Which sport league has the best athletes

• 2quik4u

  

  jmog wrote:

  NNN wrote: How many NHLers can jog or sprint for extended periods of time?
  
  And how many non-NHLers can even stand up on skates, let alone skate at a speed 1.5 to 2 times as fast as what even a top-level athlete can sprint?* **
  
  *Mike Gartner holds the NHL record for fastest lap at 13.386 seconds. An NHL rink is 200 feet long and 85 feet wide, which would mean that he would have covered 570 feet in less than 14 seconds after beginning in a stopped position. This gives us a figure of 42.6 ft/s, which comes out to roughly 29 MPH. Obviously Gartner didn't skate along the outermost perimeter of the rink, but there are four turns that he had to make, so I don't think that you can knock him on that basis. Going straight ahead over a distance, he'd probably average 30 MPH.
  
  **Usain Bolt holds the record in the 100 meters with a time of 9.58 seconds. This comes out to 34.24 ft/s (328 feet = 100 meters), which is roughly 23.3 MPH.***
  
  ***Even the most middling NHL skater could achieve a 16.6-second lap, which would equal Bolt's sprinting speed. Except, of course, it's done on a 1/4"-wide piece of metal.

  You obviously don't understand physics if you are arguing that they are better athletes because they move faster on ice skates than people can run.
  
  Um...the coefficient of friction on ice is much less than any other typical ground surface like grass, track, asphalt, etc.
  
  So, it takes less physical energy or force to get someone moving faster on ice than on the ground.
  
  So no crap sherlock, people can move faster on ice than on the ground. You aren't winning a Nobel Prize for that revelation.
  
  I've always said that hockey players are amazing athletes being able to do their sport on skates, but the fact that the speed they move is faster than people can run has zero to do with their athleticism and more to do with physics.

  lol, please tell me dude wasn't serious comparing someone with skates to someone who was running
• lhslep134

  

  jmog wrote:
  I'd bet that someone who could really hit like me in HS, wouldn't bat .100 against a pro pitcher, and the .100 (1 hit in 10 ABs) would probably be luck.

  I batted .515 my senior year in high school and didn't even get any looks to play in college because of my height (5'5")
  
  I played against 2 guys who have shots at being in the big leagues, Alex Wimmers and Scott Moviel, and I was able to put the ball in play but wasn't able to make great contact or get a base hit on them, so I definitely agree with you.
• Laley23

  

  jmog, I dont know anyone who can go 10 minutes. But in the playoffs players will sometimes double shift equating to nearly half of the game on the ice (30+ minutes). I dont know how anyone can do that. I see the players on PP who are on defense and never get the shift needed halfway through and they can barely move. Its like a drag to get to the bench.
• NNN

  

  jmog wrote: You obviously don't understand physics if you are arguing that they are better athletes because they move faster on ice skates than people can run.
  
  Um...the coefficient of friction on ice is much less than any other typical ground surface like grass, track, asphalt, etc.
  
  So, it takes less physical energy or force to get someone moving faster on ice than on the ground.
  
  So no crap sherlock, people can move faster on ice than on the ground. You aren't winning a Nobel Prize for that revelation.
  
  I've always said that hockey players are amazing athletes being able to do their sport on skates, but the fact that the speed they move is faster than people can run has zero to do with their athleticism and more to do with physics.

  Considering that that wasn't my point, this all kind of goes for naught. When considering issues related to force and momentum across all sports, the actual acceleration and velocity of a 200-plus pound hockey player makes an enormous difference.
  
  Personally, I'd love to calculate the actual force of this collision here and compare to some of the great hits in NFL history:
• Hb31187

  

  taking hits doesnt mean theyre athletic
• sleeper

  

  You could put a 200 pound stone on skates and have it be as athletic as a hockey player.
  
  Seriously, can we stop putting Hockey in this thread? I can see junk sports like soccer and wrestling being in here, but hockey? Come on man.
• Con_Alma

  NNN wrote: ...
  
  **Usain Bolt holds the record in the 100 meters with a time of 9.58 seconds. This comes out to 34.24 ft/s (328 feet = 100 meters), which is roughly 23.3 MPH.***
  
  ...

  I understand that you were using this on a comparative basis but I though it would be interesting to note that this is his average speed as opposed to his top speed.
  
  It's pretty ridiculous that a human can reach a speed that he does as quickly as he does.
  
  
  Even more ridiculous is he's still developing as a sprinter and may very well run faster.
• jmog

  NNN wrote:

  jmog wrote: You obviously don't understand physics if you are arguing that they are better athletes because they move faster on ice skates than people can run.
  
  Um...the coefficient of friction on ice is much less than any other typical ground surface like grass, track, asphalt, etc.
  
  So, it takes less physical energy or force to get someone moving faster on ice than on the ground.
  
  So no crap sherlock, people can move faster on ice than on the ground. You aren't winning a Nobel Prize for that revelation.
  
  I've always said that hockey players are amazing athletes being able to do their sport on skates, but the fact that the speed they move is faster than people can run has zero to do with their athleticism and more to do with physics.

  Considering that that wasn't my point, this all kind of goes for naught. When considering issues related to force and momentum across all sports, the actual acceleration and velocity of a 200-plus pound hockey player makes an enormous difference.
  
  Personally, I'd love to calculate the actual force of this collision here and compare to some of the great hits in NFL history:

  Your whole post was about how fast they can skate vs people running on land, and this is a topic on which sport had better athletes.
  
  So, anyone using logic would believe you were using your post as evidence that hockey players were better athletes.
  
