Obama affirms teh gay.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

Women should be able to sign to fight men. Allowing that doesn't mean it's ever going to happen or be accepted in the rare case that it does. Nobody wants to watch that shit and no respectable company will ever promote it.

---

I think you could definitely get a non-trivial subset of the MMA fanbase to watch M v F fights.

When I say "shouldn't be allowed", I don't mean that there should be government regulation preventing it, I mean it in the same way that featherweights aren't allowed to fight heavyweights in the (current) UFC. As entertaining as the early UFCs were at times, weight classes and gender segregation is good for the legitimizing the sport.

The transgender situation is more of a gray area than male vs female, but I think the same arguments against male vs female apply.

Personally I would like to see interesting matchups, like 2 featherweights vs 1 top heavyweight. I'm not saying that it would be good for the sport or even that it is necessarily a good idea, just that I would personally find it interesting and would watch it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lukie

Personally I would like to see interesting matchups, like 2 featherweights vs 1 top heavyweight. I'm not saying that it would be good for the sport or even that it is necessarily a good idea, just that I would personally find it interesting and would watch it.

---

I would watch the shit out of that. Let's throw a wildcard like a rhino or a croc in the mix and see how it plays out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by d0zer

I would watch the shit out of that. Let's throw a wildcard like a rhino or a croc in the mix and see how it plays out.

---

Excellent idea.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by d0zer

I would watch the shit out of that. Let's throw a wildcard like a rhino or a croc in the mix and see how it plays out.

---

After 3 or 4 consecutive Republican PsOTUS, pretty sure we could do this.

relevant meanwhile in russia:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yT3qmC9PKWQ

2 FW would stomp any HW on the planet

that's why he gets a rhino

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

2 FW would stomp any HW on the planet

---

what about flyweight? I will be honest, I have a hard time keeping track of all of the goofy lower weight classes.

How far down do you have to go where it would be a relatively equal match between 2 skilled UFC fighters and a very good heavyweight?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lukie

what about flyweight? I will be honest, I have a hard time keeping track of all of the goofy lower weight classes.

How far down do you have to go where it would be a relatively equal match between 2 skilled UFC fighters and a very good heavyweight?

---

Not sure. At least below 5 ft tall, probably significantly below.

John Dodson and Demetrious Johnson would have Cain Velasquez tapping within one round. If the flyweights are just random untrained wannabes then Velasquez could drop like ten of them in two minutes or something crazy. But if the flyweights are high caliber, the first problem for Velasquez would be an inability to land any significant shot on either due to not being able to square off because the moment he does so, the other one is at a prime angle for attack. The fight would enter clinch range almost immediately upon any significant contact, and the flyweights would be looking for a takedown, which they would get. Even with Velasquez's size and strength advantage, it wouldn't be enough to keep the flyweights from leveraging him to the ground. They could both simply attack a leg each and he'll be down in seconds. At all times, at the very least, Velasquez will be significantly slowed by one opponent encumbering him as the other looks for a submission or to land strikes

It wouldn't take too long for one of the flyweights to get his back, and then it's only a matter of time before Velasquez gets RNC'd. He couldn't scramble because he'd be too encumbered, and he couldn't defend the choke that well since the flyweight not on his back could just go two-on-one on his hand while the other sinks the sub in. There are probably better ways for the flyweights to win this, but the bottom line is that the tools at their disposal would be significantly greater due to having two bodies instead of one. 125 pound professional fighters are still putting up some significant weights in the gym, so it's not like they'll just be chickens in a pen for Cain to kick around

It is a much more interesting idea if it's kickboxing. Then I don't know if I'd pick the flyweights to win. The reason is that Velasquez would be able to square off and land some severe attacks, and he could absorb many of the worst of the worst shots because of the significant difference in size of his facial bone structure and the power of the flyweights' punches

If you'll notice, the light weight classes rarely get KOs. This is due to reduced punching power due to low weights behind them, while their skull bone structure can take heavier shots due to being similar to that of a larger man. WMMA is a fantastic example of this. Even Cyborg doesn't get KOs, her wins are all beatdown barrages stopped by the ref, never clean KOs. Women just don't have the power to put lights out the way men do, and small men don't have the power the way big men do, and that effect is enhanced if it's a small man punching a big man's face.

This is why Jon Jones is not losing at LHW. He has the bone structure of a HW and he can take every shot from every LHW except the most perfect ones. Velasquez's bone structure dwarfs the power that Dodson or Johnson can produce

So if it's a kickboxing match of 2 flyweights vs 1 HW, I'm pretty sure I'm picking the HW to win by devastation. Unless it's in the Octagon. Then I don't know. Because I hate the 8-sided piece of shit. It forces one fighter to push the action while allowing the other to retreat, and this puts the fighter pushing the action in a fundamentally weaker spot, but without him there would be no fight in the first place since the other is retreating. This is why fighting arenas need to be 4-sided. Honestly, I think Mark Hunt would have beaten JDS if the fight had been in a 4-sided cage. Cutting off and cornering is such a big fucking deal, but you can't do it much in the Octagon

grunching a little bit:

Ping Pong and most (probably all) forms of motosports are more pure forms of sports than baseball ever will be.

I'm glad motosports got mentioned. I really despise Nascar, but a lot of ignorant people think it's the same as bowling. People who hold this opinion about motorcycle racing irk me even more. Pretty much all forms of motorcycle racing require the highest levels of fitness, concentration, endurance, agility, finesse, etc to be competitive. I know you think it's like driving your car to the local McDonalds drive through, but please, if you ever get a chance to even race proper go karts-- try doing it for more than a couple of 15 lap races(were talking proper race karts here, not go-karts at a carnival), and see how you feel. Then imagine how much more complex and intense piloting a motorcycle is.

grunching a lot

It seems to me that the most important human physical attribute in go-kart racing is low bodyweight. Yes there is an aspect of mental conditioning and all that but I pose the question: what is the difference between go-kart racing and playing a really good racing video game/simulator?

:whistle:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boost

Ping Pong and most (probably all) forms of motosports are more pure forms of sports than baseball ever will be.

---

I'm not sure what about baseball seems so impure as a sport. I'd agree that it involves the least athleticism of any of the big 4 sports (or at least, that there are a fair amount of positions that don't require as much athleticism as most of the positions in the other sports), there have only been 6 players in the history of the game who played into their 50s. Out of the 17,000+ players to have ever played in the MLB only 35 total played at 45-years-old+ (many of whom were either knuckleballers, steroids players or just outright terrible at that age so I don't know if it should count [eg: Pete Rose]). Almost all players (don't feel like looking up the actual graphs and stats on it) decline once they hit their 30th birthday, and it takes a true outlier for them to be all-star players at 35+. I can't really see how such consistent trends would make sense unless being at physical peak is necessary to play on the professional level.

I'm also not really sure how anabolic steroids is of any use to a group of dudes just playing a game of dominoes. It seems to me it would only help people who use their body to perform abnormal feats with the human body.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

Not sure. At least below 5 ft tall, probably significantly below.

