crosby and malkin: two girls, one cup

[Elganja]

Originally posted by: rh71

Originally posted by: TuxDave

Originally posted by: weflyhigh
fuck the pens

/agreed

/agreed regardless

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: KeithTalent

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: actuarial

Originally posted by: SP33Demon
Yes I did. You argued that hand-eye distorts the rankings and that baseball should be ranked lower b/c hand-eye isn't "tough" from a physical standpoint. When in fact, if you read the ESPN article, TOUGH equates to a myriad of factors of which is comprised of hand-eye coordination. To discount or downplay this assessment means you're ignorant of the definition of "tough".

Except tough has multiple meanings and you're blending them in your response.

Saying a sport is pansy does not have anything to do with how difficult it is. It certainly responds to the 'easy' part though (of which most wouldn't disagree).

Rugby/football is by far the toughest sport, and if you don't agree then YOU'RE ignorant of the definition of "tough".

Rugby is ranked lower for a reason aside from the fact that you have to be bigger/faster/stronger/smarter to play football. Hocky, boxing, and baseball are much tougher than Rugby which is why they are much more popular. When was the last time you saw Rugby televised? Easy to explain: it doesn't take much skill, only brawn.

Overall Baseball is less athletic than many of the other sports listed. Yes, the hand-eye and reaction speed required is amazing, but the overall athleticism of Baseball players pales in comparison to a large percentage of the other sports listed in the rankings. I mean ping-pong requires insane hand-eye and reaction speed as well, but I wouldn't rank it higher than barely any of the sports listed.

Your Rugby disparaging is fail since there are a tonne of sports that aren't televised, particularly in the US, and that has has absolutely no bearing on how "tough" the sport is or how much skill is required to play it.

KT

Yes, Ping-pong does require a similar reaction time (about .3 seconds for average speed of 65mph vs .4 for a 98mph fastball) but not at the level of baseball simply because the paddle is flat vs a bat that is round. The bat can be no more than 67mm and the ball is around 3 inches (or 72mm). Meaning it's close to a 1:1 ratio. The Paddle to ball ratio in ping-pong is much larger, however. Also, you don't hit top speed ever in ping-pong (stealing bases/catching line drives) nor jumping over people while throwing (shortstops over a runner on a DP). Ping-pong players also don't hit the limits of physics on every swing like a pitcher does which is why Ping-pong isn't comparable to baseball aside from reaction time, but NOT hand-eye due to ball to [striking item] ratios.

My correlation of televised sports proportional to difficulty is pretty relevant. Society places a higher value on sports that take more skill, hence they're more popular.

Look at the top 15 (PPV = Pay Per View such as HBO/Showtime/DirectTV):

Boxing (televised frequently - WBO/WBC, PPV, Olympics)
Ice Hockey (televised frequently - NHL, Arena, PPV, Olympics)
Football (televised frequently - NFL, college, PPV)
Basketball (televised frequently - NBA, college, PPV, Olympics)
Wrestling (televised frequently - UFC, PPV, Olympics)
Martial Arts (televised frequently - UFC, PPV, Olympics)
Tennis (televised frequently - Grand Slams)
Gymnastics (televised occasionally - US competitions, Olympics)
Baseball/Softball (televised frequently - MLB, PPV, WBC, college, AAA, Olympics)
Soccer (televised frequently - MLS, FIFA, Olympics)
Skiing: Alpine (televised rarely - Olympics)
Water Polo (televised rarely - Olympics)
Rugby (televised very rarely)
Lacrosse (televised rarely - college)
Rodeo: Steer Wrestling (televised rarely - Country channels)

After the top 10 including Soccer, there's not much popularity. The only ones that I can think of that aren't as hard to play but televised frequently are golf (#51) and NASCAR (#32) due to US cultural trends which are the exception to the rule.

 

[AstroManLuca]

Judging by this thread, there are a lot more than two girls involved.

 

[Miramonti]

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: sao123
Baseball should be ranked right about with golf in *athletic-ness* of the sport. Baseball players dont run/skate the entire length of the field for 60 full minutes... they are not tackled, checked, or fouled.

hand eye coordination does not make you a good athlete. Otherwise i know a thousand quake players which should be payed multimillions...

