It's "official," the toughest of them all is..

walshb

The Toughest Sport Of All...
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/sportSkills

Views?

I see from looking that only one sport scored a 10 in any category, and who can disagree with it?

cowzerp

Boxing is the toughest and Wrestling is close 2nd-much tougher than it looks.

Soccer is easy as a boxer-full match used to be easier than our boxing warm ups!!

Littlehorny

Damn right boxing is the toughest, most complete athletes on the planet!
If Hurling was global it would be top ten as well.

walshb

Littlehorny wrote: »

Damn right boxing is the toughest, most complete athletes on the planet!
If Hurling was global it would be top ten as well.

That is it. It is the most complete sport ever. Demands so much from so many aspects and qualities from an athlete. And, as man to man goes, nothing is more intense and concentrated.

Maravilla33

Cant disagree with the number 1 spot but also cant believe horse racing is only 50th. Such a tough sport and jockeys are as hard as nails. Definitely top 5 for me.

walshb

Maravilla33 wrote: »

Cant disagree with the number 1 spot but also cant believe horse racing is only 50th. Such a tough sport and jockeys are as hard as nails. Definitely top 5 for me.

If there was a bravery category then jockeys, and particularly jump jockeys, would be right up there. Overall I wouldn't rate it top ten though as regards being the toughest overall sport. For the horses yes!:)

MrJoeSoap

Looked like a good chart until soccer got in ahead of rugby. No chance.

califano

This op is even more bland than you accused ooPabsoo's Mayweather v Cotto link.

boxinginfo

walshb wrote: »

The Toughest Sport Of All...
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/sportSkills

would of taught rugby was harder/tougher - more physically demanding than tennis,but appeerantly the american's think different.

cowzerp

boxinginfo wrote: »

walshb wrote: »

The Toughest Sport Of All...
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/sportSkills

would of taught rugby was harder/tougher - more physically demanding than tennis,but appeerantly the american's think different.

Having played Tennis a few times it is cardio wise fairly intense and in a pro level goes on for hours, Rugby has hard points but lots of rest times too-it's like people who think MMA is tougher than Boxing, it can be at times but lot's of opportunity to rest/spoil and that is why 5 min rounds are possible, 5 min Boxing rounds would be silly as it is so intense with no rests during rounds.

megadodge

I've never had any doubt about boxing being the toughest sport in the world. I like the way they have the different catagories explained and marked, BUT, when you see Rugby behind baseball, tennis, basketball and worst of all soccer, I think the survey has to be flawed.

There is no arguement whatsoever that will convince me that soccer is in the top 25 toughest sports not to mind top 10. That's just laughable. At the top level it's just a bunch of overpaid cheating fairies playing one of the world's most boring sports. Sorry, it's just wrong to have it rated so highly.

cowzerp

megadodge wrote: »

There is no arguement whatsoever that will convince me that soccer is in the top 25 toughest sports not to mind top 10. That's just laughable. At the top level it's just a bunch of overpaid cheating fairies playing one of the world's most boring sports. Sorry, it's just wrong to have it rated so highly.

Soccer is a very soft sport in fairness, even cardio wise it is quite easy-i also would not put it high on the list, Rowing should be higher-thats tough.

walshb

Guys, I disagree on the soccer thing. The categories in the link are quite clear, and soccer IMO deserves its rating. A midfield player in soccer to me needs to be very very fit. Balance, speed, strength, coordination, feet, quick thinking and a serious engine. At the top I feel it is quite tough.

The word toughest I feel is being lost a bit, and folks may associate more so with endurance/stamina. There are ten categories used to score each sport.

Pit rugby vs. soccer in each category, and I don't see anything wrong with how they are scored.

