What fighter went the furthest, relative to their limited athletic ability

[Willie Pep 229]

I think the crux of your point boils down very much to the bold portion, but I think you miss the dividing line in your post. Throughout most of the post you allude to dividing sports into two categories: those where the opponent has a direct impact on your performance (Boxing, Baseball, Basketball, etc) and those where the opponent does not (Golf, Track & Field Events, Etc). But I think what you were actually looking for is establishing a baseline of athleticism required to be successful at the top level and dividing on that line.

I think this then separates pub games, card games, and things of that nature. Where that athleticism lies, I am not quite sure. Its an interesting discussion point that many have had. I'll provide this personal example: I used to work with a man who was the second ranked foosball player in the world. Yup, foosball, soccer on the table with little players attached on a pole. Actually, by hanging out with him, I got pretty good at foosball, but I digress. This guy was a decent enough athlete, and actually utilized his quickness to his advantage to win at foosball. That being written, I differentiate foosball from actual soccer in regards to being a sport. I feel the same about pool, darts, and bowling; less so though about golf (I feel like there is more physical ability required).

So you can see a line in your minds eye, but it's contingent on a personal evaluation of the activity.

Then, there is no real definition for "athlete" unless we can bring it to consensus.

[Rockybigblower]

Kelly Pavlik.

[DeeMoney]

So you can see a line in your minds eye, but it's contingent on a personal evaluation of the activity.

Then, there is no real definition for "athlete" unless we can bring it to consensus.

Sure, but for this post I just asked for limited athletic ability- which I have thoroughly defined and articulated.

[Willie Pep 229]

Sure, but for this post I just asked for limited athletic ability- which I have thoroughly defined and articulated.

Sorry I digressed off the topic.

[DeeMoney]

Sorry I digressed off the topic.

No need to apologize, my fault if I implied that, it was a good digression and I'd love to continue with the way you took the discussion. Its an interesting point of where the line would be. Maybe even within some spots there are athletes and non athletes?

John Kruk famously stated he was, 'no athlete, but a ball player.' Though I'd argue Rickey Henderson was an athlete, and his athleticism was a key part to his success. Both played the same sport.

[max baer]

My two cents

There seems to me to be two categories to define the word "athlete."

First, golf is an athletic event, so in one definition, the participant must be an athlete. Right?

BUT what golf lacks is direct interaction / competition with another athlete.

So, in one group we have 'athletes' that seek mastery over an obstacle, e.g. golf, bowling, archery, etc. But do not compete physically against another person.

In the other group the 'athlete' must prove a mastery of technique over and obstacle but must also compete directly with another athlete, set on stopping him, e.g. baseball, football, etc.

So, is an athlete defined by a mastery over an obstacle or does there have to also be direct physical competition between the participants?

And if you separate the events as I have just suggested, track and field becomes a problem to define.

All runners (track) are in direct competition with one another and therefore are athletes. E.g. sprints, relays, marathons, etc.

But all field events are examples of mastery over an obstacle with scoring (usually measurement) replacing the direct competition. E.g. pole vault, high jump, broad jump, etc.

I fear my analysis really doesn't hold water too well. Does it?

Example: I have a hard time calling a pool shark an athlete. But yet he has both the mastery and an opponent to deal with.

While the broad jumper has no opponent during performance, yet I can't see myself not calling a broad jumper an athlete.

To the original issue:

Strength and conditioning always counts. It counts in bowling and even shooting pool. (Your legs will get tired.)

But does it have to be man against man, or is man against obstacle (with scoring) enough to call a man an athlete?

[EDIT] One of the other obvious things that sticks out, is that the 'athletes' who only compete against an obstacle have less of a gap between them and the amateur (or the non athlete).

I could play an entire golf tournament with Tiger Woods at his best. I will lose big in the score but I will play a reasonable game of golf, one hole at a time with him and it won't be absurd (except in the score). He'll hit birdies and I will hit double bogies, and his performance won't be affected. He can be at his best.

Where on the other hand I can not have a reasonable experience trying to hit a MLB pitch, or covering a NFL wide receiver. Both would be an absurd event and not measure the athlete's ability.

So, if as a non-athlete I can play 18 holes with Tiger Woods but not hit a single MLB pitch, are they different types of men or both athletes?

Back to the very top: Bowling is like golf, it is an athletic event, so a bowler's got to be an athlete too, I guess.


P.S. Is a high stakes poker player an athlete? Is there a minimal physical activity requirement or is the cognitive challenge enough alone.

And if you say 'yes' there has to be some physical activity, then how much? Where is the line?

If Tennis is an obvious yes, then what about pickle ball? No!

Where's the line? What's the definition?

absolutely splendid post willie!
I never thought about it that way till just now.
Did you think that up or did you read it?
really great way to understand sports and pastimes as we call certain games in the UK .

[Mr Mitts]

Lots of athletic ability in one package is not always used for athletics.

It takes plenty of grit, bravery and courage to ascend to the top of Olympic stacking--forgot about that one.

[QueensburyRules]

Bernard Hopkins, wasn't particular fast or a devastating puncher but developed skills and had an ATG career.

- - Tied with l'l floydy as #! SissyBoxer, the squallin' % squealin' duo.

[SCtrojansbaby]

Wilder

[famicommander]

If you said you had George Kambosos:
-Beating American former IBF lightweight champion Mickey Bey in the US
-Beating British former IBF featherweight champion Lee Selby in the UK
-Beating American reigning lineal/TBRB/Ring/WBA/IBF/WBO champion Teofimo Lopez in the Us

in 3 consecutive fights, you are absolutely lying. He was the road, underdog b-side in all three of those fights. He was set up to be Bey's comeback opponent and he won, then he was set up to vault Selby into a title fight and he won, and then he was supposed to be a speed bump before Lopez vs Haney and he won again.

Subsequently Haney and Lomachenko showed he is squarely below the elite level, but nobody can ever take away what he did in that three fight run to become the unified, lineal lightweight champion of the world.