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

[DeeMoney]

Well, no one mentioned Marciano, who went further than anyone mentioned.

Marciano was lacking in size, speed, and possibly agility (hard to tell). But had strength and stamina in abundance. He's a hard one to gauge because he was deficient in some ways, but great in others.

[JAB5239]

Marciano was lacking in size, speed, and possibly agility (hard to tell). But had strength and stamina in abundance. He's a hard one to gauge because he was deficient in some ways, but great in others.

Marciano showed will and desire above most. The attributes substituted for his deficiencies in athleticism.

[Spray_resistant]

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

[Mr Mitts]

Strength and stamina are not athletic abilities.The Rock was no tap dancer and couldn't have been. Yet debatably the worst pure boxer in HW championship history became an ATG. He was not made to be an athlete but made himself an ATG.

When you think of all the sports available, Rock was great in one of the few, if any others, where he could have stood out. He was a catcher in his young days. Too small for football and basketball, too small for discus and shot put. Of all track events he has really no chance; not even the outside possibility of javelin, where his arms are too short for enough radius of rotation.

He sure could not be a swimmer; with those arms he would essentially always be dog paddling. I could see his becoming a good race car driver, with all that stamina, and possibly in rowing too. Gymnastics is out methinks. Can you imagine his floor exercise? He was no tennis player either, and too big for a jockey. No amount of will power compensates enough to make him into a notable ping pong player, which requires speed and fast reflexes.

Even boxing he was not built for. But boxing is one of the few sports where will and competitiveness can go a long way to compensate. Built to be a bricklayer, he became great enough to forever be in the discussion of heavyweight boxing. I think he epitomizes the title of the thread.

[DeeMoney]

Strength and stamina are not athletic abilities.The Rock was no tap dancer and couldn't have been. Yet debatably the worst pure boxer in HW championship history became an ATG. He was not made to be an athlete but made himself an ATG.

When you think of all the sports available, Rock was great in one of the few, if any others, where he could have stood out. He was a catcher in his young days. Too small for football and basketball, too small for discus and shot put. Of all track events he has really no chance; not even the outside possibility of javelin, where his arms are too short for enough radius of rotation.

He sure could not be a swimmer; with those arms he would essentially always be dog paddling. I could see his becoming a good race car driver, with all that stamina, and possibly in rowing too. Gymnastics is out methinks. Can you imagine his floor exercise? He was no tennis player either, and too big for a jockey. No amount of will power compensates enough to make him into a notable ping pong player, which requires speed and fast reflexes.

Even boxing he was not built for. But boxing is one of the few sports where will and competitiveness can go a long way to compensate. Built to be a bricklayer, he became great enough to forever be in the discussion of heavyweight boxing. I think he epitomizes the title of the thread.

Of course strength and stamina are athletic abilities. As are speed, quickness (though that at times can be a deviation of speed), body control, and body type.
Sports are competition which measure, to various extents, athletic ability with some degrees of contrivance.
You mention gymnastics, their is a lot of athletic ability measured within, some types required more than others. For example, the rings requires a good amount of upper body strength and body control, but not much speed. A floor routine is similar, they rely more on the aforementioned athletic abilities than say speed, and to be certain there is more contrivance in these competitions than say a 100m dash- which relies on speed, quickness, and strength (yes, leg strength is a key component to running).
Now, compare that to a marathon, which is still a foot race but relatively speaking relies more on stamina- which is a physical ability.

By citing things like a floor routine, it seems as if you are confusing athletic skills (contrivances) for athletic ability. Denouncing strength and stamina as not being athletic abilities further leads me to believe that is what you are doing.

For certain, strength and stamina are both athletic abilites, and they are measured in various ways through sports

[QueensburyRules]

Of course strength and stamina are athletic abilities. As are speed, quickness (though that at times can be a deviation of speed), body control, and body type.
Sports are competition which measure, to various extents, athletic ability with some degrees of contrivance.
You mention gymnastics, their is a lot of athletic ability measured within, some types required more than others. For example, the rings requires a good amount of upper body strength and body control, but not much speed. A floor routine is similar, they rely more on the aforementioned athletic abilities than say speed, and to be certain there is more contrivance in these competitions than say a 100m dash- which relies on speed, quickness, and strength (yes, leg strength is a key component to running).
Now, compare that to a marathon, which is still a foot race but relatively speaking relies more on stamina- which is a physical ability.

By citing things like a floor routine, it seems as if you are confusing athletic skills (contrivances) for athletic ability. Denouncing strength and stamina as not being athletic abilities further leads me to believe that is what you are doing.

For certain, strength and stamina are both athletic abilites, and they are measured in various ways through sports

- - Most boxing fans or fans or other commentators voice Undocumented Belief Systems of which Sports is a part of.

Hence the derision of Golfers as nonathletes never mind that most accomplished golfers train just as heavy in their professional interest as most sports.

Hence the reason most other Sport's Greats fail miserably in mastering the Art of Golf.

[Mr Mitts]

Of course strength and stamina are athletic abilities. As are speed, quickness (though that at times can be a deviation of speed), body control, and body type.
Sports are competition which measure, to various extents, athletic ability with some degrees of contrivance.
You mention gymnastics, their is a lot of athletic ability measured within, some types required more than others. For example, the rings requires a good amount of upper body strength and body control, but not much speed. A floor routine is similar, they rely more on the aforementioned athletic abilities than say speed, and to be certain there is more contrivance in these competitions than say a 100m dash- which relies on speed, quickness, and strength (yes, leg strength is a key component to running).
Now, compare that to a marathon, which is still a foot race but relatively speaking relies more on stamina- which is a physical ability.

