Most dominant athlete ever?

[BAH HUMBBUG!]

Have you ever driven one? It is very physically taxing, and I honestly don't see how NASCAR drivers do it.

So is standing still for 36 hours, does that make the person doing it an athlete, or said task a sport? Don't get me wrong, it takes a tremendous amount of skill and is incredibly taxing, but so does poker, and I do not consider it a sport, nor do I consider those playing athletes.

Imho, I feel that athletes are defined by solely relying on their own talent and ability in their respective sport, not on a machine to be part of the equation.

 

[BAH HUMBBUG!]

I'll just say this. And it might be impractical due to his length in comparison to his opponents. But if he could ever get good starts, consistently, which he almost never does, I feel he could run sub-9.5 in the 100. Easily.

Just like you pointed out it seems to take him a good while to get to top gear, but once there, its game over. It was true in the last Olympics, true last night (compounded by the false start) and TBH, the only time I've really seen him get off "somewhat" clean was the '09 WC. If he can find a way to correct that, with his length and the long, powerful stride he has, he would be virtually unbeatable for sure.

Don't forget the steroids and HGH, lots of them.

 

[TheOnlyOmega]

So is standing still for 36 hours, does that make the person doing it an athlete, or said task a sport? Don't get me wrong, it takes a tremendous amount of skill and is incredibly taxing, but so does poker, and I do not consider it a sport, nor do I consider those playing athletes.

Imho, I feel that athletes are defined by solely relying on their own talent and ability in their respective sport, not on a machine to be part of the equation.

Considering the machines are all virtually the exact same thing, it does become a sport of skill. It's the driver not the car, that's why Kurt Busch can go to a small unknown team and run competitively when he doesn't crash out. When all the machines are checked to be the same thing, it is a sport of driving skill. I put poker in the same category as chess, a very mental sport, but there is nothing physical about it.

 

[BAH HUMBBUG!]

Considering the machines are all virtually the exact same thing, it does become a sport of skill. It's the driver not the car, that's why Kurt Busch can go to a small unknown team and run competitively when he doesn't crash out. When all the machines are checked to be the same thing, it is a sport of driving skill. I put poker in the same category as chess, a very mental sport, but there is nothing physical about it.

Fair points, but to me, the way I view sports, or maybe I should call them "traditional sports", as there are "extreme sports", are defined by having an on field competitive opponent that can actually prevent you from winning, not racing against a clock.

Also it requires physical athletic ability of your own that you have to put in the work to be able to compete with the best in the world at your respective sport.

While F1, or NASCAR does meat one of those, I do not feel it meets both, plus, just to me, adding machinery to the equation seems unfair to compare the so called athlete, against the likes of soccer, hockey, basketball and football players.

Just my two cents.

 

[TheOnlyOmega]

Calling the FL drivers non-athletes is an insult to them. Those things are insanely difficult to drive. The reflexes it takes to do that is insane. F1 and IndyCar are two of the most difficult series for drivers, it's about 10x more physically taxing than NASCAR. You have to factor in that you can very easily die a brutal death in those cars, no matter the skill of the driver, NASCAR has mostly become completely safe since Earnhardt died, but there's nothing Indy can do to increase safety.

 

[BAH HUMBBUG!]

Calling the FL drivers non-athletes is an insult to them. Those things are insanely difficult to drive. The reflexes it takes to do that is insane. F1 and IndyCar are two of the most difficult series for drivers, it's about 10x more physically taxing than NASCAR. You have to factor in that you can very easily die a brutal death in those cars, no matter the skill of the driver, NASCAR has mostly become completely safe since Earnhardt died, but there's nothing Indy can do to increase safety.

I don't think it is at all, again, I think I gave solid reasons for why, I personally do not consider them athletes. At least in a traditional sense. It also takes incredible hand eye coordination to be a top gamer, does that make them athletes? In my opinion no, it does not.

I get your point, and I have a tremendous amount of respect for what, F1 racers, Indy, NASCAR, poker players, dart players, billiard players all do, but to me, the way I look at sports and athletes, I do not feel that any of them meet all criteria, for what I consider traditional sporting and the athletes that play them. Hell to me, even sprinting isn't a sport, just a competition or event or race. Again, this is my opinion, and the way I look at it.

Either everything, or anything, can and is a sport and anyone or everyone playing them are athletes, or you have to draw the line somewhere.

 

[Sakuraba]

Here's the problem with labeling a driver as an athlete: they sit inside a complex machine with external fuel propelling the machine. There is mental torture and it is true that it is physically painful. BECAUSE YOU'RE JUST SITTING THERE IN THE SAME POSITION FOR HOURS.

Reflexes are fine. It takes great reflexes to be successful at Street Fighter II, takes great reflexes to be a surgeon. So what? Reflexes are handy for an athlete to have but reflexes do not an athlete make.

I will conclude that auto racing is clearly a sport, but drivers are not athletes.

