Why do people care about Superbowl?

[N35t0r]

Yet to use Dexter McCluster as an example, I doubt his trade-offs are significant. The guy is extremely strong for his size overall while also being very fast and agile and I suspect considering his size, he's pretty good at endurance, as well. His compactness would give him ideal balance.

That is my point. Certain athletes don't make those same trade-offs. They're better overall athletes.

No. Everyone makes those trade-offs. Either that, or they'd be horribly under-competitive WRT the rest of the group.

[N35t0r]

What? That doesn't make any sense. Obviously you wouldn't count every athlete in every sport since obviously different sports have different numbers of participants. The idea would be to take an example athlete from each sport.

What the hell? Really, dude?

So you can be a great runner, even if 100k people run better than you?

Using your argument, an 'athlete' who could run faster, lift more, press more, do the most pull-ups, but who could only do so for 60 seconds would be the best overall athlete, since he'd be #1, #1, #1, and #4. But, overall, that guy would be #1, #1, #1, and #3 billion. Is that a good 'athlete'?

[Al B. Sure!]

No. Everyone makes those trade-offs. Either that, or they'd be horribly under-competitive WRT the rest of the group.

No. They don't. Not every sport is filled with specialists.

I keep bringing up Dexter McCluster not only because he is a great athlete but he's versatile. He plays two positions in the NFL and was an exceptional high and long jumper in high school, as well as playing basketball in high school. We've seen guys play other sports at even higher levels than that, of course. Runningback Jim Brown was a lacrosse standout in college, Wide Receiver Bob Hayes was an Olympic gold-medal winning sprinter, Deion Sanders and Bo Jackson excelled at baseball as well as football, Wilt Chamberlain is actually in the International Volleyball Hall of Fame as well as the NBA HoF, Jim Thorpe played everything!, etc.

My whole argument is that when appraising the overall athletic abilities of an athlete, the specialist is not as proficient in a wide-variety of domains as the generalist. Dexter McCluster is a generalist.

[giblets]

What?

There is nothing stupid about my premise. Take everyone and have them run, jump, lift, do pushups, etc. and measure.

That's an arbitrary set of activities.

The marathoner will be the best at distance running, the sprinter at short distance, the Olympic lifter will be the strongest, the gymnast will be the strongest per lb of bodyweight and have the best balance, etc.

We already intuitively know that. But who would be #3 at short distance? Would that same athlete be #4 in strength? If so, who's the better pure athlete? The Olympic lifter who would be #1 in strength or the athlete who is #4 in strength but also the 3rd best sprinter? The latter obviously would be the better pure, all-around athlete.

Yes, for any specific goal you can easily rank people's physical prowess. You're an idiot because you think these rankings can somehow be added up objectively. Unless one athlete is better than another in every respect, you can only rank two athletes by using subjective preferences.

Obviously, sports (as in games; not track and field, lifting, gymnastics, etc.) require multi-role athletes so football, soccer, basketball, hockey, etc. players are not specialists in the same way that an Olympic lifter or a marathoner is. They would have much more overlap between all the athletic domains.

The "athletic domains" you keep talking about are arbitrary concepts.

Suppose this hypothetical situation arised in which the soccer player was #4 in endurance (behind let's say a marathoner, a cyclist, and a triathlete) but he was in the middle of speed, at the bottom of the strength, and middling in other domains. The basketball player ended up being #5 in endurance but was significantly faster and stronger than the soccer player, and around the same level as the soccer player in other domains. Beyond that being cool to know and compare, it would incline one to give an edge to the basketball player depending on just by how many orders of magnitude he is faster and stronger than the soccer player. Obviously, the weighting of these areas would be arbitrary but it still would give a good indication of the relative strengths and weaknesses of athletes from various sports while simultaneously allowing you to make general statements about which sport produces the better all-around athletes.

If we are inclined to say that the basketball player is better overall, it is because of our subjective preferences. The whole thing is arbitrary because you need to arbitrarily select some metrics and weight them arbitrarily. Even in this extreme example the basketball player is not 'objectively' better.

[Al B. Sure!]

Why do you think it has to be so concrete like this athlete scored a 34.8362 composite rating and this one scored 34.8210 so the former is objectively superior? No. I'm not saying that at all nor implying that. I'm giving the framework for a hypothetical test to give a rough indication where the athletes of various sports stand in comparison to each other in each athletic domain. If you have that ranking in each area, you can make general statements about the general abilities of the athletes in the sports.

For example, do you have any problem with the intuitive concept that a marathoner has a sky-high VO2 Max and would be the best at endurance running but would be among the worst at absolute strength? You shouldn't have any problem since it's patently obvious that marathoners are great at long-distance running but weak at lifting. They are pure specialists and the high level of their competition necessitates incremental increases in marathon speed to come at the cost of huge amounts of strength.

Not all sports involve such specialization, however. Generalists don't have to make those same trade-offs; in fact, it would be preferred that someone is just slightly slower if it means they are a lot stronger than the slightly faster guy.

What my hypothetical test would determine is which sports have the better generalists who can do it all at a respectable level, even if they are not the very best at any one area. What is respectable is necessarily subjective but that doesn't invalidate the fact that it would still be meaningful to see the comparative rankings of the athletes between sports nor that the generalist would not only be the better all-around physical specimen but that they would be best able to play multiple sports.