  So once again, my post stands and yours was retarded.
• cbus4life

  I think Jeff Gordon is one of the best athletes ever because he can get around a track a lot faster in his sport than Bolt can in his. And, by extension, NASCAR probably has the best athletes, or at least should be heavily considered, IMO.
• Con_Alma

  cbus4life wrote: I think Jeff Gordon is one of the best athletes ever because he can get around a track a lot faster in his sport than Bolt can in his. And, by extension, NASCAR probably has the best athletes, or at least should be heavily considered, IMO.

  Sorry. The would get beat out by top fuel dragsters.
• End of Line

  

  sleeper wrote: You could put a 200 pound stone on skates and have it be as athletic as a hockey player.
  
  Seriously, can we stop putting Hockey in this thread? I can see junk sports like soccer and wrestling being in here, but hockey? Come on man.

  Really? Uhm, no.
  
  
  
  
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  cbus4life wrote: I think Jeff Gordon is one of the best athletes ever because he can get around a track a lot faster in his sport than Bolt can in his. And, by extension, NASCAR probably has the best athletes, or at least should be heavily considered, IMO.

  Ehh, I'll take F1 over NASCAR guys on fitness, considering the amount of g-loads a particular F1 car has.
• sleeper

  

  The_Crosby_Show wrote:

  sleeper wrote: You could put a 200 pound stone on skates and have it be as athletic as a hockey player.
  
  Seriously, can we stop putting Hockey in this thread? I can see junk sports like soccer and wrestling being in here, but hockey? Come on man.

  Really? Uhm, no.
  
  
  
  

  I watched the first one, and a guy falls on his skate and slaps in a goal. Yay for athleticism!
  
  LOL Hockey sucks.
• SQ_Crazies

  

  Hockey should be thrown out, a foreign object increases their ability (skates).
• lhslep134

  

  SQ_Crazies wrote: Hockey should be thrown out, a foreign object increases their ability (skates).

  Skates are used on ice, shoes are used on courts. Don't see a difference. You COULD play basketball barefoot, so I guess we have to throw that out because they're using shoes? That's your logic. HA
  
  And if you're just trying to be funny, you fail.
• SQ_Crazies

  

  LOL you aren't even worthy of any more of my time. That's the most retarded thing I've ever read on this site, literally.
• NNN

  

  jmog wrote: Your whole post was about how fast they can skate vs people running on land, and this is a topic on which sport had better athletes.
  
  So, anyone using logic would believe you were using your post as evidence that hockey players were better athletes.
  
  So once again, my post stands and yours was retarded.

  Greater speed = less reaction time
  
  We can talk about the fact that goalies don between 15 and 30 pounds of equipment and have to stop pucks that are launched at speeds that are right at the same level as an MLB fastball. We can talk about the fact that hockey is predicated on playing the game while skating (which, by virtue of the prime movers involved, is truly an unnatural motion). We can talk about the fact that a single shift is between a 45-60 second sprint and that the top defensemen average about 27 minutes a night.
  
  I'm not going to knock football, but a 60-minute game averages about 12 minutes of actual playing time due to the clock rules being what they are. Hockey is 60 minutes of actual play, with each shift being the equal of between 10-15 football plays in duration and exertion.
• jmog

  NNN wrote:
  Greater speed = less reaction time
  
  We can talk about the fact that goalies don between 15 and 30 pounds of equipment and have to stop pucks that are launched at speeds that are right at the same level as an MLB fastball. We can talk about the fact that hockey is predicated on playing the game while skating (which, by virtue of the prime movers involved, is truly an unnatural motion). We can talk about the fact that a single shift is between a 45-60 second sprint and that the top defensemen average about 27 minutes a night.
  
  I'm not going to knock football, but a 60-minute game averages about 12 minutes of actual playing time due to the clock rules being what they are. Hockey is 60 minutes of actual play, with each shift being the equal of between 10-15 football plays in duration and exertion.

  If you want to say being an NHL goalie is harder than being a MLB catcher, I'll buy it.
  
  However, a goalie is MUCH easier than hitting in MLB, period, and you're a moron if you say otherwise.
  
  Proof is in the statistics...
  
  The best MLB hitters are successful (get a hit) only 30% of the time (bating 0.300).
  
  The worst NHL goalies do better than 90% saves, heck, if a goalie is worse than 90% he's fired.
  
  Catching/blocking (like a goalie or catcher in baseball) is 100 times easier than hitting.
  
  Now, if the goalie was only allowed to use his stick and nothing else to block shots, then it might be close...but still the curveball in baseball would be harder.
• NNN

  

  jmog wrote: If you want to say being an NHL goalie is harder than being a MLB catcher, I'll buy it.
  
  However, a goalie is MUCH easier than hitting in MLB, period, and you're a moron if you say otherwise.
  
  Proof is in the statistics...
  
  The best MLB hitters are successful (get a hit) only 30% of the time (bating 0.300).
  
  The worst NHL goalies do better than 90% saves, heck, if a goalie is worse than 90% he's fired.
  
  Catching/blocking (like a goalie or catcher in baseball) is 100 times easier than hitting.
  
  Now, if the goalie was only allowed to use his stick and nothing else to block shots, then it might be close...but still the curveball in baseball would be harder.

  The skill set between a catcher and a goalie is a bit different as it is. For one thing, a catcher's primary job is to stop a pitch with his glove; blocking the ball with his body is a last resort. The catcher also sets up in a position and provides a target for the pitcher to hit; a goalie is constantly moving. A catcher sets up in a squatting position, a goalie has to get that way to block a low shot. And, of course, a pitch is thrown from roughly 58' away from the catcher, while a shot in hockey usually comes from about 20'.
  
  The difference in skill sets has also led to a fundamental change in the body type of the average player at each position. Catchers tend to be stocky, while hockey is culminating a trend toward a lanky tall guy who looks like a cross-country runner.
  
  And no, I'm not trying to draw a comparison between a goalie and a hitter.