Top 10 Athletes after 40 years old

[Datsyerberger 279]

I can see why some people could consider baseball athletic, even though I'd not agree. I used to play for the team in school, but it was as fun as golfing, and I'd prefer to go my own pace at golfing rather than stand around and wait 80% of the time to have to get the ball or be at bat. Pitchers need quite a bit of skill, but not so much athleticism. Ironically it's they that are doing most of the work while mostly everyone else either sits in the clubhouse and watches or stands around on the field watching. This is why even playing baseball myself, I'd not call it very athletic either. It does require hand-eye coordination to pitch and hit the ball, training to get up the arm strength and accuracy at hitting, but once the person is on the field, besides the pitcher, they don't do much at all.

I can see how NASCAR is entertaining. Those guys drive fast as hell. It's almost like seeing the Blue Angels. There's no doubt NASCAR is in the entertainment business just like the WWE, which it's own racers have compared it to. But I just don't see, as someone who played and watched for over a decade, how baseball is entertaining to watch, or even very athletic.

I played baseball as well. ADHD that I am, I never had the focus to do particularly well at it at any position except pitcher, though -- good hand eye, low power but accurate swing, strong throw.

One thing you missed is that even though not all ball players do so, good leg build for sprinting, whether to run bases or catch a ball, can be beneficial. Most high end guys work on that, really.

No, physical endurance and all-around muscle isn't as necessary to baseball as in other sports, but the amount of training, practice, and natural talent needed for the amount of reflexes and hand-eye you need in baseball is very athletic. As I mentioned earlier in the thread, athleticism isn't JUST muscle.

If baseball players devoted most of their time for the more impressive-looking sort of athleticism needed for football, rather than training the sort of things needed for baseball, they wouldn't be very good baseball players. If NASCAR drivers put most of their time into developing a hockey player's athletic build and skills, they wouldn't be a very good driver. If a basketball player put most of their time into developing athletics needed for NASCAR, they'd be a crappy basketball player. If a hockey player put most of their time into developing their golf skills, they'd be Happy Gilmore or a Maple Leaf.

All in all, all of these top end sports guys are all VERY athletic, even if the manner of their athleticism differs. I'd argue that hockey players are among the (if not the) overall most athletic of all sports players, but saying professional baseball players, or even golfers and NASCAR drivers aren't athletes or aren't particularly athletic is a slight to their devotion and skill.

Edited March 18, 2009 by Datsyerberger

[Vladifan 680]

For 500 miles. With 50+ other cars all around you, at time an inch or two from your own vehicle. In a car running so hot that it's up to 170 degrees inside the cabin. And breathing in a steady stream of carbon monoxide fumes.

Of course you're right. But that sure as hell doesn't make them a whole lot smarter than me. Just richer. At least when it's 95 degrees here with 200% humidity, I know enough to get my butt off the highway as soon as possible and go home. Just look at all the specs you listed above. It's still not prowress we're talking about here. It is mostly a macho thing that requires choosing to breathe deadly fumes, deafening noise, heat up to 170 degrees and traffic from hell even if it is (hopefully) one-way. If that's what they want to do, fine. But that doesn't mean I would ever call them athletes.

[Opie 308]

While NASCAR drivers may be athletic what they do does not fall under MY rules for a sport, much like figure skating is not a sport to me, follow closely.

1. Does it take athletic ability.

[Datsyerberger 279]

1. Does it take athletic ability.

Define athletic ability. Bulky muscles? Physical strength?

[C-TownWing 0]

Paul Martin would get his ass handed to him in the NHL.

IDK, I think he's having a pretty good season anchoring a very underrated Devils D.

Sorry, had to. Mostly because I honestly have never heard of Paul Martin the driver, and I kinda like NASCAR.

[Vladifan 680]

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

How do you know? You ever seen me drive?