[giblets]

Why do you think it has to be so concrete like this athlete scored a 34.8362 composite rating and this one scored 34.8210 so the former is objectively superior? No. I'm not saying that at all nor implying that. I'm giving the framework for a hypothetical test to give a rough indication where the athletes of various sports stand in comparison to each other in each athletic domain. If you have that ranking in each area, you can make general statements about the general abilities of the athletes in the sports.

Only if you've been hit by the stupid stick and think arbitrarily selecting a set of metrics to judge all athletes by makes any sense.

For example, do you have any problem with the intuitive concept that a marathoner has a sky-high VO2 Max and would be the best at endurance running but would be among the worst at absolute strength? You shouldn't have any problem since it's patently obvious that marathoners are great at long-distance running but weak at lifting. They are pure specialists and the high level of their competition necessitates incremental increases in marathon speed to come at the cost of huge amounts of strength.

Not all sports involve such specialization, however. Generalists don't have to make those same trade-offs; in fact, it would be preferred that someone is just slightly slower if it means they are a lot stronger than the slightly faster guy.

What my hypothetical test would determine is which sports have the better generalists who can do it all at a respectable level, even if they are not the very best at any one area. What is respectable is necessarily subjective but that doesn't invalidate the fact that it would still be meaningful to see the comparative rankings of the athletes between sports nor that the generalist would not only be the better all-around physical specimen but that they would be best able to play multiple sports.

So you've moved the goalposts and are no longer trying to prove that football players are better than hockey players, just less specialized.

[Asher]

A carpenter is less specialized than a neurosurgeon. Ergo a carpenter is better.

We can prove this in many ways. Take everyone and have them run, jump, lift, do pushups, etc. and measure.

[Cort Haus]

Albert still seems to be struggling with the concept that different sports require strength in different areas

Amazing, really.

"ZOMG my sport must be better than your sport because my heroes can bench-press more and jump higher!!111|1li|!|\l1!\i11!!!"

[Al B. Sure!]

No. Hockey players are generalists as well.

The difference is man to man, test to test, I think football players will outperform their generalist cousins, the hockey players. In fact, I suspect only VO2 Max will be the area where hockey players do better than football players.

Now I could be wrong. It's just my guess that would be answered by my hypothetical test.

You have turned by potentially testable assertion (ASSERTION!) that football players will do better across a sum of domains than the hockey players into those whole debate about the validity of my hypothetical test.

You, sir, have moved the topic of discussion.

[Al B. Sure!]

Amazing, really.

"ZOMG my sport must be better than your sport because my heroes can bench-press more and jump higher!!111|1li|!|\l1!\i11!!!"

Don't act like a ****ing ******.

The fact is that this concept that different sports require strength in different areas is a half-truth. There is significant overlap between sports because the human body is only capable of certain activities and strength in one activity has carryover into others. Think about how many sports involve running, jumping, and changing direction.

[Asher]

No. Hockey players are generalists as well.

The difference is man to man, test to test, I think football players will outperform their generalist cousins, the hockey players. In fact, I suspect only VO2 Max will be the area where hockey players do better than football players.

And isn't it fascinating that VO2 Max is the most scientific way to test the physical fitness of an athlete? Because it's really the core of almost all sports, so it's an accurate level of comparison.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VO2_max

[Al B. Sure!]

My contention would be that the football players possess many of the strengths required of hockey players while also having strengths that hockey players lack (the combine numbers point to some of those). Sure the hockey players will have unique strengths that the football players lack but it is my belief that the football players will come up on the plus side of this comparison.

My belief is just a guess and could be wrong, however. I'd readily admit that. That's why I propose that a physical fitness test would determine if I am wrong or right.

[Asher]

Don't act like a ****ing ******.

The fact is that this concept that different sports require strength in different areas is a half-truth. There is significant overlap between sports because the human body is only capable of certain activities and strength in one activity has carryover into others. Think about how many sports involve running, jumping, and changing direction.

Hockey only involves one of those -- and changing direction on skates is a very different activity than changing direction by running...

That's why I propose that a physical fitness test would determine if I am wrong or right.

A fitness test that contains football drills and tests activities football players excel in by virtue of their sport...

[Al B. Sure!]

And isn't it fascinating that VO2 Max is the most scientific way to test the physical fitness of an athlete? Because it's really the core of almost all sports, so it's an accurate level of comparison.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VO2_max

Do you know anything about anything? VO2 max is only a measure of cardiovascular endurance. It doesn't measure strength. It doesn't measure power. It doesn't measure speed. There's a million other ways to measure the physical ability of an athlete.

[Asher]

Do you know anything about anything? VO2 max is only a measure of cardiovascular endurance. It doesn't measure strength. It doesn't measure power. It doesn't measure speed. There's a million other ways to measure the physical ability of an athlete.

I know it's a scientific way to test the fitness of an athlete...

VO2 max (also maximal oxygen consumption, maximal oxygen uptake, peak oxygen uptake or aerobic capacity) is the maximum capacity of an individual's body to transport and use oxygen during incremental exercise, which reflects the physical fitness of the individual.

And the point that there's a million other ways to measure the physical ability of an athlete is entirely the point.