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

walshb

04072511 wrote: »

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

I am not sure why you keep arguing a point that everyone agrees with you on.

It's a list, using cartegories to try and come to some fairly decent overall grade. Nobody said it's gospel, fact, or black and white.

walshb

04072511 wrote: »

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.

You really are overanalysing this. The speed of a snooker player moving around the table is completely irrelevant. Steve Davis, Terry Griffiths or, Tony Drago. Speed (ability to move quickly) is not at all an ingredient that is of much importance to a snooker player.

Similar to golfers and speed or endurance. Golfers do not necesaariluy need to be fit in the cardiovascular sense, sure, it can help, but it's not at the top of their priority list. Many of them are old men, at least were, and even today and recently we have had the likes of Clarke winning major tournaments. Tom watson, an OAP finishing runner up in the 2009 Open. Not saying he or Clarke are unfit, but he ain't scoring too high on the endurance chart. The game is methodical, slow, meticulous and mentally very challenging. And, again, being in shape and being reasonably fit sure could help, it's just not a necessity like it is in some other sports, like soccer, T&F, boxing, Nordic Skiing.

I could also overanalyse and say, oh, I know a golfer who runs from shot to shot and can go around in level par, completing 18 holes in 60-90 mins. It's completely irrelevant, as speed in golf and snooker just aren't of much importance, and it really doesn't help, and accordingly will score low.

So it doesn't matter one bit how fast one pots, looks at a shot, moves and plays the next shot in snooker. That is why for the report and its definition of speed, a sport like darts and snooker just won't really score. Tony Drago might have had a wee bit more success if he slowed down I always felt.

Conversely, the ability to move quickly is of massive importance to sprinters and runners and speed skaters etc. But, they may not score as high as snooker players in other areas. It all balances out. I am suprised you cannot see this.

Boxers score high in speed because they move fast, punch fast and react fast. Wicked bursts of arms and legs and hips. The definition of speed mentioned sprinters as an example, but the report never specifically said that speed was only in the running sense. I took speed as the movement of one's body, whether it be running or otherwise.

We all agree that it's not an exact science or a fact.

Chavways

1980's Group B rally drivers would rank highly on my list for sheer bravery.They must have been lunatics to even step foot in those cars.

walshb

Chavways wrote: »

1980's Group B rally drivers would rank highly on my list for sheer bravery.They must have been lunatics to even step foot in those cars.

I think the "Nerve" category best suits this. Yes, they would score very high.