Why do people care about Superbowl?

[Al B. Sure!]

I have no idea how one would compare a marathon runner to a high jumper in a meaningful way. One may easily find ones self using measures that are relevant to one sport but not the other, or maybe neither sport (worst case scenario of course).

Anyway, what would be the point?

How? It's easy. Just have them do the same physical fitness test. What would be the point? To determine which athlete is better overall and across various athletic domains.

[Asher]

Meanwhile, you're saying so much **** that doesn't make any sense.

You're saying that it's bad for hockey players to be strong. That is retarded. You can never be 'too strong' in ANY sport.

YES YOU CAN.

Muscle mass that DOES NOT CONTRIBUTE ANYTHING to the actual playing of the sport only serves to:
1) ADD WEIGHT (= SLOWS THE PLAYER DOWN)
2) Adjust the player's balance (= THE HEAVIER A PERSON IS UP TOP, IT BECOMES HARDER TO QUICKLY CHANGE DIRECTION WHICH HAPPENS ALL THE TIME IN HOCKEY)

You seriously are a ****ing dolt.

[Al B. Sure!]

YES YOU CAN.

Muscle mass that DOES NOT CONTRIBUTE ANYTHING to the actual playing of the sport only serves to:
1) ADD WEIGHT (= SLOWS THE PLAYER DOWN)
2) Adjust the player's balance (= THE HEAVIER A PERSON IS UP TOP, IT BECOMES HARDER TO QUICKLY CHANGE DIRECTION WHICH HAPPENS ALL THE TIME IN HOCKEY)

You seriously are a ****ing dolt.

WHAT THE ****?!

LOOK AT MY ****ING POST!!!!

Meanwhile, you're saying so much **** that doesn't make any sense.

You're saying that it's bad for hockey players to be strong. That is retarded. You can never be 'too strong' in ANY sport. The issue comes up when that strength is inefficient; that is, the bulk necessary to support the next marginal increase in strength offsets the gains that can be achieved with that strength. In that case, it is understandable how a 180lb player in any sport who can only bench 150lb 10 times would be better than a 225lb player who can bench 150lbs 20 times. That extra strength may not be worth the extra heft.

However, the example of Dexter McCluster shows that an NFL RB is stronger than the strongest NHL players WHILE SIMULTANEOUSLY being smaller! What does that mean? That means that an NHL player could be as strong as McCluster AND as small as him at the same time. It would be physically possible since McCluster does it (and McCluster isn't even a physical stud, by the way! He's just the smallest of the 2010 RB class).

So all your talk about oh! It's too strong for hockey! is complete bull****. If you can get a guy to be as strong as McCluster while being as small as he is, that's what you want!

This talk of excess bulk affecting balance is meaningless when McCluster is small even by NHL standards!

[Egbert]

How? It's easy. Just have them do the same physical fitness test. What would be the point? To determine which athlete is better overall and across various athletic domains.

It doesn't matter which is a "better athlete" however you may care to define better athlete. They do two completely different things. I think saying something is "better" implicitly implies some particular purpose. In other other words "better" by reference to some particular purpose or goal. The purposes here are entirely different. Vaguely like trying to compare a computer to a truck (not a very good analogy but I think you get the general idea).

[Al B. Sure!]

Asher, what the **** **** is that? You take what I said, cut off part of it, call me a dolt by claiming I'm wrong for the reason that I already said in my post! And I countered that point already! WHAT THE ****?! I DIDN'T EVEN EDIT MY POST!!!!


WHAT THE **** **** IS THIS?!

[Asher]

Asher, what the **** **** is that? You take what I said, cut off part of it, call me a dolt by claiming I'm wrong for the reason that I already said in my post! And I countered that point already! WHAT THE ****?! I DIDN'T EVEN EDIT MY POST!!!!


WHAT THE **** **** IS THIS?!

Efficiency. As soon as you say something stupid I stop. So I only get one or two sentences in usually.

What I'm saying isn't just my opinion, it's repeated ad naseum and NHL strength & conditioning coaches will tell you the same thing. You clearly do not understand physics and the dynamics of hockey players. I'll leave it at that. The physical demands of playing hockey are VERY, very different from the physical demands of playing football. You keep comparing benchmarks that emphasize the strengths of football players while completely ignoring physical aspects of other sports. This is because you are stupid.

[Al B. Sure!]

WHAT THE **** **** IS THIS?!

[Asher]

[Al B. Sure!]

Well now you know so read the rest of the ****ing post and respond to my rebuttal. Explain to me how greater strength with LESS bulk (McCluster) is worse than less strength with MORE bulk (NHL players)

[Asher]

Your question is flawed, so why bother answering it?

You still do not understand that NHL players don't have less strength, they have different strength in different areas.