Rugby wins in power, strength, nerve and durability. Soceer wins in speed, agility, analytical aptitude, hand to eye coordination, endurance and flexibilty. I can't really argue with these. Soccer requires speed, stamina, flexibilty and hand to eye a lot more than rugby. Rugby is more power and strength, quick bursts, rests, repeat. Soccer is more fluid and non stop

Rowing is mentioned. Yes, stamina wise it's hell. But really overall I feel other sports require more ability/mechanics from the body. Soccer fits that bill, rugby too. Gymnastics to me should be second. Unreal what is required.

makl

i was suprrised a badminton tennis and squash ratings being so far apart. defo didnt have tennis on top.

im not sure if makes sense to apply some categories to some sports but as a far as some sort of stab at a universal rating its not too bad.

sxt

Muay thai is one of the toughest sports in the world.

walshb

sxt wrote: »

Muay thai is one of the toughest sports in the world.

Horrendously tough. Probably even physically tougher than boxing.

crazyeyz

DARTS, takes its toll on ur body for the long tournaments

walshb

crazyeyz wrote: »

DARTS, takes its toll on ur body for the long tournaments

So much so that you need a few beers after, or even during!

wonton

walshb wrote: »

Guys, I disagree on the soccer thing. The categories in the link are quite clear, and soccer IMO deserves its rating. A midfield player in soccer to me needs to be very very fit. Balance, speed, strength, coordination, feet, quick thinking and a serious engine. At the top I feel it is quite tough.

The word toughest I feel is being lost a bit, and folks may associate more so with endurance/stamina. There are ten categories used to score each sport.

Pit rugby vs. soccer in each category, and I don't see anything wrong with how they are scored.

Rugby wins in power, strength, nerve and durability. Soceer wins in speed, agility, analytical aptitude, hand to eye coordination, endurance and flexibilty. I can't really argue with these. Soccer requires speed, stamina, flexibilty and hand to eye a lot more than rugby. Rugby is more power and strength, quick bursts, rests, repeat. Soccer is more fluid and non stop

cant disagree with boxing being up there !


how does soccer has more hand eye coordination than rugby ?


also soccer 5.1 for power and only rugby 6.3?.......just no.


I think a hard part about putting rugby in there is the diversity of the players on the team for different positions.

walshb

wonton wrote: »

cant disagree with boxing being up there !


how does soccer has more hand eye coordination than rugby ?


also soccer 5.1 for power and only rugby 6.3?.......just no.


I think a hard part about putting rugby in there is the diversity of the players on the team for different positions.

There are two categories, strength and power. Rugby gets a higer score in strength as opposed to power. Power to me is more a sharp burst or explosion. Strength is more sapping and prolonged. And, rugby scores higher than soccer in both categories, but scores best in strength. I agree here.

Overall soccer for me is tougher in more categories. There are rugby players/postions who don't need very much at all except size, weight, and fitness. They lack agility, speed and flexibilty. Any soccer position needs flexibility, speed, agilty and coordination.

wonton

walshb wrote: »

There are rugby players/postions who don't need very much at all except size, weight,.

I shall *have* to assume you don't understand the game if you think that.

walshb

wonton wrote: »

I shall *have* to assume you don't understand the game if you think that.

John Hayes? Really. A legend he is, but apart from size, weight and a level of fitness, are you going to tell me he has agility, speed, flexibility? Yes, as a human he has to have to some degree, but no way is it an essential for the man and his position.

POC is a legend. Again, far from speedy, agile or flexible. Strong, powerful, fit he is. That is what he needs for his position. Speed, agility, flexibilty are more associated with the fast and attacking ball players like BOD. Scrum halfs and wingers etc.

You said it perfect: "I think a hard part about putting rugby in there is the diversity of the players on the team for different positions."

In soccer nearly every position requires speed, agility, flexibility; as well as stamina and strength.

gene_tunney

Soccer is a beautiful sport, very skillful and enjoyable to watch but it is in no way "tough."

walshb

gene_tunney wrote: »

Soccer is a beautiful sport, very skillful and enjoyable to watch but it is in no way "tough."

Define tough?

Soccer is not as tough as some other sports, but it is tough. No doubt.

It's a very physically demanding sport. Very fast paced, and requires speed, agilty, strength, balance and footwork.

wonton

walshb wrote: »

John Hayes? Really. A legend he is, but apart from size, weight and a level of fitness, are you going to tell me he has agility, speed, flexibility? Yes, as a human he has to have to some degree, but no way is it an essential for the man and his position.