What you're talking about is endurance. No baseball players don't need endurance, no sht Sherlock. That was already taken into consideration in the rankings. Baseball relies on explosiveness: speed, power, strength, and foremost Hand Eye. If you don't think that is a part of athleticism then not even a lobotomist can help you.

Hand eye coordination doesn't make you a good athlete?? That's sig worthy material right there. So Jerry Rice caught laser beam passes from Montana and Young without using hand-eye? Sure. He made diving catches and didn't even look at the ball? Right. Sig worthy.

That's why baseball is not a "tough" sport.

Difficult to be a pro, of course, but baseball is very low in the two most painful aspects of athletics...endurance and durability. It rarely takes any guts to be a great baseball player, just great god-given bat speed, foot speed, and hand-eye coordination.

I loved playing baseball as a youth, but its absolutely a pansy sport compared to any of the other major sports because you don't have to push yourself beyond one's normal pain thresholds in order to succeed, in a game or even in practice.

 

[SunnyD]

No sabers, no care.

 

[z1ggy]

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: actuarial

Originally posted by: SP33Demon
Yes I did. You argued that hand-eye distorts the rankings and that baseball should be ranked lower b/c hand-eye isn't "tough" from a physical standpoint. When in fact, if you read the ESPN article, TOUGH equates to a myriad of factors of which is comprised of hand-eye coordination. To discount or downplay this assessment means you're ignorant of the definition of "tough".

Except tough has multiple meanings and you're blending them in your response.

Saying a sport is pansy does not have anything to do with how difficult it is. It certainly responds to the 'easy' part though (of which most wouldn't disagree).

Rugby/football is by far the toughest sport, and if you don't agree then YOU'RE ignorant of the definition of "tough".

Rugby is ranked lower for a reason aside from the fact that you have to be bigger/faster/stronger/smarter to play football. Hocky, boxing, and baseball are much tougher than Rugby which is why they are much more popular. When was the last time you saw Rugby televised? Easy to explain: it doesn't take much skill, only brawn.

It snot televised bc euro's are what make it popular. I play college D3 rugby and beleieve me...there are plenty of ppl who love it. you sitll have to be smart to play it..you know how many dumb ass NFL players that took ebonics or someshit in college that are still able to remember a play? I bet your a fat ass who sits on the couch all day with potatoe chips listen to that idiot John Madden talk for 3 hours.

 

[z1ggy]

Originally posted by: jjsole

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: sao123
Baseball should be ranked right about with golf in *athletic-ness* of the sport. Baseball players dont run/skate the entire length of the field for 60 full minutes... they are not tackled, checked, or fouled.

hand eye coordination does not make you a good athlete. Otherwise i know a thousand quake players which should be payed multimillions...

What you're talking about is endurance. No baseball players don't need endurance, no sht Sherlock. That was already taken into consideration in the rankings. Baseball relies on explosiveness: speed, power, strength, and foremost Hand Eye. If you don't think that is a part of athleticism then not even a lobotomist can help you.

Hand eye coordination doesn't make you a good athlete?? That's sig worthy material right there. So Jerry Rice caught laser beam passes from Montana and Young without using hand-eye? Sure. He made diving catches and didn't even look at the ball? Right. Sig worthy.

That's why baseball is not a "tough" sport.

Difficult to be a pro, of course, but baseball is very low in the two most painful aspects of athletics...endurance and durability. It rarely takes any guts to be a great baseball player, just great god-given bat speed, foot speed, and hand-eye coordination.

I loved playing baseball as a youth, but its absolutely a pansy sport compared to any of the other major sports because you don't have to push yourself beyond one's normal pain thresholds in order to succeed, in a game or even in practice.

You ever been hit with a 90+ mile an hour fastball, then have to go steal second base? Nope.. didn't think so.

 

[destrekor]

All the baseball arguments are rather amusing. As someone who played baseball for a large portion of my life (entire youth, barely missed the cut for an intensely competitive Div 1 school, like an idiot gave up after that. hell, for all I know the injury was what killed me, bruised my hip during racquetball, couldn't run or pivot to hit at all like normal), I'm guessing most people arguing against it just don't understand what goes into shaping baseball players.

And I read once or twice about it not being a strong team sport. I have no response other than a big :laugh: at the ridiculousness of that claim. Moving on.

