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

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.

cowzerp

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.

Boxing is far tougher and more technical than soccer or running which is not tough at all- the skills on boxing far surpass running. Running is a natural thing were born to do so the genetics is way more important in running and type you will be good at, sprinting, long distance for example

Then add in the getting beat up during a high intense activity to make a tough sport even tougher in the true sense of the word

Nobody is disrespecting Sonia or runners, they train hard and have a mental toughness to compete but not near the level needed for boxing.

So regardless of this list boxing to me is the toughest by a long way.

Dan_Solo

wonton wrote: »

how does soccer has more hand eye coordination than rugby ?

That one had me conflustered too TBH. Was this list compiled by Yanks who mightn't be too up on the rules of Association Football?

walshb

Dan_Solo wrote: »

That one had me conflustered too TBH. Was this list compiled by Yanks who mightn't be too up on the rules of Association Football?

But soccer is a bigger game in the US than Rugby, isn't it? So, whatever about being up on soccer, they surely are more up on it than rugby?

Dan man

wonton wrote: »

how does soccer has more hand eye coordination than rugby ?

Thierry Henry's score for this category must through the roof!

walshb

"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."

Seems to be about reaction/sensory times. Not necessarily ball to hand type activity.

Looking thru the list I think the hig scorers in this category are pretty spot on.

Table tennis, tennis score high.

Now, I automatically thought of sprints. But, all they need to react to is ONE sound, and they are away. That is it. You hear the gun and you move. After that it's all about power, acceleration, and maintaining form and speed for 100-200 metres.

Dan_Solo

cowzerp wrote: »

Then add in the getting beat up during a high intense activity to make a tough sport even tougher in the true sense of the word

The point was already made that "tough" doesn't mean that for this list. Think "most difficult to be the best at". Otherwise king of the tinkers is the toughest sport on earth.

walshb

Dan_Solo wrote: »

The point was already made that "tough" doesn't mean that for this list. Think "most difficult to be the best at". Otherwise king of the tinkers is the toughest sport on earth.

This how I look at it. They simply used the word "tough." They could have used other words. The key is not to get bogged down on the word "tough," but to analyse the individual categories. I have done this and to me the list is ok. I mean, of course we will have disagreements, but overall I think one can argue and disagree and agree with a lot in the list. And, some of the disagreemenets will be slight. I mean, a mark here and there reversed or highered or lowered. That is what lists will always come up with during discussion.

walshb

When I think of the most diffiuclt or complex and tough sports I think of the overall body mecahnics and use of the athletes body more than anything else. When I do this I find it hard to look past a pro boxer, tennis player, decathlete, gymnast, top soccer player, rugby player, top NFL/NBA PLAYER, Ice Hockey and Field Hockey. Now, in what order is up to the individual, but again, when I add in other factors like endurance and nerve and mental toughness I find myself leaning with pro boxers. I know many others do too, and not just fans of boxing.

walshb

Then there is the whole difficulty aspect. To me a top gymnast is the ultimate in terms of overall diffculty in the physical use of the body. It's off the charts. It requires so much mechanics and coordination and speed and flexibilty and power.

Then there are sports/games that require natural skill, touch, feel, fluidity; like snooker or table tennis or tennis.

This is it. Impossible to nail it down, but all the list is doing is trying to compare. Nobody is saying the list is gospel.

Pisco Sour

U2's masterpiece the Joshua Tree was ranked GOAT album about 10 years ago in an extensive UK poll. However on a similar pole in the USA it was around 17 or 18. Hmmm. I wonder ave the people who voted in these polls listened to every single album every made. No less likely than these "experts" having genuine experience of competing in all these sports.

These polls in general can not be used as fact. They will be different based on who you use for the survey.

And it seems that the definition of categories are changed for each sport. So sprinting scores highly on "speed" because they run fast, but boxers score high on speed because they punch fast. As mentioned before, Ronnie O'Sullivan could be scored highly on speed because he can hit 147s in 5 minutes. If the definition of speed changes depending on the sport then these tables have no credibility.