point guard.

In MMA, if your striking isn't awesome, you try to take the guy to the ground. If your ground game sucks, you keep it standing. If you're not a technical striker, maybe you want to get your opponent in a clinch, shove him against the cage, and dirty box him, knee and elbow him, grind him down. If you have great takedowns but mediocre submissions, you ground and pound. It's about how the different skills work together as a team.

Basically, MMA often attracts guys who are among the best at their base style. They then come to MMA, try to learn as much of the other stuff as possible, put it all together. But even by the time they get into MMA, they'd already been well decorated at another sport/style. This is the beauty of MMA. Everybody doesn't have the same style, the difference isn't just athleticism. The whole point of martial arts in the first place was about smaller guys using technique to defeat larger opponents. If somebody you think is a sucky athlete wins in MMA, sure, you can think that diminishes MMA, but to me it's a reminder of why I fell in love with the martial arts in the first place. Fedor's sambo coach said when he first met him, he was not the most talented or athletic, but he worked the hardest. And he learned very quickly. He's intelligent. To me, a guy like Fedor, who would get laughed out of an NFL tryout, personifies what makes martial arts great. He's smart, well trained, and even if his body isn't ridiculously fast, like a Vitor Belfort or GSP, his mind is incredibly quick, he is always one step ahead, and he attacks with such purpose and conviction it looks blazingly fast. And like BJ Penn, his transitions are perfect. When he goes from one mode to another, like from punching to a clinch, or from take down to ground and pound to submission attempt, there is no adjustment period, it's totally seamless. He's always dangerous. He's not good at one thing but clearly hesitant and thinking his way through the other things. At not point is the opponent safe.

Martial Arts is about more than athleticism. Personally, I think the athletes they have now, especially at the top, are pretty incredible. But even if you don't, that's not what martial arts is about anyways. Haven't you seen the Karate Kid? Ralph Machio probably couldn't even do 10 push ups. You want sheer athleticism go watch track and field or something. :)

David L
10-26-2009, 01:35 PM
Do these kids work with a coach every day? Do they go to academies where their whole day revolves around systematically turning them into soccer machines? I know IMG has some soccer players there. Pretty sure anyways. But I always thought of soccer as being more like basketball, where kids play in parks, then start playing organized basketball, but don't necessarily have a private coach or move across the country to train with the best soccer/basketball players.
Yes, although I don't know about in the States. Most of the professional clubs elsewhere have youth teams, programs and academies in place from U-9 upwards. So Man Utd, Real Madrid, Barcelona etc all have youth systems. Some kids even get signed up as young as 9, like Rhain Davis with Man Utd. You also have international competitions for clubs and national teams. All football nations should have national youth teams starting from U-16, at least, to compete in the youth World-Cup and other geographical competitions. So yes, quite a lot of development goes on in early youth. If you are in one of the youth programs of the professional clubs as a kid, you are already an excellent player for your age and well on the road to a professional career. You cannot start playing football at 14 and expect to make it. You have to start the process much younger and the sooner you start getting professional the better.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIFA_U-17_World_Cup

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UEFA_European_Under-17_Football_Championship

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/England_national_under-16_football_team

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/France_national_under-17_football_team

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazil_national_under-17_football_team

David L
10-26-2009, 01:44 PM
The problem is that he is great in other combat disciplines, as evidence to the fact that he's an incredible Sambo champion where his most deadly moves are in fact kept in checked (no choke holds, etc.)


And no, not all martial arts are full contact like MMA.


Fedor is a highly disciplined and highly trained MMA fighter. He is well versed in many respects. His ability to attack from different angles and directions with different strategies is why he is one of the most feared and dominant fighters, ever. In a straight fight, Fedor would murder anyone in a 1 on 1 fight. If you gave him 6 months to a year to prepare for a boxing match, I'm pretty sure he'd clobber most guys into the ground too.
Who said all martial arts are full-contact?

Also, that's the point, Fedor is a great MMA fighter. The question is would he be as great in a boxing ring with boxing rules? You think he would be, big bang doesn't. The question is, who's right?

35ft6
10-26-2009, 01:45 PM
^ Interesting. Maybe it's because I'm not knowledgable about the sport, but when I watch soccer, I don't see the same skill level as I do in tennis. It's more along the lines of basketball or hockey to me.

Kedar
10-26-2009, 01:53 PM
Swimming and gymnastics are the most athletic sports, in my opinion. Tennis is more athletic than most other sports, but not the most.

NamRanger
10-26-2009, 01:55 PM
Who said all martial arts are full-contact?

Also, that's the point, Fedor is a great MMA fighter. The question is would he be as great in a boxing ring with boxing rules? You think he would be, big bang doesn't. The question is, who's right?



Fedor has shown great success in Ju Jitsu and Sambo competition outside of MMA, so that already goes to show that he can compete well when put under stricter rules. I think he'd do fine in boxing.

35ft6
10-26-2009, 02:04 PM
Not sure how well Fedor would do in boxing. The rules pretty much negate his greatest strengths. In general, I think a pro boxer is much closer to being a viable MMA fighter than most MMA fighters are to being a viable pro boxer. But MMA allows for a much greater skill set so why wouldn't this be the case. Boxing is a common part of most people's MMA game, so a boxer would come in and instantly be outstanding in the boxing aspect of MMA. But boxing alone isn't enough to become top 10 in MMA, and so even Pacman and Mayweather would get beat by a top 25 MMA fighter in their weight class.

David L
10-26-2009, 02:05 PM
^ Interesting. Maybe it's because I'm not knowledgable about the sport, but when I watch soccer, I don't see the same skill level as I do in tennis. It's more along the lines of basketball or hockey to me.
I suppose it's like anything. If you don't do it or have much knowledge/experience of it, you can underestimate what it means to do a particular activity at the highest level.

David L
10-26-2009, 02:18 PM
Fedor has shown great success in Ju Jitsu and Sambo competition outside of MMA, so that already goes to show that he can compete well when put under stricter rules.I think he'd do fine in boxing.
Ju Jitsu and Sambo are not boxing.

kOaMaster
10-26-2009, 03:50 PM
I suppose it's like anything. If you don't do it or have much knowledge/experience of it, you can underestimate what it means to do a particular activity at the highest level.

that is of course true.

and yes @ david, someone in the thread actually said footballer would not need to work as hard to get to the top. and someone else (35ft6 I think) was wondering also whether footballers train from young age.

@35ft6:
usually you start playing football in a club at the age of 6-10. but the thing is - you can play it without any other special stuff. I used to kick every evening/afternoon after school somewhere in a park, on the schoolyard...wherever. what it needs: a ball. and something to mark the goals (tshirts, jacket, sweater, stone, stick). thats all. this unbeliavable low requierement does not only bring the game to more popularity but also gives you the chance to play whenever and wherever you want. everyone can do it.
this is what tennis does not have. you need a field, a net and - not to forget - one opponent. tennis (along with other sports) does not have the reach to all the best players. I mean, luckily federer decided to give up football! do we know he'd been a good football player? no. and it's unlikely too.

David L
10-26-2009, 04:37 PM
that is of course true.

and yes @ david, someone in the thread actually said footballer would not need to work as hard to get to the top. and someone else (35ft6 I think) was wondering also whether footballers train from young age.

@35ft6:
usually you start playing football in a club at the age of 6-10. but the thing is - you can play it without any other special stuff. I used to kick every evening/afternoon after school somewhere in a park, on the schoolyard...wherever. what it needs: a ball. and something to mark the goals (tshirts, jacket, sweater, stone, stick). thats all. this unbeliavable low requierement does not only bring the game to more popularity but also gives you the chance to play whenever and wherever you want. everyone can do it.
this is what tennis does not have. you need a field, a net and - not to forget - one opponent. tennis (along with other sports) does not have the reach to all the best players. I mean, luckily federer decided to give up football! do we know he'd been a good football player? no. and it's unlikely too.
Yeah, we don't know how good Federer would have been as a footballer, but I don't think there would have been a problem for him to become a pro if he were as passionate about it as he is tennis. I personally think it's more likely than unlikely he would have been a good footballer, given the correct training and development. I think that goes for a lot of players on the tour. Practically all of the European and Latin players would have grown up playing football.