John Dodson and Demetrious Johnson would have Cain Velasquez tapping within one round. If the flyweights are just random untrained wannabes then Velasquez could drop like ten of them in two minutes or something crazy. But if the flyweights are high caliber, the first problem for Velasquez would be an inability to land any significant shot on either due to not being able to square off because the moment he does so, the other one is at a prime angle for attack. The fight would enter clinch range almost immediately upon any significant contact, and the flyweights would be looking for a takedown, which they would get. Even with Velasquez's size and strength advantage, it wouldn't be enough to keep the flyweights from leveraging him to the ground. They could both simply attack a leg each and he'll be down in seconds. At all times, at the very least, Velasquez will be significantly slowed by one opponent encumbering him as the other looks for a submission or to land strikes

It wouldn't take too long for one of the flyweights to get his back, and then it's only a matter of time before Velasquez gets RNC'd. He couldn't scramble because he'd be too encumbered, and he couldn't defend the choke that well since the flyweight not on his back could just go two-on-one on his hand while the other sinks the sub in. There are probably better ways for the flyweights to win this, but the bottom line is that the tools at their disposal would be significantly greater due to having two bodies instead of one. 125 pound professional fighters are still putting up some significant weights in the gym, so it's not like they'll just be chickens in a pen for Cain to kick around

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

It is a much more interesting idea if it's kickboxing. Then I don't know if I'd pick the flyweights to win. The reason is that Velasquez would be able to square off and land some severe attacks, and he could absorb many of the worst of the worst shots because of the significant difference in size of his facial bone structure and the power of the flyweights' punches

If you'll notice, the light weight classes rarely get KOs. This is due to reduced punching power due to low weights behind them, while their skull bone structure can take heavier shots due to being similar to that of a larger man. WMMA is a fantastic example of this. Even Cyborg doesn't get KOs, her wins are all beatdown barrages stopped by the ref, never clean KOs. Women just don't have the power to put lights out the way men do, and small men don't have the power the way big men do, and that effect is enhanced if it's a small man punching a big man's face.

This is why Jon Jones is not losing at LHW. He has the bone structure of a HW and he can take every shot from every LHW except the most perfect ones. Velasquez's bone structure dwarfs the power that Dodson or Johnson can produce

So if it's a kickboxing match of 2 flyweights vs 1 HW, I'm pretty sure I'm picking the HW to win by devastation. Unless it's in the Octagon. Then I don't know. Because I hate the 8-sided piece of shit. It forces one fighter to push the action while allowing the other to retreat, and this puts the fighter pushing the action in a fundamentally weaker spot, but without him there would be no fight in the first place since the other is retreating. This is why fighting arenas need to be 4-sided. Honestly, I think Mark Hunt would have beaten JDS if the fight had been in a 4-sided cage. Cutting off and cornering is such a big fucking deal, but you can't do it much in the Octagon

---

I pretty much agree with this, but there is basically no precedent to any of this so it's hard to say. The only real nit pick I have is the very first sentence, of having to go below 5 feet tall, perhaps significantly so. By the time you get to (relatively) lightweight 5 foot males, I am fairly sure that Velasquez could easily handle 2. Not only is there a fairly extreme difference in size and strength, there will also be a significant skill gap since the 5 footers are drawing from a much smaller talent pool. Usually you see the reverse in sports... take basketball for example. The backup point guard at the local community college is probably pretty damn talented, but guys who are 6'9" without shoes are so much more rare that they don't have to be nearly as skilled to play at the same level. This is conveniently ignoring the effect of height on coordination but the other point is sound.

I'm not sure where I would put the cutoff at though.

Also if we were going down this road, I would assume that for the one there would be better fighting techniques than the typical MT/BJJ combo or something similar.

As long as we are on the topic, how meany heavyweights do you think would be favored against Jon Jones? That is, JJ fighting at 205 and the heavyweights up to 265.

lol at considering baseball to be one of the "big 4 sports" whatever that means when basically only americans and japanese play it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by eugmac

lol at considering baseball to be one of the "big 4 sports" whatever that means when basically only americans and japanese play it.

---

Nowhere did I rank the popularity of sports, only that it was a sport-- just like cricket for example.

I challenge somebody to make a better objective criteria of what constitutes a sport than I made earlier in the thread. It shouldn't be that hard. It only took about 5 minutes.

he was responding to surviva

Oh.. makes sense. I was going to say that surviva's criteria was pretty good. I just reject the notion that because the players are not constantly moving, and that one can be out of shape and play the game, that somehow baseball is not a sport.

google: arguing on the internet

does your criteria break for, say, cycling?

Cycling would be a no. I'm sure most would disagree with that, cyclists vehomently so. This is probably a good time to mention that this is supposed to be a friendly classification, and in no way does it imply one activity is better than another. For example I think chess is a great game, no way do I consider it a sport (of course that word carries its own set of history and connotations)

Cycling competition really comes down to human power and stamina. It is no doubt a far more grueling activity than baseball for example. Anyway...

Ball: no
Finely tuned skills: not really
Human power/strength/speed: yes, and should probably get bonus points
Opponents actively contesting your moves: not really.. I understand there is going to be some jockeying for position and what not but that isn't really what I had in mind, unless it's an absolutely critical part of a race.

I admit that having both -ball and -opponent disqualifies a lot of otherwise popular activities. Might have to work on that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by eugmac

lol at considering baseball to be one of the "big 4 sports" whatever that means when basically only americans and japanese play it.

---

Sorry, "the big 4 sports" is a very standard way of referring to Football, Baseball, Basketball and Hockey. I am obviously not in anyway whatsoever trying to argue that these are the 4 biggest sports in the world or anything because that would be ridiculous. I just mean the 4 main things that make up the sports ticker on American broadcasts of ESPN. Actually, I don't even mean that much. I'm just blindly using terminology that's so standard in sports arguments where I'm from that I didn't really put any thought into it.

What are the most popular sports in the world?

Soccer/association football is #1.

After that I'm not really sure. I would imagine basketball is pretty high on the list. What about cricket, baseball, tennis, and golf?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lukie

What are the most popular sports in the world?

Soccer/association football is #1.

After that I'm not really sure. I would imagine basketball is pretty high on the list. What about cricket, baseball, tennis, and golf?

---

Define popular. Number of amateur players? Paid attendance to professional leagues?

all comes back to semantics

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lukie

I pretty much agree with this, but there is basically no precedent to any of this so it's hard to say. The only real nit pick I have is the very first sentence, of having to go below 5 feet tall, perhaps significantly so. By the time you get to (relatively) lightweight 5 foot males, I am fairly sure that Velasquez could easily handle 2. Not only is there a fairly extreme difference in size and strength, there will also be a significant skill gap since the 5 footers are drawing from a much smaller talent pool. Usually you see the reverse in sports... take basketball for example. The backup point guard at the local community college is probably pretty damn talented, but guys who are 6'9" without shoes are so much more rare that they don't have to be nearly as skilled to play at the same level. This is conveniently ignoring the effect of height on coordination but the other point is sound.

I'm not sure where I would put the cutoff at though.

Also if we were going down this road, I would assume that for the one there would be better fighting techniques than the typical MT/BJJ combo or something similar.

As long as we are on the topic, how meany heavyweights do you think would be favored against Jon Jones? That is, JJ fighting at 205 and the heavyweights up to 265.

---

I have Jones as a favorite against every HW. The only HW who *could* have a physique advantage is JDS, but they're really close. Then there's Overeem who would be too slow and gassy. Then there's every other HW who is either too short (like Nelson, Barry, Hunt, sorta Velasquez) or overweight (Velasquez, Cormier, Nelson, Hunt). JDS, Travis Browne, and Struve are probably the only HWs in the UFC that couldn't make the cut to 205

Jones' muscle mass is a little less than JDS', but is equal to possibly more than Velasquez's. What this means is that even if Jones weighs in at 205, his physique is basically on par with everybody else at HW. Hence the fights boil down to other aspects like skill, of which Jones is tremendous. While Jones would be running about even with JDS and Velasquez, I give a slight edge to Jones because he's a freak in ways nobody else is and he's shown that he has no weaknesses because everything is his strength

Jones is the one and probably only example where I want a fighter to move up. Because HW exists, a lot of the top guys who are natural LHWs don't move down, and what ends up happening is that most of the top LHW guys cut less weight than normal and are shorter than normal. Jones simply started out really lean and never thought of himself as a HW, but he still has a significant physique advantage at the class. If there was no HW, Jones would be facing Velasquez, Cormier, and Nelson. I think everybody agrees these are tougher fights than any current LHW, and could dethrone Jones

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lukie

What are the most popular sports in the world?

Soccer/association football is #1.

After that I'm not really sure. I would imagine basketball is pretty high on the list. What about cricket, baseball, tennis, and golf?