There are some sports that take a same, slightly altered, hand-eye coordination ability. Golf and ping pong. However, that is ALL those sports have. I love golf. Golf requires a degree of explosiveness in the body for the swing, but mostly all about coordination of your entire body. Ping pong is essentially all coordination.
Baseball, on the other hand, coordination can only go so far. Some of the greatest hitters, thus having great coordination for the swing, could have been terrible fielders. Not common though, usually they were good at fielding a ball. Throwing is key, which requires a degree of strength depending on position, and more importantly an on-demand ability to deliver it accurately and with intensity.
Running the bases is where a lot of people fall off. Not only is it about explosive speed, but agility and response time is huge. Granted, there are some pro's who severely lack in the agility and response time on the bases, but have enough for the fielding. All pros are a little different in their abilities, obviously, and it's that big picture that comes together.
Sure it doesn't require the levels of a brute to survive on the field against the other players, but brute force is hardly a defining factor for athleticism or a sports difficulty. Many of the brute-level type people won't make the cut for high school baseball teams, let alone pro. Certain sports are going to come easier for certain types of people.

But baseball, requiring excellent hand-eye coordination, reaction time, explosive speed, agility, and many abilities that make use of all of that... it's easy to say that the ones who claim baseball isn't a skilled or athletic sport, are the ones who simply do not like the sport because it is "boring". I think pro basketball is boring, I don't argue it doesn't take any skill or athleticism though. Hell, pro-football isn't fun to watch for me either. Granted, it's not entirely the sport, it's the players. I readily enjoy college football.

 

[KeithTalent]

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: KeithTalent

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: actuarial

Originally posted by: SP33Demon
Yes I did. You argued that hand-eye distorts the rankings and that baseball should be ranked lower b/c hand-eye isn't "tough" from a physical standpoint. When in fact, if you read the ESPN article, TOUGH equates to a myriad of factors of which is comprised of hand-eye coordination. To discount or downplay this assessment means you're ignorant of the definition of "tough".

Except tough has multiple meanings and you're blending them in your response.

Saying a sport is pansy does not have anything to do with how difficult it is. It certainly responds to the 'easy' part though (of which most wouldn't disagree).

Rugby/football is by far the toughest sport, and if you don't agree then YOU'RE ignorant of the definition of "tough".

Rugby is ranked lower for a reason aside from the fact that you have to be bigger/faster/stronger/smarter to play football. Hocky, boxing, and baseball are much tougher than Rugby which is why they are much more popular. When was the last time you saw Rugby televised? Easy to explain: it doesn't take much skill, only brawn.

Overall Baseball is less athletic than many of the other sports listed. Yes, the hand-eye and reaction speed required is amazing, but the overall athleticism of Baseball players pales in comparison to a large percentage of the other sports listed in the rankings. I mean ping-pong requires insane hand-eye and reaction speed as well, but I wouldn't rank it higher than barely any of the sports listed.

Your Rugby disparaging is fail since there are a tonne of sports that aren't televised, particularly in the US, and that has has absolutely no bearing on how "tough" the sport is or how much skill is required to play it.

KT

Yes, Ping-pong does require a similar reaction time (about .3 seconds for average speed of 65mph vs .4 for a 98mph fastball) but not at the level of baseball simply because the paddle is flat vs a bat that is round. The bat can be no more than 67mm and the ball is around 3 inches (or 72mm). Meaning it's close to a 1:1 ratio. The Paddle to ball ratio in ping-pong is much larger, however. Also, you don't hit top speed ever in ping-pong (stealing bases/catching line drives) nor jumping over people while throwing (shortstops over a runner on a DP). Ping-pong players also don't hit the limits of physics on every swing like a pitcher does which is why Ping-pong isn't comparable to baseball aside from reaction time, but NOT hand-eye due to ball to [striking item] ratios.

My correlation of televised sports proportional to difficulty is pretty relevant. Society places a higher value on sports that take more skill, hence they're more popular.

