OT: Futbol. Walkball?

[DAF86]

A year of cardio, I could handle 6 miles in 2 hours without being spent. Could I handle it as well as a dedicated soccer player? No. Maybe when I was in my athletic prime, where we played full court basketball in 100 degree heat for hours (basketball has about the same per minute movement stats) during the summer. Football week is also a lot more grueling than anything you face in a soccer match (if FkLA really played football, he'd agree). I did that. Didn't throw up. You guys sell soccer as a marathon. A marathon runner covers over three times the distance in 2ish hours.

Sorry, dude. People all over the world are running 5 to 7 miles in 2hours for their bi-weekly to even daily jogs. I'm not saying it isn't somewhat tiring, just not this extraordinary endurance feat.

I'd love to live closer to you. I don't on soccer, aside from it being a badly designed sport with overrated athletes compared to other big sports. You think baseball is easy because you don't get tired or whatever, but it would be funny to see you flail with re looking swings at 50mph pitches, throw the ball straight into the dirt, and take a ball to the face trying to a catch a fly. I get you're talking just about athletic demands and not skill, but you lack the natural upper body athleticism to throw a ball +70mph.

So we both equally look like on the athletic front (though, I could train my stamina up. Arm strength is pretty much an innate trait).

Your problem is thinking running demands the same level of leg strength than soccer. Besides running, in soccer you have all these constant stops and goes, turns, dives, hits, power efforts to hit the ball, etc. There's not a single game where you won't feel, at some point, weak at the legs. And having, not only to stay on your feet, but keep fighting to gain possession, control a ball, hit or pass a ball. That's why runners' legs look like chicken feet while soccer players lower body muscle ratio according to the rest of their body is substantially bigger than most other athletes.

And even being prepared for this kind of toll all their lives, professional soccer players still can't consistently play more than 1 game per week, because if not, they would all start to break down. That's the ultimate prove of the physical demands of a sport, tbh: the amount of time you have to let pass before doing it again. That's why soccer and the NFL are played once a week, that's why a boxer can only fight once every 3 or 4 months, and that's why baseball can be played virtually everyday.

[midnightpulp]

Your problem is thinking running demands the same level of leg strength than soccer. Besides running, in soccer you have all these constant stops and goes, turns, dives, hits, power efforts to hit the ball, etc. There's not a single game where you won't feel, at some point, weak at the legs. And having, not only to stay on your feet, but keep fighting to gain possession, control a ball, hit or pass a ball. That's why runners' legs look like chicken feet while soccer players lower body muscle ratio according to the rest of their body is substantially bigger than most other athletes.

And even being prepared for this kind of toll all their lives, professional soccer players still can't consistently play more than 1 game per week, because if not, they would all start to break down. That's the ultimate prove of the physical demands of a sport, tbh: the amount of time you have to let pass before doing it again. That's why soccer and the NFL are played once a week, that's why a boxer can only fight once every 3 or 4 months, and that's why baseball can be played virtually everyday.

You said I couldn't handle two minutes of soccer without throwing up. I assure I can. I could more than handle a full soccer game when I was younger. The type of training and conditioning you do for football, basketball, and baseball can handle anything soccer can throw at it. Could I handle it as well as a dedicated soccer player? Of course not, since their training regimen is centered around their sport, but I wouldn't be throwing up at the end of the match or thinking the endurance demands were something I've never seen before. On the skill side of things it's obviously a different story.

My problem with the physical demand argument is that it's a one dimensional way to evaluate a sport's overall demands. I don't care if I was more tired playing basketball after baseball, baseball is considerably more difficult (and this isn't tied to my own inadequacies, there's a reason NCAA draft picks are ready for an NBA squad at 19 and probably would be at 17 if the NBA allowed it. Most MLB draft picks never get an AB in the Majors. About 50% of first rounders don't make it). And you guys are using the physical demand logic to trash sports and the athletes in those sports (from baseball to golf to billiards and cricket if we discussed those). "They don't run around! Not real athletes! They're not playing a real sport!"

Yes, it irks me to on a sport and its athletes in an insulting way such as that, especially when so many facts fly in the face of these "fatball" etc arguments. And the arguments are biased. References to Bartolo abound, but none of the soccer crew knows there's an NHL player who couldn't do one pullup and only 1 rep of 160lb on the bench press, while weighing 200lb. That is a terrible "pure athlete" by any standards. And the NHL has a few more of these types. Every sport does.

Find baseball boring to your heart's content, but that doesn't mean the overall athleticism required to play baseball is less than it is to play soccer, basketball, football.