What did you think the shoulders were for? Huh?! Don't know 'bout you, Bubba, but in Texas almost anything goes. :hockeysmile:

[Datsyerberger 279]

Of course you're right. But that sure as hell doesn't make them a whole lot smarter than me. Just richer. At least when it's 95 degrees here with 200% humidity, I know enough to get my butt off the highway as soon as possible and go home. Just look at all the specs you listed above. It's still not prowress we're talking about here. It is mostly a macho thing that requires choosing to breathe deadly fumes, deafening noise, heat up to 170 degrees and traffic from hell even if it is (hopefully) one-way. If that's what they want to do, fine. But that doesn't mean I would ever call them athletes.

If course it's a macho thing, but please realize the absolute ridiculousness of this statement.

Are you going to argue that hockey players aren't athletes because they're richer than you, are dumb enough to get in the way of 100 mph chunks of rubber, get slammed into boards, punch eachother's teeth out, and move at 20+ mph towards eachother with giant razor blades attached to their feet because it's just a macho thing? Of course not.

As I've said many times in this thread, athletics isn't just muscle. Physical endurance, cardiovascular and respiratory conditioning, hand-eye, and reflexes are all athletic as well.

[C-TownWing 0]

No love for Johnny Bower, apparently.

At first, I was like WTF are you talking about? Then, I realized that you were commenting on the original point of this thread. You can certainly understand my confusion there.

[Guest Shoreline]

I played baseball as well. ADHD that I am, I never had the focus to do particularly well at it at any position except pitcher, though -- good hand eye, low power but accurate swing, strong throw.

You and I have the same problem then, although I was always a center fielder for my arm.

One thing you missed is that even though not all ball players do so, good leg build for sprinting, whether to run bases or catch a ball, can be beneficial. Most high end guys work on that, really.

This is where I contest athletic ability. There are good runners, but if in general a baseball player is supposed to be that great at running, why are there so many pinch runners? I know there's a strategy to baseball but it certainly doesn't make the player getting replaced look like much of an athlete. Think McGwire or those big guys who can't run, only swing -- and I've always hated the concept of a designated hitter.

No, physical endurance and all-around muscle isn't as necessary to baseball as in other sports, but the amount of training, practice, and natural talent needed for the amount of reflexes and hand-eye you need in baseball is very athletic. As I mentioned earlier in the thread, athleticism isn't JUST muscle.

Exactly, which is why I would say, like golf, or pool, or bowling, it requires skill, and training, just not much athleticism -- I mean, over a normal person who exercises as they should.

If baseball players devoted most of their time for the more impressive-looking sort of athleticism needed for football, rather than training the sort of things needed for baseball, they wouldn't be very good baseball players. If NASCAR drivers put most of their time into developing a hockey player's athletic build and skills, they wouldn't be a very good driver. If a basketball player put most of their time into developing athletics needed for NASCAR, they'd be a crappy basketball player. If a hockey player put most of their time into developing their golf skills, they'd be Happy Gilmore or a Maple Leaf.

Good analogy, and one I can't really refute.

All in all, all of these top end sports guys are all VERY athletic, even if the manner of their athleticism differs. I'd argue that hockey players are among the (if not the) overall most athletic of all sports players, but saying professional baseball players, or even golfers and NASCAR drivers aren't athletes or aren't particularly athletic is a slight to their devotion and skill.

Heh, there is where we disagree. But been there so I'll not got here again.

Edited March 18, 2009 by Shoreline

[Datsyerberger 279]

IDK, I think he's having a pretty good season anchoring a very underrated Devils D.

Sorry, had to. Mostly because I honestly have never heard of Paul Martin the driver, and I kinda like NASCAR.

Haha, you were the first person to catch on to this. I initially made the error when I was managing one of my fantasy hockey teams, and decided to run with it once I figured out people were ignorant to the fact I was talking about Mark Martin... which kinda goes a way towards proving that particular point, doesn't it?

[Opie 308]

While NASCAR drivers may be athletic what they do does not fall under MY rules for a sport, much like figure skating is not a sport to me, follow closely.

