[kerelybonto]

Satori, those 'soccer players do it for ninety minutes without protection' shirts are cool, but running five miles or so in ninety minutes really isn't too difficult. No, I probably couldn't do it, but I could if I trained for it.

Now, I'm not taking anything away from endurance sports. But it is a fact that there is much more you can do to improve endurance than you can do to become faster, quicker, and more agile.

There are two basic muscle types, aptly named Type I and Type II. Type I muscle fibers are called 'slow-twitch' fibers, since they contract more slowly than Type II fibers. They are gained from low-intensity workout, and are high-endurance, oxidative muscles. Distance runners, cyclers, etc, have a very high percentage of Type I muscle fibers.

Type II fibers are very different. Called, 'fast-twitch' because they contract much more quickly than Type I fibers, they come in three types -- IIA, IIB, and IID (I don't know what happened to IIC either). I won't bore you, but IIB fibers are called 'pure' fast muscle, and IIA are 'hybrid' fast muscle. IID is much less common and less understood. (It's kind of a cross-type that can develop into another, but ...) Type II muscle fiber cannot be gained as easily as Type I fiber, and further, training that does build Type II fiber tends to convert IIB to IIA, from 'pure' to 'hybrid.'

Type IIB is actually the more explosive muscle type, and that's where my view of a 'natural' athlete comes in. With enough work, pretty much anyone can gain a lot of Type I or Type IIA muscle. But they will never be able to have as much Type IIB muscle as those people who are genetically given it. (That's percentage-wise, of course. You're not going to be a world-class athlete if you're a lazy ****, even if you're the most naturally gifted guy around.)

So Maurice Greene, Kobe Bryant, Randy Moss -- those are guys who are extremely naturally gifted. Obviously Lance Armstrong and Khalid Khannouchi are exceptionally gifted, too. But for the most part, you can't be like Mike -- but with enough work you might be able to run that marathon in two and half hours.

So anyway, that's my view on that, and that's why I voted basketball.

kerelybonto

 

[Tuberoller]

Quote:

Originally posted by Satori So far people have voted basketball has the best athletes? Come on when the players can go sit on a bench, rest and then come back in to play 12 min. quarters. How bout soccer? Don't they say during a game a player can run between 5 and 10 miles? In 2 45 minute halves, where if you come out, you can't go back in.

This same question was posed to professional atheletes on ESPN's web page and the overwhelming answer was basketball.I mean by a five to one margin.Almost every football player said basketball,only hockey players thought hockey has the best atheletes.If I remember correctly track and field sports came in second and swimming came in third.

 

[Tuberoller]

Quote:

Originally posted by kerelybonto Satori, those 'soccer players do it for ninety minutes without protection' shirts are cool, but running five miles or so in ninety minutes really isn't too difficult. No, I probably couldn't do it, but I could if I trained for it. Now, I'm not taking anything away from endurance sports. But it is a fact that there is much more you can do to improve endurance than you can do to become faster, quicker, and more agile. There are two basic muscle types, aptly named Type I and Type II. Type I muscle fibers are called 'slow-twitch' fibers, since they contract more slowly than Type II fibers. They are gained from low-intensity workout, and are high-endurance, oxidative muscles. Distance runners, cyclers, etc, have a very high percentage of Type I muscle fibers. Type II fibers are very different. Called, 'fast-twitch' because they contract much more quickly than Type I fibers, they come in three types -- IIA, IIB, and IID (I don't know what happened to IIC either). I won't bore you, but IIB fibers are called 'pure' fast muscle, and IIA are 'hybrid' fast muscle. IID is much less common and less understood. (It's kind of a cross-type that can develop into another, but ...) Type II muscle fiber cannot be gained as easily as Type I fiber, and further, training that does build Type II fiber tends to convert IIB to IIA, from 'pure' to 'hybrid.' Type IIB is actually the more explosive muscle type, and that's where my view of a 'natural' athlete comes in. With enough work, pretty much anyone can gain a lot of Type I or Type IIA muscle. But they will never be able to have as much Type IIB muscle as those people who are genetically given it. (That's percentage-wise, of course. You're not going to be a world-class athlete if you're a lazy ****, even if you're the most naturally gifted guy around.) So Maurice Greene, Kobe Bryant, Randy Moss -- those are guys who are extremely naturally gifted. Obviously Lance Armstrong and Khalid Khannouchi are exceptionally gifted, too. But for the most part, you can't be like Mike -- but with enough work you might be able to run that marathon in two and half hours. So anyway, that's my view on that, and that's why I voted basketball. kerelybonto

I could not possibly disagree with this more.I cringe everytime I hear this spewed from the mouth of some venomous sportscaster or wannabe scientist(not you kerelybonto).This has never been scientifically proven and is simply a way for failed athletes and the people like them to explain their failures.This false notion has always completely disgusted me.I admire that you did mention that hard work and training play a part.Athletes are not born, they are built and trained and work at their craft.That muscle fiber science has no realistic basis in athletes and athletics.