POC is a legend. Again, far from speedy, agile or flexible. Strong, powerful, fit he is. That is what he needs for his position. Speed, agility, flexibilty are more associated with the fast and attacking ball players like BOD. Scrum halfs and wingers etc.
.

The scrum is not all about size and weight, its more technique. Ireland actually had the heaviest rugby player in world rugby two years ago but one of the worst scrums.

and as far as poc, hes hardly just strong and powerful.

walshb

wonton wrote: »

The scrum is not all about size and weight, its more technique. Ireland actually had the heaviest rugby player in world rugby two years ago but one of the worst scrums.

and as far as poc, hes hardly just strong and powerful.

I never said POC was "just" strong and powerful. I said he was big, strong, powerful, and fit, and that speed, agility and flexibility wouldn't be traits that a man of his size and position would boast of.

You said it best when you mentioned the diversity of the positions in rugby. That point is spot on, and it's why rugby scores less than soccer in certain categories.

Both sports are tough, but they require different levels of each of the ten categories in the report.

wonton

you mistook what I meant by diversity, I meant its hard to put in because of the complex nature of rugby and trying to analyse it within the criteria.

how do you rate a rugby player on agility ? do you take each position and average them off? my point is a rugby team has players that would top most of the ratings in different positions, so what do you take as the average rugby player? soccer players general have the same skills and build etc

but not many sports can you have someone the size of paul o connell smashing into peter stringer. ( in the circumstances dictating their size)

Bobby Baccala

I'd rate boxing 1 and rugby 2.

Haven't a clue how football got in there ahead of rugby, footballers go off the pitch after being lightly tackled and falling over.
I've seen rugby players play on with broken fingers, noses, ears nearly hanging off, gashes across their heads etc.

Still i agree boxing should be number 1. Ridiculous levels of toughness required for it.

walshb

P4DDY2K11 wrote: »

I'd rate boxing 1 and rugby 2.

Haven't a clue how football got in there ahead of rugby, footballers go off the pitch after being lightly tackled and falling over.
I've seen rugby players play on with broken fingers, noses, ears nearly hanging off, gashes across their heads etc.

Still i agree boxing should be number 1. Ridiculous levels of toughness required for it.

But the link rates it on ten categories, and pain threshold and bravery aren't listed. Soccer scores well on several categories, and rightly so.

Bobby Baccala

walshb wrote: »

But the link rates it on ten categories, and pain threshold and bravery aren't listed. Soccer scores well on several categories, and rightly so.

very true soccer rated well on speed and agility, not surprised at all.
But rugby should have rated better on hand eye coordination and should have rated higher in endurance than soccer imo.

I just find it very hard to accept soccer being above rugby. Just doesn't seem right, maybe that's just me.

cowzerp

walshb wrote: »

Define tough?

Soccer is not as tough as some other sports, but it is tough. No doubt.

It's a very physically demanding sport..

skillfull yes, tough-no way, I played from about 7-27 and my main position was center mid as a worker, and it's a physically easy sport-only reason football players find it hard is there training is easy-

walshb

P4DDY2K11 wrote: »

very true soccer rated well on speed and agility, not surprised at all.
But rugby should have rated better on hand eye coordination and should have rated higher in endurance than soccer imo.

I just find it very hard to accept soccer being above rugby. Just doesn't seem right, maybe that's just me.

Well, a fast flowing soccer game is very stamina sapping. You ned to have very good stamina. Rugby too, but rugby will have many more lapses and breakdowns.

I don't know, I find the list very clear. There is no "tough" category. That word is very subjective, They list 10 categories, mark a sport in each one, and then tally it up. Soccer to me should score fairly high, particularly when you have categories like speed, agility,flexibilty and analytical aptitude. There is also no "skill" category. This again being way too subjective.

I think most see or define tough as bruising, draining, impacting, exhausting. That is fine. I do too. I just think that overall the ten categories should be looked at. The report could have been termed the ten most diificult, hard, skillful, enduring etc . It chose the word tough.