---

http://www.clicktop10.com/2013/03/to...-in-the-world/

I don't know how definitive this list is but I was surprised to see basketball and baseball so high on the list since I generally think of them as American.

I like the opponent criteria, the ball one not so much

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lukie

grunching a lot

It seems to me that the most important human physical attribute in go-kart racing is low bodyweight. Yes there is an aspect of mental conditioning and all that but I pose the question: what is the difference between go-kart racing and playing a really good racing video game/simulator?

:whistle:

---

The same difference between playing tennis and playing Wii tennis.

Not sure if you're just trolling me, but most people really don't get how physically demanding racing is.

http://rapradar.files.wordpress.com/...adar.png?w=540

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boost

Not sure if you're just trolling me, but most people really don't get how physically demanding racing is.

---

You mean the only one where the girls are on the field with the guys?

There are certainly forms of racing which don't require much fitness, afaik. Drag racing you can be pretty out of shape. But any sort of racing with speed, corners, and enough required time on the track is going to be extremely demanding physically. Countering G-forces while muscling the car around the track is a serious work out. Not to mention you're likely doing this in >100° heat.

Then motorcycle racing takes it to the next level. You're entire body is involved in throwing a several hundred pound machine from side to side as gravity, gyroscopic effect, and g-forces are fighting against you.

So yeah, not every form of racing has the same demands, but check out Moto GP, F1, motorcycle enduro races, SuperMotoCross, and find a fat slob who is competing. If you want to continue to post funny reaction pictures and sleep in your bed of ignorance, so be it... not much more I can say to enlighten you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BennyLaRue

You mean the only one where the girls are on the field with the guys?

---

Are you making a point? Because I'm not seeing it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boost

There are certainly forms of racing which don't require much fitness, afaik. Drag racing you can be pretty out of shape. But any sort of racing with speed, corners, and enough required time on the track is going to be extremely demanding physically. Countering G-forces while muscling the car around the track is a serious work out. Not to mention you're likely doing this in >100° heat.

Then motorcycle racing takes it to the next level. You're entire body is involved in throwing a several hundred pound machine from side to side as gravity, gyroscopic effect, and g-forces are fighting against you.

So yeah, not every form of racing has the same demands, but check out Moto GP, F1, motorcycle enduro races, SuperMotoCross, and find a fat slob who is competing. If you want to continue to post funny reaction pictures and sleep in your bed of ignorance, so be it... not much more I can say to enlighten you.

---

I don't know that I have ever seen a team pull a winning driver out of the car, and the winner collapses to the ground out of sheer exhaustion... like you might see after a marathon.

Likewise I'm not so sure that I have ever seen a racer's arm put into a sling because it is so tired after muscling the car around for a couple hours (was that some kind of joke, or do those cars really not have power steering?)

On hot days cold air is being pumped directly into the drivers' helmets and suits.

It is possible, maybe even probable, that every single person that has responded in this thread, with some training, has the physical skills necessary to compete at the highest levels of NASCAR. Or at least they could be trained. 100 pound females and 70 year old men have the physical ability to compete at the highest levels of racing, something that would be virtually impossible in other sports where physical ability is of utmost importance.

No I think NASCAR is mostly about MENTAL prowess and conditioning. That is the performance enhancing drugs of the sport are not anabolic steroids and related substances, they are amphetamines.

Motorcycle racing seems somewhat unique, as it is a blend of human and machine performance. There is obviously tremendous physical skill required in manipulating a motorbike at competition levels.

For what it's worth, your comparison of wii tennis:real tennis to my comparison of simulating racing:real racing was deserving of the Cosby confused meme. I would compare wii tennis:real tennis to more like madden:real football.

I am not trying to disparage racing drivers. And there is a certain point to be made that there is an overlap between body and mind. One extension of this is that extremes of mental "decision fatigue" can wear you down physically. I have personally experienced this in games like poker and chess, where playing for long periods of time tend to be very draining. That is much different than sitting down and watching TV. I know that Brian Townsend and Patrik Antonius were big on physical fitness for poker players to help remain sharp despite long and tiring sessions. You see the same thing in chess, or professional starcraft competition. It obviously applies to racecar driving as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boost

So yeah, not every form of racing has the same demands, but check out Moto GP, F1, motorcycle enduro races, SuperMotoCross, and find a fat slob who is competing. If you want to continue to post funny reaction pictures and sleep in your bed of ignorance, so be it... not much more I can say to enlighten you.

---

http://thekartel.com/wp-content/uploads/cake0.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lukie

I don't know that I have ever seen a team pull a winning driver out of the car, and the winner collapses to the ground out of sheer exhaustion... like you might see after a marathon.

---

Pros no, but people have passed out at the wheel before. A 70 year old man would put himself into an early grave if he was constantly racing F1 cars.

Also most people have the required physical skills to compete at the highest level of most sports. I could get as fit and strong as a professional rugby player. It'd take a few years of work, but there's no reason I couldn't do it if I put the work in. So that point is a bit null.

This whole thing about sports requiring some physical element is complete bullshit and just comes around as when people think of the most popular sports (football in england for example) they require physical fitness.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ImSavy

This whole thing about sports requiring some physical element is complete bullshit . . ..

---

Really? You just consider any old organized competition to be a sport? I'm not criticizing, just wondering. Certainly the etymology of the word (~to dick around) isn't nearly as taxing a category as contemporary use of it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by surviva316

Really? You just consider any old organized competition to be a sport? I'm not criticizing, just wondering. Certainly the etymology of the word (~to dick around) isn't nearly as taxing a category as contemporary use of it.

---

Depends what you mean by organized competition.

Is Darts a sport? yes
Is Chess a sport? yes
Is Baseball a sport? yes

And poker?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jackvance

And poker?

---

Poker is a strange one because the variance is very high. So although it's a game of skill I could sit down a session with Phi Ivey and win, whereas I couldn't do that with any sports I could think of. So I'd go no.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ImSavy

Depends what you mean by organized competition.

Is Darts a sport? yes
Is Chess a sport? yes
Is Baseball a sport? yes

---

Those are all very organized games of competition, yes.

I don't really understand how requiring a physical element is "complete bullshit," though, outside of the fact that it doesn't fall under your personal perception of it. Both prescriptive and descriptive arguments heavily favor it involving physical prowess. I granted you the traditional interpretation of the word (where basically a "sport" is any non-productive pastime; ie: anything that isn't farming, caretaking, hunting for food you wouldn't otherwise be able to eat, or reading literature), but this would make your exclusion of poker extremely arbitrary.

So if it's not a criteria for you personally, then well enough, but I don't see how it's complete bullshit. But maybe this requires a semantic argument over what the phrase "complete bullshit" means :P

Chess is a recognized sport. So whatever governing body decides what a sport is has decided that chess is.

The reason I say it's complete bullshit is because I haven't come up with my own definition of what sport should be, which is what most people do and is what creates whole a sport requires physical fitness, which jutstthe fact that chess IS a sport proves it doesn't. Which was my original point far back in the thread, it's not up to people to come up with their own personal definitions.

As for poker I said it's a strange one and I gave reasons why I didn't think it was. I'm not saying my opinion is right in this case though. I gave it about 30 seconds worth of though.

Sport is anything of physical/mental exertion according to the courts of England. Of course, the courts aren't right about everything, and more importantly there's a lot of background reasoning behind their decision (i.e. classification of charities).

