HARDEST sports to play

College Confidential Community
181

<p>the pro-am TOUR? its a weekend tournament at pebble beach! its a publicity stunt!</p>

<p>if the game is so easy, why can so few people actually break 100 at their easy, muni courses?</p>

<p>i dont wanna hear 'well you could go down 6-0 6-0 blah blah blah.' what? you dont think woods would beat you (best of 18) after the first 10? or not even woods, how about that sick freshman from stanford? he'd wreck you, too.</p>

<p>every sport gets hard when you want to be the best. stop saying tennis is the hardEST.</p>

<p>daly can't be athletic because he's fat? id like to see you make that gigantic shoulder turn and still stay in synch and balanced. he's not even regularly competitive, but you just take shots were you can. hasnt there been some funny looking tennis player who won one or two tournaments? he must mean its easy, right?</p>

182

<p>
[quote]
1. Of or befitting athletics or athletes.
2. Characterized by or involving physical activity or exertion; active: an athletic lifestyle;
3. Physically strong and well-developed; muscular: an actor with an </p>

<p>Characterized by marked muscular development; powerfully built: brawny, burly, muscular, robust, sinewy, sturdy. See strong/weak.</p>

<p>The adjective athletic has 3 meanings:</p>

<p>Meaning #1: relating to or befitting athletics or athletes
**Pertains to noun: athletics (meaning #1)</p>

<p>Meaning #2: vigorously active
**Synonyms: acrobatic, gymnastic</p>

<p>Meaning #3: having a sturdy and well proportioned body

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Aside from burly would you like to tell me what definition of athletic John Daly falls under? And by the way, in case you had bothered to read any of my posts you might have noticed that I'm probably the most active opponent of tennis as the hardest sport. It's called sarcasm. </p>

<p>And to answer you charge, I would bet everything I own that Tiger would absolutely destroy me, I'm not denying that golf, as an activity is extremely hard, I'm just saying that the fact that you are only competing against a large plot of land, not an actual human being capable of independant thought negates any argument for golf as the hardest sport...or even a sport at all (again, under the definition I offered above). And by the way, Romano shoots under a hundred.</p>

<p>And I was not trying to take a cheap shot at Daly, I was just pointing out the obvious. I'll even give you another example to make it better: Colin Montgomery (sp?). Do you think he's more athletic then say cal Ripken Jr., Jerry Rice, or any other NFL player of his equivilant age? I'd say not.</p>

183

<p>Toma, once again, is completely right. I've always thought of a sport as something where there is a physical being trying to defend you from achieving your goal. Golf = not a sport.</p>

184

<p>I hope we can all concede to the fact that golf is an internationally recognized SPORT, whether or not this is exemplified in your fancy definition. It is a sport that embraces some of the most unique people on the face of this earth, partly because it is not something that most can do instinctively. Anybody that is athletic can pick up a baseball and throw it; it's a motion that comes naturally. Same with shooting a basketball or throwing a football. Professionals involved in these sports spend their whole lives perfecting their game, while golfers are constantly trying to develop theirs. The golf swing is extremely unorthodox, and anyone who has ever picked up a golf club knows this. Also, I believe it is the only sport that calls for a flawless performance, not to mention 5 CONTINUOUS HOURS of it: a baseball player gets three strikes, in tennis you can always come back in the next match, but one 8 or 9 in a round of golf and you've surrendered to the entire field.</p>

<p>I would compare Colin Montgomery to leading NFL athletes any day, but you're right, I would never say he is as athletic as they are. But that is simply because golf doesn't require you to be athletic in the traditional sense which, again, does not exclude golf as a sport.</p>

185

<p>Golf is a game-it is not a sport. I think that a game in which guys who are fat (Jack Nicklaus) or guys that smoke (Arnold Palmer) are the best players in the world is most definitely not a sport. Yes I realize NFL linemen are fat and Michael Jordan recreationally smoked cigars, among athletes of every sport smoking weed, but golf is a rich, white kid game that is passed off as a sport. The only player for whom I have respect is Tiger.</p>

186

<p>
[quote]
Also, I believe it is the only sport that calls for a flawless performance, not to mention 5 CONTINUOUS HOURS of it: a baseball player gets three strikes, in tennis you can always come back in the next match, but one 8 or 9 in a round of golf and you've surrendered to the entire field.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>HAHAHAHAHA. Are you joking? What sport doesn't call for flawless performances? I guarantee you that a major league pitcher could throw 81 strikes in a row if there was no batter in the box, but unfortunately he can't because there is another human being sitting there waiting to wack it. Therefore, perfection is much harder to obtain. And 5 continuous hours? That even more of a joke. YOU WALK BETWEEN HOLES FOR HOW MUCH OF THAT TIME? Walk. Not run, not jog, walk. Maybe briskly. With someone else carrying your clubs.</p>