Maravilla33

walshb wrote: »

Maravilla33 wrote: »

Cant disagree with the number 1 spot but also cant believe horse racing is only 50th. Such a tough sport and jockeys are as hard as nails. Definitely top 5 for me.

If there was a bravery category then jockeys, and particularly jump jockeys, would be right up there. Overall I wouldn't rate it top ten though as regards being the toughest overall sport. For the horses yes!:)

Have to disagree . Presume as an american survey it's only really taking into account flat racing. Otherwise some of those scores if applied to jumps jockeys are way off.


Surely strength and durability should be higher. You have to be strong to control an animal that size and make it do what u want it to. Then falling from that height being kicked trampled on and gettin up and riding in the next race with all sorts of injuries? Thats durability. Nerve even at 8 shud be higher.

To do this day in day out over a long hard season in all sorts of weather having to sometimes travel between meetings each day and constantly make weight shows endurance for me. Without going thru each category it's clear to me the authors don't really understand the demands made on an average national hunt jockey.

walshb

Maravilla33 wrote: »

Have to disagree . Presume as an american survey it's only really taking into account flat racing. Otherwise some of those scores if applied to jumps jockeys are way off.


Surely strength and durability should be higher. You have to be strong to control an animal that size and make it do what u want it to. Then falling from that height being kicked trampled on and gettin up and riding in the next race with all sorts of injuries? Thats durability. Nerve even at 8 shud be higher.

To do this day in day out over a long hard season in all sorts of weather having to sometimes travel between meetings each day and constantly make weight shows endurance for me. Without going thru each category it's clear to me the authors don't really understand the demands made on an average national hunt jockey.

F1 drivers and MotoGp riders too would deserve as much respect as jockeys. Nerve, durability etc. I have great admiration for all them. I agree with the points you make too. I just think it may be outside my top ten. Just!

BTW, I too would think that maybe it's marking horse racing on the flat circuit only.

MrJoeSoap

walshb wrote: »

F1 drivers and MotoGp riders too would deserve as much respect as jockeys. Nerve, durability etc. I have great admiration for all them. I agree with the points you make too. I just think it may be outside my top ten. Just!

Isle of Man TT riders and road racers in general trump them every time.

Maravilla33

walshb wrote: »

F1 drivers and MotoGp riders too would deserve as much respect as jockeys. Nerve, durability etc. I have great admiration for all them. I agree with the points you make too. I just think it may be outside my top ten. Just!

BTW, I too would think that maybe it's marking horse racing on the flat circuit only.

Fair points on the Motor sport lads who I never even considered to be honest.

walshb

Maravilla33 wrote: »

Fair points on the Motor sport lads who I never even considered to be honest.

Add in the Rally drivers too. These lads would score 10s in Analytical Aptitude and Hand to Eye Coordination. Their reaction times and abilty to change and adjuts at such high speeds is off the charts. Their handling too, strength, would be top notch. And, endurance to do this for consistent periods of time.

megadodge

Walshie, I really fail to see the whole "speed" argument in soccer.
It is not a fast game by general sports standards.
You don't need any great speed to play soccer.

And if anyone mentions Theo Walcott etc I'll mention Peter Crouch, Andy Reid, etc. The speed of individual players has nothing to do with the game's speed. If that was the case once Usain Bolt plays a game of pool, it's officially the fastest game in the world.

walshb

megadodge wrote: »

Walshie, I really fail to see the whole "speed" argument in soccer.
It is not a fast game by general sports standards.
You don't need any great speed to play soccer.

And if anyone mentions Theo Walcott etc I'll mention Peter Crouch, Andy Reid, etc. The speed of individual players has nothing to do with the game's speed. If that was the case once Usain Bolt plays a game of pool, it's officially the fastest game in the world.

Not necessarily speed in the top speed sense, but speed in reactions, change of direction, sudden burts etc. And in relation to my debating rugby, I could well see why it scores a bit higher in the speed, agility and flexibility categories.

I am not even a mad soccer fan, think they are so overpaid, and find it quite boring at times, but at the top the guys need a lot of talent, skills, and it's a very physically demanding game. I mean, it's hell on the legs, knees, ankles etc. It also requires very good fitness.