Check out these kids. They're pretty damn good. Youtube is full of them.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=act0RUfs-u4&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-rE6LZDXCQM&feature=related

NamRanger
10-26-2009, 05:15 PM
Ju Jitsu and Sambo are not boxing.



Yes but there's evidence that shows that Fedor can compete in contact sports in a stricter environment with more rules than MMA. It also shows that Fedor is extremely versatile in different types of martial arts. That's enough evidence IMO to show that Fedor can become a capble boxer, especially considering Fedor has a tremendous striking game to begin with.

David L
10-26-2009, 05:22 PM
Yes but there's evidence that shows that Fedor can compete in contact sports in a stricter environment with more rules than MMA. It also shows that Fedor is extremely versatile in different types of martial arts. That's enough evidence IMO to show that Fedor can become a capble boxer, especially considering Fedor has a tremendous striking game to begin with.
Not really. There's a reason why that ESPN panel put boxing at No.1 and martial arts at No.6.

lawrence
10-26-2009, 05:39 PM
Not really. There's a reason why that ESPN panel put boxing at No.1 and martial arts at No.6.

I don't want to get into this debate because I'm not very informed about either of them. But ESPN is a terrible source to base your point on haha.

David L
10-26-2009, 05:56 PM
I don't want to get into this debate because I'm not very informed about either of them. But ESPN is a terrible source to base your point on haha.
That may be true, but are the opinions of some expressed here any more credible on this matter? Also, it was NamRanger who originally posted the ESPN piece and defended the credibility and expertise of the panelists, so he of all people should be listening to what they are saying.

nfor304
10-26-2009, 06:55 PM
A recent tv show in Australia called Australia's greatest athlete:

http://www.greatestathlete.com.au/

There were no tennis players involved, but I think a tennis player like Hewitt or Rafter would have done pretty well in the challenges. Nadal would have won the whole thing imo.

The soccer player came last and a Rugby League player came first. Though to be fair the Soccer player isn't even on the Australian team, so he is hardly world class, while the rugby league player is considered one of the best in the world at his sport.

Also there is the world champ and olympic gold medalist pole vaulter in there who came 4th.

There was also an Iron man/olympic 10000 metre swimmer who came 7th. He was pretty terrible at just about everything.

NamRanger
10-26-2009, 07:06 PM
That may be true, but are the opinions of some expressed here any more credible on this matter? Also, it was NamRanger who originally posted the ESPN piece and defended the credibility and expertise of the panelists, so he of all people should be listening to what they are saying.



I think you don't even know what you are talking about. Do you even watch MMA / Boxing? I highly doubt it.



As stated before, it doesn't specifically rate MMA as a separate category. You can't say MMA is the same as all martial arts, because it isn't.

raiden031
10-26-2009, 07:17 PM
There's more to sports than just pure physical strength and fitness, you also have to have talent, skills, and ability. If you were to fight a 60 year old boxer, it wouldn't be the equivalent of fighting some random 60 year old, the boxer would still be able to fight well, he would just be slower because of his age.

Let me clarify. The reason I disagree with Sampras (asides from his arrogant comments lately) is that the biggest assets in tennis are not athleticism, unlike other sports. I was always considered athletic, and I started playing football in high school in 9th grade. I only really practiced during the season and did a little bit of conditioning during the off-season. By 12th grade I was first team all-area and honorable mention all-state as an outside linebacker. I was a good athlete in football and also was always one of the first-picked in the the various games/sports we played in gym class.

I played tennis for 6 years as a weekend warrior and then joined USTA and was only a 3.0! The difference between tennis and these other sports was that tennis required so many other attributes outside of pure athleticism. Because these other attributes are so crucial to success in tennis, it doesn't give you that much of an advantage to be the best athlete on the court as it is to be the best tactician, most consistent, and/or mentally strongest player on the court. Otherwise Monfils would probably be in the top 5. I have spent more time developing my individual tennis shots than I have spent playing all other sports combined probably in my life, yet I would probably be more successful in a handful of other sports right now if I devoted time to them because they are less about skill and more about athleticism.

nereis
10-26-2009, 07:18 PM
I wouldn't call that athlete show too objective in measuring performance. It's pretty easy to say that the athletes in ball games are going to do much better with shooting basketballs and kicking footballs that those requiring just raw output. Athletes are just too specialised within their sports to be able to be compared across different disciplines.

More to the point though, while a professional ATP player has commendable cardiovascular fitness and excellent hand-eye coordination it loses out to both badminton and squash in terms of raw fitness needed to succeed, and probably table tennis too in terms of hand-eye coordination. What it has over the other racket sports is the raw power in the game. But it loses out to basketball in that department.

Put a basketball player against a tennis player on a 5km run, the tennis player will win. Put the same in a high jump challenge, the basketball player will clean house. But both will be outdone by professionals who actually specialise for those disciplines.

nfor304
10-26-2009, 07:28 PM
Let me clarify. The reason I disagree with Sampras (asides from his arrogant comments lately) is that the biggest assets in tennis are not athleticism, unlike other sports. I was always considered athletic, and I started playing football in high school in 9th grade. I only really practiced during the season and did a little bit of conditioning during the off-season. By 12th grade I was first team all-area and honorable mention all-state as an outside linebacker. I was a good athlete in football and also was always one of the first-picked in the the various games/sports we played in gym class.

I played tennis for 6 years as a weekend warrior and then joined USTA and was only a 3.0! The difference between tennis and these other sports was that tennis required so many other attributes outside of pure athleticism. Because these other attributes are so crucial to success in tennis, it doesn't give you that much of an advantage to be the best athlete on the court as it is to be the best tactician, most consistent, and/or mentally strongest player on the court. Otherwise Monfils would probably be in the top 5. I have spent more time developing my individual tennis shots than I have spent playing all other sports combined probably in my life, yet I would probably be more successful in a handful of other sports right now if I devoted time to them because they are less about skill and more about athleticism.

It all depends on your definition of athleticism. Hand eye coordination, reaction speed and anticipation are athletic skills also, and they are probably the most important athletic skills in tennis.

big bang
10-27-2009, 12:06 AM
Yes but there's evidence that shows that Fedor can compete in contact sports in a stricter environment with more rules than MMA. It also shows that Fedor is extremely versatile in different types of martial arts. That's enough evidence IMO to show that Fedor can become a capble boxer, especially considering Fedor has a tremendous striking game to begin with.

Fedor can compete in Sambo because its what he trained all his life.. he then added the submission game to his basic training, and because he is stronger than most ju jitsu fighters he can submit them. Fedor also got the most brutal ground and pound game in MMA. his biggest strenghts is wrestling, submission and a brutal ground and pound game.

when an opponent faces Fedor in MMA, they know its very dangerous if he takes the fight to the ground, that draws their attention away from his striking game.
most punches Fedor lands is overhand-rights when he ducks down like hes going for a takedown, the opponent lowers his hands to protect himself from being taken down, but then Fedor swings his righthand and hits his unprotected chin and the opponent is rocked and goes down. Fedor will then either go for a quick submission or simply ground and pound him.
very simple way to fight if you posses the ground-skills of Fedor..