[midnightpulp]

That's the ultimate prove of the physical demands of a sport, tbh: the amount of time you have to let pass before doing it again. That's why soccer and the NFL are played once a week, that's why a boxer can only fight once every 3 or 4 months, and that's why baseball can be played virtually everyday.

More on this point. I could take a different line and say the ultimate proof of a sport's demands are its fine motor skill and coordination demands under duress. If you made baseball players run around for a couple miles before an at bat, they would assuredly strikeout every time, since to maintain the very fine motor control in order to hit a baseball well would be virtually impossible to do with all the adrenalin running through your body as you heavily breathe. Baseball, golf, etc wouldn't function well as "running around sports." The mechanical demands are too great to do under high adrenalin conditions. There's a reason tennis isn't played with baseball bats.

Basic point is different sports need different conditions to create a "good game."

[DAF86]

You said I couldn't handle two minutes of soccer without throwing up. I assure I can. I could more than handle a full soccer game when I was younger. The type of training and conditioning you do for football, basketball, and baseball can handle anything soccer can throw at it. Could I handle it as well as a dedicated soccer player? Of course not, since their training regimen is centered around their sport, but I wouldn't be throwing up at the end of the match or thinking the endurance demands were something I've never seen before. On the skill side of things it's obviously a different story.

I have played organized soccer since age 5, I even got to the semi-professional level. I'm still in pretty good shape but, no matter any of that, when I play soccer with my friends, I'm sucking for air through my mouth within the first 5 minutes of the game (this, of course, playing like you are suppossed to play soccer, being in constant motion and never standing still).

So, no son. I don't care how much training on football, basketball or baseball you have, I know for a fact you wouldn't be able to endurance a full soccer game played at a semi-serious level. I play basketball too, and it's not even half as demanding as soccer.

My problem with the physical demand argument is that it's a one dimensional way to evaluate a sport's overall demands. I don't care if I was more tired playing basketball after baseball, baseball is considerably more difficult (and this isn't tied to my own inadequacies, there's a reason NCAA draft picks are ready for an NBA squad at 19 and probably would be at 17 if the NBA allowed it. Most MLB draft picks never get an AB in the Majors. About 50% of first rounders don't make it). And you guys are using the physical demand logic to trash sports and the athletes in those sports (from baseball to golf to billiards and cricket if we discussed those). "They don't run around! Not real athletes! They're not playing a real sport!"

Well, we are arguing physical demands here, not another thing. I'm sure I have more chances of getting a fly ball in baseball that beating a professional player on chess, but that's a different argument, tbh.

Yes, it irks me to on a sport and its athletes in an insulting way such as that, especially when so many facts fly in the face of these "fatball" etc arguments. And the arguments are biased. References to Bartolo abound, but none of the soccer crew knows there's an NHL player who couldn't do one pullup and only 1 rep of 160lb on the bench press, while weighing 200lb. That is a terrible "pure athlete" by any standards. And the NHL has a few more of these types. Every sport does.

Find baseball boring to your heart's content, but that doesn't mean the overall athleticism required to play baseball is less than it is to play soccer, basketball, football.

But it does, son. It's just the way it is. There's not a single person in the World, other than you, that I know that argues this fact. You can find many other arguments to defend baseball but, no, you want to have it all; and sorry son, but you can't have it all. Baseball is less physically demanding than most other sports, this is just a well known fact shared by everybody.

[midnightpulp]

I have played organized soccer since age 5, I even got to the semi-professional level. I'm still in pretty good shape but, no matter any of that, when I play soccer with my friends, I'm sucking for air through my mouth within the first 5 minutes of the game (this, of course, playing like you are suppossed to play soccer, being in constant motion and never standing still).

So, no son. I don't care how much training on football, basketball or baseball you have, I know for a fact you wouldn't be able to endurance a full soccer game played at a semi-serious level. I play basketball too, and it's not even half as demanding as soccer.

The training to get in shape for basketball, football, and yes, baseball is more demanding than in game conditions of soccer. You're only considering in game conditions themselves. Jerry Rice would do 2 miles of up hill sprints daily in the off-season.

Rice would run insane distances uphill—2½ miles nonstop—each and every day during the off-season.

"Non-stop." That is a greater workout than 7 miles over 2 hours, there's no way around that.

Well, we are arguing physical demands here, not another thing. I'm sure I have more chances of getting a fly ball in baseball that beating a professional player on chess, but that's a different argument, tbh.

You are completely reducing physical demands down to how tired, sore, etc you get. Baseball is a sport where every player but the DH needs to have, at minimum, arm strength to throw 80 mph accurately (sure, some of us might touch 80 mph with a full run up and indiscriminately throwing as hard as we can). Not many people can throw 80 mph. That's a physical demand the overwhelming majority of the population can't meet.

