ESPN's Ranking of Sports by Degree Of Difficulty
- Thread starter Eurasian =--(O)
- Start date
Youngunz_77 said:i would agree! haha
but you guys agree on boxing for being # 1, i do
i mean its an overall body killer, not to mention the mental aspect and conditioning required its just a lot to the face
I agree that boxing is demanding.. But I would not think its the #1 most overall demanding sport...
Personally I would rate, multiple sports as being more overall demanding..
a) Gymnastics.
b) Thai Boxing.
c) Wrestling.
d) Decathlon.
etc..
Just think about the fact that a 50 year old Foreman could be competetive in boxing...
Look at badminton (or even Tennis etc for that matter)... There is no way a player could do comebacks like that...
/Twobeer
twobeer said:
That is amazing Twobeer... I have made a list of sports that I would define as the 'ultimate' sports. And I have your 4 sports inthere...
My top 3 was:
1) Thaiboxing
2) Gymnastics
3) Decathlon
I worked a bit the same way as ESPN did to rank sports.
But instead of giving a number between 0-10 on a certain variable, I decided to give either 1 or 0 (meaning: a certain variable, let's say flexibilty, is important or not for a sport).
I came up with about 15 variables, and I think Thaiboxing scored the highest pts (14/15, only missing the variable 'ability to function in a team').
Now, who am I to give points to sports... first of all, giving points like 8.24 or 3.79 is a bit artificial, it is bloody easier to just assign a 1 or a 0 (example: variable 'nerve', why tennis gets a 3 and badminton just a 1.18? if we would have to assign a 1 or 0, we all know what both sports would get).
Secondly, I took about 15-20 sports in my 'little' case-study, and all of them I have practised up to some level (what can I say, I just love sports... and for the moment I am in my baddies mood).
Now, a suggestion: we can make ESPN's study a lot more realistic.
I think their main reason of bias is the fact (as mentioned before I think) that in their study, all variables are equally important (nerve=durability...).
We can recompute their scores by scaling the variables (I am a maths dude, I can do the re-scaling/re-computing).
How to add values of importance to variables? Well, we just do a poll.
People have to pick 3 of the following variables that they think are the most important in sports.
At the end, I will do the recomputation and post the results here.
Anyone has an idea how to start/create a poll?
Regards,
(list of variables:
ENDURANCE: The ability to continue to perform a skill or action for long periods of time. Example: Lance Armstrong
STRENGTH: The ability to produce force. Example: NFL linebackers.
POWER: The ability to produce strength in the shortest possible time. Example: Barry Bonds.
SPEED: The ability to move quickly. Example: Marion Jones, Maurice Green.
AGILITY: The ability to change direction quickly. Example: Derek Jeter, Mia Hamm.
FLEXIBILITY: The ability to stretch the joints across a large range of motion. Example: Gymnasts, divers.
NERVE: The ability to overcome fear. Example: High-board divers, race-car drivers, ski jumpers.
DURABILITY: The ability to withstand physical punishment over a long period of time. Example: NBA/NHL players.
HAND-EYE COORDINATION: The ability to react quickly to sensory perception. Example: A hitter reacting to a breaking pitch; a drag racer timing acceleration to the green light.
ANALYTIC APTITUDE: The ability to evaluate and react appropriately to strategic situations. Example: Joe Montana reading a defense; basketball point guard on a fast break.
)
Wow, Xendron!
A lot more thought going into this than from me
There is probably alot of data from national sports centers and physical evaluation of olympic athletes etc... But its hard to find unbiased collected test-results etc
Another interesting thing that to me indicates that boxing could be overrated, is the fact that someone with comparatively little experience/training can get to the top..
Look at Nikolay Valuev a discus thrower who switched to boxing, becuase of his huge size...at the age of 20!!!
"It was difficult for me to develop in this kind of sport at that late age," Valuev admitted. "Almost every boxer in the world first learns boxing as a boy. For me, everything was new: running, skipping, punching the big bag, working the speed bag, sparring, even shadow boxing. I had never thrown a punch in my life. This was a new world for me and I became addicted to it immediately."
And now he have a record of 46-0-0 ....
hmm.. makes you think..
At least to me it indicates that pro Boxing is as much about genetics as it is about technique, stamina etc
how many think someone could start playing badminton at age of 20 and become World Champion???
/Twobeer
A lot more thought going into this than from me
There is probably alot of data from national sports centers and physical evaluation of olympic athletes etc... But its hard to find unbiased collected test-results etc
Another interesting thing that to me indicates that boxing could be overrated, is the fact that someone with comparatively little experience/training can get to the top..
Look at Nikolay Valuev a discus thrower who switched to boxing, becuase of his huge size...at the age of 20!!!
"It was difficult for me to develop in this kind of sport at that late age," Valuev admitted. "Almost every boxer in the world first learns boxing as a boy. For me, everything was new: running, skipping, punching the big bag, working the speed bag, sparring, even shadow boxing. I had never thrown a punch in my life. This was a new world for me and I became addicted to it immediately."
And now he have a record of 46-0-0 ....
hmm.. makes you think..
At least to me it indicates that pro Boxing is as much about genetics as it is about technique, stamina etc
how many think someone could start playing badminton at age of 20 and become World Champion???
/Twobeer
demolidor
Regular Member
But you're only talking about heavyweights where any freak of nature would have some sort of chance. It's a much more different story in lower weights .Anyhow I also had gymnastics up there around the top. Muay Thai probably falls under martial arts for them so I had martial arts ranked higher also because of mixed martial arts. Guess judo should be around wrestling since to me they're pretty similar. Judo (well jiu-jitsu sparring) is definitely exhausting
.Has anyone here every played water polo?