1. Does it take athletic ability.

i. because it takes athletic ability that does not automatically make it a sport, see dancing, hiking, nascar, diving, gymnastics, ballet, figure skating, synchronized swimming etc...

ii. Not all sports are as athletically demanding as others, see baseball and golf as good examples.

2. Do the athletes involved determine the outcome of the activity.

i. You may say a driver impacts the results, but he can be the best driver in the world, drive the car perfectly through every turn and a flat tire, empty gas tank, and/ or mechanical defect can control and often does control the outcome of the event, and more often than not has a bigger impact on how the results play out than the driver themselves.

ii. Figure skating, diving, anything decided by a judge is in my opinion not a sport.

a. You may say well the ref letting a puck played off of the netting count for a goal is impacting the result, yes I agree but he outcome is not decided by that one play, where as figure skating and others are decided based on an observers biases, the score comes directly from those people not by stepping on a base or by running a certain distance.

3. An athletic event is not a sporting event, and that is not meant to be an insult, have any of you ever had a friend or knew some one that did gymnastics. You may never see a more athletic specimen and a person in better shape than a gymnist, but guess what, gymnastics, not a sport in my book because their score comes directly from a judge, and a personal bias can impact their score more than their performance.

But I will add this disclaimer, we all have our own biasess, if you are a NASCAR fan you are going to change your idea of what makes a sport, I find NASCAR boring as all hell, that doesn't make it less of a challenge to do, I find golf even more boring to watch and to play, doesn't make it not a sport.

Also you may notice my first list of athletic events that are not sports synch. swimming, however I think swimming (olympics) is a sport

[Doggy 130]

While NASCAR drivers may be athletic what they do does not fall under MY rules for a sport, much like figure skating is not a sport to me, follow closely.

1. Does it take athletic ability.

Yes. And a lot of it. You need to be extremely fit to control a racecar for a few hours. Have you ever been in one? I drove a Australian toruring car for 3 laps and was exhausted. Completely exhausted. It's incredibly physically taxing. Those guys are athletically fit... big time. And some of the posts in this thread are just due to ignorance, that's all.

[Vladifan 680]

Define athletic ability. Bulky muscles? Physical strength?

Offhand I would say the main ability NASCAR drivers have to have is hand-eye-feet coordination. They indeed have to react at lightning speed. But that also is true of every major and minor sport in the world. Some sports are just played slower than others, i.e. golf, curling, etc. Except in every other sport I can think of, these athletes are making large-muscle moves with their bodies at the same time. EVerything is physically involved in all other sports. ALL parts of the body are required to be in top shape for most sports. They have to work at keeping their bods tuned from their toes up. In essence, the more that is demanded of those in sports, the more they should be considered athletes.

As an example, I liked what Puckloo said about defensive skaters skating backward. I cannot imagine the kind of training that takes, but it would be a helluva lot more than hand/eye/feets stuff...

[Vladifan 680]

If course it's a macho thing, but please realize the absolute ridiculousness of this statement.

Are you going to argue that hockey players aren't athletes because they're richer than you, are dumb enough to get in the way of 100 mph chunks of rubber, get slammed into boards, punch eachother's teeth out, and move at 20+ mph towards eachother with giant razor blades attached to their feet because it's just a macho thing? Of course not.

As I've said many times in this thread, athletics isn't just muscle. Physical endurance, cardiovascular and respiratory conditioning, hand-eye, and reflexes are all athletic as well.

The money thing nor the macho thing weren't the basic points and you must know that. YOUR point was that race car drivers are athletes just as athletes are in other sports. I simply do not agree. The same amount, depth and range of training is not required of them to succeed, ALL parts of the human body have to be in top form for a pro to make it in most sports. I don't care how you word it. I repeat. If a driver chooses to breathe in carbon monoxide fumes (respiratory conditioning or not); sit strapped in a car trying not to get killed with the heat at physically intolerable levels with the noise at deafening decibels, honestly - more power to him. But the same demands are not made on him/her that are made on other athletes. Ignorant or no, that's my take. I don't look down on them. But the argument remains - should they be considered athletes as in other sports? I say no.

