Top 10 Athletes after 40 years old

[reyalp 4]

http://www.askmen.com/top_10/sports/top-10...g-after-40.html

Pretty cool list. 2 Red Wings made the list... Shouldn't be hard to guess who #1 is.

[GMRwings1983 8,803]

How could Ric Flair not be on the list?

[EuroTwin 240]

LOL, my brain went immedietley to Cheli for #1, so I was vaguely suprised to see him at #9 until my brain woke up and was like, GORDIE DUH YOU IDIOT.

It's been a rough morning.

[Guest Shoreline]

Funny that both hockey players are Red Wings. Sad that a list of athletes includes Richard Petty. That's why I don't really take lists seriously.

Edited March 17, 2009 by Shoreline

[puckloo39 5,686]

No Hasek? Too bad.

[Happy Pancake 6]

LOL, my brain went immedietley to Cheli for #1, so I was vaguely suprised to see him at #9 until my brain woke up and was like, GORDIE DUH YOU IDIOT.

It's been a rough morning.

Same exact thing happened to me.

Also, Richard Petty at 10? I wasn't aware that race car drivers were athletes.

[dat's sick 1,002]

LOL, my brain went immedietley to Cheli for #1, so I was vaguely suprised to see him at #9 until my brain woke up and was like, GORDIE DUH YOU IDIOT.

It's been a rough morning.

Haha me too. In my defense I thought the list was going to be active 40+ athletes.

[stevkrause 1,247]

Mr. Hockey!

the only thing that bothered me, is that Nascar drivers are NOT athletes... other than that, pretty good list

[Drake_Marcus 890]

No Hasek? Too bad.

Well it's not like he was beaten out by lesser men! Look at that list Loo! I can't believe that NFL kicker dude had 346 straight games with at least a point! That's unbelievable longevity for a player who's playing in a 16 game (max) league!

EDIT: Plus, with Gordie and Cheli on there do you think they'd include yet another Wing? That list would be 30% Red Wings

Edited March 17, 2009 by Drake_Marcus

[mjlegend 155]

If we're getting right down to it, I don't think kickers are very athletic either (except for the leg part), so there goes Morten and a good part of Blanda. And the CFL's Lui Passaglia had better numbers than Mort anyway.

Tough to argue with either of the pitchers (Niekro looked so freakign old by the time he pitched for the Jays) but Cap Anson stole 24 bases, had 90 RBI and hit .332 at age 44 as an everyday first baseman who also caught 10 games. Ty Cobb hit .357 with 32 doubles, 93 ribbies and 22 steals at age 40.

[Vladifan 680]

It's nice to know how many great minds there are on this board, 'cause I too figured Cheli would be #1. I was thinking of the criteria differently. Like, who's still really active and playing in their sport. I can't think of anyone who trains as hard as Cheli does at his age, even now. Most of 'em on that list are overweight. Nuthin' against that but it looks to me like part of the qualifications should be the Training Thing. Oh well. They didn't call, so pee on 'em.

And I agree about race car drivers. Hell, I drive about that fast on our central Texas highways and nobody's recognizing me.

[Datsyerberger 279]

Mr. Hockey!

the only thing that bothered me, is that Nascar drivers are NOT athletes... other than that, pretty good list

As much as I dislike the sport, and as much as I crack on it being a bunch of guys driving around a circle for the entertainment of a bunch of drunk rednecks, I have to disagree with that statement. 10-20 laps on an aggressive semi-pro racing circuit (one that only sustains speeds at maybe 2/3 of NASCAR speeds is probably enough to burn most of us out to the point where we can barely breathe.

NASCAR drivers are a very specialized sort of athlete, and the sort of conditioning they undertake is different from that of most other athletes. The fact is, though, is that only a small percentage of the population has the right combination of mental and physical attributes (coordination, mental stamina, hand-eye, reflexes, cardiovascular system, heat tolerance, etc) needed to be a NASCAR (or any other high end racing) driver. Fewer still have the skill and will to compete at such a high level.

There's a reason that there are tons of schools (similar to CHL and so on) and amateur and semi pro leagues (equivalents to UHL, AHL, so forth) and that only a select few make it to the top (just like the NHL). They're a select few, a rare breed, one both capable and trained to withstand and compete with and under the physical and mental rigors of the competitive activity.

I'm no fan of NASCAR (it bores me to death and reminds me of the taste of Bud Light, eeechhh) but I tend to find statements as such to be made either in spite, profound ignorance, or both.