But Fedors striking game is way overrated and cannot be compared to boxing, he wouldnt even know what to do in a boxingmatch.
he doesnt move like a boxer or punch like a boxer and it would take a long time for him to learn to. but he would never have any business against a pro-boxer. Fedor with his present boxingskills wouldnt even land a single punch against a top-boxer of his weight-division..

many of his opponents in MMA get caught by surprise when he lands a punch, when he attack you dont know whats comming because all his attacks comes from the same position, they dont know if hes going for a takedown(and thats the opponents biggest fear), a punch or a kick(which is very rare for Fedor). they have to react in a split-second and choose what to protect against. Fedor is very good at disguising his attack.

in boxing Fedors biggest weapons is gone and his opponent know he will try to punch. the boxer trains everyday all year to perfect his defence and attack and would have no trouble at all counter-punching or ducking every Fedor attack, he would be like an open book for them..

35ft6
10-27-2009, 12:06 AM
Not really. There's a reason why that ESPN panel put boxing at No.1 and martial arts at No.6.Which martial art? How can they lump dozens and dozens of distinctly different fighting systems together like that? You develop incredible hands with boxing, but is it any more incredible than what a tae kwon do guy can do with his feet? Most people can more or less imitate a boxer, throw a jab, right, hook combination, but they can't even come close to approximating a high level tae kwon do practitioner. Yeah, that ESPN list has been around a while and I'm still not sure why some people cite it as if it's the final word. Although I admit it's great for conversation.

35ft6
10-27-2009, 12:13 AM
most punches Fedor lands is overhand-rights when he ducks down like hes going for a takedown,His left hook is also a go-to punch.
But Fedors striking game is way overrated and cannot be compared to boxing, he wouldnt even know what to do in a boxingmatch.I don't think it's overrated. MMA striking is different from pure boxing. His striking compliments the rest of his MMA arsenal perfectly and that should be the measure by which MMA striking should be judged, not whether or not he could be a top boxer. I talked about this on another thread, watched the last Mayweather fight and heavyweight title fight about a month ago. Mayweather is one of the best boxers I've ever seen, but if he got into MMA and took it seriously, after a while I think he would realize MMA is not boxing, there's a lot of other things you have to worry about, and he would become a very different kind of puncher after a while. After a while, it might somewhat resemble the styles of a lot of MMA fighters who people like to say couldn't be a champion boxer.

big bang
10-27-2009, 12:39 AM
His left hook is also a go-to punch.I don't think it's overrated. MMA striking is different from pure boxing. His striking compliments the rest of his MMA arsenal perfectly and that should be the measure by which MMA striking should be judged, not whether or not he could be a top boxer. I talked about this on another thread, watched the last Mayweather fight and heavyweight title fight about a month ago. Mayweather is one of the best boxers I've ever seen, but if he got into MMA and took it seriously, after a while I think he would realize MMA is not boxing, there's a lot of other things you have to worry about, and he would become a very different kind of puncher after a while. After a while, it might somewhat resemble the styles of a lot of MMA fighters who people like to say couldn't be a champion boxer.

I agree with you that MMA and boxing should not be compared. just replying to NamRanger who thinks Fedor could take on a pro-boxer..

but yes Fedor has a decent left-hook as well, he has decent stand up skills, but the guys trying to compare him to a boxer is overrating him seriously..

boxers do know they dont stand a chance agains MMA-fighters, they can only use one tool where the MMA-fighters uses the whole toolbox.

DynastyFury
10-27-2009, 12:49 AM
This may be old but...
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/sportSkills

:neutral: Interpret as you will.

DynastyFury
10-27-2009, 12:54 AM
nvm, someone already posted this... but meh I believe the notion there are some things you just can't compare. It's all the way you look at it, so I wouldn't think there's an definitive answer.

zagor
10-27-2009, 01:02 AM
I agree with you that MMA and boxing should not be compared. just replying to NamRanger who thinks Fedor could take on a pro-boxer..

but yes Fedor has a decent left-hook as well, he has decent stand up skills, but the guys trying to compare him to a boxer is overrating him seriously..

boxers do know they dont stand a chance agains MMA-fighters, they can only use one tool where the MMA-fighters uses the whole toolbox.

Really? Is that why some of them run their mouths how MMA fighters are inferior and how they're stupid animals(or whatever arrogant jerk Mayweaher called them).

I think you underrate Fedor's stand-up skills a bit,the guy more than held his own in stand-up against Crocop and he's pretty good stand up fighter who had success in K-1 in his younger days.His bread and butter is ground and pound and takedown but he's very adaptable and pretty complete fighter.IMO with some extra boxing training he could be able to hold his own against some pro boxers,not saying he would win much but I think he could make it competitive.

big bang
10-27-2009, 01:20 AM
Really? Is that why some of them run their mouths how MMA fighters are inferior and how they're stupid animals(or whatever arrogant jerk Mayweaher called them).

I think you underrate Fedor's stand-up skills a bit,the guy more than held his own in stand-up against Crocop and he's pretty good stand up fighter who had success in K-1 in his younger days.His bread and butter is ground and pound and takedown but he's very adaptable and pretty complete fighter.IMO with some extra boxing training he could be able to hold his own against some pro boxers,not saying he would win much but I think he could make it competitive.

Mayweather is all mouth like many US fighters..
Tyson used to come and hang with Tito Ortiz when he was at his peak, even he said in an interview that he wouldnt last 1 minute against Tito and there is a lot of fighters who are way better than Tito ever where.

But because Fedor can stand up against Cro Cop doesnt mean anything, are you comparing Cro Cop to pro-boxers now?? yes he had success in K-1 but that has nothing to do with boxing.. Cro Cop is a great striker, but no boxer, big difference!

35ft6
10-27-2009, 01:42 AM
^ I pretty much agree that Fedor wouldn't be a force in boxing. A lot of his most effective punches wouldn't even work with boxing gloves. Like that hook where he hits the guy with the side of his fist, almost with his clenched thumb. But did you see the Vitali Klitschko fight? That was some boring sloppy stuff. I actually think Arlovski might do well against Chris Arreola. Call me crazy.

big bang
10-27-2009, 02:08 AM
^ I pretty much agree that Fedor wouldn't be a force in boxing. A lot of his most effective punches wouldn't even work with boxing gloves. Like that hook where he hits the guy with the side of his fist, almost with his clenched thumb. But did you see the Vitali Klitschko fight? That was some boring sloppy stuff. I actually think Arlovski might do well against Chris Arreola. Call me crazy.

Fedor would most likely get disqualified in boxing, he swings like a brawler not a boxer..

yes I saw Vitali vs Arreola, it was like watching Vitali sparring. Arreola had no business in that ring, its a disgrace he could even be considered a contender, the HW-division is really poor these days:(
I live in Denmark and have to sit up all night to watch the big fights in US, in the Tyson-era I never missed a fight HW was just so exiting at that time, but since then its gone downhill all the way, very sad.

today I enjoy other divisions way more than HW, a few years ago midleweight was very exiting, but many of the big names either retired or moved up in weight. light-HW has been very competitive too, but got the same issues right now, it hurts me to see a brilliant fighter as RJJ destroy his own legacy the way he has done the last couple of years, thats not how he should be remembered..
the most exiting and compeditive division is by far super-middleweight, so many good fighters there. the super-six tournament is the most exiting thing that has happened in boxing for many years. it makes it even more exiting that my good friend Kessler is in it:)

zagor
10-27-2009, 04:57 AM
Mayweather is all mouth like many US fighters..
Tyson used to come and hang with Tito Ortiz when he was at his peak, even he said in an interview that he wouldnt last 1 minute against Tito and there is a lot of fighters who are way better than Tito ever where.

But because Fedor can stand up against Cro Cop doesnt mean anything, are you comparing Cro Cop to pro-boxers now?? yes he had success in K-1 but that has nothing to do with boxing.. Cro Cop is a great striker, but no boxer, big difference!