That said, in my PERSONAL opinion anything which doesn't involve physical exertion is probably a game rather than a sport. That's just the way I perceive the word; sport = football/rugby/etc. That makes poker a game for me

As far as I can tell, the only way that chess is formally recognized as a sport is by the International Olympic Committee. On the one hand, that's probably the most legitimate sports body on earth, but on the other hand, these people have no linguistic qualification, and I feel as though their decisions reflect little more than what is instrumentally good for the olympics. Their criteria probably has much more to do with what drives interest for the games as a whole, fairness to the international field, the protection of the dignity of their games as a whole (as close as they're gonna come to caring about the semantic argument, but the fact that Chess is a highly revered, internationally recognized game that's as old as dirt might alone be essential to protecting the dignity of the olympic games), etc, than it has to do with calling in Doctors of Linguistics and asking their opinion on whether it satisfies the definition and use of the english word "sport."*

*But maybe looking at it that way is offering an unwarranted pretension to linguistics. I guess? I mean, surely this conversation is purely linguistic. What the hell are we talking about if we're not talking about linguistics?

Anyway, I don't support the logic of: Chess is "officially" recognized as a sport; viz. chess is a sport; viz. physical prowess is not a necessary criteria of "sport." The jump from the first premise to the second is where I take the greatest issue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lukie

I don't know that I have ever seen a team pull a winning driver out of the car, and the winner collapses to the ground out of sheer exhaustion... like you might see after a marathon.

Likewise I'm not so sure that I have ever seen a racer's arm put into a sling because it is so tired after muscling the car around for a couple hours (was that some kind of joke, or do those cars really not have power steering?)

---

You're cheating here. The same could be said for almost all sports you consider to be true sports. Also, we aren't typically seeing the true aftermath, after the podium, when the Adrenalin stops pumping and the cameras stop rolling.

I personally have been out on the track on a motorcycle. I am certainly not terribly out of shape, and I was absolutely exhausted by the end of the day.

As for power steering, yes, but it's not the same as what you have in your couch-of-a-car Buick. It allows the driver to overcome the tremendous grip provided by the massive race tires, but the higher the power steering ratio, the less precise the input. So they have just enough to make it possible for them to pilot the vehicle, but little enough that they retain as much road feedback and input precision as possible. And then there's G-forces. Four or five G's in a corner-- it's not the same as a Sunday afternoon cruise. They most certainly are muscling the car around the track.

Quote:

---

On hot days cold air is being pumped directly into the drivers' helmets and suits.

---

You're cherry picking again. You are correct, some forms of racing do have a form of A/C which pumps into the helmet, but not the rest of the body. Some forms. Most certainly no form of motorcycle racing.

Quote:

---

It is possible, maybe even probable, that every single person that has responded in this thread, with some training, has the physical skills necessary to compete at the highest levels of NASCAR. Or at least they could be trained. 100 pound females and 70 year old men have the physical ability to compete at the highest levels of racing, something that would be virtually impossible in other sports where physical ability is of utmost importance.

No I think NASCAR is mostly about MENTAL prowess and conditioning. That is the performance enhancing drugs of the sport are not anabolic steroids and related substances, they are amphetamines.

---

Why are you just spewing nonsense out of your ass? Find a 100 lb person competing in the top levels of Nascar, F1, MotoGp, etc. Find a 70 year old doing the same. Oh, wait, you can't. Derp. Different motorsports certainly require different levels of fitness, same goes for all sports.

[quote]
Motorcycle racing seems somewhat unique, as it is a blend of human and machine performance. There is obviously tremendous physical skill required in manipulating a motorbike at competition levels.
[quote]

Certain forms of motorcycle racing, such as Enduro, Motocross, and Rally, are among the most physically demanding and require the most fit competitors of all sports. But you see, I'm not just talking out of my ass...

http://www.racerxvt.com/virtual_trai...eart_rate.html

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Where_does...hysical_sports

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/3...dered-athletes

Quote:

---

For what it's worth, your comparison of wii tennis:real tennis to my comparison of simulating racing:real racing was deserving of the Cosby confused meme. I would compare wii tennis:real tennis to more like madden:real football.

---

That's great that you assert this as fact, but you back it up with nothing. You clearly have a fundamental ignorance of motorsports. Since we are giving weight to unsupported opinion.. I have played baseball, soccer, football, basketball, etc. They are all physically demanding. I have also driven put in track time on a motorcycle, road demanding trails in the desert, and piloted racekarts. Have you? Why would your comprehensive opinion trump mine? Think about it.

Quote:

---

I am not trying to disparage racing drivers. And there is a certain point to be made that there is an overlap between body and mind. One extension of this is that extremes of mental "decision fatigue" can wear you down physically. I have personally experienced this in games like poker and chess, where playing for long periods of time tend to be very draining. That is much different than sitting down and watching TV. I know that Brian Townsend and Patrik Antonius were big on physical fitness for poker players to help remain sharp despite long and tiring sessions. You see the same thing in chess, or professional starcraft competition. It obviously applies to racecar driving as well.

---

Yes, mental fitness, which is tied to physical fitness is very important. But highlighting the importance of mental fortitude and it's ties to physical fitness doesn't take away from extreme physical demands of most motorsports. A quarterback must maintain his mental sharpness, and this is helped by how physically fit he is, but it does not follow that his roll in the sport is therefore not physically demanding.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by surviva316

As far as I can tell, the only way that chess is formally recognized as a sport is by the International Olympic Committee. On the one hand, that's probably the most legitimate sports body on earth, but on the other hand, these people have no linguistic qualification, and I feel as though their decisions reflect little more than what is instrumentally good for the olympics. Their criteria probably has much more to do with what drives interest for the games as a whole, fairness to the international field, the protection of the dignity of their games as a whole (as close as they're gonna come to caring about the semantic argument, but the fact that Chess is a highly revered, internationally recognized game that's as old as dirt might alone be essential to protecting the dignity of the olympic games), etc, than it has to do with calling in Doctors of Linguistics and asking their opinion on whether it satisfies the definition and use of the english word "sport."*

*But maybe looking at it that way is offering an unwarranted pretension to linguistics. I guess? I mean, surely this conversation is purely linguistic. What the hell are we talking about if we're not talking about linguistics?

Anyway, I don't support the logic of: Chess is "officially" recognized as a sport; viz. chess is a sport; viz. physical prowess is not a necessary criteria of "sport." The jump from the first premise to the second is where I take the greatest issue.

---

I don't think it's perfect, but it's as good as we can go off. Listen to them, or listen to whatever makeshift definition someone comes up with on the day? I think it's obvious which will be better. Especially as I've already stated the reason people think sports should have a physical element is because they think of the most popular sports which do all require physical fitness, whereas it just takes one example to prove otherwise.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by surviva316

http://thekartel.com/wp-content/uploads/cake0.jpg

---

I laughed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ImSavy

Pros no, but people have passed out at the wheel before. A 70 year old man would put himself into an early grave if he was constantly racing F1 cars.

---

While I agree with the first part, unless what we consider constant, in regards to F1 racing, is immensely divergent, then I'd have to say there's not chance a 70 year old man ever reaches such a status. I would think a man in the fittest half a percentile for 70 year old men would be unlikely to finish a lap, much less a race, at competitive speeds.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ImSavy

Poker is a strange one because the variance is very high. So although it's a game of skill I could sit down a session with Phi Ivey and win, whereas I couldn't do that with any sports I could think of. So I'd go no.

---

This is a very interesting criteria, and one I'm not sure I'm in disagreement with. But then we have to look at sports like American Football, with it's 16 game regular seasons. The variance is insanely high in any given season, and winning the Super Bowl is not a definitive indication for who the best team is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boost

Why are you just spewing nonsense out of your ass? Find a 100 lb person competing in the top levels of Nascar, F1, MotoGp, etc. Find a 70 year old doing the same. Oh, wait, you can't. Derp. Different motorsports certainly require different levels of fitness, same goes for all sports.

---

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

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


Maybe they aren't the best in the world, but find me a small female or a 78 year old man who is within miles of playing in the NBA, NFL, MLB, NHL, etc.

I will save you the trouble. There aren't any. Brittney Griner isn't even close, and wouldn't even be competitive in division 1 men's college basketball.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ImSavy

Pros no, but people have passed out at the wheel before. A 70 year old man would put himself into an early grave if he was constantly racing F1 cars.