<p>
[quote]
But that is simply because golf doesn't require you to be athletic in the traditional sense which, again, does not exclude golf as a sport.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Um, yes. Yes it does actually.</p>

<p>p.s. Throwing a baseball overhand isn't a natural motion. Throwing a ball underhand ala softball is. Read up on the biomechanics of it sometime. And furthermore, you can be a hell of an athlete and still suck at throwing a baseball, it requires training your muscles, just like anything esle.</p>

187

<p>I have a question for tomadog02:</p>

<p>Before you misunderstand what I'm about to say, I just want to say that I'm not belittling your sport or anything, I'm just curious.</p>

<p>I was wondering about football, so maybe you can enlighten me: what is the point of having 22 big, heavy men crash and bash into each other over a ball? I have an outsider's perspective, so I was just curious to an insider's perspective. What do you feel from knocking a 250 pound guy over and getting knocked down by a 250 pounder?</p>

<p>I realize that football is filled with intricacies of offensive and defensive plays... but it seems to me that in the end it's just a bunch of big guys knocking the crap out of each other.</p>

<p>Enlighten me.</p>

188

<p>most definitely any endurance sport. such as cycling (tour de france) or running (marathons). and soccer. basically stuff i suck at.</p>

<p>football is a mind game- of the coaches. the players usually have very simple, specialized tasks to worry about. cornerback, yeah thats tough. quarterback, even tougher. but if you're a lineman, theres not a whole lot to think about.</p>

189

<p>Hockey is basically football... except 1) you are standing on a 1/8 inch blade trying to keep balance, 2) you have sticks, 3) you are moving much faster</p>

190

<p>Here's where I come in sum up the last five points and make a point out of them.</p>

<p>Hockey is tougher than football, but a cornerback, in my biased opinion, has a much tougher job than a quarterback. The cornerbacks are the most athletic people on the field.</p>

191

<p>
[quote]
I was wondering about football, so maybe you can enlighten me: what is the point of having 22 big, heavy men crash and bash into each other over a ball?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Well, I suppose the best way to answer that question is with one of my own. What is the point of any sport? I believe that man is inherantly competitive and that all sports reflect that inner drive. There are very few arenas in which men can physically unleash upon each other in a way that satisfies this desire anymore, the days of street brawling and the like having passed us by. Football serves as one of the few remaining outlets for this competitive spirit. To test yourself against another man in direct physical competition. Some people have this desire, others do not. If you can make sense of this rambling, train wreck of a paragraph I suppose my final answer would be, it's a very simple concept extrapolated into a complex game: physically better your opponent, and triumph over him. If I can quote Conan the Barbarian:</p>

<p>Mongol General: "What is best in life?"
Conan: "To crush your enemies, to see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentations of their women." </p>

<p>
[quote]
football is a mind game- of the coaches. the players usually have very simple, specialized tasks to worry about. cornerback, yeah thats tough. quarterback, even tougher. but if you're a lineman, theres not a whole lot to think about.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Don't attempt to speak on things you don't have experience with. You talk to any NFL-level offensive lineman and you will soon find out how "simple" line play is. If anything, lineman have a more complex mental game to play then corners, while corners have perhapsthe hardest physical task in the game.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Hockey is tougher than football, but a cornerback, in my biased opinion, has a much tougher job than a quarterback. The cornerbacks are the most athletic people on the field.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Hmmn...C-USA sprinter, probably played football in high school, I wonder what position he played? I will definitely give you that corners are the most athletic players on the field, though I would question that they have a tougher job then the quarterback. I think the difference is mental to physical. Cornerbacks must guard amazing athletes in recievers and are entirely dependant on reacting to the envornment around them. Quarterbacks on the otherhand must read the entire field, call plays, etc...more of a mental game. What job is tougher depends on how you weigh the mental-physical balance between the two. Personally, I'd lean towards quarterback, if only because of the massive hits they take, and the ability to operate under pressure.</p>

<p>
[quote]
most definitely any endurance sport. such as cycling (tour de france) or running (marathons). and soccer. basically stuff i suck at.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>read the entire thread before you post. we've been over this.</p>

192

<p>we were talking amateur-level...</p>

<p>sure, i know, you've gotta anticipate, counter the opponent's moves. but how can it be as tough as a quarterback having to analyze entire defensive schemes?</p>

<p>read the entire thread? i dont feel like it, bite me.</p>

193

<p>It all depends on the level of commitment. </p>

<p>I'll just use this as an example because it's what I'm familiar with. Earlier in the thread people were talking about cross country and they were saying 20-30 miles per week or 3 miles during practice.. if that is what your cross country team is like then yeah it is going to be easy. Now if you are going to actually put a lot of effort into it and run 60+ miles per week then it becomes difficult. And quality miles not just jogging.</p>