So you think Fedor wouldn't be even able to hang with some pro boxers? I'm not saying win the fight but make it competitive for a while.I realize it's a different sport but with some training Fedor should be able to give some of those guys a good match.

big bang
10-27-2009, 05:59 AM
So you think Fedor wouldn't be even able to hang with some pro boxers? I'm not saying win the fight but make it competitive for a while.I realize it's a different sport but with some training Fedor should be able to give some of those guys a good match.

no he wouldnt, they would make him look a caveman..
any pro-boxer would see his punches before he even threw them.
as a boxingcoach and former boxer/MMA-fighter I can tell you that for sure.
any other place than the boxingring Fedor would kill them, they wouldnt land more than a single punch.

thai and kick-boxers practice and uses their boxing much more than MMA-fighters. A good friend of mine who is the nordic light heavyweight champ in muay thai sometimes come to tune his boxing skills at our club, hes strong and very fast and in extremely good condition, but still he doesnt stand a chance against a amateur light heavyweight we have who is only ranked 6 in Denmark. hes a beast in muay thai, but doesnt have the boxingskills to compete against the top amateur-fighters..
there is so much more to boxing than most ppl think..

borg number one
10-27-2009, 06:43 AM
I don't think those MMA guys could swing the racquet around to win points and last five sets running around against Borg on red clay to win a 5 set FO final.

For example:
Borg-Lendl (81 French Open)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kW4z0FnUz4o

Azzurri
10-27-2009, 08:42 AM
Fedor can compete in Sambo because its what he trained all his life.. he then added the submission game to his basic training, and because he is stronger than most ju jitsu fighters he can submit them. Fedor also got the most brutal ground and pound game in MMA. his biggest strenghts is wrestling, submission and a brutal ground and pound game.

when an opponent faces Fedor in MMA, they know its very dangerous if he takes the fight to the ground, that draws their attention away from his striking game.
most punches Fedor lands is overhand-rights when he ducks down like hes going for a takedown, the opponent lowers his hands to protect himself from being taken down, but then Fedor swings his righthand and hits his unprotected chin and the opponent is rocked and goes down. Fedor will then either go for a quick submission or simply ground and pound him.
very simple way to fight if you posses the ground-skills of Fedor..

But Fedors striking game is way overrated and cannot be compared to boxing, he wouldnt even know what to do in a boxingmatch.
he doesnt move like a boxer or punch like a boxer and it would take a long time for him to learn to. but he would never have any business against a pro-boxer. Fedor with his present boxingskills wouldnt even land a single punch against a top-boxer of his weight-division..

many of his opponents in MMA get caught by surprise when he lands a punch, when he attack you dont know whats comming because all his attacks comes from the same position, they dont know if hes going for a takedown(and thats the opponents biggest fear), a punch or a kick(which is very rare for Fedor). they have to react in a split-second and choose what to protect against. Fedor is very good at disguising his attack.

in boxing Fedors biggest weapons is gone and his opponent know he will try to punch. the boxer trains everyday all year to perfect his defence and attack and would have no trouble at all counter-punching or ducking every Fedor attack, he would be like an open book for them..

I thought you left Internet Tough Guy. don't make statements like that and then come back...makes you look weak.

treo
10-27-2009, 09:07 AM
Two scientific studies showed that MX racers are the best athletes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motocross

The National Athletic Health Institute in Inglewood, California tested several professional motocross racers in September 1979 as part of a comparative study of the cardio-vascular, muscle endurance, and flexibility fitness of athletes from various disciplines. Athletes from track, American football, pro basketball and soccer were tested, among others. As a group, the motocross riders tested to a higher overall fitness level than any group tested. Motocross racers get their heart rate up to around 180 to 190 beats per minute and hold it there for about 35 minutes. These riders do this twice per day (original article appeared in Cycle magazine in early 1980. A subsequent study by the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center's Sports Performance Complex in 2002 reconfirmed the result with more recent motocross racers. The intense physical demand of motocross derives from the fact that the racer of the bike must keep complete control of a 200 lb (91 kg) or heavier bike, while also maintaining their top speed throughout the race.

Most of you won't believe this, but most you have not ridden motocross.

big bang
10-27-2009, 09:46 AM
I thought you left Internet Tough Guy. don't make statements like that and then come back...makes you look weak.

back in your box little troll!

Azzurri
10-27-2009, 09:56 AM
back in your box little troll!

maybe I will, you are after all a Internet Tough Guy.

NonP
10-27-2009, 10:00 AM
Well, big bang, much as I scoff at these cross-sport comparisons, I must say I've been enjoying your firsthand accounts of the boxing and MMA circles. Now let me flip the question and ask you this: Is there any boxer who you think would succeed or at least fare decently in MMA? If so, who and why?

big bang
10-27-2009, 10:10 AM
maybe I will, you are after all a Internet Tough Guy.

you are the only one with no actual interest in this thread, why are you here?? most ppl in this thread do seem to have an interest in the differences between boxing and MMA, but you just keep trolling.
dont you have better things to do in your life besides trolling?

longst
10-27-2009, 10:12 AM
The boxer wouldn't win a point, but it sure as hell beats getting your head punched in.

Ultimately this argument is just as idiotic as all those GOAT discussions that pervade this message board.

Perhaps the real test is how well a sportsman would be able to compete in other sports. Given that tennis players need speed, endurance, eye hand coordination, mental toughness, maybe they would do well in most sports


I agree this is a stupid thread

big bang
10-27-2009, 11:03 AM
Well, big bang, much as I scoff at these cross-sport comparisons, I must say I've been enjoying your firsthand accounts of the boxing and MMA circles. Now let me flip the question and ask you this: Is there any boxer who you think would succeed or at least fare decently in MMA? If so, who and why?

some boxers might be able to make the transition to MMA, it depends on many different things as: do the have some experience with other combatsports earlier in their life, if they did some for example muay thai, wrestling ju jitsu they sure have an edge. if they can learn to kick proberly they would have the standup skills needed. but still its very difficult to learn the rest of the game like takedown defence and the whole groundgame..
it would take a long time for a boxer to learn how to react when being attacked and how to attack in different ways and not try to box the opponent.

there is many different styles in MMA, in the early years you saw one-dimensional fighters, the first hybrid was Ken Shamrock. today most fighters are complete and if you are not you get punished.l

like I said before Vitor Belfort was a very good boxer and still is, but what makes him great in MMA besides his boxingskills is his great takedown defence and the fact that hes a black belt in brazillian ju jitsu, so if the fight goes to the ground he know exactly what to do, he have decent submission skills as well although he rarely uses them.

Chuck Lidell is another fighter with a great stand up game, he is not like a boxer in anyways but hits and kicks very hard. hes groundgame is nothing compared to the rest but he rarely gets taken down because he got very good takedown defence. he is a very patient fighter and got no problem waiting for his chance to land a bomb.

Cro Cop is another fighter and have pretty much the same strenghts as Lidell, the difference is that Cro Cop is way more aggresive and sometimes gets taken down because of this.. not that they fight the same way, but their strenghts is the same.

thats just some of the fighters with great stand up skill, but back to your question..
If a boxer can learn some of the skills these 3 fighters have, they might be able to make it in MMA but it will take a long time.
I cant name any boxers who would be able to learn MMA for sure, just because you are a talented boxer doesnt mean you can learn to fight MMA.
but you have an big advantage if you are a bit of a bad boy like Tyson and many latino fighters, when you grew up in the streets you can fight pretty well and that would make it easier for you..

