Best Athletes per pro Sport- sport as a whole

PSU87

Well-known member
Oct 12, 2021
1,666
3,388
113
NBA


NFL
EPL
NHL
MLB

If the measure is pure physicality and athleticism rather than a specific skill (hitting a 95 mph fastball, handling a puck in traffic, dribbling a soccer ball through traffic, hitting a golf ball straight on a consistent basis), the NBA wins this by a frickin’ mile. The average NBA player is bigger, stronger, and faster than the average player in ANY of the other sports.

NFL players are to a certain extent specialists. Linemen are really strong but, with some notable exceptions, relatively slow. DB’s are fast/quick, but relatively small, and not as strong. There are some TE’s, RB’s, and LB’s who feature the best combination of athletic ability that football offers. But there is NO NBA player who is not an exceptional athlete.

If the endurance necessary to run back and forth a lot during an athletic contest was the best measure of athleticism, I’d rate EPL players higher.

Golf is a sport, but it is virtually all skill, not physicality.
I guess I'd argue that overall average, NBA is the logical choice because olinemen are gonna bring the NFL average down.

But I'd probably have to argue that certain NFL positions....like safety....need the flat out straight line speed that most NBA players don't need, but still require strength, agility, et al.

So NBA for sure overall....but NFL guys....certain backers, safeties and RBs... would probably get the top spots.
 

Moogy

Well-known member
Nov 23, 2021
2,009
1,430
113
Best athletes rank them.

NFL
NBA
NHL
PGA
MLB
EPL

What is meant by "athlete"?

For me, it's about overall coordination, skill and fitness, which would tend to lend itself to multiple sports/competitions.

Ultramarathoners or triathletes ... obviously incredibly, incredibly fit ... but are they "athletes"?

To me, they're not. But based on traditional definitions, they are ... in fact, they're more within the definition of a true "athlete" than most participants of other sports. Track & field athletes were the first real examples of the term. So maybe I'm way off base. I see really fast people, or really strong people ... and they exhibit just these skills ... are they accomplished athletes? To me, you need to apply these skills toward some other end.

Take soccer players ... Fit, but they're friggin banned from using their arms (outside of throw-ins). I have my American bias, of course, where you see all the best athletes abandon soccer early on in youth, and go on to succeed in more traditional American sports. Only the kids without the coordination or size to compete in these other sports stick with soccer. I know, I know ... soccer fans will point out the exceptions ... but I'm talking about the general rule. It's just hard for me to picture a superior athlete not having premier (or, at the very least, demonstrable and necessary sufficient) hand-eye coordination.

Based on my own definition, I would think the NBA would house the best overall athletes, because basketball typically requires speed, agility, explosiveness, endurance and upper and lower body coordination. It doesn't require as much strength as some other sports ... and there's also the fact that height is REALLY meaningful, and sometimes overrides "athleticism" as being of primary importance ... and often excludes very skilled, very athletic people from competing at the highest levels.

NHL is too "niche" to really house the best athletes.

NFL is a mixed bag, as most of the positions are specialized. A WR is just SO different than a LT. Size matters, greatly. It's far more important than overall skill ... it's like height in hoops. But the biggest, strongest, fastest kids (combined) usually go on to play football.

MLB is niche as well. It takes far more coordination (hand-eye, especially), than any of the other major sports ... and you'll generally find that if you play baseball well, you can generally hold your own in most other sports (the same can't be said, to nearly the same degree, for other sports), but you don't have to be the biggest, fastest and strongest to play it ... so does that eliminate it from consideration?

It's also maybe worth noting that most sports are basically just variations of each other. Take soccer as the starting point. You run around a field kicking a ball toward a goal. What's lacrosse? The same, but, instead of kicking it, you're using a stick to run around with it and throw it toward the goal. Hockey? The same concept, except on ice with skates, and the object glides along the ice. Basketball? Basically the same, except you dribble the ball toward a goal above your head, that you "throw" the ball toward. Football? Well, that's more of a variant of the same general concept, with more pronounced stops and starts, and more varied skill sets in play.