Look at the top 15 (PPV = Pay Per View such as HBO/Showtime/DirectTV):

Boxing (televised frequently - WBO/WBC, PPV, Olympics)
Ice Hockey (televised frequently - NHL, Arena, PPV, Olympics)
Football (televised frequently - NFL, college, PPV)
Basketball (televised frequently - NBA, college, PPV, Olympics)
Wrestling (televised frequently - UFC, PPV, Olympics)
Martial Arts (televised frequently - UFC, PPV, Olympics)
Tennis (televised frequently - Grand Slams)
Gymnastics (televised occasionally - US competitions, Olympics)
Baseball/Softball (televised frequently - MLB, PPV, WBC, college, AAA, Olympics)
Soccer (televised frequently - MLS, FIFA, Olympics)
Skiing: Alpine (televised rarely - Olympics)
Water Polo (televised rarely - Olympics)
Rugby (televised very rarely)
Lacrosse (televised rarely - college)
Rodeo: Steer Wrestling (televised rarely - Country channels)

After the top 10 including Soccer, there's not much popularity. The only ones that I can think of that aren't as hard to play but televised frequently are golf (#51) and NASCAR (#32) due to US cultural trends which are the exception to the rule.

That's fine, but very US-centric of course, which can also be said for that entire ranking you linked (I just checked the "Panel of Experts" to confirm). Cricket is huge in many places around the world and is televised a lot, same with Rugby, Ping-pong, Badminton, Aussie Rules (in Aussie land), etc... I think the relationship between thinking a sport is skillful and viewership is not that big, it has more to do with regional, and of course personal preferences.

I'm obviously no expert on Baseball, I mean I can watch some of the playoffs and the occasional regular season game (I really only like great pitching duels), though I did play Baseball a little when I was very young, but I found it boring and decided to play Soccer instead. Not that it's really relevant to the discussion here.

KT

 

[KeithTalent]

Originally posted by: destrekor
All the baseball arguments are rather amusing. As someone who played baseball for a large portion of my life (entire youth, barely missed the cut for an intensely competitive Div 1 school, like an idiot gave up after that. hell, for all I know the injury was what killed me, bruised my hip during racquetball, couldn't run or pivot to hit at all like normal), I'm guessing most people arguing against it just don't understand what goes into shaping baseball players.

And I read once or twice about it not being a strong team sport. I have no response other than a big :laugh: at the ridiculousness of that claim. Moving on.

There are some sports that take a same, slightly altered, hand-eye coordination ability. Golf and ping pong. However, that is ALL those sports have. I love golf. Golf requires a degree of explosiveness in the body for the swing, but mostly all about coordination of your entire body. Ping pong is essentially all coordination.
Baseball, on the other hand, coordination can only go so far. Some of the greatest hitters, thus having great coordination for the swing, could have been terrible fielders. Not common though, usually they were good at fielding a ball. Throwing is key, which requires a degree of strength depending on position, and more importantly an on-demand ability to deliver it accurately and with intensity.
Running the bases is where a lot of people fall off. Not only is it about explosive speed, but agility and response time is huge. Granted, there are some pro's who severely lack in the agility and response time on the bases, but have enough for the fielding. All pros are a little different in their abilities, obviously, and it's that big picture that comes together.
Sure it doesn't require the levels of a brute to survive on the field against the other players, but brute force is hardly a defining factor for athleticism or a sports difficulty. Many of the brute-level type people won't make the cut for high school baseball teams, let alone pro. Certain sports are going to come easier for certain types of people.

But baseball, requiring excellent hand-eye coordination, reaction time, explosive speed, agility, and many abilities that make use of all of that... it's easy to say that the ones who claim baseball isn't a skilled or athletic sport, are the ones who simply do not like the sport because it is "boring". I think pro basketball is boring, I don't argue it doesn't take any skill or athleticism though. Hell, pro-football isn't fun to watch for me either. Granted, it's not entirely the sport, it's the players. I readily enjoy college football.

I don't think anyone said that, well maybe one guy way back up top, it was a discussion of the athleticism required in Baseball compared the other sports.

There is no question in my mind that Baseball requires skill, it requires a lot of skill, and some athleticism, but in relation to other sports, I don't think the athleticism required in Baseball is equal to what is required in some of the other sports out there.

KT

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: jjsole

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: sao123
Baseball should be ranked right about with golf in *athletic-ness* of the sport. Baseball players dont run/skate the entire length of the field for 60 full minutes... they are not tackled, checked, or fouled.

hand eye coordination does not make you a good athlete. Otherwise i know a thousand quake players which should be payed multimillions...

What you're talking about is endurance. No baseball players don't need endurance, no sht Sherlock. That was already taken into consideration in the rankings. Baseball relies on explosiveness: speed, power, strength, and foremost Hand Eye. If you don't think that is a part of athleticism then not even a lobotomist can help you.