NonP
10-27-2009, 11:24 AM
some boxers might be able to make the transition to MMA, it depends on many different things as: do the have some experience with other combatsports earlier in their life, if they did some for example muay thai, wrestling ju jitsu they sure have an edge. if they can learn to kick proberly they would have the standup skills needed. but still its very difficult to learn the rest of the game like takedown defence and the whole groundgame..
it would take a long time for a boxer to learn how to react when being attacked and how to attack in different ways and not try to box the opponent.

there is many different styles in MMA, in the early years you saw one-dimensional fighters, the first hybrid was Ken Shamrock. today most fighters are complete and if you are not you get punished.l

like I said before Vitor Belfort was a very good boxer and still is, but what makes him great in MMA besides his boxingskills is his great takedown defence and the fact that hes a black belt in brazillian ju jitsu, so if the fight goes to the ground he know exactly what to do, he have decent submission skills as well although he rarely uses them.

Chuck Lidell is another fighter with a great stand up game, he is not like a boxer in anyways but hits and kicks very hard. hes groundgame is nothing compared to the rest but he rarely gets taken down because he got very good takedown defence. he is a very patient fighter and got no problem waiting for his chance to land a bomb.

Cro Cop is another fighter and have pretty much the same strenghts as Lidell, the difference is that Cro Cop is way more aggresive and sometimes gets taken down because of this.. not that they fight the same way, but their strenghts is the same.

thats just some of the fighters with great stand up skill, but back to your question..
If a boxer can learn some of the skills these 3 fighters have, they might be able to make it in MMA but it will take a long time.
I cant name any boxers who would be able to learn MMA for sure, just because you are a talented boxer doesnt mean you can learn to fight MMA.
but you have an big advantage if you are a bit of a bad boy like Tyson and many latino fighters, when you grew up in the streets you can fight pretty well and that would make it easier for you..

Gotcha. Thanks for the input.

JoshDragon
10-27-2009, 11:33 AM
Let me clarify. The reason I disagree with Sampras (asides from his arrogant comments lately) is that the biggest assets in tennis are not athleticism, unlike other sports. I was always considered athletic, and I started playing football in high school in 9th grade. I only really practiced during the season and did a little bit of conditioning during the off-season. By 12th grade I was first team all-area and honorable mention all-state as an outside linebacker. I was a good athlete in football and also was always one of the first-picked in the the various games/sports we played in gym class.

I played tennis for 6 years as a weekend warrior and then joined USTA and was only a 3.0! The difference between tennis and these other sports was that tennis required so many other attributes outside of pure athleticism. Because these other attributes are so crucial to success in tennis, it doesn't give you that much of an advantage to be the best athlete on the court as it is to be the best tactician, most consistent, and/or mentally strongest player on the court. Otherwise Monfils would probably be in the top 5. I have spent more time developing my individual tennis shots than I have spent playing all other sports combined probably in my life, yet I would probably be more successful in a handful of other sports right now if I devoted time to them because they are less about skill and more about athleticism.

Good post, although I am a bit surprised to hear that you were only a 3.0 after playing weekend tennis for 6 years. Usually it doesn't take more than a few years to move up to a 3.5, even if you're not playing all the time.

Datacipher
10-27-2009, 04:06 PM
I played tennis for 6 years as a weekend warrior and then joined USTA and was only a 3.0! The difference between tennis and these other sports was that tennis required so many other attributes outside of pure athleticism. Because these other attributes are so crucial to success in tennis, it doesn't give you that much of an advantage to be the best athlete on the court as it is to be the best tactician, most consistent, and/or mentally strongest player on the court. Otherwise Monfils would probably be in the top 5. I have spent more time developing my individual tennis shots than I have spent playing all other sports combined probably in my life, yet I would probably be more successful in a handful of other sports right now if I devoted time to them because they are less about skill and more about athleticism.

Ugh...this guy again. (the problem with you Raiden is that you've demonstrated your ignorance of the game over and over and over eg. i hit shots just like the pros, but the pros shots are winners because their opponents don't try as hard to get them....etc) Yet, you insist on spouting your opinion as if it's well-informed!

However, I think your post is quite correct however at the rec. level. Technique is much more important at that level, tennis is a high-skill activity but ALSO a very athletic sport. However, athleticism does not become the limiting factor until you achieve a high-level of skill/technique. At the open level, it really starts to become a factor. When I trained juniors, the athleticism is what I looked at, the rest can be learned with motivation and good coaching and sheer time/discipline. Ultimately though, for hotshot juniors, there will come a time when their athletic ability starts to become a very serious factor.

Datacipher
10-27-2009, 04:12 PM
Fedor would not have any chance at all in pro boxing? You've got to be kidding me right? Fedor can go toe to toe with nearly every guy in a stand-up fight. You've got to be kidding me.



You do realize Cro Cop competed in K1 and did fairly well.




Let's not even talk about if the boxers were put into a MMA fight against one of them. It would just be total annihilation.

???!?!!? Wow.....wow. If you think k1 competitors are at the highest world-class boxing standards......wow. Freakin butterbean is an excellent boxer by k1 standards.

WHAT is it people are missing here? Why can you namranger not understand what I'm saying over and over. MMA IS NOT AT A WORLD CLASS ATHLETIC LEVEL YET. You can disagree or agree, but you certainly can't dispute it by comparing mma fighters to mma fighters. Do you understand this??

Datacipher
10-27-2009, 04:22 PM
I'm not following what's going on. Does Datacipher mean Fedor can't last 15 rounds? If that is what he means, probably not. Fedor isn't the best stand-up fighter, but he's pretty damn good. A professional boxer would have an edge, yes. However, that's under professional boxing rules, where it's pure stand up fighting. However, I could list several MMA fighters in the world who can go toe to toe with any professional boxer in a stand up fight. We switch it over to MMA and any professional boxer in the world has no chance in hell of beating Fedor.

Now I'm sure you're confused. I never mentioned endurance once, and I was not referring to it any way. I think mma fighters are well conditioned. Conditioning, has little to do with athleticism,, unless you are talking about a sport in which the entire game is endurance, eg. running, cycling etc. (although even then, conditioning/training has nothing to do with potential)

And no. Against a great heavyweight boxer, Fedor would get slaughtered. Sorry. If he could even have a "chance" as you say. He should go box. With his name, and with the curioristy factor (not to mention there has always been more money in world-class heavyweight boxing), he could make more in one night, than he has in his entire career. AND he'd have NOTHING to lose, if he lost, he'd just say "well I'm not a boxer!" I am sure he would know better than to try this though. He shouldnt' even box 93 yr old, 200lb overweight ray mercer, sylvia found that out!

I'm afraid you're very very misguided about mma and boxing. Again, if ANY mma competitor thought he could be a world-class boxer, he should switch NOW. He can fight, 10x less, make more money, and mma will still be there when he get's on in years, and can't stay at the top of boxing. But seriously, this is a laughable premise.

Azzurri
10-27-2009, 04:30 PM
you are the only one with no actual interest in this thread, why are you here?? most ppl in this thread do seem to have an interest in the differences between boxing and MMA, but you just keep trolling.
dont you have better things to do in your life besides trolling?

this is a tennis forum and this thread is about tennis. YOU and I are in violation. but maybe I should go, you are the Internet Tough Guy.

oh, boxing is boring..no one cares about it anymore. get over it. and don't maske silly immature, childish threats (you were supposed to leave...correct?).

raiden031
10-27-2009, 06:22 PM
Good post, although I am a bit surprised to hear that you were only a 3.0 after playing weekend tennis for 6 years. Usually it doesn't take more than a few years to move up to a 3.5, even if you're not playing all the time.

Yeah I was a 3.0 for 6 years because I played the game without really learning it. Once I started learning the game I jumped up to about a low 4.0 within the next 2-3 years.

raiden031
10-27-2009, 06:27 PM
Ugh...this guy again. (the problem with you Raiden is that you've demonstrated your ignorance of the game over and over and over eg. i hit shots just like the pros, but the pros shots are winners because their opponents don't try as hard to get them....etc) Yet, you insist on spouting your opinion as if it's well-informed!