F1 vs NASCAR? Alfonso made $37 million in BASE salary. Dale Jr made $28 million total including endorsements according to Forbes. All things being equal, I like to think that the world's finest go where the money is.

 

[Doc Samson]

Don't forget the steroids and HGH, lots of them.

Oh c'mon man. Do you think if they gave everybody the same amount of steroids & HGH that he still wouldn't be the fastest? Or are you in the camp that also believes Barry Bonds wasn't a HOF before 1999?

 

[BAH HUMBBUG!]

Oh c'mon man. Do you think if they gave everybody the same amount of steroids & HGH that he still wouldn't be the fastest? Or are you in the camp that also believes Barry Bonds wasn't a HOF before 1999?

Wait, are you saying that everyone is using? I don't exactly see your point. What does Bonds have to do with this?

 

[Doc Samson]

Wait, are you saying that everyone is using? I don't exactly see your point. What does Bonds have to do with this?

My point, is that in most cases, steroids & PEDs only make you more of what you already are. You implied that Usain Bolt was "using" and I'm asking you do you really believe if every single athlete in that race was allowed to use, that it would make a difference?

I likened him to Bonds because I've seen numerous people, fans & media try to lump him in with certain guys of the "steroid era" like he wasn't already a HOF before that. There's a reason why he has the HR record, and someone like McGwire or Sosa doesn't. Personally, I think the majority of people who really use the stuff go unnoticed because even with it, they still don't amount to much.

We like to make a big deal about the big names, but it's hypocritical inherently. They're big names in the first place because, chances are, they were great from the start. It's tantamount to Arnold Schwarzenegger being questioned about steroids. Yeah, he used them, and so did everybody else he beat at the time. They still couldn't win because, structurally, they still weren't Arnold Schwarzenegger, no matter how much steroids they consumed. I guarantee you there's millions of people in gyms across America who've probably taken more gear then Arnold ever dreamed of, and genetically, they'll never come close to looking like that or working that hard. Some people just...are.

So if everybody in that 100 M was on PEDs, they still wouldn't be as tall as Bolt, which means they still need to take more steps, which means they would still be more slow. If you flip it and ensure every single person in the race was clean as a whistle, the result still wouldn't change, in almost any scenario. Let's not cheapen and dismiss the man's achievements so easily...

 

[BAH HUMBBUG!]

1.My point, is that in most cases, steroids & PEDs only make you more of what you already are. You implied that Usain Bolt was "using" and I'm asking you do you really believe if every single athlete in that race was allowed to use, that it would make a difference?

2. I likened him to Bonds because I've seen numerous people, fans & media try to lump him in with certain guys of the "steroid era" like he wasn't already a HOF before that. There's a reason why he has the HR record, and someone like McGwire or Sosa doesn't. Personally, I think the majority of people who really use the stuff go unnoticed because even with it, they still don't amount to much.

3. We like to make a big deal about the big names, but it's hypocritical inherently. They're big names in the first place because, chances are, they were great from the start. It's tantamount to Arnold Schwarzenegger being questioned about steroids. Yeah, he used them, and so did everybody else he beat at the time. They still couldn't win because, structurally, they still weren't Arnold Schwarzenegger, no matter how much steroids they consumed. I guarantee you there's millions of people in gyms across America who've probably taken more gear then Arnold ever dreamed of, and genetically, they'll never come close to looking like that or working that hard. Some people just...are.

4. So if everybody in that 100 M was on PEDs, they still wouldn't be as tall as Bolt, which means they still need to take more steps, which means they would still be more slow. If you flip it and ensure every single person in the race was clean as a whistle, the result still wouldn't change, in almost any scenario. Let's not cheapen and dismiss the man's achievements so easily...

I had a feeling that is what you meant, but I didn't want to misinterpret it.

1. Of course, agreed with your first statement, but how much more. There are unquantifiable factors there. It would probably have not made a difference, and in all likelihood, they all are, or most of them are. But that's just my opinion. That's not my issue, I just want to know damn it! Plus, there does come a point, where those who have records, and did it all naturally, see them fall to those who did not, and, we most likely don't know that they are in fact using PEDs. That bothers me. I don't care if someone using PEDs has the fastest time ever, but I would like to be able to distinguish it from natural maximum human potential, and enhanced maximum human potential.

2. Fair enough, and in all honesty, I am a live long Giants fan, I live here in the Bay Area, and...didn't really care for Bonds. Phenomenal talent, even before PEDs. I won't deny him that, great, great eye for hitting the ball (aided I think in his later years by pitchers afraid to make a mistake against him), but I agree, assuming his use started 99-ish. Prior to that, he was still a HOF or very near HOF player. Hard to say who goes unnoticed, I actually know a professional baseball player, won't say who. But he is a medium name, has played in a world series and did use roids for a little in college. He did stop, as far as I know, but I have no idea if he ever picked them up again or not.

