Re: Are these sports?
 

Nice post Pudge. That was exactly my point.

I also don't really care if racing is a sport, but let's get our criteria straight here.

Re: Are these sports?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm not very well schooled in the average fitness of an F-1 racer but yea, I'm gonna go ahead and say there's no chance the average F-1 racer is in better physical condition than the average professional baseball player.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know, it doesn't take many John Kruks or Babe Ruths to wreck the average.

[/ QUOTE ]

In NASCAR, Tony Stewart isn't exactly an Adonis, so I'm sure that there is at least one tubby F-1 guy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Tony Stewart isn't F1.

I've followed F1 racing on and off for over 20 years. Never seen a "tubby" F1 racer.

Re: Are these sports?
 

Geez, take the sweating out, it's still a sport. I was just throwing it in there because it adds to the toll, and I doubt many naysayers realize what a racers body goes through.

Sauna-sitting would fail as a sport, and I don't think I even need to explain why.

Re: Are these sports?
 

[ QUOTE ]
but if your criteria is sweating a lot more things could be sports.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't say sweating was the sole criterion. Was just throwing it out there because it is added stress on your body.

Re: Are these sports?
 

[ QUOTE ]

Sauna-sitting would fail as a sport, and I don't think I even need to explain why.

[/ QUOTE ]

World Sauna Championships

Re: Are these sports?
 

What about competitive Dance Dance Revolution, or actually now, In the Groove? At the top levels of competition it takes more athletic ability than any of these yet I doubt most people would consider it a sport.
How about competitive eating?

Re: Are these sports?
 

Are they faster? Maybe/maybe not, running speed is irrelevant for their particular activity.
Are they bigger? No, that would be a hindrance
Are they stronger? At the least comparable, esp for size
Do they have more stamina/endurance? Absolutely
Do they have at least the same/more hand eye coordination? Definitely

Long distance runners or even cyclists, like Armstrong, could be considered just as good as athletes as baseball players. Just because they're not all 5' 8"- 6' 2" tall 190-225, and run a 4.XX 40, doesn't even remotely exclude them from being called an athlete.

Re: Are these sports?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Sauna-sitting would fail as a sport, and I don't think I even need to explain why.

[/ QUOTE ]

Though with the right chicks in there, it'd get higher ratings than NASCAR. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

b

Re: Are these sports?
 

Are they faster? Professional baseball players are,in general, much faster. simply saying that it's irrelevant in racing means nothing. It is still factored into overall athleticism

Are they bigger? Baseball players are bigger and have more muscle mass

Are they stronger? F1 racers aren't like racing jockeys.I dont have any empirical data to prove it either way, but I'd guess that baseball players are more often than not stronger (overall) than F1 racers as well. You need to have a strong neck, but overall strength from legs to arms is not at as much of a premium in racing IMO.

Do they have more stamina/endurance? F1 racers have more stamina, this seems to be the only thing they have a clear advantage on

Do they have at least the same/more hand eye coordination? I don't think it's fair to say they do. They reach top speeds of about 180mph, but the average speed is significantly lower than that. It takes good reaction time and reflexes to pilot a car around tight turns, but the road doesn't move. A 78 mph curveball, 86mph slider, 91 mph splitter, and 95 mph two-seam fastball move a whole hell of a lot, at high speeds. You have 60ft and 6 inches to calculate and judge velocity, spin, and a trajectory, then hit the object solidly with a fairly thin piece of wood. Time and time again, hitting a baseball has been called the most difficult thing to do in sports, yet for some reason you seem to completely ignore that and say that F1 racers magically have the same amount of hand-eye coordination.

[ QUOTE ]
Long distance runners or even cyclists, like Armstrong, could be considered just as good as athletes as baseball players. Just because they're not all 5' 8"- 6' 2" tall 190-225, and run a 4.XX 40, doesn't even remotely exclude them from being called an athlete.

[/ QUOTE ]

I never claimed that people like Armstrong don't deserve to be called athletes. He is an oustanding athlete,for what he does, and that involves basically leg strength and cardio only. To say that Armstrong is a better "athlete" in every sense of the word would be doing a disservice to other more developed people.

People have a habit of always trying to put people on the same playing field. Golf is a tough sport, and some players do undergo strenuous training regimens. I'm sure there are plenty of good athletes on the PGA tour, but the people that seem to laud golfers as athletic specimens are kidding themselves. F1 racers are in good shape. Professional athletes regardless of the sport have to be in good shape. But face it, they drive cars around race tracks that they've studied for hours upon end. Overall athleticism just doesn't come at the same premium as other land-based sports, where the players are on their own two feet.

Re: Are these sports?
 

I'd agree there faster and bigger.

I'd say its a toss up for strength. The arm strength required to take an F1 car around a track for 75 minutes in a row is insane. This is really a matter of opinion though.

Obviously better stamina/endurance.

I'd say a toss up for hand eye coordination. I could include an entire paragraph of meaningless text here but I'm not going to.

So I'm pretty sure saying something like...

[ QUOTE ]

Baseball players are FAR FAR FAR better athletes than F-1 racers in virtually every sense of the word.


[/ QUOTE ]

makes you look like an idiot. Sorry I didn't include 500 words of baseless assumptions but I have to go make dinner.