I can't help if you are going to hang on to an old thread that you clearly did not understand. What I claim I can do and how I say I perceive things are two different things. I was simply acknowledging that tennis is a deceptive sport in that you cannot tell how good someone is really without stepping on the court with them. I have watched pros live and I don't see anything magic about their games. They look good but they don't look unbeatable. Even so, I don't claim I could compete with them. I would still get double bageled. How does this make me ignorant? There are hundreds of posters on this board who claim they are a 4.5+ player because they can hit a hard forehand without having any competitive experience, yet you latch on to me as if I'm some ignorant fool here?

And yes there might be differences between rec players and pros, but its still the same sport. When I play tennis I rarely ever get tired unless I'm playing for like 3+ hours. Players below 4.5 can rarely hit winners against me because I can retrieve anything. I usually lose because my opponents are more consistent than me. So no matter how athletic I am, its not going to help my lack of skill. I know at the pro level that skill is more highly developed so the other things matter more, but still I think the combination of several things like tactics, skill, mental toughness, individual weapons, etc. make a bigger difference than athleticism. And this is not to say that athleticism doesn't matter, but that the claim cannot be made that tennis players are the best athletes of all sports, because other sports put more emphasis on athleticism and less on skill than tennis does.

NamRanger
10-27-2009, 07:15 PM
???!?!!? Wow.....wow. If you think k1 competitors are at the highest world-class boxing standards......wow. Freakin butterbean is an excellent boxer by k1 standards.

WHAT is it people are missing here? Why can you namranger not understand what I'm saying over and over. MMA IS NOT AT A WORLD CLASS ATHLETIC LEVEL YET. You can disagree or agree, but you certainly can't dispute it by comparing mma fighters to mma fighters. Do you understand this??




I dare you to put the most world's athletic person in the ring against Fedor and see what happens. Kevin Randleman was probably one of the most athletic people in the world, period, and Fedor barred him into submission.



If you think Fedor, the guy who went toe to toe with CroCop in a stand up fight for the majority of the match (and then finally got the take down he wanted), can't box, I'm sorry. You're freaking crazy. Fedor certainly isn't going to be heavy weight champion, but if you tell me that if you gave Fedor 6 months to train he couldn't become a solid boxer, you're crazy.

NamRanger
10-27-2009, 07:18 PM
^ I pretty much agree that Fedor wouldn't be a force in boxing. A lot of his most effective punches wouldn't even work with boxing gloves. Like that hook where he hits the guy with the side of his fist, almost with his clenched thumb. But did you see the Vitali Klitschko fight? That was some boring sloppy stuff. I actually think Arlovski might do well against Chris Arreola. Call me crazy.



Arlovski? Hit him in the chin once and it's over :(


Granted, it's hard to do that since the dude has insane strike speed.

Datacipher
10-27-2009, 07:50 PM
I dare you to put the most world's athletic person in the ring against Fedor and see what happens. Kevin Randleman was probably one of the most athletic people in the world, period, and Fedor barred him into submission.



If you think Fedor, the guy who went toe to toe with CroCop in a stand up fight for the majority of the match (and then finally got the take down he wanted), can't box, I'm sorry. You're freaking crazy. Fedor certainly isn't going to be heavy weight champion, but if you tell me that if you gave Fedor 6 months to train he couldn't become a solid boxer, you're crazy.

O....K....you clearly have serious comprehension problems that are so severe, we cannot discus this:
1.you are STILL using other mma fighters to benchmark Fedor's athleticism, showing that you STILL do not understand what I am saying, despite explicit elaboration

2.putting an "athletic" person in the ring to have an mma fight with Fedor??? WTF??? I have no idea what this argument is even ATTEMPTING to address. NO "athletic" person will do well against a pro athlete in a sport which is not theirs. BIZARRE.

I can certainly see how you have such strange ideas. You are obviously1 not following even the basic discussion. This is just as non sequitur as your strange comments about whether I was talking about "endurance". (which, as I pointed out, I never referenced in any way)

PS. I am actually quite heartened to see that many on this board can see the same thing I'm referring to about MMA. Actually a lot of athletes I talk to anecdotally, fans and non-fans of mma, also acknowledge this! Again, it will take both time and money, but MMA will get those elite athletes eventually. (I am also perversely glad to see that some who don't understand this are clearly.....challenged! ;-)

Datacipher
10-27-2009, 07:57 PM
I can't help if you are going to hang on to an old thread that you clearly did not understand. What I claim I can do and how I say I perceive things are two different things. I was simply acknowledging that tennis is a deceptive sport in that you cannot tell how good someone is really without stepping on the court with them. I have watched pros live and I don't see anything magic about their games. They look good but they don't look unbeatable. Even so, I don't claim I could compete with them. I would still get double bageled. How does this make me ignorant? There are hundreds of posters on this board who claim they are a 4.5+ player because they can hit a hard forehand without having any competitive experience, yet you latch on to me as if I'm some ignorant fool here?.

No, that is not all you claimed. The thread is still right there for anyone to read.


And yes there might be differences between rec players and pros, but its still the same sport. When I play tennis I rarely ever get tired unless I'm playing for like 3+ hours..

Perfect. This is another illustration of another dimension in which pro/amateur tennis differs. I guarantee that a pro could have you barfing on court very quickly, if you really can "retrieve anything". Just as with athleticism, conditioning is often not a crucial deciding factor at low level amateur tennis. However, like athleticism, it will become a limiting factor eventually.



Players below 4.5 can rarely hit winners against me because I can retrieve anything. I usually lose because my opponents are more consistent than me. So no matter how athletic I am, its not going to help my lack of skill. I know at the pro level that skill is more highly developed so the other things matter more, but still I think the combination of several things like tactics, skill, mental toughness, individual weapons, etc. make a bigger difference than athleticism. And this is not to say that athleticism doesn't matter, but that the claim cannot be made that tennis players are the best athletes of all sports, because other sports put more emphasis on athleticism and less on skill than tennis does.

Nope. Here is where your argument is completely irrational. The first lines are fine, they are restatements of what I said about tennis having a high skill component.

" And this is not to say that athleticism doesn't matter, but that the claim cannot be made that tennis players are the best athletes of all sports, because other sports put more emphasis on athleticism and less on skill than tennis does"

READ YOUR LAST LINE AGAIN. Do you see how ridiculous it is? It's nonsensical. It does not follow. If you mean something else, perhaps rephrase it.

big bang
10-27-2009, 11:12 PM
this is a tennis forum and this thread is about tennis. YOU and I are in violation. but maybe I should go, you are the Internet Tough Guy.

oh, boxing is boring..no one cares about it anymore. get over it. and don't maske silly immature, childish threats (you were supposed to leave...correct?).

this is a thread about athletes if you havent noticed?
first of all I didnt make this thread, Sampras claimed that tennis players where the greatest.. I didnt start the boxing/MMA comparrison, but if ppl dont understand what they are talking about I better explain.

stop this BS I have no interest talking to trolls..

big bang
10-27-2009, 11:42 PM
I dare you to put the most world's athletic person in the ring against Fedor and see what happens. Kevin Randleman was probably one of the most athletic people in the world, period, and Fedor barred him into submission.