Peace out.

[Datsyerberger 279]

While NASCAR drivers may be athletic what they do does not fall under MY rules for a sport, much like figure skating is not a sport to me, follow closely.

1. Does it take athletic ability.

i. because it takes athletic ability that does not automatically make it a sport, see dancing, hiking, nascar, diving, gymnastics, ballet, figure skating, synchronized swimming etc...

ii. Not all sports are as athletically demanding as others, see baseball and golf as good examples.

2. Do the athletes involved determine the outcome of the activity.

i. You may say a driver impacts the results, but he can be the best driver in the world, drive the car perfectly through every turn and a flat tire, empty gas tank, and/ or mechanical defect can control and often does control the outcome of the event, and more often than not has a bigger impact on how the results play out than the driver themselves.

ii. Figure skating, diving, anything decided by a judge is in my opinion not a sport.

a. You may say well the ref letting a puck played off of the netting count for a goal is impacting the result, yes I agree but he outcome is not decided by that one play, where as figure skating and others are decided based on an observers biases, the score comes directly from those people not by stepping on a base or by running a certain distance.

3. An athletic event is not a sporting event, and that is not meant to be an insult, have any of you ever had a friend or knew some one that did gymnastics. You may never see a more athletic specimen and a person in better shape than a gymnist, but guess what, gymnastics, not a sport in my book because their score comes directly from a judge, and a personal bias can impact their score more than their performance.

But I will add this disclaimer, we all have our own biasess, if you are a NASCAR fan you are going to change your idea of what makes a sport, I find NASCAR boring as all hell, that doesn't make it less of a challenge to do, I find golf even more boring to watch and to play, doesn't make it not a sport.

Also you may notice my first list of athletic events that are not sports synch. swimming, however I think swimming (olympics) is a sport

1.

i. Every bit can help in NASCAR, not just physical endurance, hand-eye, and so on, but also overall athletics. It's no coincidence that Mark Martin, widely regarded as one of the most athletic of NASCAR drivers, is also widely regarded as one of the most consistently successful over such a long time span. It's also no coincidence that many NASCAR drivers played other sports (basketball, baseball, football, etc) up to a collegiate level.

ii. That's an inaccurate statement. I'd say all sports are fairly close in athletics to one another at the highest level, else the athletes of those sports wouldn't have to devote the majority of their life to playing and participating in that particular activity. What I WOULD agree with is the statement that "not all sports require as much overall athleticism as other sports".

2.

i. Some sports rely on varying degrees of technology to be a viable activity. You don't really need anything besides a ball and your body to play football, though losing your helmet and padding may make it significantly more dangerous. But a hockey player with a broken skate blade is just as useless as a NASCAR driver with a car with a blown tire. They BOTH require athletic ability, and they BOTH require the proper maintenance and reliability of equipment.

ii.

a. I'd damned well say whether a pitch is a strike or a ball is up to a judge and a VERY important part of baseball. The same could be said for many of the rules of hockey.. penalties, icing, offsides. Saying that the performances of figure skating and the like are JUST up to the whatever the judge feels like takes away from the skill and performance of the skater, and is just as doofy as saying it doesn't matter how fast or accurately or tricky a pitcher throws a ball.

3. See the baseball - umpire reference. You might as well write off baseball and several other things that are accepted as major sports with that view, or at the very least MAJORLY change the nature of the games. Many a football and hockey game have been determined by the accuracy of officiating one way or another in determining whether a point was scored or not.

Lastly, I can't stand NASCAR, but I find the amount of hokey malarkey like this it gets as irritating as the things I hear about hockey in the south. Believe it or not, I hear plenty of arguments for why it's not a sport or why its players aren't athletes, and many of them are structured very much like these arguments.