Pisco Sour

You're never going to get anything less than biased responses by posting this on a Boxing forum. Post it on the general sports forum (though that doesnt get much traffic) or on a few of the individual sports forums (athletics, rugby etc) and I guarantee you the responses wont be the same.

walshb

04072511 wrote: »

You're never going to get anything less than biased responses by posting this on a Boxing forum. Post it on the general sports forum (though that doesnt get much traffic) or on a few of the individual sports forums (athletics, rugby etc) and I guarantee you the responses wont be the same.

Nothing to do with responses. The list is the list. I have no issue with someone disagreeing with the order.

I am almost ready to say that gymnastics is a tougher/more diffciult sport.

Pisco Sour

walshb wrote: »

Nothing to do with responses. The list is the list. I have no issue with someone disagreeing with the order.

I am almost ready to say that gymnastics is a tougher/more diffciult sport.

The list is a load of bogus IMO.

Middle Distance runners getting an endurance rating of 6, far less than those sports at the top, and less than Field Hockey. What is that all about?

walshb

04072511 wrote: »

The list is a load of bogus IMO.

Middle Distance runners getting an endurance rating of 6, far less than those sports at the top, and less than Field Hockey. What is that all about?

I did notice that one and thought it was odd. Didn't long distance get a score of 9.63? That was the top. So, not that bogus. Middle distance is 800-1500
It's over in 2-4 mins. Other sports require endurance for longer periods, and also, those periods can be quite intense and severe. So, maybe not all that odd at all.

One rd of all out boxing is 3 mins. That is 3 mins of a lot more intense action than 2-4 mins of running. So, in this sense, I can see why boxing would score higher. I know you never mentioned boxing, I juts wanted to use it as one example.

Now, boxers go 12 rds, and it can be 12 torrid rds, yet it scores lower in endurance than some sports. So, overall the list to me is fairly good. It is compiled by several sports scientists and experts. Nobody is saying it's perfect. But, it is thorough, and it is researched by experts across several areas.

Pedro K

Gymnastics is dreadfully underscored in a number of areas.

Strength, Power, Agility, Hand Eye Co-ordination.

It should easily be higher than 8th.

How can a panelist determine the amount of strength or power it requires to do an iron cross, russian lever etc. if they've never tried them themselves?

Interesting scorings all the same.

Pisco Sour

04072511 wrote: »

You're never going to get anything less than biased responses by posting this on a Boxing forum. Post it on the general sports forum (though that doesnt get much traffic) or on a few of the individual sports forums (athletics, rugby etc) and I guarantee you the responses wont be the same.

Point proven

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056634564

Post it on the rugby forum and you will get different responses again.

walshb

04072511 wrote: »

Point proven

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056634564

Post it on the rugby forum and you will get different responses again.

Your point is not proven. You are missing the point. Like I said, many many agree that boxing will rank very very high, including athletics folks. You are dissing the report, and so are posters here on the boxing forum. So, to be specific, the report is getting criticised both here and on another forum. The choice of boxing as the toughest is NOT getting slated or criticised on any forum. Point not proven.

walshb

This has nothing got to do with other sports and forums. Boxing posters here have also criticised this report. Athletics folks have too, so what is your actual point?

Are you implying that the choice of boxing is incorrect and far off, and that all the other forums would agree, or have a different opinion?

From what I have read from many posters is that it seems that the overall placing of some sports and markings is off the mark, BUT, nobody is really disputing that the sport of boxing is not marked correctly, or that boxing should rank so high. This leads me to ask, what is your point?

If your specific point is that posters here and on other forums have criticised the report then yes, point proven. Who said otherwise?

BTW, I respect your views and I have enjoyed debating with you.

Pisco Sour

walshb wrote: »

This has nothing got to do with other sports and forums. Boxing posters here have also criticised this report. Athletics folks have too, so what is your actual point?

Are you implying that the choice of boxing is incorrect and far off, and that all the other forums would agree, or have a different opinion?