If it played properly in a full size pool then you are having to swim solidly for a long time and push yourself out of the water without any floor to push off.
It beats most sports when it comes to endurance, power, agility, etc
Trust me - your muscles know when you have been playing water polo
If it played properly in a full size pool then you are having to swim solidly for a long time and push yourself out of the water without any floor to push off.
It beats most sports when it comes to endurance, power, agility, etc
Trust me - your muscles know when you have been playing water polo
To me, the list is totally b.s. It's a typical example about "even if I don't know, I will pretend I am an expert".
Unless you play to a professional level, and fully understand the sport, you should never "compare" 2 sports to begin with. Even if so, it's really down to each individual, as everyone's style is totally different.
Unless you play to a professional level, and fully understand the sport, you should never "compare" 2 sports to begin with. Even if so, it's really down to each individual, as everyone's style is totally different.
Ice hockey would have to be harder than Badminton wouldn't it!! Could you imagine playing badminton with ice skates on, lol. Hockey is hard enough! I rate professional cricket up there. 160kmh bowler and you have to make runs from that let alone see it. My answer is, really any sport at the professional level is hard including fishing for Marlin. If you can last 2 hours with a 600lb fish on the end of your line you'd have to be buff. Badminton at its highest level would be very difficult along with 1000 other sports at the elite level. Each sport requires different skill attributes, someone that is good at shot put might not be perfectly suited to Badminton which is why we have talent scouts.
Youngunz_77
Regular Member
twobeer said:Wow, Xendron!
A lot more thought going into this than from me
There is probably alot of data from national sports centers and physical evaluation of olympic athletes etc... But its hard to find unbiased collected test-results etc
Another interesting thing that to me indicates that boxing could be overrated, is the fact that someone with comparatively little experience/training can get to the top..
Look at Nikolay Valuev a discus thrower who switched to boxing, becuase of his huge size...at the age of 20!!!
"It was difficult for me to develop in this kind of sport at that late age," Valuev admitted. "Almost every boxer in the world first learns boxing as a boy. For me, everything was new: running, skipping, punching the big bag, working the speed bag, sparring, even shadow boxing. I had never thrown a punch in my life. This was a new world for me and I became addicted to it immediately."
And now he have a record of 46-0-0 ....
hmm.. makes you think..
At least to me it indicates that pro Boxing is as much about genetics as it is about technique, stamina etc
how many think someone could start playing badminton at age of 20 and become World Champion???
/Twobeer
lol they dont become champion the first year they start
they train at a young age,ive known some professionals train at ages of around 10-12, alike many other professional sports the elites get exposed at a fresh age
boxing requires more stamina / endurance than mma or thai boxing or what not because they are only allowed to punch and obviously, with the fat gloves on. Unlike mma matches, a landed punch would have more affect than one in boxing. Thus, more punches, more rounds, more energy. Upside to MMA is the wrestling, which is another realm of discussion. The media exposure to boxing is a lot more heavy than mma/thai boxing , its been around longer and definitrely has a bigger mental strive.
but judging sports is very complex, one sees one at a different perspective and as long as humans are still around, and not programmed robots playing these sports. I dont think a certain mathematical sport would come out on top of the other.
How about my sport? Watching TV. Need to deal with 4 remotes, over 100 buttons, and deciding between 100 channels. Man, that is a 9.9 in nerve, hand-eye coordination, and analytic aptitude
This list is silly. You can't compare one sport to the next. I would agree that boxing, football, wrestling are crazy sports that you literally have to give up your body. Sorry not for me.
As far as difficult sport, how about Iron Man (swim, bike, plus marathon)?
This list is silly. You can't compare one sport to the next. I would agree that boxing, football, wrestling are crazy sports that you literally have to give up your body. Sorry not for me.
As far as difficult sport, how about Iron Man (swim, bike, plus marathon)?
Neil Nicholls
Regular Member
Eriksen and Lundgaard are getting close...twobeer said:
ctjcad
Regular Member
It's very hard to "judge"...
..
Btw, i noticed they have FISHING as the last sport
...Hmm, i wonder if those people take into account : PATIENCE, as an ingredient(and i'm sure some of you know how difficult it is to have that kind of a patience)..
..and i do agree, to a certain extent, with this comment...I understand their criterias for judging, but it's almost incomparable(as what some of you have posted also)....Esp. for badminton, it is more of a finesse/technical sport..Have those "judges" ever try a full high-level badminton match??Youngunz_77 said:
..Btw, i noticed they have FISHING as the last sport
...Hmm, i wonder if those people take into account : PATIENCE, as an ingredient(and i'm sure some of you know how difficult it is to have that kind of a patience)..
Last edited:
ctjcad said:..and i do agree, to a certain extent, with this comment...I understand their criterias for judging, but it's almost incomparable(as what some of you have posted also)....Esp. for badminton, it is more of a finesse/technical sport..Have those "judges" ever try a full high-level badminton match??
Btw, i noticed they have FISHING as the last sport
Going along with the fishing thing, it just occured to me that they listed it as just fishing. There is quite a big difference between fresh lake fishing, deep water fishing, spear fishing. This happens with badminton because it groups doubles and singles together, which we all know are pretty different games. Hence it seems that this chart is even more folly because each sport on there is generalized into one category and is based off of a male perspective of the sport. Anyways, *stops posting during class*
Who says fishing doesn't need quick reflexes? check out this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uv7RHtXT4EA
lol
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uv7RHtXT4EA
lol
I play competitive hockey and it takes WAY more endurance to play hockey than badminton, a different type of endurance of course, but it takes alot more.Eurasian =--(O) said:
IMO badminton is the hardest sport to be good at, out of any sport. Like, it's easy to excel at hockey, hard to be hte best though because so many canadians play it die hard.