As for swimming, up until recently with the advent of electronic means, who finishes first in a close race was determined solely by the eyes of judges

[Opie 308]

Yes. And a lot of it. You need to be extremely fit to control a racecar for a few hours. Have you ever been in one? I drove a Australian toruring car for 3 laps and was exhausted. Completely exhausted. It's incredibly physically taxing. Those guys are athletically fit... big time. And some of the posts in this thread are just due to ignorance, that's all.

Edit: before writing this response I didn't know that I had posted an incomplete thought, I thought Doggy was replying to only my first sentence.

I retract this and if I had posted correctly half of this conversation would have been avoided!

I wasn't saying it doesn't take athletic ability, I was listing that as my first criteria, gymnastics takes more athletic ability than driving a race car, driving a race car takes a hell of a lot more endurance, still in my book neither are sports. I explained my definition of a sport in a pretty logical way (at least I thought so) but you were so pent up on defending NASCAR you didn't process what I was saying.

I agree Driving a race car takes a ton of athletic ability that is not why I said it wasn't a sport (In fact I stated it takes athletic ability, I said it wasn't due to the fact that more often than not the athlete has less to do with the outcome than the car.

Lets stretch the realm of possibilty for a minute and make a fun analogy that makes no realistic sense.

If the hockey puck were the equivalent to hockey what the car is to NASCAR the puck would have a motor on it and the players would all have remotes in their hands, the rule change would be that the closest player to the puck is the only player whose remote works. So I guess for me the reverse thinking would be that the car is the Hockey Player and the person is the puck.

It is the car(more specifically the set up) that gets driver around the track, yes it takes skill and athletic ability to turn the wheel in that kind of G force and in that kind of heat, however it is not the driver's ability that makes the car go faster or slower than others, it may be their fears, however that won't have them racing very long.

In NASCAR all of the cars are supposed to be very similar in horse power and down force etc..., yet a crew chief tweaks the car giving it an extra down turn (no clue what that means just heard it used) and that car can then handles better in the turns and is not loose coming out of the turns, is it the driver that won the race or the car or the crew chief?

My issue with calling Nascar a sport is that more often than not the set up of the car determines how well the athlete does.

Again this is my opinion and my analogy depicts my opinion, I am not saying it is the only way to think but is my opinion.

Edited March 19, 2009 by Opie

[Datsyerberger 279]

The money thing nor the macho thing weren't the basic points and you must know that. YOUR point was that race car drivers are athletes just as athletes are in other sports. I simply do not agree. The same amount, depth and range of training is not required of them to succeed, ALL parts of the human body have to be in top form for a pro to make it in most sports. I don't care how you word it. I repeat. If a driver chooses to breathe in carbon monoxide fumes (respiratory conditioning or not); sit strapped in a car trying not to get killed with the heat at physically intolerable levels with the noise at deafening decibels, honestly - more power to him. But the same demands are not made on him/her that are made on other athletes. Ignorant or no, that's my take. I don't look down on them. But the argument remains - should they be considered athletes as in other sports? I say no.

Peace out.

Complete ignorance. There are flabby hockey players who succeed at the NHL level to some degree, one of them just set a record for most wins ever as a goalie. There are players with underdeveloped upper bodies who skate fast and generate chances from that, there are players with strong upper bodies who are great checkers and shooters but have underdeveloped leg strength and/or coordination and thus poor skating.

Meanwhile, there are flabby NASCAR drivers, some who don't have as good of endurance, some who aren't quite as quick as others reactively, and so on.

However, I think we can both agree that the MOST successful hockey players are those with a combination of talent, skill, and overall physical conditioning. And if you look at NASCAR, some of the most successful and consistent drivers, especially in the last 10 years, are those not only with talent and skill, but those with the best overall physical conditioning. It's an increasing level of competitiveness as more and more of such starts to give them an edge, just like players in some sports turn to steroids for any sort of edge they can get.

Finally, learning to race at top tier vehicular racing is probably one of the deepest knowledge and skill curves in professional sports.