 

[kerelybonto]

Tuberoller, it has pretty much been proven. Numerous studies have shown that the top-of-the-top athletes have disproportionate amounts of certain muscle fibers, even in comparison to other athletes in their own sport. I'm not using that as a cop out -- no one should ever use not having the right genes as an excuse, especially since pretty much no one makes it to the level where genes matter anyway. It's definitely not even a consideration for high school athletes or younger.

I played high school football on a team that was nationally ranked all four years I was there. Currently I row collegiately in the most competetive college league in the world. I admit that I'm not a superhuman athlete, but rowing is primarily a training sport, and I can make myself good at it. But on the other hand, I have seen guys who have amazing athletic talents even before any training. I expect to see one guy in particular from my high school football team in the NFL in a few more years. He's just that naturally gifted.

The genetic thing is real. I've seen it. And basketball, of all the sports I've even seen, is the one where you'll find the most guys who just have that gift, where a whole lot of hard work won't help you much if you don't have it. Of course this only applies to the very highest level, but that's where you'll find the best, as the thread title indicated.

kerelybonto

 

[Kubernetes]

Quote:

So Maurice Greene, Kobe Bryant, Randy Moss -- those are guys who are extremely naturally gifted. Obviously Lance Armstrong and Khalid Khannouchi are exceptionally gifted, too. But for the most part, you can't be like Mike -- but with enough work you might be able to run that marathon in two and half hours.

Whatever man. Exceptional cyclists and top runners have two advantages that you can't train for: enormous hearts and huge lung capacities. The latter, at least, is largely genetic. I could train all my life and I will never have the lung capacity of Greg Lemond or Miguel Indurain.

This whole question is impossible to answer. By what criteria do we measure athleticism? Strength, speed, stamina, eye/hand/foot coordination? Michael Jordan may have unmatched speed and coordination on the ball court, but Lance Armstrong can push a bicycle 6+ hours a day for weeks. Who is to say which is the better athlete?

 

[aeberbach]

Nobody mentioned Australian Rules football?

The game is four 25-30 minute quarters. A player has to be able to run flat out for a lot of that time, especially a centre-forward or rover. He has to be able to leap as high as any basketballer to pull down a mark (catch the ball) and be prepared for a knee in the back any time another player wants to do the same while using him for a ladder. He has to be able to kick accurately with either foot for 50+ metres and run fast enough not to get caught while bouncing an oval ball.

On top of all that it's perfectly legal for another player weighing 100kg plus to plant a shoulder into him, unless it's directly in the back and the umpire is watching. Clothesline tackles are banned too but not much else. No pads or other protection is used - maybe a mouthguard, but it's a lot harder to run with a mouthguard. Some players wear helmets but usually only if they're nursing a skull fracture.

Professional wrestlers? Not even close! Tony "Plugger" Lockett could take on any of them. But of course he can't doesn't have the same acting ability.

 

[geom_tol]

Boxing. Not so much heavy weight, the smaller guys are usually alot better conditioned.
12 rounds of dancing around and getting beaten up...

 

[Tuberoller]

Quote:

Originally posted by kerelybonto Tuberoller, it has pretty much been proven. Numerous studies have shown that the top-of-the-top athletes have disproportionate amounts of certain muscle fibers, even in comparison to other athletes in their own sport. I'm not using that as a cop out -- no one should ever use not having the right genes as an excuse, especially since pretty much no one makes it to the level where genes matter anyway. It's definitely not even a consideration for high school athletes or younger. I played high school football on a team that was nationally ranked all four years I was there. Currently I row collegiately in the most competetive college league in the world. I admit that I'm not a superhuman athlete, but rowing is primarily a training sport, and I can make myself good at it. But on the other hand, I have seen guys who have amazing athletic talents even before any training. I expect to see one guy in particular from my high school football team in the NFL in a few more years. He's just that naturally gifted. The genetic thing is real. I've seen it. And basketball, of all the sports I've even seen, is the one where you'll find the most guys who just have that gift, where a whole lot of hard work won't help you much if you don't have it. Of course this only applies to the very highest level, but that's where you'll find the best, as the thread title indicated. kerelybonto

Do you really believe that basketball players are born with the ability to jump?Do you think they come from their mother's womb with the skills required to shoot and block?Do you believe that the human body has evolved over that last 50 years which is the only other way to explain why athletes are bigger,faster,jump higher etc., if that argument or "scientific proof"is held as true.Or,do you believe that the level of competition has increased dramatically forcing athletes to train harder,use performance enhancing drugs,and practice long and hard at what they do?That argument is disrespectful of hard working athletes.If you ever say that to an athlete who has trained all his life to be the best at what he does I'm sure he would be very upset.How can you possibly say that Micheal Jordan was anything other the the best competitor and the hardest working athelte there was?His biggest attribute and the thing that put him head and shoulders above every other player was his burning desire to win.He had no wings,no genectic physical ability to play basketball,and he was no more physically fit than many of his competitors.That muscle type theory has indeed been proven,but the connection to athletic ability has not.this is the same kind of thing that scientists once used to try to prove certian ethnic groups inferior.I think it has no place in sports and like I said it is almost never mentioned due to it's higly offensive nature.You have to face that the fact that when someone is better than you at something,it is because they have spent the time to be so.