[spyder 0]

I remember that Vipers game howe played in, but he only played one 30 second shift if I recall. I miss the Vipers, their first season was absolute awesomeness. The IHL was great, I don't know what happened.

[Vincanni 1]

Shouldn't be hard to guess who #1 is.

Barry Bonds? Roger Clemens?

I kid, I kid. Actually thought of Chelli initially until I realized it wasn;t just composed of current players.

[DYags 0]

As much as I dislike the sport, and as much as I crack on it being a bunch of guys driving around a circle for the entertainment of a bunch of drunk rednecks, I have to disagree with that statement. 10-20 laps on an aggressive semi-pro racing circuit (one that only sustains speeds at maybe 2/3 of NASCAR speeds is probably enough to burn most of us out to the point where we can barely breathe.

NASCAR drivers are a very specialized sort of athlete, and the sort of conditioning they undertake is different from that of most other athletes. The fact is, though, is that only a small percentage of the population has the right combination of mental and physical attributes (coordination, mental stamina, hand-eye, reflexes, cardiovascular system, heat tolerance, etc) needed to be a NASCAR (or any other high end racing) driver. Fewer still have the skill and will to compete at such a high level.

There's a reason that there are tons of schools (similar to CHL and so on) and amateur and semi pro leagues (equivalents to UHL, AHL, so forth) and that only a select few make it to the top (just like the NHL). They're a select few, a rare breed, one both capable and trained to withstand and compete with and under the physical and mental rigors of the competitive activity.

I'm no fan of NASCAR (it bores me to death and reminds me of the taste of Bud Light, eeechhh) but I tend to find statements as such to be made either in spite, profound ignorance, or both.

for trying to shun complete and total ignorance

[Guest Shoreline]

Barry Bonds? Roger Clemens?

With Richard Petty there it probably should have been.

[KATIEBARTHEDOOR24 426]

How could Ric Flair not be on the list?

Too Be The Man, You Gotta Beat The Man! WWWWOOOOOOOOOOO!

[Drake_Marcus 890]

for trying to shun complete and total ignorance

That's a bit much.

It certainly is legitimate to argue against the notion that NASCAR racing is on par in terms of athletics as Hockey. Calling the argument that NASCAR isn't a true sport "complete and total ignorance" is kind of ignorant itself.

Most definitions of the word "sport" definitely allow NASCAR to be classified as such.

The following questions occur to me when I think of NASCAR:

-->Is turning left 400 times an athletic pursuit or an endurance pursuit? How is skill and endurance balanced?

-->How much of a factor should mechanical workings really be in a true sport? A good NASCAR driver is only as good as his pitcrew and the guys who build/maintain his car. You can certainly say the mechanics and crew are part of the driver's team, that's very true. But they're a much different part of the team... they aren't doing something athletic (aside from the high-speed pit crew maintenance). A huge part of the race is really the car's build. Building a high performance car is kick ass (I'm a mechanical engineer- I can appreciate it!), but it's not athletic. There's really no other sport that relies so heavily on something outside the sporting aspect as NASCAR does. Even luge and other sled sports are highly standardized. I understand that NASCAR tries to use the rules to reign in some of the 'money buys speed' aspects of the builds, but they can't eliminate the experimental nature (and thus somewhat luck based) of stock car racing. Wasn't it Jeff Gordon that people mocked for having his daddy buy him a shot by funding a sweet ass car?

-->Is it fair that mechanical endurance/reliability plays such a large part in a sport? That is a huge factor in a race. If your engine burns out or significantly underperforms you're screwed no matter how good of a driver you are.

All of these arguments are certainly valid. Dismissing them altogether isn't fair at this point. NASCAR is still trying to cement its place as a legitimate sport- and that's why they continue to change and shape the rules to standardize the cars more and more.

No doubt that there is an athletic aspect to NASCAR... but endurance and mechanical ingenuity place huge parts in it as well. I'd argue that the mechanical aspect of NASCAR outweighs the athletic part at this point. I see it as far more like horse racing than Hockey, Basketball or even Baseball (a sport where athleticism is relative to what position you play. Yeah- I'm looking at you CC Sabathia). The tough part is that horses are breed and trained... just like humans, but stock cars are built and modified.

[Datsyerberger 279]

That's a bit much.

It certainly is legitimate to argue against the notion that NASCAR racing is on par in terms of athletics as Hockey. Calling the argument that NASCAR isn't a true sport "complete and total ignorance" is kind of ignorant itself.