By citing things like a floor routine, it seems as if you are confusing athletic skills (contrivances) for athletic ability. Denouncing strength and stamina as not being athletic abilities further leads me to believe that is what you are doing.

For certain, strength and stamina are both athletic abilites, and they are measured in various ways through sports

The clumsiest people in the world can gain strength and stamina but that does not make them athletes. I will correct myself for you. Stamina and strength are necessary conditions to be an athlete but not sufficient ones.

I knew a man who was stronger than anyone I have met. He never worked out a day in his life but always did incredibly hard physical work, like loading boxcars with cured lumber by hand. As a 12 year old he started milking cows. They had milking machines then but you had to start the cows by hand milking them for a bit. There were about 150 cows on that dairy. That developed an incredible muscle in his wrist. When he doubled up his wrist like we double up our arm to show our biceps, a muscle the size of a mid sized marble sprang out between the tendons of his wrists. He had it in both wrists. He never played a sport in his life and had no interest in sports.

Had he been into sports he would likely have been a star at something athletic. Bob was only 5'11", 210 lbs., so maybe a tad too small for world strongman competition, though he could have easily put on some gorilla weight like they do.. He was built like a body builder but with a normal amount of fat on him; all natural. He was not immune to pain but always acted so. He refused to even act concerned enough to put up a decent guard when someone challenged him, which they always seemed to do. Bob put up his guard like an early 20th century boxer posing for a photograph with wrists upturned. Bob usually wore long sleeved shirts, not interested in showing off his muscles. They wanted to see how tough they were and he always showed them how tough they were not. His arms were very long. Today he would get mangled by someone his own size who knew MMA. His strength and chin had always been enough for the normal tough guys who always challenged him for reasons of their own. But had he been trained for MMA he would have been awesome. He broke his foot once loading boxcars when my dad was assisting him. My dad said "Should we quit?" Bob answered, "We'll finish the day out." He couldn't quit, it might seem weak. He saw no reason to give up a half day's wages for a broken foot..

Some of the best potential athletes are simply not interested in athletics. Ever known anyone like that? Unlike Rocky, Bob was a very fast runner, so had some fast twitch fibers too.

[DeeMoney]

The clumsiest people in the world can gain strength and stamina but that does not make them athletes. I will correct myself for you. Stamina and strength are necessary conditions to be an athlete but not sufficient ones.

I knew a man who was stronger than anyone I have met. He never worked out a day in his life but always did incredibly hard physical work, like loading boxcars with cured lumber by hand. As a 12 year old he started milking cows. They had milking machines then but you had to start the cows by hand milking them for a bit. There were about 150 cows on that dairy. That developed an incredible muscle in his wrist. When he doubled up his wrist like we double up our arm to show our biceps, a muscle the size of a mid sized marble sprang out between the tendons of his wrists. He had it in both wrists. He never played a sport in his life and had no interest in sports.

Had he been into sports he would likely have been a star at something athletic. Bob was only 5'11", 210 lbs., so maybe a tad too small for world strongman competition, though he could have easily put on some gorilla weight like they do.. He was built like a body builder but with a normal amount of fat on him; all natural. He was not immune to pain but always acted so. He refused to even act concerned enough to put up a decent guard when someone challenged him, which they always seemed to do. Bob put up his guard like an early 20th century boxer posing for a photograph with wrists upturned. Bob usually wore long sleeved shirts, not interested in showing off his muscles. They wanted to see how tough they were and he always showed them how tough they were not. His arms were very long. Today he would get mangled by someone his own size who knew MMA. His strength and chin had always been enough for the normal tough guys who always challenged him for reasons of their own. But had he been trained for MMA he would have been awesome. He broke his foot once loading boxcars when my dad was assisting him. My dad said "Should we quit?" Bob answered, "We'll finish the day out." He couldn't quit, it might seem weak. He saw no reason to give up a half day's wages for a broken foot..

Some of the best potential athletes are simply not interested in athletics. Ever known anyone like that? Unlike Rocky, Bob was a very fast runner, so had some fast twitch fibers too.

I get what you are saying, your buddy was a great natural athlete and for certain there are plenty of them who don't get into sports or work out to become one.

I also think you, after I better explained it, get my thoughts in regards to the question. There are several factors that make up athleticism (strength, speed, quickness, stamina, body control, body type), different sports, heck even positions within a sport measure them differently and rely on some aspects more than others. You want to run the 100M dash, thats speed and strength (and some initial quickness) with less stamina. Conversely, the marathon is far more reliant on stamina. Of course, all sports have some contrivances, ergo there is a fair amount of skill required. Queensberry mentioned golf, yeah there is a lot of skill development, but strength and body control matter a lot too. Heck even within a sport there are differences in what type of athleticism matters (see NFL CB vs DT).

The cool thing about boxing is that you can have two different fighters be successful relying on different athletic abilities. Big & Strong (Foreman), Quick and Stamina (Armstrong), great all around athlete (RJJ, SRR). But what fighter was a great fighter despite being subpar in most, if not all, of these?

[Willie Pep 229]

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?

[DeeMoney]

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 of 'athlete' he must also 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.

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

But I am afraid my analysis really doesn't hold water too well. Does it?

Example: I have a hard time calling a pool shark an athlete. But 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 pool. (Your legs will get tired.)

But does it have 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 amateur (or 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 rrasonable 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 boogies, and his game 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 athlete too, I guess.


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

And if you say 'yes' there has to be some physical activity, then how much? Where is the line. Tennis yes, pickle ball no?

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).