<p>I'm not arguing that cross country is the hardest I was just using it as an example. You could have a football team that has hard practices and others that have easy ones. There really is not exact one sport better than another. Every sport is hard if you put all of your effort into it.</p>

194

<p>
[quote]
and as for hockey</p>

<p>eye-hand: when you hit a puck, most of the time it isnt coming at you 100mph. you get to stop it with your puck and then hit it, or its conveniently passed to you.
nerve: i'm pretty sure its the fact that you can get hit thats nerve wrecking, not the puck, given that (as you mentioned) you have a whole bunch of padding. and i admitted tennis doesnt require nerve.
analytic: tennis is way harder.
endurance: hockey players arent always skating hard, they do relax and kind of glide along. i don't think skating is harder either. skating 100 yards is a lot easier than running 100 yards. and i've never heard of hockey players cramping in their legs as much as players do. and of course, SUBSTITUTION is a great advantage to have. but you dont have that benefit in tennis now do you.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Ok. You've already admitted you're biased, but here you are just spouting PURE IGNORANCE about a sport.</p>

<p>Full disclosure: I will be playing college ice hockey at a DIII level. I have played tennis (recreationally, never competitively) since I was six. I have also played, from levels ranging from casual to varsity, the following sports: squash, golf, lacrosse, soccer, basketball and softball.</p>

<p>there is no, and I mean NO, stoppage in ice hockey during play. it is as fast-paced as basketball--perhaps more so. the rapid transitioning from offense/defense is certainly very similar. there is absolutely nothing "convenient" about puck handling. you do not get to "stop" and then "hit" the puck.
analytic? tennis is a PURELY reactionary sport. your only strategy is of the split second variety. there is no analysis. hockey is also based on split-second decisions, but there is also premeditated strategy involved--breakout plays, offensive cycling, special teams, etc. tennis just doesn't compare.</p>

<p>hockey players aren't always working hard? why are shifts 30-45 seconds, on average, then? because gliding around for half a minute is so demanding?</p>

<p>skating and running are two different motions working two different muscle groups. skating is just as hard as running.</p>

<p>i can't really comment on the mental aspect of the game--i play goalie, which, mentally, is an entirely different animal than any other position.</p>

<p>tennis requires a lot of skill. but so does hockey, and hockey is FAR more physically demanding. you seem to be under the impression that subbing in hockey is a great advantage, or that there is a lot of break-taking involved. but playing a hockey game is like doing sprints: you have 45 seconds to work as hard as you can, then rest for a minute, work for 45 seconds, etc.</p>

<p>tennis is hard, especially at really competitive levels. but hockey's more demanding at all levels---ie, beginner hockey is harder than beginner tennis, pro hockey's harder than pro tennis.</p>

195

<p>ppro hockey harder then pro tennis? psttt, tennis is an international sport. TO be in the top 250 in the world is very demanding. Ice hockey is mainly US, where most of the players go to college. tennis, 5 players in the top 100 went to college, where they were top in the NCAA.</p>

196

<p>i'm sorry, i wasn't aware that the nationality of the players had anything to do with the difficulty of the sport.</p>

<p>by the way...the majority of professional hockey players are from eastern europe or canada. not the united states.</p>

<p>also...most pro players didn't play college hockey, they played junior hockey...</p>

197

<p>
[quote]
ppro hockey harder then pro tennis? psttt, tennis is an international sport. TO be in the top 250 in the world is very demanding. Ice hockey is mainly US, where most of the players go to college. tennis, 5 players in the top 100 went to college, where they were top in the NCAA.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Is this post a ****ing joke? "Ice hockey is mainly US, where most of the players go to college". Seriously, it made me laugh if that's what you were trying to accomplish.
If pro tennis is so much harder than pro hockey than how can 16 year old girls (I'm thinking Martina Hingis) come out of nowhere and win the biggest titles in the sport at such a young age? It's like golf, it doesn't take long to "get good" apparently.</p>

198

<p>big john is just as athletic is your average lineman
tiger is frickin ripped; he's built like a linebacker
ok golf is just as much a 'sport' as baseball is
you wanna tell me that baseball isnt a sport?</p>

199

<p>pro hockey players are beasts; they could take on any tennis ***** any day. </p>

<p>but i donno what ecliptica was talking about with the time it takes to get good at the sport. if golf doesnt take so long, why does the majority of the world suck at it? all sports have prodigies. in tennis, young players can play at a higher level than their hockey counterparts because in tennis (and golf and other non contact SPORTS), there are ways around sheer size and strength. it is not physically possible for a 14 year old to realistically compete with a 26 year old tuned machine in hockey or football or rugby or something. so its more noticable</p>

200

<p>Lebron James?</p>