Also most people have the required physical skills to compete at the highest level of most sports. I could get as fit and strong as a professional rugby player. It'd take a few years of work, but there's no reason I couldn't do it if I put the work in. So that point is a bit null.

This whole thing about sports requiring some physical element is complete bullshit and just comes around as when people think of the most popular sports (football in england for example) they require physical fitness.

---

I completely disagree. Most people could not play NBA basketball for example, no matter how hard they tried. Same goes for other extremely well established sports that are very popular and very lucrative. The sports have a natural selection where the absolute best of the best are funneled to the top, etc. There are a lot of extremely talented people who work equally hard that still aren't good enough to make it into the best leagues in the world.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lukie

I completely disagree. Most people could not play NBA basketball for example, no matter how hard they tried. Same goes for other extremely well established sports that are very popular and very lucrative. The sports have a natural selection where the absolute best of the best are funneled to the top, etc. There are a lot of extremely talented people who work equally hard that still aren't good enough to make it into the best leagues in the world.

---

Physical requirement is what we were talking about. Not the skill involved.

I don't think I could ever play rugby at club level, however I do think I could get fit enough and strong enough to if I wanted to.

The whole point about skill is different, the same way I don't think I could have ever been a rugby player I don't think I could have been a grand master (although if I played from a kid I think I'd be capable of playing very high level chess, but I wouldn't know the equivalent level between club rugby and chess)

First the geezer. Fucking Nascar, I knew I shouldn't have included it. It's definitely the weak link in my argument. Can we pretend I didn't list it and continue from there?

The woman. Again Nascar. But you're right, she also was successful at open wheel racing, but this doesn't necessarily betray my point. The forces you are fighting most in kart racing are probably mental fatigue and g-forces. G-forces are multipliers of gravity. A smaller person weighs less and is fighting less overall force, but an equal relative force. Still there is a threshold of entry, since a certain level of strength is needed to simply steer the car. So you won't a weak person piloting an F1 car.

But whatever, you're just cherry picking again. Motocross, different forms of enduro, and even motorcycle road racing are not just twisting a throttle and riding over some bumps and through some turns.

Furthermore, in my opinion, a true sport isn't a simple test of strength. I wouldn't scoff at the idea of weight lifting being called a sport. There certainly is technique, but it's predominantly a test of brute strength. So your argument only really shows that motor sports aren't purely a test of brute strength.

Many motor sports, particularly motorcycle oriented ones, require a difficult mix of strength, stamina, agility, mental fortitude, and dedication that rivals that of widely accepted "real sports." Anyways, I think this all started with baseball. And I find it hard for someone to argue that baseball requires this sort of comprehensive conditioning in the same way as Moto Gp racing, soccer, some positions in American football, basketball, etc. Again, if we were going to draw up a line graph with "game" on one end and "sport" on the other, baseball should rightly be placed on the game side of the other sports I just mentioned.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lukie

I completely disagree. Most people could not play NBA basketball for example, no matter how hard they tried. Same goes for other extremely well established sports that are very popular and very lucrative. The sports have a natural selection where the absolute best of the best are funneled to the top, etc. There are a lot of extremely talented people who work equally hard that still aren't good enough to make it into the best leagues in the world.

---

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...iation_history

Explain this.

I can't imagine what other hard limiter you'd be referring to besides height. Everyone can get fit, do exercises to work on agility, study film, and run drills. Yes, you are more likely to make it to the NBA if you have height as well, but it's not an absolute.

Also, if you aren't aware, which you should be if you read the articles you posted from Wikipedia, there are tons of lesser race associations filled with amateurs, semi-pros, and less than elite pros. What separates them from the elite pros is

Quote:

---

a difficult mix of strength, stamina, agility, mental fortitude, and dedication.

---

How is this different from the NBA?

I don't have much time to debate this right now but for starters, as long as we are talking about physical requirements, compile the following lists for me:

- The best white sprinters
- The best white extreme long distance runners (e.g. marathons)
- The best white american football cornerbacks

Are whites just not working hard enough, not trying hard enough? Not smart enough? Or are there other genetic caps going on here involving things like speed and power production?

And compliling a list that includes literally a few men significantly below mean height in the history of a sports league doesn't change the rather obvious fact that height is a hard limiting factor in 4 of the classic positions, and still a big factor in the last one (point guard)

It does go counter to your apparent claim that it's a hard limiting factor for entry into the NBA.

You posted a link to one woman and one geezer that won some Nascar races in the 60's and 70s when he was well below the age which would make such accomplishments significant to your argument, and now he races in some minor league of Nascar.

When talking about the top levels of competition, short point guards are certainly more common in basketball than "small women" or senior citizens in auto racing.

I never said height was a hard limiting factor in the NBA. Carefully re-read what I posted. I said that most people do not have the ability to play at the highest levels of professional athletics, no matter how hard they try. That implies that there is a genetic cap to several things, and height is obviously a big factor in basketball.

There are a myriad of other possible factors including performance enhancing drugs (which are common, so just using those doesn't necessarily make somebody 'special'), genetic doping, etc.

People who suck get weeded out every year in pee wee sports, high school, college, then pros.

There is also the point to be made about the talent pool that certain sports/activities are drawing from. For example in my area, just about every kid played baseball (which happens to not really be a height limited sport), yet I don't know a single person who was afforded the opportunity to compete in extensive auto racing training and comptition. Just run of the mill go-carts stuff at fun n stuff.

Somewhat related, on the topic of talent. I'm taking a psychology class this year (technical aspects of the brain, for engineers), and apparently practice >>>> talent. In fact, people can't even recognize talent. Not even teachers and experts. All they look at is results and call this "talent" (as studies show). The professor gave the following example: Among dutch professional football (soccer) players, over 30% are born in september, october or november. And over 60% are born in the months september-january (50% of the year). This has been adjusted for the average amount of people being born each month. The reason is simply that they're older than their peers at the crucial young formative stages in their life where their performance is compared to others, as the football season starts in september. And small things like social approval, encouragement and better support for the best players (many of whom are only doing better because they're slightly older) has an exponential effect on their skill. Similar results were found in ice hockey where the season starts in the winter, and a disproportionate amount of professional NHL players are born towards the beginning of the season.

Another thing, what all the most famous artists, painters, musicians, football players and so on have in common is that they practice way more than average. When you practice something, your brain physically changes, much like your muscles would if you train them. Neurologists can even see, just by looking at a brain, if someone is a left-handed or right-handed violin player. If you stop practicing something at the edge of your ability, your skill will decrease. That is why "standing still is going backwards". Your brain will physically change back, same as never working out anymore and seeing your muscles disappear. There are ofcourse genetic factors for IQ, body stuff etc that matter, but they matter less than is generally assumed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jackvance

Somewhat related, on the topic of talent. I'm taking a psychology class this year (technical aspects of the brain, for engineers), and apparently practice >>>> talent. In fact, people can't even recognize talent. Not even teachers and experts. All they look at is results and call this "talent" (as studies show). The professor gave the following example: Among dutch professional football (soccer) players, over 30% are born in september, october or november. And over 60% are born in the months september-january (50% of the year). This has been adjusted for the average amount of people being born each month. The reason is simply that they're older than their peers at the crucial young formative stages in their life where their performance is compared to others, as the football season starts in september. And small things like social approval, encouragement and better support for the best players (many of whom are only doing better because they're slightly older) has an exponential effect on their skill. Similar results were found in ice hockey where the season starts in the winter, and a disproportionate amount of professional NHL players are born towards the beginning of the season.

Another thing, what all the most famous artists, painters, musicians, football players and so on have in common is that they practice way more than average. When you practice something, your brain physically changes, much like your muscles would if you train them. Neurologists can even see, just by looking at a brain, if someone is a left-handed or right-handed violin player. If you stop practicing something at the edge of your ability, your skill will decrease. That is why "standing still is going backwards". Your brain will physically change back, same as never working out anymore and seeing your muscles disappear. There are ofcourse genetic factors for IQ, body stuff etc that matter, but they matter less than is generally assumed.