If you think Fedor, the guy who went toe to toe with CroCop in a stand up fight for the majority of the match (and then finally got the take down he wanted), can't box, I'm sorry. You're freaking crazy. Fedor certainly isn't going to be heavy weight champion, but if you tell me that if you gave Fedor 6 months to train he couldn't become a solid boxer, you're crazy.

well Fedor is superior compared to Randleman, much more skilled and complete as a fighter, thats why he beats him.

you keep bringing Cro Cop up, do you think you can compare him to a boxer then?
what dont you understand about boxing? just because you can throw punches doesnt mean you can box..I suggest you try asking this question on boxing-scene or eastsideboxing or any other forum and ppl will tell you exactly the same as I did.

how about this to compare: 2 guys both work out at the local gym, every day for many years they train hard. the first guy only do benchpresses and is one of the best in this dicipline.
the second guy train every muscle and is one of the strongest, suddently he wants to compete in benchpress. you think he could beat the other guy within 6 months??

another one then about tennis: one guy only train serves he spends many hours aday for many years.
the other guy trains the same amount of time but trains every stroke in the book. you think he could learn to serve as great as the first guy within 6 months?

both examples would be much easier than going from MMA to boxing.
there is a lot more to boxing, the punches are very different from MMA and the footwork and bodymovement is very different and takes many years to perfect.. nobody will ever be able to take on a pro-boxer in 6 months no matter what your background is..

Datacipher
10-28-2009, 12:18 AM
not trying to insult you but you clearly dont know much about boxing..
I was one of the top amateur boxers in Denmark once and I have never met any MMA-fighter who would even get close of winning one round of boxing against me. and I met some pretty sick fighters along the way..

MMA-fighters can throw punches no doubt about that, but they cant box..
Fedor would never get close of winning in boxing, he doesnt have the skills, talent or technique..

I have known a couple pro boxers, was the athletic trainer for a boxing club, train in mma myself, and now, an acquaintance just got signed with the UFC (really happy for him). And you're spot on. Some top mma fighters certainly have the raw ability to be good amateurs! (though most are lacking the skills/training/experienced), and some are. A few could even be decent low-level pros. There's nobody close in MMA yet, with the hand speed, foot speed, eye-hand and reflexes, or training to be a top pro boxer. This shouldn't even be a question....

big bang
10-28-2009, 12:42 AM
I have known a couple pro boxers, was the athletic trainer for a boxing club, train in mma myself, and now, an acquaintance just got signed with the UFC (really happy for him). And you're spot on. Some top mma fighters certainly have the raw ability to be good amateurs! (though most are lacking the skills/training/experienced), and some are. A few could even be decent low-level pros. There's nobody close in MMA yet, with the hand speed, foot speed, eye-hand and reflexes, or training to be a top pro boxer. This shouldn't even be a question....

we seem to have similar backgrounds Datacipher, I have trained a few of the danish pro-boxers and a lot of good amateur boxers over the years. several MMA-fighters and thai/kick boxers have been sparring in my club and none of them could hang with our best amateur boxers.
I agree with you that some of the MMA-fighters have the raw ability to be good boxers and if they had started boxing at a early age they probably would have done pretty well.
some ppl think that if you can throw bombs like Fedor you can box, but there is just so much more to boxing than just throw punches. I guess you have to some kind of experience/knowledge of boxing/MMA before you can understand it..

Azzurri
10-28-2009, 03:28 AM
this is a thread about athletes if you havent noticed?
first of all I didnt make this thread, Sampras claimed that tennis players where the greatest.. I didnt start the boxing/MMA comparrison, but if ppl dont understand what they are talking about I better explain.

stop this BS I have no interest talking to trolls..

maybe you should find a boxing/mma forum. this is a tennis forum.

big bang
10-28-2009, 04:44 AM
maybe you should find a boxing/mma forum. this is a tennis forum.

maybe you should try get a life and stop trolling. this is a thread about athletes..

nfor304
10-28-2009, 05:14 AM
I dare you to put the most world's athletic person in the ring against Fedor and see what happens. Kevin Randleman was probably one of the most athletic people in the world, period, and Fedor barred him into submission.



If you think Fedor, the guy who went toe to toe with CroCop in a stand up fight for the majority of the match (and then finally got the take down he wanted), can't box, I'm sorry. You're freaking crazy. Fedor certainly isn't going to be heavy weight champion, but if you tell me that if you gave Fedor 6 months to train he couldn't become a solid boxer, you're crazy.

How does beating some untrained athlete in a fight make fedor a better athlete?

MMA guys might be up there as some of the strongest, most powerful/explosive guys (though I doubt they would be stronger or more powerful than olympic weight lifters), but they certainly are not the fastest, most coordinated, most flexible, quickest, best endurance athletes.

Azzurri
10-28-2009, 06:17 AM
maybe you should try get a life and stop trolling. this is a thread about athletes..

I think you have said enough about BOXING on a tennis forum. You do realize this is in the GENERAL PRO PLAYER DISCUSSION???? If you want to talk about a dead sport (boxing), go to the odds/ends. But this discussion should be tennis related, you have gone far off the path.

big bang
10-28-2009, 06:54 AM
I think you have said enough about BOXING on a tennis forum. You do realize this is in the GENERAL PRO PLAYER DISCUSSION???? If you want to talk about a dead sport (boxing), go to the odds/ends. But this discussion should be tennis related, you have gone far off the path.

do you realize Im not the only one talking boxing and MMA?? if you dont like this discussion go somewhere else theres no need for trolls like you in any forum..

NamRanger
10-28-2009, 07:49 AM
How does beating some untrained athlete in a fight make fedor a better athlete?

MMA guys might be up there as some of the strongest, most powerful/explosive guys (though I doubt they would be stronger or more powerful than olympic weight lifters), but they certainly are not the fastest, most coordinated, most flexible, quickest, best endurance athletes.



"Untrained?" Wow. Because Kevin Randleman's a fat *** right?

Azzurri
10-28-2009, 09:05 AM
do you realize Im not the only one talking boxing and MMA?? if you dont like this discussion go somewhere else theres no need for trolls like you in any forum..

what is it you don't get? enough about boxing.

big bang
10-28-2009, 12:34 PM
what is it you don't get? enough about boxing.

what are you? the new sheriff in town? stop being a troll you jerk..

Azzurri
10-28-2009, 02:06 PM
what are you? the new sheriff in town? stop being a troll you jerk..

ok, you now done with boxing..good. lets discuss athletes and TENNIS.

Datacipher
10-28-2009, 05:20 PM
we seem to have similar backgrounds Datacipher, I have trained a few of the danish pro-boxers and a lot of good amateur boxers over the years. several MMA-fighters and thai/kick boxers have been sparring in my club and none of them could hang with our best amateur boxers.
I agree with you that some of the MMA-fighters have the raw ability to be good boxers and if they had started boxing at a early age they probably would have done pretty well.
some ppl think that if you can throw bombs like Fedor you can box, but there is just so much more to boxing than just throw punches. I guess you have to some kind of experience/knowledge of boxing/MMA before you can understand it..

Well....I think it helps if you have high level experience...especially coaching/evaluating. Most people, (as demonstrated here) even avid fans, are totally unable to evaluate an athlete. Often, they simply think the bigger more "ripped" guy is the greater athlete! In other cases, they fall into the illusion (this one is more tempting), of judging the person only by those around him. This would be like saying, WOW, that guy must have a 150+mph serve like Roddick...not realizing it's because his 110mph serve just looks that way compared to all the 80mph serves around him.

Even boxing fans can be like this. It reminds me of the time I went with a couple boxing coaches and a couple astute fans to watch Gatti/Mayweather at a pub. Well, the obvious consensus between us was: man this is going to be a massacre! Well at the pub, all the avid fans were salivating, awaiting the opposite. You see they were Gatti fanboys, (he was IMMENSELY popular here), and their general consensus was: the warrior Gatti will beat up the prettyboy! Well we had heated arguments about it during the undercard, with me telling our new acquaintances that they were on crack, barring a miracle, it really doesn't matter how much of a warrior you are, if the other guy has twice your handspeed, faster feet, quicker reflexes, better technique.....well...