[Al B. Sure!]

Okay I'm going to back up and do this Barney style. I'm going to try to see where your head is at.

Two players. Doesn't matter what sport. Athletes in any sport. They are physically identical. Same height, weight, speed, leg strength, back strength, name the measure, they are identical. Hell, their chests, arms, legs, whatever else have the exact same circumference and as best as you can weigh their individual limbs, they are identical in weight.

There are two differences though. One guy can jump an extra inch higher and that same guy can also bench press an extra 10 lbs on his max press. Still the same weight and distribution of body mass. The relationship between muscle mass and strength is not equal for everyone and something like a small difference in the CNS' can make someone slightly better at a certain activity even if they are otherwise identical.

Are you saying that in hockey, you would take the slightly weaker guy? And take him BECAUSE he is weaker?

I want a simple yes or no answer. I have a follow up scenario depending on what you say.

[Asher]

Two players. Doesn't matter what sport. Athletes in any sport. They are physically identical. Same height, weight, speed, leg strength, back strength, name the measure, they are identical. Hell, their chests, arms, legs, whatever else have the exact same circumference and as best as you can weigh their individual limbs, they are identical in weight.

There are two differences though. One guy can jump an extra inch higher and that same guy can also bench press an extra 10 lbs on his max press.

I'm fairly certain you do not know how the real world works.

I am saying you take the player who has stronger hockey muscles (abs, obliques, hips, back, etc) versus upper body strength. It's really very simple.

[Al B. Sure!]

The idea is that I'm trying to figure out how is it that Dexter McCluster can have both a stronger upper and lower body (as measured by the bench press, vertical, and broad jumps) than his NHL contemporaries while also being smaller. Like I said, if he has a stronger upper body while being lighter and smaller than NHL players, that just means McCluster is that much more efficient. In other words, a guy with the basic physical dimensions of McCluster but in a hockey context would be that much more valuable since he's stronger than guys who have 35lbs on him in bodyweight but also has powerful legs. Do you disagree?

I don't have any data to back the following up but I know a little about athletics and I am blessed to be familiar with the training that takes place at the Division I collegiate level for football, women's basketball, and both men's and women's track. I know personally, have trained with, and sought advice from several men and women who played at this high level, including an Olympic-hopeful sprinter.

I have seen Dexter McCluster's measurables. I have seen him perform on the field in games. From my experience, this isn't some bizarre case of oh McCluster may have great upper-body strength measured by X and great lower-body strength measured by Y but none of this is relevant in hockey because McCluster must be missing something in the middle or something relevant to hockey because how else can you explain how he is stronger yet smaller than his NHL contemporaries? The body is a whole and McCluster gives every indication that he has a very powerful back, strong hip flexors, and all other ancillary areas not measured directly by the bench press and jumping trials.

I don't see how he could possibly be as fast and agile as he is if he wasn't the complete package. It's not possible. Like I said, I know Division I athletes. I know their training and I know what they are capable of. For the Marines, I have to be a pullup specialist. I got to the point where I could knock out 25 and thought I was bad ass. How often do you see guys knocking out 25 good deadhang pullups in the gym? I was humbled by a sprinter who matched me with ease and left more on the bar because he didn't want to embarrass me. A SPRINTER! A guy who is all legs, right? No way can a sprinter have the powerful traps, lats, shoulders, biceps, and triceps necessary for all those pullups! Wrong.

Dexter McCluster is more than a sprinter. He is a sprinter on metaphorical steroids. Most of these guys in the NFL are. They're freakish combinations of strength, speed, and power that to me are obviously the best pure athletes on the planet.

There is no way in hell McCluster could perform as he does if he wasn't the complete physical package and a near-perfect physical specimen. I don't doubt that there is anything McCluster couldn't do physically.

What is it, Asher? What is McCluster's weakness that makes him, or someone identical to him but let's say who grew up playing hockey, no good for hockey? He is stronger than NHL players in every conceivable way but is smaller. How is that not to his advantage in hockey? A low and compact frame is superior for balance, whether on the football field, a balance beam or on ice.

[Egbert]

Aptitude, training, interest, mental stuff etc

Stupid example: I could have been a world famous mega-rock star except I have no aptitude, interest or training in rock stuff.

[N35t0r]

OK, I'm not even planning on reading 90+ posts, so I'll say this:

Albie, measuring an athlete's performance by anything other how good he is at what he is is ridiculous.

Even if an average American Football player could bench press more, throw farther, and whatever better than another, if that doesn't reflect in the field then it's useless.

Most hockey players are probably not very good at catching balls with their hands, and put your regular baseball player in a tennis match and watch him struggle.

Particular sports demand particular skill sets, and particular body types. Football (Soccer for you) will never have 250 lb men playing, because they'd be next to useless.