fifa 11 on PS3 for rollllzz anyone?? joncage06 on there

i dont necessarily agree with lefort but your statement hear is nothing except your opinion and therefore does not "own" lefort's statement of his opinion. a person does not have to be playing a physical sport to be the most athletic.

Holy **** at that squash video. they make it look like they're not even trying, It's so difficult to get it off the back wall...

I'd be down for some squash with anyone who's not too good. Unfortunately because I'm so unfit I can only last like 2 sets, so eh. Also will play basically anyone at tennis/Table tennis, a regular tennis game would be pretty sweet<3

lold at the basketball thing

Haha I love _some_ americans whenever u compare sports they are LOL IT DOESNT EVEN HAVE TACKLIN BRO, SUCH A PUSSY SPORT, BECOME A MAN BROSEPH, U gotta at least have some brain damage at 45 for it to count as a sport!!

I'm down for all 3! Will be in Vegas on June 8th or so, let me know if you're up for it.

im always willing to play some pingpong, and tennis too but only vs people that arent too good or else it wont be fun for you.

My real vote goes for something along the lines of Decathletes / Iron Manners

thought this was a very interesting op-ed: http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ed...oose_or_tight/

Really? I agree that endurance is important, but I feel like the ability to just physically dominate and manhandle another dude has to be somewhat of a factor in who the overall best athlete is. I definitely am in the camp that the NBA (Dwight Howard OMG) and NFL has the best athletes in the world.

No love for Pacquiao as world's greatest athlete?

He's in the discussion for pound for pound athlete but def not overall...

probably like defensive secondary or nba wings

That's kind of interesting. This distinction implies that a larger athlete who is the same relative to his peers as a smaller athlete is 'more athletic.' Can't say that I agree.

I'm gonna disagree with this.

I read some stuff on ultra-marathoners and basically what it said is that an EXTREMELY small percentage of people have an inclination to actually want to excel at super long-distance cardio. The shorter the distance, typically the greater the money/glory/better your body looks and more or less once one reaches a distance they can be world class at, they have little incentive to really excel at the higher distances.

If you took someone who could run a mile in 3:45 they can probably run any longer distance faster than someones whose potential is to run one in 4:15 regardless of the training, but there is more glory for the 3:45 guy running a 3:45 mile than setting a world record running 100 miles, and there is more glory for the 4:15 guy to just run 100 miles and work on the world record since games are softer meanwhile the 3:45 guy could prob run like 2-5% faster if he trained for it.

Cliff notes: Longer distances are softer and typically appeal most to the athletes who aren't good enough to excel at the shorter distances

Also for the decathletes example I'm assuming the guys with the most potential as a decathlete never become decathletes because they are too busy crushing one of the more glorious of the 10 events

Thanks for sharing, very interesting indeed. I love America, but I do sometimes think about what my perception of the USA would be if I was from another country. If I was Chinese I'd certainly disdain US economic policy and probably quite a bit more.

rofl come on


gymnasts are often overlooked but should at least be considered imo. and contact doesn't matter a lot imo, esp not in team games

Wow I typoed real bad- what I meant to say is if both athletes did the same training(ie say some guy could put up a sick time for a 100mile run but had the potential to run 4:15 if he had dedicated himself to that instead, the guy who has the potential to run 3:45 could run a sicker time in the 100 mile run if he had dedicated himself to that instead).

I think what I meant to say was "independant of training" instead or "regardless of training"

don't worry, was very obvious what you meant!

that still makes zero sense though, the natural advantages for running a marathon aren't exactly the same as those for running a mile

Noise, noise, noise, blablabla. derderder.

I disagree with this. Completely different genetic pre dispostions for the marathon and the shorter distances. Usain Bolt could never be a world class marathoner and no great marathoner could be a world class sprinter. Regardless of training.

Also, I think there's as much prestige in the marathon as in short distance races.

I mean, throw Pacman in the ring with the best heavyweights and he doesn't have a chance. Seems kinda obvious, no? Part of being ridic athletic is having a body that is many many standard deviations better than the norm.

Not sure if serious....

might be the dumbest thing posted itt.



this guy can never be the greatest athlete cause he can never beat up this guy:



?