Most definitions of the word "sport" definitely allow NASCAR to be classified as such.

The following questions occur to me when I think of NASCAR:

1. Is turning left 400 times an athletic pursuit or an endurance pursuit? How is skill and endurance balanced?

2. How much of a factor should mechanical workings really be in a true sport? A good NASCAR driver is only as good as his pitcrew and the guys who build/maintain his car. You can certainly say the mechanics and crew are part of the driver's team, that's very true. But they're a much different part of the team... they aren't doing something athletic (aside from the high-speed pit crew maintenance). A huge part of the race is really the car's build. Building a high performance car is kick ass (I'm a mechanical engineer- I can appreciate it!), but it's not athletic. There's really no other sport that relies so heavily on something outside the sporting aspect as NASCAR does. Even luge and other sled sports are highly standardized. I understand that NASCAR tries to use the rules to reign in some of the 'money buys speed' aspects of the builds, but they can't eliminate the experimental nature (and thus somewhat luck based) of stock car racing. Wasn't it Jeff Gordon that people mocked for having his daddy buy him a shot by funding a sweet ass car?

3. Is it fair that mechanical endurance/reliability plays such a large part in a sport? That is a huge factor in a race. If your engine burns out or significantly underperforms you're screwed no matter how good of a driver you are.

4. All of these arguments are certainly valid. Dismissing them altogether isn't fair at this point. NASCAR is still trying to cement its place as a legitimate sport- and that's why they continue to change and shape the rules to standardize the cars more and more.

5. No doubt that there is an athletic aspect to NASCAR... but endurance and mechanical ingenuity place huge parts in it as well. I'd argue that the mechanical aspect of NASCAR outweighs the athletic part at this point. I see it as far more like horse racing than Hockey, Basketball or even Baseball (a sport where athleticism is relative to what position you play. Yeah- I'm looking at you CC Sabathia). The tough part is that horses are breed and trained... just like humans, but stock cars are built and modified.

I've numbered your points to debate them, not necessarily.

4: No, not really, only from a rather silly perspective (Which I shall demonstrate using your other points)

1. Is whacking a chunk of rubber 30 times towards a net an athletic pursuit or an endurance pursuit? How is skill and endurance balanced?

Clearly, that particular comment can be made to look rather ridiculous if you don't credit or discuss the factors involved and attempt to oversimplify it.

2. /How much of a factor should mechanical workings really be in a true sport? As much as is needed to facilitate the means to compete in the sport./ /A good NASCAR driver is only as good as his pitcrew and the guys who build/maintain his car. Pit crew... tech crew... read, TEAM. They're all part of a team, utilizing different physical and mental abilities to achieve a competitive goal./ /You can certainly say the mechanics and crew are part of the driver's team, that's very true. But they're a much different part of the team... they aren't doing something athletic (aside from the high-speed pit crew maintenance). Yes, they aren't all doing something athletic (those pit guys are nuts, though). Then again, neither are coaches (except practices), GMs, scouts, or any number of non-player parts of the team who are necessary to maintain a team's competitiveness./ /A huge part of shooting the puck is really the stick's curve./ /Drafting a top 4 defensman with the last pick is kick ass (I'm a Wings fan- I can appreciate it!), but it's not athletic./ /There's really no other sport that relies so heavily on something outside the sporting aspect as NASCAR does. Ever seen bobsledding without the sled? Skateboarding without the skateboard? Baseball without the ball bat? All technical innovations to one degree or another that may seem simple in today's age (as the ICE-powered car will one day be seen) but crucial to the sport.. sure, you could hit a baseball without the bat, and run around Daytona for a while without the car../ / Even luge and other sled sports are highly standardized. NASCAR is relatively standardized. Tweaks to the car can be viewed as different stick curves or different ways of lacing your skates./ / I understand that NASCAR tries to use the rules to reign in some of the 'money buys speed' aspects of the builds, but they can't eliminate the experimental nature (and thus somewhat luck based) of stock car racing. I'd say drafting names like Sergei Fedorov was, at the time, rather experimental in nature and luck-based/ /Wasn't it Jeff Gordon that people mocked for having his daddy buy him a shot by funding a sweet ass car? Jeff Gordon is a ****** canoe. Then again, so is Claude Lemieux. Doesn't make him any less of a competitor./

3. Is it fair that mechanical endurance/reliability plays such a large part in a sport? That is a huge factor in a game. If your skate comes loose or significantly breaks you're screwed no matter how good of a skater you are.