[Datsyerberger 279]

In NASCAR all of the cars are supposed to be very similar in horse power and down force etc..., yet a crew chief tweaks the car giving it an extra down turn (no clue what that means just heard it used) and that car can then handles better in the turns and is not loose coming out of the turns, is it the driver that won the race or the car or the crew chief?

And hockey players adjust the curves of their sticks. Some even do it to the point where its illegal, and I doubt they'd do that if it didn't give them an edge. Even within legal means, is it the hockey player that scored the goal, or the curve of his stick? The crew chief? What about when the coach adjusts tactics on the power play?

[GMRwings1983 8,804]

Can we all at least agree that pro-wrestling is the only "true" sport?

[Opie 308]

1.

i. Every bit can help in NASCAR, not just physical endurance, hand-eye, and so on, but also overall athletics. It's no coincidence that Mark Martin, widely regarded as one of the most athletic of NASCAR drivers, is also widely regarded as one of the most consistently successful over such a long time span. It's also no coincidence that many NASCAR drivers played other sports (basketball, baseball, football, etc) up to a collegiate level.

ii. That's an inaccurate statement. I'd say all sports are fairly close in athletics to one another at the highest level, else the athletes of those sports wouldn't have to devote the majority of their life to playing and participating in that particular activity. What I WOULD agree with is the statement that "not all sports require as much overall athleticism as other sports".

2.

i. Some sports rely on varying degrees of technology to be a viable activity. You don't really need anything besides a ball and your body to play football, though losing your helmet and padding may make it significantly more dangerous. But a hockey player with a broken skate blade is just as useless as a NASCAR driver with a car with a blown tire. They BOTH require athletic ability, and they BOTH require the proper maintenance and reliability of equipment.

ii.

a. I'd damned well say whether a pitch is a strike or a ball is up to a judge and a VERY important part of baseball. The same could be said for many of the rules of hockey.. penalties, icing, offsides. Saying that the performances of figure skating and the like are JUST up to the whatever the judge feels like takes away from the skill and performance of the skater, and is just as doofy as saying it doesn't matter how fast or accurately or tricky a pitcher throws a ball.

(See the the olympics where the French judge handed the gold to the Russians when everyone in the world was complaining the Canadians should have won, or vice Versa)

3. See the baseball - umpire reference. You might as well write off baseball and several other things that are accepted as major sports with that view, or at the very least MAJORLY change the nature of the games. Many a football and hockey game have been determined by the accuracy of officiating one way or another in determining whether a point was scored or not.

Lastly, I can't stand NASCAR, but I find the amount of hokey malarkey like this it gets as irritating as the things I hear about hockey in the south. Believe it or not, I hear plenty of arguments for why it's not a sport or why its players aren't athletes, and many of them are structured very much like these arguments.

As for swimming, up until recently with the advent of electronic means, who finishes first in a close race was determined solely by the eyes of judges

1. ii Besides catcher and maybe first base, Baseball is the least demanding sport of them all, I have played baseball, not nearly that demanding, I have played all positions except pitcher, baseball takes the least endurance out of every sport, well maybe being a soccer goalie (something else I did). BUT I would agree with your re-write of my sentence as that was the essence I was going for.

2. How often does a blown skate or busted stick impact the end result of a game?

I can think of at least 5 races (I never watch NASCAR) that ended as a direct result of some one running out of gas or getting a flat tire on the last turn of the race let alone crashes during the race, blown engines, oil spills, etc.., my point is that IMO more often than not, the car/mechanics of the event have a broader and more far reaching impact than the equipment of a hockey player.

