passing-wind
Full Member
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2013
- Messages
- 3,041
Boxing / long distance runners
The triathlon and Water Polo really impressed me this Olympics, those are some serious fit people. My pick of the lot.
By this logic, sprinting is the hardest since almost everybody will have to sprint at least once in their lives if they're healthy and have legs.That touches on something else too. To be a top footballer you are competing against the very best in the world, almost everybody has played football to some degree. Physical ability is top notch. If you do show jumping (just an example, horsey friends) you're competing against what? The few thousand people who have ever properly ridden a horse.
By this logic, sprinting is the hardest since almost everybody will have to sprint at least once in their lives if they're healthy and have legs.
By this logic, sprinting is the hardest since almost everybody will have to sprint at least once in their lives if they're healthy and have legs.
Very very very true statement. The amount of technique involved in running correctly is impressive.There’s a world of difference between running for a bus and actually learning how to sprint as an athletic discipline.
In my opinion…
- Endurance sports (triathlon, marathon, iron man, etc.)
- Water Polo
- Combat sports
That’s fair. Gymnasts definitely deserve a spot on that list.erase marathon, add gymnastics and that list is pretty accurate imo
There’s a world of difference between running for a bus and actually learning how to sprint as an athletic discipline. It’s actually surprising how few people ever take part in any kind of formal athletic training.
Oh, and climbing/bouldern! Those athletes are freaks. They're good at so much and since it's all about muscle to body weight ratio they have great physiques all around. Friend of mine boulders and he looks like a greek god.
you can definitely make a slow runner faster though. Obviously not to olympic level but any proper training will improve you.You know if you're a good runner or not, though. No amount of training is going to make a slow runner fast.
Yeah, I think it’s very physically demanding. Most people would probably be exhausted after only a lap or two, and the pro F1 drivers do about 60-70. I don’t think it’s comparable to the toughest sports though.F1 drivers have to be far more fit than you'd think don't they?
Something to do with g-force or something
Of all the sports there are, if we were to estimate as to which would be the fittest.
It would have to be stamina, strength and mental application.
Not skill but pure physical and mental strength.
The triathlon and Water Polo really impressed me this Olympics, those are some serious fit people. My pick of the lot.
The act of watching water polo alone makes me tired.
Answering the OP's question: I was active in quite a few different sports during my school days many years ago now and personally rugby union was the most physically taxing of them all. Squash was never a walk in the park, as did badminton, and don't underestimate any sport that requires you to stand around doing little under the hot tropical sun for long periods of time.
In my opinion…
- Endurance sports (triathlon, marathon, iron man, etc.)
- Water Polo
- Combat sports
What about underwater rugby? Water polo is exhausting but at least you're above water.
Football is way down the pole for fitness because it's been proven that you don't have to be an athletic freak to be world class.It’s somewhat subjective on how you value each of the different factors, stamina, strength, mental aspects, etc.
I think football takes extraordinary stamina due to the pure mileage the players run, far more then sports like basketball or American football for example. Still, cycling, maybe tennis also require extreme amounts of stamina. Football also requires a certain amount of physicality but clearly less then basketball where you are grinding down in the post or American football for obvious reasons. Mentally, I think solo sports with lengthy games like tennis are more demanding.
Personally I think football is a blend of all these aspects, is played at the most professional levels of any sport and are among the “fittest” athletes on the planet. They probably get beat in one aspect by some other sportsman, but I think they are among the most well rounded.
Nowadays you do actually, one way or anotherFootball is way down the pole for fitness because it's been proven that you don't have to be an athletic freak to be world class.
Faster definitely not necessarily a sprinter.You know if you're a good runner or not, though. No amount of training is going to make a slow runner fast.
Downhill skiers supposed to be pretty fit and I would imagine rowers would be up there as well.
Water polo is right up there as it required technique combined with immerse swimming speed and endurance. Boxer are often cited as being the only sport that requires equivalent overall fitness. I'm sure you could make a case for a few other sports depending on how you measure it but water polo seems to top most charts for this sort of thing. In game you do repeated 20/25m sprints, then wrestle, then repeat again and again - up to 2.5km of sprints per game. In training top level water polo players will swim as far per week as a swimmer but then do many hours of technical training and scrimmaging as well.
It's not on the same fitness level as swimming though. I used to swim a lot, i was in a club and competed county/region level but we had national swimmers and water polo players in there too. The water polo lot were super competitive but when it came to covering distance they were always at the back. The rougher swimming technique probably doesn't help.