You don't have to throw a strike. Just get it somewhere within the machine's wide measurement area, faster than 78 mph.
Know how many tickets the Miracle have given away? None. Nada. Zilch.

As of this Saturday, 160 people had tried and only one fan came close at 77 mph. The rest left with a 45 mph fastball, a sore elbow, and a conviction that the radar gun must be defective.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/allenst.../#286c48c32df5

You're also not considering pitchers in the argument. 5 days rest is a guideline. "Physical demand" comes in more flavors than just exertion, from fine motor skill control to vertical leap (i.e. full squad indoor volleyball isn't tiring at all, but it's physically demanding because you need a great vertical to play it well. I rag on Ronado's 29" vert, which we perceive as low since we're conditioned by the great verts of NBA players, but not many people have verts over 2 feet, even great athletes) to endurance. I would consider golf as "physical demanding" as an "athletic" sport because of how demanding it is on your fine motor control skills.

But it does, son. It's just the way it is. There's not a single person in the World, other than you, that I know that argues this fact. You can find many other arguments to defend baseball but, no, you want to have it all; and sorry son, but you can't have it all. Baseball is less physically demanding than most other sports, this is just a well known fact shared by everybody.

A sports scientist probably would not share that fact with everybody. That fact is shared by everybody because they're only looking at physical demand through a myopic lens, i.e. the more tired you get, the more physically demanding it is. I try to look at the total picture of physical demand. Yeah, you don't get tired playing golf in the same way you do playing rugby. Know why that it is? The requirement of fine motor skill control is so great, it'd be nigh-impossible to play decent golf if you were "sucking wind." How is a sport that requires movement that precise not "physically demanding?" Like I said, all sports have built themselves around a certain level of expected fatigue. A sport that would fatigue its players to the point of incompetence would be a ty sport. MLB hitters get on base only 33 percent of the time as it is. Now imagine how that number would plummet if they had to bat while "sucking wind"?

And yes, the overall athletic requirements to play baseball are the same as any other sport.

Average MLB vertical jump is 28". Same as in the NBA. Vertical and general leaping ability is just as important in baseball as any other sport for the purpose of robbing hits. Lateral jumping (i.e. diving) is more important in baseball than in basketball, since the former never requires it aside from the once in a season diving in the stands to save a loose ball.

Acceleration. Just as important as any other sport.

Lateral quickness. Basketball wins here, but you do need quick side step acceleration to get a jump on hits and break on basehits while base running. For context, P3 is one of the most forward thinking training facilities in the world. They work with countless athletes from all the major leagues. On their lateral acceleration tests, MLB players average 9.6 KG of force. Zach Lavine's (one of the greatest jumpers in the league) is 10.5KG, which is in the 88th percentile of all NBA players.

Core strength. Equally important. In baseball for hitting and throwing, in basketball for absorbing contact and getting your shot off through contact.

Arm strength. Important in both (basketball for shooting and passing), but obviously more important in baseball.

Stamina/Endurance. Throwing 100 pitches is just as tasking as playing a basketball game. I would rather do the latter any day of the week. But yes, pitchers are specialized, and baseball position players don't have to endure fatigue on that level, but you still need stamina so you can max out your swings at the plate. Some abs will require 5 to 10 swings.

Hand-eye coordination. Where basketball beats baseball in general on the stamina side, baseball beats basketball in this area.

Basically, end of the day, each sport requires a world class all around athlete to play at the highest levels. The cherry picking of Bartolo (who actually has reached 16mph baserunning, slowest EPL player was around 17mph) and a few other fat players who get by on skill and experience doesn't change that fact. I can pick (or looking) athletes from every sport. Tom Brady has basically lost all of his athleticism. His arm strength is gone. He has a dad bod. Can't run. Yet will still be an MVP candidate next season, because he knows the in' sport so well.

[pad300]

As a note to assorted arguments. Actual walking speed < 5 MpH. Typical is 3.5 MpH (3-4 MpH). Actual jogging speed 4.75 MpH (4-5.5 MpH)

https://www.yogawiz.com/blog/walking...ing-speed.html.
"According to the National Council on Strength and Fitness, the average human can run at the speed of 15 miles per hour for short periods of time. "

https://www.reference.com/health/ave...f0ef0953669fa1

[pad300]

Please cease and desist with comparing track speeds (combine 40 M timess) to in-game speeds (measured world cup speeds). The situations are totally different. One is on a track with a singular focus, and rest beforehand. The other is on a field, in mid game, with other players, and mental load. If you don't think mental load counts, try the following experiment: Run a 40m dash. Rest. Run a 40m dash while trying to solve one of those "skill testing questions" you get in restaurant giveaways before the finish line...