Golf and baseball are the exceptions.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TigersandLions

Nittany.Lion

Active member
Oct 6, 2021
323
481
63
The average NBA player is bigger, stronger, and faster than the average player in ANY of the other sports

But there is NO NBA player who is not an exceptional athlete.

C'mon.... there are many NBA players, especially centers, who aren't particularly fast or strong and are there primarily because of their size and a developed shooting skill (which you excluded).

Across the respective professional "fields" of play, I'd say that Soccer, Hockey, and Tennis players have the best combination of skill, reactions, body control, coordination, and fitness/stamina and they don't have to fit into a certain size mold to be successful.
 
  • Like
Reactions: A2nit and LionJim

WestSideLion

Well-known member
Oct 6, 2021
3,311
3,668
113
What is meant by "athlete"?

For me, it's about overall coordination, skill and fitness, which would tend to lend itself to multiple sports/competitions.

Ultramarathoners or triathletes ... obviously incredibly, incredibly fit ... but are they "athletes"?

To me, they're not. But based on traditional definitions, they are ... in fact, they're more within the definition of a true "athlete" than most participants of other sports. Track & field athletes were the first real examples of the term. So maybe I'm way off base. I see really fast people, or really strong people ... and they exhibit just these skills ... are they accomplished athletes? To me, you need to apply these skills toward some other end.

Take soccer players ... Fit, but they're friggin banned from using their arms (outside of throw-ins). I have my American bias, of course, where you see all the best athletes abandon soccer early on in youth, and go on to succeed in more traditional American sports. Only the kids without the coordination or size to compete in these other sports stick with soccer. I know, I know ... soccer fans will point out the exceptions ... but I'm talking about the general rule. It's just hard for me to picture a superior athlete not having premier (or, at the very least, demonstrable and necessary sufficient) hand-eye coordination.

Based on my own definition, I would think the NBA would house the best overall athletes, because basketball typically requires speed, agility, explosiveness, endurance and upper and lower body coordination. It doesn't require as much strength as some other sports ... and there's also the fact that height is REALLY meaningful, and sometimes overrides "athleticism" as being of primary importance ... and often excludes very skilled, very athletic people from competing at the highest levels.

NHL is too "niche" to really house the best athletes.

NFL is a mixed bag, as most of the positions are specialized. A WR is just SO different than a LT. Size matters, greatly. It's far more important than overall skill ... it's like height in hoops. But the biggest, strongest, fastest kids (combined) usually go on to play football.

MLB is niche as well. It takes far more coordination (hand-eye, especially), than any of the other major sports ... and you'll generally find that if you play baseball well, you can generally hold your own in most other sports (the same can't be said, to nearly the same degree, for other sports), but you don't have to be the biggest, fastest and strongest to play it ... so does that eliminate it from consideration?

It's also maybe worth noting that most sports are basically just variations of each other. Take soccer as the starting point. You run around a field kicking a ball toward a goal. What's lacrosse? The same, but, instead of kicking it, you're using a stick to run around with it and throw it toward the goal. Hockey? The same concept, except on ice with skates, and the object glides along the ice. Basketball? Basically the same, except you dribble the ball toward a goal above your head, that you "throw" the ball toward. Football? Well, that's more of a variant of the same general concept, with more pronounced stops and starts, and more varied skill sets in play.

Golf and baseball are the exceptions.
You’re off your rocker on soccer. It’s significantly harder to play using your legs, head and chest than it is hands and arms. Factor in the physicality and speed involved too at the highest levels like The Prem.

Then you have to hit a round ball exactly right while sprinting and having the ball traveling at high speeds 30-40 yards in the air and direct it into a goal around a goalkeeper.

It’s not simply catching a ball or running with a ball or throwing a ball.
 
  • Like
Reactions: A2nit
Get unlimited access today.

Pick the right plan for you.

Already a member? Login