Gatti and Ward are going to be two of the more athletic guys in your region! Bonner and Griffin are going to be two of the more athletic guys in your city! But, the top pro boxers? They're elite. Griffin has as much chance in a boxing match with Lennox Lewis (I'm not talking about weight here) as he does running the 100m at the Olympics, but MMA is still a very young and undeveloped sport where a guy like Griffin, who is tough, can train for 4 or 5 years and then have a wildly succesful career at the "top"! That's an example of what I'm referring to, when talking about the general level. But, as we both agree, some of the most talented MMA fighters would have had some chance at pro boxing had they started at a young age, many though, would never have. A guy like Griffing? I can't imagine him going pro in ANYTHING else, even had he started at age 5.

But anyways, I digress wildly. I think anyone with a good eye for athleticism can see it. Years ago, I went to a univserity volleyball match. While having a friend explain to me the scoring(that's how clueless I was), I immediately said "that girl is a fantastic athlete!", he was puzzled as she hadn't done anything spectacular. But I could see, her balance, footwork, the ease with which she was casually jumping on the serve, her ability to improvise with her hands....now that girl is going pro in beach volleyball! I dont' say that to toot my own horn, I think many good coaches would see that instantly...but the vast majority of people would not. (note: she was by far the SHORTEST person out there!)

Conquistador
10-28-2009, 05:31 PM
Sampras is and always is trying to create controversy. Sampras has been known to be excessivly arrogant and also a pompous individual. For him to say tennis players are the best athletes is ludacris. I am one of the best athletes in the region on the tennis court and I for one can name tons of athletes around me on the football field and the basketball court that would make me look weak. Pete is being disreprespectful once again to the likes of Usain Bolt, Lebron James, and cristiano ronaldos of the world. Pete is trying to back up the claim of what he once was. In other words Sampras is trying to boost his ego because Federer has passed him up. Thats probally the truth whether you or I like it or not--thats what Pete is doing. NBA players are better athletes, NFL players are better athletes, and so are boxers and MMA fighters. Thats how it is--its not my bias opinion it is fact. I play tennis and am not bias--i never will be, fact is fact. Tennis players are not the best athletes.

big bang
10-28-2009, 05:53 PM
Well....I think it helps if you have high level experience...especially coaching/evaluating. Most people, (as demonstrated here) even avid fans, are totally unable to evaluate an athlete. Often, they simply think the bigger more "ripped" guy is the greater athlete! In other cases, they fall into the illusion (this one is more tempting), of judging the person only by those around him. This would be like saying, WOW, that guy must have a 150+mph serve like Roddick...not realizing it's because his 110mph serve just looks that way compared to all the 80mph serves around him.

Even boxing fans can be like this. It reminds me of the time I went with a couple boxing coaches and a couple astute fans to watch Gatti/Mayweather at a pub. Well, the obvious consensus between us was: man this is going to be a massacre! Well at the pub, all the avid fans were salivating, awaiting the opposite. You see they were Gatti fanboys, (he was IMMENSELY popular here), and their general consensus was: the warrior Gatti will beat up the prettyboy! Well we had heated arguments about it during the undercard, with me telling our new acquaintances that they were on crack, barring a miracle, it really doesn't matter how much of a warrior you are, if the other guy has twice your handspeed, faster feet, quicker reflexes, better technique.....well...

Gatti and Ward are going to be two of the more athletic guys in your region! Bonner and Griffin are going to be two of the more athletic guys in your city! But, the top pro boxers? They're elite. Griffin has as much chance in a boxing match with Lennox Lewis (I'm not talking about weight here) as he does running the 100m at the Olympics, but MMA is still a very young and undeveloped sport where a guy like Griffin, who is tough, can train for 4 or 5 years and then have a wildly succesful career at the "top"! That's an example of what I'm referring to, when talking about the general level. But, as we both agree, some of the most talented MMA fighters would have had some chance at pro boxing had they started at a young age, many though, would never have. A guy like Griffing? I can't imagine him going pro in ANYTHING else, even had he started at age 5.

But anyways, I digress wildly. I think anyone with a good eye for athleticism can see it. Years ago, I went to a univserity volleyball match. While having a friend explain to me the scoring(that's how clueless I was), I immediately said "that girl is a fantastic athlete!", he was puzzled as she hadn't done anything spectacular. But I could see, her balance, footwork, the ease with which she was casually jumping on the serve, her ability to improvise with her hands....now that girl is going pro in beach volleyball! I dont' say that to toot my own horn, I think many good coaches would see that instantly...but the vast majority of people would not. (note: she was by far the SHORTEST person out there!)

Great post! you describe exactly what Im thinking, I just cant describe it the same way as you because of my some how limited English vocabolary:oops:

You are absolutely right about being able to spot a great athlete, I can see it right away, I bet every good coach can.

Yesterday I went to my tennisclub for a hitting session with my friend. I came early and watched some juniors practice, they were around 10-11 years old and all just started with tennis. Right away I spotted a boy named August, not because his technique where better than the rest but because he where very athletic, moved well, had very good balance and where the only one really bending his knees when he hit low balls. He was so concentrated and did his best the intire session, you could see he was a winner.

~ZoSo~
10-29-2009, 12:10 PM
The best mma heavyweight (or whatever top mma weight is called) would be soundly beaten by the best heavyweight boxer under queensbury rules.
And the best heavyweight boxer would be soundly beaten by the best mma heavyweight under mma rules, most likely by the mma fighter taking the boxers legs and finishing fight on the ground.

If mma heavyweight was capable of beating world class boxers under queensbury rules, he would be a boxer instead as there is far more money in boxing.

Back on topic, how does one define best athlete? Its a purely subjective term.

doom
10-29-2009, 04:52 PM
delete 10 chars

Jay_The_Nomad
10-29-2009, 09:30 PM
Those people who say that a non-boxing athlete would be able to last 1 minute against a professional boxer ... really have no idea how long 1 minute in a boxing ring is. Most likely they've never been in a fist fight themselves.

TheNatural
11-05-2009, 03:59 AM
A challenge with a variety of athletic events and skills like the "Rexona Who's Australia's greatest Athlete challenge', which had about 8 different events is the right approach for finding the best all around athlete.Maybe the type of events chosen will favor different types of athletes but then people can still gauge who the best athletes are in different type of athletic events and skills and their strengths and weaknesses by how well they scored in the different events.

The fittest guys are not necessarily amongst the best all around athletes. In the particular challenge above the iron man was relatively hopeless at most events besides his own event.

bertiefactor
11-05-2009, 06:57 AM
us tennis players whether pro or recreational player can be the fittest and strongest athletes amongst the other sports but when we step into the ring or the octagon(mma ring), we would get absolutely destroyed.

it is debatable if tennis players are the best atheletes as exhibited in this thread.

nCode2010
12-16-2009, 12:45 PM
I think martial artists would be the best athletes in the world when you combine all the best attributes:

* hand eye coordination
* physical fitness(low BF%)
* anaerobic and aerobic fitness
* agility
* skill
* speed
* mental toughness

I'd put tennis players right behind them. I'd say that Bruce Lee was the greatest athlete that ever lived.

Tsonga#1fan
12-16-2009, 01:14 PM
pete sampras isn't a "great" athlete.......neither is/was "TIGGER"!!....at least a tennis player is athletic in the way of running, competing against others! "TIGGER'S" so-called downfall cant do nothing but help tennis! Right Martina?

kishnabe
12-17-2009, 07:55 AM
Sorry I am a martial artist and I don't see it rubbing off in my tennis. Tennis atheletes are the most fit since they have great endurance and speed. Martial artist have a lot of speed in their technique but not so much in the movement department except for a few. Still tennis inovolves a mix of everything while martial arts are about reflexes, power, speed, cunningness and the use of the environment! You can't compare both, and tennis to me is the sport with the better athletes. I mean the tennis guys might not beat the martial arts in the ring but the same hold true in the courts of tennis.

nCode2010
12-17-2009, 09:08 AM
I wonder how good Bruce Lee's forehand could have been?