---

I have seen those studies and they are interesting indeed.

but physical talent can be easily quantified, and every sport and even position favors certain physical attributes

things like height, wingspan, xx yard dash, vertical jump etc. all have heavy genetic dispositions and depending on the sport, the ability to produce power (think speed or strength expressed quickly) can be enormously helpful and that isn't even close to being equal among the population

Yeah, somehow this turned into a nature vs nurture chat.. But economically troubled races/countries producing more than their share of elite athletes in sports which require little investment should not come as a shock. Similarly economically fortunate races/countries producing the top athletes in sports which require a lot of financial investment should not be shocking either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boost

Yeah, somehow this turned into a nature vs nurture chat.. But economically troubled races/countries producing more than their share of elite athletes in sports which require little investment should not come as a shock. Similarly economically fortunate races/countries producing the top athletes in sports which require a lot of financial investment should not be shocking either.

---

That is a bit of a copout. There is certainly some truth to that, but it doesn't explain why there are literally thousands of blacks of west african descent who are faster sprinters than the fastest white person in the world. Similarly all of the best long distance runners are of east african descent (think kenya, ethiopia) and there is no shortage of cross country teams and marathon runners here in the states. It's genetics dude.

long-winded 4 part series on talent vs work: http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/tra...rk-part-1.html

Or take the racial breakdown of positions in American Football (hopefully we are all mature enough to handle this?)

Blacks and whites both have roughly equal height, or about a 5'10" mean (edit: talking about men in their 20s and 30s here). Other races tend to be significantly shorter e.g. mexicans around 5'6". The rest are such small minorities that we're getting into really small sample sizes, but nearly every player in the NFL is either caucasion or african-american. Whites tend to be on roughly equal footing in sports like powerlifting that involve pure, brute strength. You see a fair amount of both white and black offensive linemen. As the positions get more and more speed, agility, and power (think acceleration, vertical jump) based, they tend to be dominated more and more by blacks. At the extremes of this is cornerback, where literally 100% of corners in the NFL are african-american. The reality is that you cannot explain this descrepancy without understanding the genetics involved. Saying that it's because one certain group works harder, or excel at the activity because of circumstance and happenchance is just going the politically correct route.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jackvance

Somewhat related, on the topic of talent. I'm taking a psychology class this year (technical aspects of the brain, for engineers), and apparently practice >>>> talent. In fact, people can't even recognize talent. Not even teachers and experts. All they look at is results and call this "talent" (as studies show). The professor gave the following example: Among dutch professional football (soccer) players, over 30% are born in september, october or november. And over 60% are born in the months september-january (50% of the year). This has been adjusted for the average amount of people being born each month. The reason is simply that they're older than their peers at the crucial young formative stages in their life where their performance is compared to others, as the football season starts in september. And small things like social approval, encouragement and better support for the best players (many of whom are only doing better because they're slightly older) has an exponential effect on their skill. Similar results were found in ice hockey where the season starts in the winter, and a disproportionate amount of professional NHL players are born towards the beginning of the season.

---

I say this so much to people and they just think it's rubbish. People just prefer to think the way they were born has stopped them achieving things when in reality it's laziness. And in a lot of cases it requires very pushy parents. Obviously there are genetic factors. But I'd say in most sports it's like an 80/20 split in favour of practice.

Some sports like swimming though you're never going to be really top class unless you have like size 50 feet and are 8 foot tall, but you can still be really fucking good.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lukie

I have seen those studies and they are interesting indeed.

but physical talent can be easily quantified, and every sport and even position favors certain physical attributes

things like height, wingspan, xx yard dash, vertical jump etc. all have heavy genetic dispositions and depending on the sport, the ability to produce power (think speed or strength expressed quickly) can be enormously helpful and that isn't even close to being equal among the population

---

You are right about that, the class is about the brain so it's only looking at sports/arts/etc where you need to use sufficient amounts of your brain. I totally agree blacks have a genetic advantage for certain physical activities. You can even see in athletics how some are better sprinters (western africans and their American descendants) and others better long distance runners. I've read a lot about this, it's still controversial to publicly talk about I think.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ImSavy

I say this so much to people and they just think it's rubbish. People just prefer to think the way they were born has stopped them achieving things when in reality it's laziness. And in a lot of cases it requires very pushy parents. Obviously there are genetic factors. But I'd say in most sports it's like an 80/20 split in favour of practice.

Some sports like swimming though you're never going to be really top class unless you have like size 50 feet and are 8 foot tall, but you can still be really fucking good.

---

errr

In high school I knew several 5'10"ish white guys who spent all day in the gym, but weren't tall enough, fast enough, or explosive enough to even get a sniff at division 1 college

local gym had kids doing super sets, strip sets, and all sorts of creatively hard workouts and were still lanky as ****.

Go to a crossfit box and see people working insanely hard, if for no other reason than to be part of a group and look a little better. We're not even talking about a 7 figure salary as incentive.

Working hard, in the context of professional athletics, really isn't that special of a quality. I would say it is a prerequisite, but there are some true freak athletes out there who can get by just doing what they have to.

Yeah, I was actually just reading a little about that, and it appears to be the truth. I think circumstance plays a important roll to some extent. Auto/motorcycle/cycle/boat racing all have a fairly high price-point of entry and are often dominated by whites and the upper classes of countries like Brazil who control the vast majority of the wealth of their countries.

I agree that political correctness gets in the way of the truth too often. On the other hand, you have people who, for example, 15 years ago would have used the lack of black quarter backs as evidence that blacks are poor leaders, decision makers, etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boost

Yeah, I was actually just reading a little about that, and it appears to be the truth. I think circumstance plays a important roll to some extent. Auto/motorcycle/cycle/boat racing all have a fairly high price-point of entry and are often dominated by whites and the upper classes of countries like Brazil who control the vast majority of the wealth of their countries.

I agree that political correctness gets in the way of the truth too often. On the other hand, you have people who, for example, 15 years ago would have used the lack of black quarter backs as evidence that blacks are poor leaders, decision makers, etc.

---

I agree. Personally I wish people could just discuss things openly. I happen to find the subject fascinating (that coming from my athletic/fitness background, and no rascist implications or motives whatsoever.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lukie

I agree. Personally I wish people could just discuss things openly. I happen to find the subject fascinating (that coming from my athletic/fitness background, and no rascist implications or motives whatsoever.)

---

Same here, but that isn't true for most people. Most people can't dissociate trying to find out the truth from having an agenda :/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lukie

errr

In high school I knew several 5'10"ish white guys who spent all day in the gym, but weren't tall enough, fast enough, or explosive enough to even get a sniff at division 1 college

local gym had kids doing super sets, strip sets, and all sorts of creatively hard workouts and were still lanky as ****.

Go to a crossfit box and see people working insanely hard, if for no other reason than to be part of a group and look a little better. We're not even talking about a 7 figure salary as incentive.

Working hard, in the context of professional athletics, really isn't that special of a quality. I would say it is a prerequisite, but there are some true freak athletes out there who can get by just doing what they have to.

---

I'd agree to an extent, but high school is fairly old to be getting serious about a sport. Not to mention lots of them don't have the best diets, etc etc.

Does the whole thing about black sprinters not come from the breeding of slaves btw? Remember seeing a documentary about it a while ago.

take an NFL linebacker or D-end

it doesn't really matter which one, but probably use one who is pretty good.

Note their measurables (height, weight, bodyfat % and lean body mass, 40 yard dash, 10 yard split, bench press reps at 225, 3 cone drill, etc.)