5. There isn't really a sport NASCAR compares to, besides other vehicular sports. They're a relatively new and unique breed. Hell, it wasn't until relatively recently that competitive dancing, even when involving a team, was recognized as a sport (too 'feminine', probably).

Edit: It's even more fun to discuss pro gaming/cybersports as a sport.

Edited March 17, 2009 by Datsyerberger

[tweekvp 0]

I kind of surprised that with everyone bashing the Nascar driver as not an athlete no one has mentioned golf.

Golf is a fun game and I know walking a round can be a workout but it is not and will never be a sport.

[Datsyerberger 279]

I kind of surprised that with everyone bashing the Nascar driver as not an athlete no one has mentioned golf.

Golf is a fun game and I know walking a round can be a workout but it is not and will never be a sport.

I ******* HATE golf. I'd rather watch NASCAR. But that's another ignorant comment. Yea, fat guys can do it. Fat guys sumo wrestle, too.. I don't see many people having issues with them. Hell, you could probably throw Brett Hull onto a 4th line and he'd log a couple minutes and maybe pot some goals. It doesn't mean he'd be as an effective competitive force as he could be.

Again, like other sports, tons of people do it recreationally. To compete at high levels, it takes tons of training, skill, focus, and endurance (for certain parts of the body). Physical condition is slowly starting become a need to compete with the best in golf (same as NASCAR). Tiger Woods started that.. not only does he have the same skills as some of the all-time greats, he also has something the majority of them don't -- peak physical condition. A healthy Tiger Woods absolutely dominates the opposition, not just because of his skill, but because of his athleticism. For those argue against it not being a sport because of a lack of teamwork, some of you are underestimating the value of a knowledgeable caddy at the pro level. They're more than just club carriers.

I work at a physical therapy clinic (as the network administrator, mind). We also do sports training. We have an entire program dedicated to golf fitness and conditioning because it's starting to become a necessity to compete in the newest generation of golfers. The physical need and competitiveness has always been there -- it's just the level of physical fitness needed at a competitive level is rising, just as as happened in the NHL in several periods.

Edited March 17, 2009 by Datsyerberger

[tweekvp 0]

I ******* HATE golf. I'd rather watch NASCAR. But that's another ignorant comment. Yea, fat guys can do it. Fat guys sumo wrestle, too.. I don't see many people having issues with them. Hell, you could probably throw Brett Hull onto a 4th line and he'd log a couple minutes and maybe pot some goals. It doesn't mean he'd be as an effective competitive force as he could be.

Again, like other sports, tons of people do it recreationally. To compete at high levels, it takes tons of training, skill, focus, and endurance (for certain parts of the body). Physical condition is slowly starting become a need to compete with the best in golf (same as NASCAR). Tiger Woods started that.. not only does he have the same skills as some of the all-time greats, he also has something the majority of them don't -- peak physical condition. A healthy Tiger Woods absolutely dominates the opposition, not just because of his skill, but because of his athleticism. For those argue against it not being a sport because of a lack of teamwork, some of you are underestimating the value of a knowledgeable caddy at the pro level. They're more than just club carriers.

I work at a physical therapy clinic (as the network administrator, mind). We also do sports training. We have an entire program dedicated to golf fitness and conditioning because it's starting to become a necessity to compete in the newest generation of golfers. The physical need and competitiveness has always been there -- it's just the level of physical fitness needed at a competitive level is rising, just as as happened in the NHL in several periods.

Your argument doesn't hold water. Simply because an athlete has an advantage playing the game does not make that game a sport.

A finely honed athlete would have a huge advantage at dodge ball but that does not make dodge ball anything more than a playground game.

[tweekvp 0]

Double Post

Edited March 18, 2009 by tweekvp

[Datsyerberger 279]

Your argument doesn't hold water. Simply because an athlete has an advantage playing the game does not make that game a sport.

A finely honed athlete would have a huge advantage at dodge ball but that does not make dodge ball anything more than a playground game.

Nice example, considering that dodgeball is a sport with several leagues, even though it's clearly not a mainstream sport at the adult level in the US. I suppose that means cricket isn't a sport, either. *facepalm*

[Rikadyn 16]

And I agree about race car drivers. Hell, I drive about that fast on our central Texas highways and nobody's recognizing me.

I highly doubt you're doing 150-205mph on a public highway.