In Hockey if you bust a stick on a slap shot you will either get plenty more opportunities or if you are in a position where at the last second you have the lead, go to clear the puck and your stick breaks you have a way to deal with that situation, you can clear it with a hand pass, kick it to a teammate, pinch it against the boards and wait for time to run out, get to the bench for another (depending on the situation) in nascar if you are on the final turn and run out of gas you better hope you can coast the rest of the way, there is no getting out and running to the finish line, the car dies you are out of the game, that doesn't happen in hockey unless the athlete themselves is injured. Worst case scenario in hockey, you have the lead, you go to clear the puck, and your stick breaks, tie game, you still have a chance to win. Not in NASCAR.

I find there to be a distinct difference between a safe or out call in baseball and a 7.5 and a 8.5 in figure skating or any of the other judged events. Also if the pitch is called a strike once, you know to hit it the next time, you can adjust and continue to make plays and help you team win. If the judges thinks your handstand is crappy, and you do 15 of them in your routine you do not know until the end, too late!

And more often than not s***ty calls go both ways, a strike zone good or bad is usually consistent. I hate no play in the world more than the "In the neighborhood play" at second base, I find it quite simple: on the bat out, off the bag safe. Why it is not called that way is beyond me, but other than rooting for the Red Sox, baseball bores the ever loving crap out of me, like basketball I can only watch my teams on TV, otherwise I go bat s*** crazy!!

For instance, a judge in figure skating hands out a 7, do you know it should have been a 7.2? In football the ball distinctly crosses the goalline, the officials screw it up and say no touchdown, do the athletes have some form of complaint, a recourse, an avenue to get it corrected. Yes they do, because to err is human, and if the officials were as fast, strong, quick, had the instincts these guys do, they would not be officials, they would be players.

I am not a huge fan of instant replay, but we are in a state where the athletes are so far and away superior to the officials that the officials are having a hard time keeping up. Which is a completely different topic altogether!!

BUT as always, I stated these are my rules for something being a sport, I never said you shouldn't think it a sport, I simply stated why these things are true to me.

Short story:

NASCAR Drivers = Athletes

NASCAR =/= Sport

[Opie 308]

And hockey players adjust the curves of their sticks. Some even do it to the point where its illegal, and I doubt they'd do that if it didn't give them an edge. Even within legal means, is it the hockey player that scored the goal, or the curve of his stick? The crew chief? What about when the coach adjusts tactics on the power play?

The coach adjusts lines/power play/ pk/ minutes/roster/ he can even make all of the players wear thongs, they still have to go out and perform.

The crew chief changes the way the car handles, that could be the sole reason the guy wins, changing the curve of your stick is not going to give you the same advantage of having the wedge just right.

The driver can not control the aerodynamics of the car, can not control how long the tires will hold up ( he can however burn through them quicker) he can not make the gas last longer, it is all dependent upon how the car deals with the variables, hockey is all about how the athlete handles the variables.

You take the best driver in the world right now, and put him in an inferior car, what happens.

You put the best hockey player in the world right now on the last place team what happens?

I can guarentee you Lids has more impact on the last place team than the driver does on that car. If the car is not configured correctly it will not win, if a team is not configured correctly the players still can make it win and be difference makers, the driver is at the mercy of said s***ty car.

[Datsyerberger 279]

The crew chief changes the way the car handles, that could be the sole reason the guy wins, changing the curve of your stick is not going to give you the same advantage of having the wedge just right.

It's a factor, just like changing the downforce of the vehicle is a factor. In either case, it's hardly the sole reason why someone wins. I really hope you don't stick by that statement.

Seriously, saying to a NASCAR fan that Earnhardt won all his championships because his car was that much superior to everyone else's will get you the same sort of ridicule from NASCAR fans that the Pierre McGuire comment about Datsyuk getting that goal because of a gust of wind got him.

[Datsyerberger 279]

I can guarentee you Lids has more impact on the last place team than the driver does on that car. If the car is not configured correctly it will not win, if a team is not configured correctly the players still can make it win and be difference makers, the driver is at the mercy of said s***ty car.

You're comparing mechanical factors to non-mechanical factors as well.

Give said hockey player a half-broken stick and skates with dull and bent blades and see how well he performs then. It'll be ugly.. he'll still be able to compete, but no more than the racer with the inferior car. That's a mechanical factor.