We'll even assume that you have the height, there is still likely nothing you could do, or could have ever done given today's technology, to hit all of the rest of those numbers. No amount of sprints, lifting, blood, sweat, and tears, are going to push you past your genetic limits... and some of those are actually competing against each other (e.g. as weight goes up, lean body mass goes up but so does bodyfat %, and 40 time goes DOWN.)

You could add anabolic steroids and related substances to the equation, but american football is already selecting for the best of the best athletes, a lot of those actually do work extremely hard, and PEDs are already pretty damn wide spread. The only real unexplored avenue if you don't have the talent/genetics, work ethic, and possibly drugs then is some kind of genetic enhancement or some other unforeseen technology.

There's balance to this though - I 100% agree it's by no means a level playing field but I'm also sure we all know plenty of people who decide they can't at all do something before putting effort in. While it's not going to get you to the top tier, work/practice/dedication or whatever you call it you can certainly get you decent at things that a lot of people just write off from the get go with "oh I'm not good at x" as if the ability is somehow innate. And as you're saying even in that top tier of those with the "talent", the work/practice/dedication is also still being put in

Lukie, you're still cherry picking to prove a broad point. I'd like to point out that most of us posting in this thread probably do have the genetic make up that would have allowed us to compete at the highest level of soccer. Does that make soccer less of a sport? It most certainly doesn't, yet you could formulate a compelling argument for why it makes it more of a sport. I don't think it's more of sport, but I think there is an argument there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boost

Lukie, you're still cherry picking to prove a broad point. I'd like to point out that most of us posting in this thread probably do have the genetic make up that would have allowed us to compete at the highest level of soccer. Does that make soccer less of a sport? It most certainly doesn't, yet you could formulate a compelling argument for why it makes it more of a sport. I don't think it's more of sport, but I think there is an argument there.

---

My original statement was that most people could not play NBA basketball, no matter how hard they tried. I stand strongly behind that point. The same applies to many positions in american football. Heck, baseball is an even more exlusive sport-- pulling from a larger talent pool/more countries, longer careers, smaller rosters, etc. It's just that they stand around a lot, and some have been fat, and most aren't obvious physical specimens. But how do you quantify the power behind being able to hit a baseball 400+ feet with a wooden bat? Most people simply would not be able to develop the power to be able to do that, again, no matter how long they had trained for it and no matter how hard they tried. That isn't even getting into the point about the immense skill necessary to hit a baseball, which some sports commentators suggest is the hardest skill in all of sports (not saying that I necessarily agree with that, but it is definitely up there), or the other physical aspects of the game. Think being fast and having a big arm is helpful for an outfielder? If you are reading this, you probably can't run a 4.5 40 yard dash (baseball historically measures 60 yard dash, same idea), and you probably would have never been able to get that time, again no matter how hard you tried and how much wishful thinking you put into it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kiwiMark

There's balance to this though - I 100% agree it's by no means a level playing field but I'm also sure we all know plenty of people who decide they can't at all do something before putting effort in. While it's not going to get you to the top tier, work/practice/dedication or whatever you call it you can certainly get you decent at things that a lot of people just write off from the get go with "oh I'm not good at x" as if the ability is somehow innate. And as you're saying even in that top tier of those with the "talent", the work/practice/dedication is also still being put in

---

if we are just speaking in generalties, I agree. A lot of people give up too easily at things, and obviously practice and dedication will make pretty much anybody better at anything.

but at the end of the day hard work + talent beats hard work alone. Heck even extremely good talent + average work usually beats average talent + extreme dedication at the highest levels of some sports.

Go read the police blotter/turd watch on profootballtalk.com... tell me that there aren't some good NFL players who are lazy knuckleheads yet are miles better than the average person could have ever dreamed of being.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lukie

My original statement was that most people could not play NBA basketball, no matter how hard they tried. I stand strongly behind that point. The same applies to many positions in american football. Heck, baseball is an even more exlusive sport-- pulling from a larger talent pool/more countries, longer careers, smaller rosters, etc. It's just that they stand around a lot, and some have been fat, and most aren't obvious physical specimens. But how do you quantify the power behind being able to hit a baseball 400+ feet with a wooden bat? Most people simply would not be able to develop the power to be able to do that, again, no matter how long they had trained for it and no matter how hard they tried. That isn't even getting into the point about the immense skill necessary to hit a baseball, which some sports commentators suggest is the hardest skill in all of sports (not saying that I necessarily agree with that, but it is definitely up there), or the other physical aspects of the game. Think being fast and having a big arm is helpful for an outfielder? If you are reading this, you probably can't run a 4.5 40 yard dash (baseball historically measures 60 yard dash, same idea), and you probably would have never been able to get that time, again no matter how hard you tried and how much wishful thinking you put into it.

---

I'd have to disagree, your original point was to try to counter my point, which is that many motorsports are truer sports than baseball. I was admittedly throwing stones at the beehive... but here we are. And here you stand, on this premise that genetic exclusivity is a hallmark of a true sport. I think this to be false-- look at soccer, surely it's a far more genetically inclusive sport than basketball or maybe even baseball, but does that make it less of a sport?

I think a big part of why I push baseball towards "game" is because there is no endurance, just sprinting very occasionally. It seems to me, an uninformed critic, to be a game largely based on skill. More so in my opinion than auto racing, and certainly more so than dirtbike arena/track racing, motorcycle rally enduro racing, motorcycle road racing, etc. These all have a very balanced mix and intense requirement of skill, strength, stamina, agility, mental fortitude, and dedication.

No, you are putting words into my mouth. The topic in threads change, just look at this one. What started out about politics and DOTA morphed into questions about what the definition of sports is, to physical requirements, to genetics, etc. I never said that genetic exclusivity is a hallmark of a true sport. I don't think that. Topics changed rapidly in this thread and you are transposing my later posts onto my earlier ones.

Of course baseball is largely based on skill. There is also more of an elite physical set than any form of racing. That is that if you were to raise a son and had resources to place him into any sport and train him as you wanted, he would have a far, far higher chance of making it to the highest levels of any motor sport than he would be to make the MLB. Don't even try to debate that lol.

And I still don't see what is so difficult PHYSICALLY about racecar driving, that is what about the activity is it that you or I couldn't do, with some training? I have already acknowledged that racing BIKES is different, so let's ignore that for now.

At the end of the day, it is most likely that we are just going to go around in circles over and over again and annoy each other, so this is pointless.

Lol.. that last crack about going in circles over and over again wasn't even intentional. Freudian slip??

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lukie

No, you are putting words into my mouth.

---

I was sorta afraid I was doing this while I was writing that post, but I didn't really see where the topic change was.. but I apologize for that.

Quote:

---

Of course baseball is largely based on skill. There is also more of an elite physical set than any form of racing. That is that if you were to raise a son and had resources to place him into any sport and train him as you wanted, he would have a far, far higher chance of making it to the highest levels of any motor sport than he would be to make the MLB. Don't even try to debate that lol.

---

Wait. You're saying that if I had unlimited funds and raised my son to be a f1 driver, he'd have more of a shot than being a baseball player? You could be right, but I doubt it. There are 23 drivers this season. An f1 driver's career can easily last a decade. How many hundred players are in the MLB?

Quote:

---

And I still don't see what is so difficult PHYSICALLY about racecar driving, that is what about the activity is it that you or I couldn't do, with some training? I have already acknowledged that racing BIKES is different, so let's ignore that for now.

---

All I can say to this is "go give it a try, you'll see." Fighting G-forces is no joke.

Oh, and why do we ignore the strong part of my argument? I'd rather not. Thanks.

Quote:

---

At the end of the day, it is most likely that we are just going to go around in circles over and over again and annoy each other, so this is pointless.

---

True, true..

There are tens of millions of people who play or have played baseball in the U.S., Japan, dominican, etc. 750 MLB players.

How many people got a serious crack at racecar driving? It is a tiny fraction of that. Draw appropriate conclusions.

There are tons of feed race associations, less prestigious associations, and all the way down to seven and eight year olds in race karts.