Hand eye coordination doesn't make you a good athlete?? That's sig worthy material right there. So Jerry Rice caught laser beam passes from Montana and Young without using hand-eye? Sure. He made diving catches and didn't even look at the ball? Right. Sig worthy.

That's why baseball is not a "tough" sport.

Difficult to be a pro, of course, but baseball is very low in the two most painful aspects of athletics...endurance and durability. It rarely takes any guts to be a great baseball player, just great god-given bat speed, foot speed, and hand-eye coordination.

I loved playing baseball as a youth, but its absolutely a pansy sport compared to any of the other major sports because you don't have to push yourself beyond one's normal pain thresholds in order to succeed, in a game or even in practice.

Baseball rarely takes guts?
Outfielders/infielders with balls:
Diving headfirst into the wall
Jeter's catch diving 4 rows into the stands
Beltran and Cameron diving into each other (Click on the Video - Warning Very Scary link)


Catchers with balls:
Pic of Pete Rose breaking Ray Fosse's shoulder in All Star Game

Pic of Mike Cameron KO'ing Humberto Quintero.
Video of Cameron/Humberto

Yeah they may be rare, but I wouldn't classify the game as pansy. That's more like Badminton.

 

[Miramonti]

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: jjsole

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: sao123
Baseball should be ranked right about with golf in *athletic-ness* of the sport. Baseball players dont run/skate the entire length of the field for 60 full minutes... they are not tackled, checked, or fouled.

hand eye coordination does not make you a good athlete. Otherwise i know a thousand quake players which should be payed multimillions...

What you're talking about is endurance. No baseball players don't need endurance, no sht Sherlock. That was already taken into consideration in the rankings. Baseball relies on explosiveness: speed, power, strength, and foremost Hand Eye. If you don't think that is a part of athleticism then not even a lobotomist can help you.

Hand eye coordination doesn't make you a good athlete?? That's sig worthy material right there. So Jerry Rice caught laser beam passes from Montana and Young without using hand-eye? Sure. He made diving catches and didn't even look at the ball? Right. Sig worthy.

That's why baseball is not a "tough" sport.

Difficult to be a pro, of course, but baseball is very low in the two most painful aspects of athletics...endurance and durability. It rarely takes any guts to be a great baseball player, just great god-given bat speed, foot speed, and hand-eye coordination.

I loved playing baseball as a youth, but its absolutely a pansy sport compared to any of the other major sports because you don't have to push yourself beyond one's normal pain thresholds in order to succeed, in a game or even in practice.

Baseball rarely takes guts?
Outfielders/infielders with balls:
Diving headfirst into the wall
Jeter's catch diving 4 rows into the stands
Beltran and Cameron diving into each other (Click on the Video - Warning Very Scary link)


Catchers with balls:
Pic of Pete Rose breaking Ray Fosse's shoulder in All Star Game

Pic of Mike Cameron KO'ing Humberto Quintero.
Video of Cameron/Humberto

Yeah they may be rare, but I wouldn't classify the game as pansy. That's more like Badminton.

Hey, badminton is one of the funnest sports I've ever played! Granted there's no hitting or much guts required, but its an extremely intense and aggressive sport...unlike baseball.

I wouldn't say all baseball players don't have guts. Its a pro sport where everyone at that level is extremely competitive and many will risk injury (especially on 'roids ) to be successful, but unfortunately for the nature of the sport it is rare and not regularly required of them to be successful, which aids weaker impressions of baseball.

Football, hockey, rugby, track, and others, are sports where the more push-to-the-edge physical commitment you put into the sport, the more it translates into effectiveness. And in each of those sports, there's far more pain in the practice and preparation than there is in the games/events. I wouldn't consider most baseball players pansy's, but relatively speaking its a fairly pansy sport imo.

Now if I was a gifted athlete who had a great chance at a successful career in football as well as in baseball...I'm not stupid, I'd choose baseball.


and btw...

Catchers with balls:
Pic of Pete Rose breaking Ray Fosse's shoulder in All Star Game

...that was guts by Fosse but I don't think he knew what he was getting into...it was pretty ascenine of rose to do that in an allstar game, lol. However that mentality is one reason why I idolized Rose's play growing up. I used to play catcher as a youth tho, and you can definitely take a beating (and give them out too.)