3. I'd say the body building comparison is a bad one, but I get your point. The unfair thing, is that there are guys that are clean and natural. I'd like to think for example, that Ken Griffy Jr was clean. Especially since he got hurt a lot as he started to age, usually HGH will help with recovery from injuries. Or look at Jim Thome, again, not that I know for sure, but his name has never come close to being implicated with PEDs, I'd like to think he has been clean, but I don't know for sure. Assuming those two were, how much more enhanced would their careers be if Bonds' and A-Rod's careers had looked much different due to no PED use ever?

4. I'm not, but potentially assuming he is using, perhaps it helps him gain a bigger advantage, because he is bigger. We're not used to seeing a sprinter of his size, usually because they don't have the strength to power their long legs and body like he can, as being shorter, it is easier to do so. That argument goes both ways. Believe me, I really do hope that Bolt is clean, if he is, I think what he is doing is absolutely amazing! But, I can't help and have my doubts, which after everything that has been released about all sorts of athletes, Bonds, Gatlin, Ben Johnson, Marion Jones and even Carl Lewis, it's just hard for me to look at just about any professional athlete and not wonder.

5. This is just all my view, you can feel free to ignore me.

 

[Doc Samson]

I had a feeling that is what you meant, but I didn't want to misinterpret it.

1. Of course, agreed with your first statement, but how much more. There are unquantifiable factors there. It would probably have not made a difference, and in all likelihood, they all are, or most of them are. But that's just my opinion. That's not my issue, I just want to know damn it! Plus, there does come a point, where those who have records, and did it all naturally, see them fall to those who did not, and, we most likely don't know that they are in fact using PEDs. That bothers me. I don't care if someone using PEDs has the fastest time ever, but I would like to be able to distinguish it from natural maximum human potential, and enhanced maximum human potential.

2. Fair enough, and in all honesty, I am a live long Giants fan, I live here in the Bay Area, and...didn't really care for Bonds. Phenomenal talent, even before PEDs. I won't deny him that, great, great eye for hitting the ball (aided I think in his later years by pitchers afraid to make a mistake against him), but I agree, assuming his use started 99-ish. Prior to that, he was still a HOF or very near HOF player. Hard to say who goes unnoticed, I actually know a professional baseball player, won't say who. But he is a medium name, has played in a world series and did use roids for a little in college. He did stop, as far as I know, but I have no idea if he ever picked them up again or not.

3. I'd say the body building comparison is a bad one, but I get your point. The unfair thing, is that there are guys that are clean and natural. I'd like to think for example, that Ken Griffy Jr was clean. Especially since he got hurt a lot as he started to age, usually HGH will help with recovery from injuries. Or look at Jim Thome, again, not that I know for sure, but his name has never come close to being implicated with PEDs, I'd like to think he has been clean, but I don't know for sure. Assuming those two were, how much more enhanced would their careers be if Bonds' and A-Rod's careers had looked much different due to no PED use ever?

4. I'm not, but potentially assuming he is using, perhaps it helps him gain a bigger advantage, because he is bigger. We're not used to seeing a sprinter of his size, usually because they don't have the strength to power their long legs and body like he can, as being shorter, it is easier to do so. That argument goes both ways. Believe me, I really do hope that Bolt is clean, if he is, I think what he is doing is absolutely amazing! But, I can't help and have my doubts, which after everything that has been released about all sorts of athletes, Bonds, Gatlin, Ben Johnson, Marion Jones and even Carl Lewis, it's just hard for me to look at just about any professional athlete and not wonder.

5. This is just all my view, you can feel free to ignore me.

Not at all, your one of my favorites to discuss things with around here because it's civil, educated, and sometimes turns my opinion (although I may not publicly acknowledge it )

And I do agree with you about the suspicion. But once again, Gatlin just recorded the third fastest time in history, still came in 3rd, and I'm assuming, this was all done under much more scrutiny, given his past and also the precedents of these games in particular. I guess what I'm saying is regardless, IMO, you still have to be a world class talent for PEDs to really matter. And if that's the case, then I don't believe an athlete should just be shunned if found to be using.

I thought the BB analogy was appropriate, because steroids & HGH are in use much more in everyday recreational centers and gyms around the world then they are in professional sports, for cosmetic and aesthetic reasons as opposed to performance. And in most of these places, Arnold is a revered icon, while to most people outside of that culture, he's viewed as someone who just looked like that from a bunch of steroids. If it were that easy, everybody in those gyms would look the same.

I also kind of bristle at the Griffey/Bonds debate, because more often then not, just as you pointed out, personality comes into it. Most people prefer Ken over Barry because he was a good guy, more so than a better player. Because Ken suffered so many injuries, it also makes it easy to draw that distinction between steroids & longevity but I think Bonds was better (not counting the 2000s) than Griffey was anyway, though I understand the PEDs may have allowed him to continue and expand his game where otherwise it may have not went that way.