From what I have read from many posters is that it seems that the overall placing of some sports and markings is off the mark, BUT, nobody is really disputing that the sport of boxing is not marked correctly, or that boxing should rank so high. This leads me to ask, what is your point?

If your specific point is that posters here and on other forums have criticised the report then yes, point proven. Who said otherwise?

BTW, I respect your views and I have enjoyed debating with you.

But there is no such thing as the world's toughest sport. Every sport is tough, in it's own way. Snooker is tough. Try keeping that concentration for about 5 hours. Try making a century break. Tough going. Cricket is tough. Trying to hit a ball spinning towards you at 100 miles an hour.

You are looking at "toughest" in the macho physical sense. This is very narrow minded. Every sport is tough. Try managing horrendous winds at the end of a sailing regatta. It will take every ounce of physical strength and mental composure. Tough going.

It's a stupid list. You cant rank sports based on "toughness".

walshb

04072511 wrote: »

But there is no such thing as the world's toughest sport. Every sport is tough, in it's own way. Snooker is tough. Try keeping that concentration for about 5 hours. Try making a century break. Tough going. Cricket is tough. Trying to hit a ball spinning towards you at 100 miles an hour.

You are looking at "toughest" in the macho physical sense. This is very narrow minded. Every sport is tough. Try managing horrendous winds at the end of a sailing regatta. It will take every ounce of physical strength and mental composure. Tough going.

It's a stupid list. You cant rank sports based on "toughness".

So why would you even bother posting at all if it's a stupid list? It's just a list. Nobody says it's perfect. They use the word "toughest" and give ten categories. Who mentioned macho? I didn't. You did. So, it's not me who is narrow minded at all.

You really are over analysing something that is so open to interpretation. I posted it initially to get views and thoughts. Many of the views differ, as well expected, seems that you are a little more intense with your disapproval and dislike for a simple list.

Then you go and mention snooker and cricket? They didn't rank too high, so what? It's a list, and some sports will be high, some medium and some low, that is what a list does. I am not saying snooker is easy, or cricket is easy, just that I may think other sports are a bit more difficult. What's wrong with that? And what's wrong with a selection of people thinking it too?

BTW, in the pure touch, feel, hand to eye and fluidity sense, snooker is off the charts.

Pisco Sour

walshb wrote: »

So why would you even bother posting at all if it's a stupid list?

You really are over analysing something that is so open to interpretation.

Because you seem hell bent on using this list as a reason why Katie Taylor is a greater "athlete" than Sonia O'Sullivan and Roy Keane.

walshb

04072511 wrote: »

Because you seem hell bent on using this list as a reason why Katie Taylor is a greater "athlete" than Sonia O'Sullivan and Roy Keane.

I made ONE reference to the list, "remember it's the worlds toughest sport," and did so in a humorous way, sorry you missed that. The Katie issue is separate. Ireland's best ever athlete. That is just my view. I clearly said I had no issue with others being chosen. It is after all a debate that will see many differ on. The GOAT debates always are. I did think that Keane was not a good choice, just like you thought that Taylor was not a good choice. That's fine.

As to this thread, the worlds toughest sport. You think the list is stupid. Do you even think debating the worlds toughest sport is stupid? Bear in mind, they just use that word, toughest. One could sub in difficult, hard, complex et al. They try to come to some decent and accurate list by using ten categories. BTW, not one category in the list is "macho." One could add in categories if they so choose.

I happen to think a lot of the scoring is accurate across a lot of the sports. Boxing in their view came out on top after all the permuations were added up. Now, as I said, I haven't really seen anyone dispute or really disagree with boxing ranking so high. I have no issue with it not ranking at the top.

I also am well aware that the list is not exact, perfect, gospel. It's just people asking questions. Has been going on for years. Who's the fastest, strongest, hardest, biggest, best etc etc. I like debates like that, but I am in no way saying that there is a definitive answer in these debates. Just points made, argued and reasoned from all sides.

You seem a bit irritated because A: Some think a boxer is Ireland's best ever athlete, and B: A list of the worlds toughest sport doesn't add up in your opionion.