Now, non mechanical factor. Give a NASCAR guy a doofy crew chief that doesn't tweak a cars performance well. The driver might still be able to compete, but it will be difficult. Now give a hockey player a coach that can't run a power play to save his life. The hockey player and team may still be able to compete and generate plays on their own, but it will be more difficult.

[Opie 308]

It's a factor, just like changing the downforce of the vehicle is a factor. In either case, it's hardly the sole reason why someone wins. I really hope you don't stick by that statement.

Seriously, saying to a NASCAR fan that Earnhardt won all his championships because his car was that much superior to everyone else's will get you the same sort of ridicule from NASCAR fans that the Pierre McGuire comment about Datsyuk getting that goal because of a gust of wind got him.

He was better at what he did, I never said Earnhardt wasn't the best driver, hell I never said driving isn't a serious skill. I was just saying it is not a sport.

Tour de France = Sport, Why? Athlete does the work and has direct impact on the results, and in fact the smallest of miscalculation to the vehicle he is traveling on could cost him the race, but he is the power plant.

NASCAR, Formula 1, Indy series = Not a sport, why, The Athlete does a lot of the work and has a direct impact on the results and in fact the smallest miscalculation to the vehicle he is traveling on could cost him the race, but the power plant is a 350 horse power chevy, ford, toyota, dodge.

Now do you see the point I am trying to make, yes he has impact and yes his set of skills being better than some one else will make him greater, but overall the car makes way more difference than the Athlete, thus not making it a sport in my opinion. And that can be the difference between using quaker state and mobil one, not the case in Easton vs Reebok!

You're comparing mechanical factors to non-mechanical factors as well.

Give said hockey player a half-broken stick and skates with dull and bent blades and see how well he performs then. It'll be ugly.. he'll still be able to compete, but no more than the racer with the inferior car. That's a mechanical factor.

Now, non mechanical factor. Give a NASCAR guy a doofy crew chief that doesn't tweak a cars performance well. The driver might still be able to compete, but it will be difficult. Now give a hockey player a coach that can't run a power play to save his life. The hockey player and team may still be able to compete and generate plays on their own, but it will be more difficult.

Of course I am comparing a mechanical factor, that is my whole point, the Athlete in one activity controls the entire scenario, down to the fact he picks his skates, the fit, the style, his stick, his curve, he even picks how hard he wants to skate that day, or just how far he can push himself before he breaks. So if he or his equipment break, he is responsible and accountable, if Lids' skates busted on him every third shift, do you think he would be in the NHL?

EDIT: In NASCAR I am not sure how many drivers pick their set up, I am completely unaware of that so if they do, oops, my bad.

--- Careful the following involves a hypothetical that would never come true please be careful reading, I understand the improbability of it, but you can not deny the possibilty----

In the other a Mechanical device is pushed to its limits by an Athlete? (In the case of Danica Patrick one I would enslave myself for, but that is another story, another thread!)Give a crew chief a kid with a remote that could handle the car and I bet you that crew chief could win. Technology could bring us remote controlled race cars, it probably won't, but the technology could exist where the Athlete could be completely removed from the event. Can not do that with Hockey.

If a Dale Sr. had the equivalent of Lids' half a stick for a car(4 bald tires and no windsheild) would he be in NASCAR?

That may be narrow minded but that is my definition of a sport, which oddly enough is what this thread has come to be!

BTW: I am enjoying this debate, no flaming, no homerism, whatever else!

Edited March 18, 2009 by Opie

[Datsyerberger 279]

If a Dale Sr. had the equivalent of Lids' half a stick for a car(4 bald tires and no windsheild) would he be in NASCAR?

BTW: I am enjoying this debate, no flaming, no homerism, whatever else!

Well, debate aside and for a bit of homerism for a moment, Datsyuk got that beautiful assist (EN as it might be) without a stick! XD