The thing with baseball is that it's a team sport. I'd imagine the minors are filled with players who don't and never had a crack at the majors, but are needed to form a system in which the players who ultimately do come along and rise through the minors can do so. So no, I won't agree that there are tens of millions of people who have had a serious crack at the MLB.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boost

There are tons of feed race associations, less prestigious associations, and all the way down to seven and eight year olds in race karts.

The thing with baseball is that it's a team sport. I'd imagine the minors are filled with players who don't and never had a crack at the majors, but are needed to form a system in which the players who ultimately do come along and rise through the minors can do so. So no, I won't agree that there are tens of millions of people who have had a serious crack at the MLB.

---

I would bet there are more 7 and 8 year old kids playing baseball this summer than 7 and 8 year old kids consistently racing go-karts, and by a factor of thousands.

I didn't say 10s of millions had a serious crack at MLB, just that many have played (and in the world, possibly currently *are* playing).

The barrier of entry is so insanely lower in baseball. Players get funneled up from (my experience, minus the professional leagues) minor B, minor A, majors, pony/travel leagues, high school baseball, college baseball, minor league baseball, major league baseball. Each step up the competition rises and there is an enormous financial incentive on the back side (starting with scholarships). The american sports sytem in is very strong and extremely good at picking out the top talents.

In baseball for example if you are a right handed pitcher, you better be throwing in the 90s MPH (at least), or you don't have much of a chance.

How are we even arguing this? Did you not make basically the same points earlier in this page?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boost

Yeah, somehow this turned into a nature vs nurture chat.. But economically troubled races/countries producing more than their share of elite athletes in sports which require little investment should not come as a shock. Similarly economically fortunate races/countries producing the top athletes in sports which require a lot of financial investment should not be shocking either.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boost

Yeah, I was actually just reading a little about that, and it appears to be the truth. I think circumstance plays a important roll to some extent. Auto/motorcycle/cycle/boat racing all have a fairly high price-point of entry and are often dominated by whites and the upper classes of countries like Brazil who control the vast majority of the wealth of their countries.

---

Racing = higher cost of entry and less people participating in it = less competition

http://www.freakonomics.com/2011/10/...acecar-driver/

Quote:

---

Q So far, how big is the sunk cost you have devoted to racing?

if you include personal money and money raised from sponsorship, it has probably been around $2 million, probably more.

A It would be hard to estimate with dollars what the sunk cost has been to this point. The majority of the dollars that have helped support my career have come from the little bit of sponsorship I have raised. So if you include personal money and money raised from sponsorship, it has probably been around $2 million, probably more. But sunk costs include time and emotional energy as well. I have spent the past 6 years convincing myself that I have a future career as a driver, pitching and selling my persona to companies around the country and trying to motivate myself and others around me to make this distant hope a reality. But racing is not an all or nothing proposition in terms of value gained. I have learned an immense amount through my racing career to date. How many people at 25 have been traveling the country, giving live media interviews, pitching Fortune 500 companies for millions of dollars and helping lead a team of people? If you expend the effort to explore all the different aspects of being a racecar driver, there are many applicable skills that can be applied to a future career.

---

Contrast that to paying $20 to sign your kid up for little league, or some MLB stars whos background included playing baseball on an old dirt field with sticks and milk cartons.

Ha.. you're skewing things a ton. Cut it out.

But either way we're comparing apples to steroids. I'm pretty satisfied with you acknowledging that motorcycle racing is something more than twisting the throttle, turning sometimes, and going straight sometimes.

Let's talk about Oatmeal.

haha, I was actually going to say something to the effect of enjoying the food convo better than comparing baseball to racing, but didn't want it to spill over into that thread. It's all good my friend. Needing to get in the last word is a bad habit of mine.

you guys are a bunch of fags for fucking up my thread.

Does this open up all kinds of opportunities for you to bone male students too?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kingnat

you guys are a bunch of fags for fucking up my thread.

---

tell that to this guy and he will stomp your goofy ass!

http://irldefender.files.wordpress.c...ther-anton.jpg

:dance:

Fucking Nascar...

I admit that was uncalled for...

Nah, it was pretty awesome, I laughed a disgruntled laugh.

couldn't help myself, esp since it's a Bengals player...

http://www.sportsgrindent.com/blog/w...andresmith.jpg

That being said, it is amazing how the linemen positions have evolved over the last decade+ There used to be some really fat fuckers on the grid 10 or so years ago. Even this Andre guy is pretty ripped despite his lolgrossbelly and girlytits.

I would be curious to see definitive trends on that... weight and bodyfat % would be a good place to start. I think you are onto something.

There are probably a lot of small reasons for it, and one big one. We're seeing, among the best teams, the passing game tends to dominate and that tends to favor slightly leaner/quicker linemen (they're still huge.) bigger population, plus better/more comprehensive scouting and occasionally pulling a foreigner into the NFL. Perhaps better or at least better applied training/nutrition.

The biggest reason though, in my opinion, is just the overall prevalence of anabolic drugs. They have been around in sports for 50 years or so but today they are just so easy to get, they know what tests they have to beat, and there are chemists out there who are very good at beating them (see recent biogenesis scandal in baseball)

Oh, and the NFL and NBA don't even test for artificial growth hormone. They essentially go on the honor system. Really. Some of the benefits include increased lean body mass, lower bodyfat %, improved recovery from training sessions/injury, etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lukie

And I still don't see what is so difficult PHYSICALLY about racecar driving, that is what about the activity is it that you or I couldn't do, with some training?

---

http://www.formula1.com/inside_f1/un...port/5298.html

"...the physical endurance required to drive a Formula One race is not dissimilar to that required to run a marathon."

I have almost lost complete interest in debating this anymore but if I did have any interest I would point out that it's an uncited comment on F1's own website.

Next I would probably point out how increasing one's fitness will always lead to better times in marathons and that the vast majority of people could never be world-class marathon runners no matter how hard they tried, no matter what they did, or how great or difficult their training regimen was. Whereas I don't see any such physical limitations even in F1; increasing your physical fitness beyond a reasonably attainable point isn't going to significantly improve your times.

Anyway, what % of racecar drivers are specifically F1 drivers?

Does anybody in this thread personally know someone who was even given a chance to become a professional racecar driver?? Like I seriously would not even know where to sign somebody up for that, let alone know how to where to raise the money for it (assuming most people aren't plugged in and aren't rich.)

Also I am not so sure why you were responding to my specific comment with that link. Most people, with training, can complete a marathon. Or at least they could at one point in their lives (again, with training)

I'm not gonna hop back in, but just an observation:

Lukie, you introduce red herrings faster than a catholic auctioneer introducing his children.

They look like red herrings because at this point: 1) there is no real flow to what we are even arguing about and 2) you don't agree with me :)

The reality is that you or I could have been successful F1 drivers if we had the right connections earlier in life. Do you agree with that?

I don't know about you guys but me, for sure. But sadly now even my friends are afraid to get in the car with me because I'm such a bad driver. I blame my parents.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jackvance

I don't know about you guys but me, for sure. But sadly now even my friends are afraid to get in the car with me because I'm such a bad driver. I blame my parents.

---

ha

for what it's worth, I know you were a chess player, and I think that chess players (along with other types of professional gamers) have a lot of the skills needed to compete at the higher levels of racing. That combination of deep thinking, mental ability and conditioning, and all that seems pretty rare. So whether it be a competitive chess, starcraft, street fighter, or simulation racecar player/driver, I think they would have a better chance of breaking into competitive racing than say, a world class marathon runner, who doesn't happen to have those skills.

Note: that doesn't make racing an easy physical activity. But it's easy enough to put someone on a treadmill and hit some weights and all that than it is to train the mental stuff. just my opinion of course.

You watch competitive street fighter lukie?

EVO should be soon if memory serves. Year before this one I watched loads of events, but lost interest a bit this year. Still going to tune in for a bit of evo though.