 

[kerelybonto]

Nope, sorry Tuberoller. It's very sweet to be all Jeffersonian about it, but not everyone is created equal. Just aren't.

I'm not talking about the 'black guys have an extra leg muscle' myth here. This is real science. I'm also not talking about skill or training differences. As I've repeatedly said, these genetic differences are only going to show up at the highest level, and even then only when everyone's putting in maximum effort. But it's naive -- no, just stupid -- to think that there aren't some guys in the NBDL right now who work just as hard as MJ ever did. What you're arguing is akin to saying there's no height advantage in basketball: 'It doesn't matter if you're a 6'0" center. Just work hard and you can dominate Shaq." I'm not talking about Little League here.

Remember that I'm a rower. My sport is power-endurance, and takes very different qualities than what I've been saying define the 'best' athlete. I am obviously not demeaning the accomplishments of any other type of athlete. But the poll asked which sport contained the 'best' athletes, and that can only mean 'natural athletes,' since, as you've repeatedly stated, it's possible to be highly competetive in many sports without a certain sequence of DNA. But in the upper reaches of sports like basketball, you're not going to be the best, even if you live in the gym, without having that special trait that gives you the potential to outperform the other guy.

kerelybonto

 

[Tuberoller]

Quote:

Originally posted by kerelybonto Nope, sorry Tuberoller. It's very sweet to be all Jeffersonian about it, but not everyone is created equal. Just aren't. I'm not talking about the 'black guys have an extra leg muscle' myth here. This is real science. I'm also not talking about skill or training differences. As I've repeatedly said, these genetic differences are only going to show up at the highest level, and even then only when everyone's putting in maximum effort. But it's naive -- no, just stupid -- to think that there aren't some guys in the NBDL right now who work just as hard as MJ ever did. What you're arguing is akin to saying there's no height advantage in basketball: 'It doesn't matter if you're a 6'0" center. Just work hard and you can dominate Shaq." I'm not talking about Little League here. Remember that I'm a rower. My sport is power-endurance, and takes very different qualities than what I've been saying define the 'best' athlete. I am obviously not demeaning the accomplishments of any other type of athlete. But the poll asked which sport contained the 'best' athletes, and that can only mean 'natural athletes,' since, as you've repeatedly stated, it's possible to be highly competetive in many sports without a certain sequence of DNA. But in the upper reaches of sports like basketball, you're not going to be the best, even if you live in the gym, without having that special trait that gives you the potential to outperform the other guy. kerelybonto

Not stupid, just not in agreement with you.this will continue to be the crutch that inferior athletes use to justify their lack of hard work and desire to win.If you go into a sport believing that there is some guy out there who is gonna be better than you no matter what you do,you ain't ever gonna be the best.That's too bad.I don't believe that and I know that if you trained hard to do so you could indeed be the best.My argument was never simplified to the point where I said height does not matter in basketball that's silly and I never said it or anything like it.You can make your argument without ridiculing mine.I know that there is no real genetic dispostion that causes some to be more athletic than others,it is hard work and desire.If you lack that desire and won't work hard enough to be the best and then said "that guy is better than me cause he was born that way",you would never get the respect that you seek.

 

[kerelybonto]

To paraphrase a wise woman, there exists in our open society the unfortunate phenomenon of the transformation of fact into opinion.

kerelybonto

 

[ai0tron]

Where the **** is BASEBALL you brainwashed dip???

 

[ai0tron]

I VOTE CHESS PLAYERS

If anyone's ever played 5 minute blitz on a high level you'll see that the level of coordination needed to move pieces and slap the clock is beyond any other sport....

uhhh, and the fatigue of playing many games in a row, the fatigue oh the fatigue... Chess players are genetically given fast twitch brain fibers of the type 3c varietee... Some people are just genetically born to play Chess. Sounds silly but it's true, fast twitch brain fibers make it true. Dont distort my truth into opinion... That would be unfortunate, very, very unfortunate.

 

[geom_tol]

Tuberoller:

There is also the 'brain' aspect to sports. Some people are naturally gifted for doing things. Like thinking logically, languages etc etc.
Some people's brains are naturally good at coordinating their body, so they are skilled at kicking a ball.
Some people are naturally strategic, like chess players or mid-fielders in soccer.
Some are naturally gifted at finding weaknesses in opponents, like strikers in soccer. I don't know if you ever saw Marco van Basten play, he had an uncanny ability to score, he basically scored on every opportunity.

You cannot argue that some people are more intelligent than others. This intelligence applies to sports also.

Hard work and determination make up for alot of things, but in some cases it is not possible to make up for it completely.

 

[Audio-Me]

I think this is a silly question. There are great athletes in every sport. You can't say that a sprinter is better than a marathon runner and vice versa.