[Chucho]

Soccer is one of the least skilled sports out there.

Fishing, golf, hunting, tennis, golf, horseshoes, pool (both billiards and swimming), baseball and many others take more skill, training and technique than povertyball.

Any kid can play soccer. Kicking and running are the most basic of athletic skills.

[DAF86]

Soccer is one of the least skilled sports out there.

Fishing, golf, hunting, tennis, golf, horseshoes, pool (both billiards and swimming), baseball and many others take more skill, training and technique than povertyball.

Any kid can play soccer. Kicking and running are the most basic of athletic skills.

You know how I can tell you've never played soccer?

[Chucho]

You know how I can tell you've never played soccer?

Simple. Because you think I haven't.

[DAF86]

Simple. Because you think I haven't.

No, because anybody, that actually played it, knows the incredible level of skill required to do the things you need to do in a football pitch to not completely suck.

[Chucho]

No, because anybody, that actually played it, knows the incredible level of skill required to do the things you need to do in a football pitch to not completely suck.

I can tell you tried really, really hard.

[DAF86]

I can tell you tried really, really hard.

At the idea of you solely trying to walk with a ball in your feet, let alone doing any of that in the video.

The average Stater can't even hit a ball without looking like a complete re but then they try to say that playing soccer is easy.

[Jodelo]

Thinking Football (the real one, not the one with an egg) is least skilled.

[midnightpulp]

Please cease and desist with comparing track speeds (combine 40 M timess) to in-game speeds (measured world cup speeds). The situations are totally different. One is on a track with a singular focus, and rest beforehand. The other is on a field, in mid game, with other players, and mental load. If you don't think mental load counts, try the following experiment: Run a 40m dash. Rest. Run a 40m dash while trying to solve one of those "skill testing questions" you get in restaurant giveaways before the finish line...

I'm not comparing in game soccer speed with 40 yard dash times. I either compare in game soccer vs in game in other sports or use Ronaldo's lab tested measurements that were done in combine conditions. Please cease and desist commenting until you've become familiar with the facts.

[midnightpulp]

Thinking Football (the real one, not the one with an egg) is least skilled.

Soccer is skilled, but our football is actually more real. Football was never a term used to describe a game where you only kick a ball with your feet.

[midnightpulp]

At the idea of you solely trying to walk with a ball in your feet, let alone doing any of that in the video.

The average Stater can't even hit a ball without looking like a complete re but then they try to say that playing soccer is easy.

See. It's pretty annoying when others insult a sport in a dismissive fashion. Him saying soccer takes no skill is similar to you and your crew saying any fatass can play baseball. Taking a cue, average Staters (some even world class athletes, can't even accurately throw a ball over 60 feet):

Voted GOAT athlete of the 20th century:






vs.



Threw basically sitting down . For reference, that throw is from over half-a-football field away, 160ish feet.

[pad300]

I'm not comparing in game soccer speed with 40 yard dash times. I either compare in game soccer vs in game in other sports or use Ronaldo's lab tested measurements that were done in combine conditions. Please cease and desist commenting until you've become familiar with the facts.

There a different midnightpulp around here?

https://www.spurstalk.com/forums/sho...=1#post9788642

The Portugal captain has officially recorded the fastest top speed at the World Cup this summer (34kmph). beating 735 players at the tournament in terms of raw pace.

At 33 years old, too. Then factor in he has soccer's greatest vertical, its most "shredded" physique, etc, he's probably the greatest pure soccer athlete who's ever lived. But funny enough, he'd only be around 200th on the "fatball" sprint speed list (3.61 82 foot time in lab conditions).

[midnightpulp]

There a different midnightpulp around here?

https://www.spurstalk.com/forums/sho...=1#post9788642

I thought you were implying I was comparing Ronaldo's in game sprint speed with 40 yard or 60 yard times run on track surfaces in an ideal combine conditions, trying make Ronaldo "look bad." You run faster in an ideal conditions (no slippery grass, loose dirt, ideal start from a set position etc). So what's your point? I'm not being unfair to Ronaldo comparing his lab time with MLB players in game times. The comparison is actually more unfair to MLB players . I know it's a tough pill to swallow that soccer's all-time greatest athlete would only be a middling speedster in the MLB, but facts are facts.

[midnightpulp]

Please cease and desist with comparing track speeds (combine 40 M timess) to in-game speeds (measured world cup speeds). The situations are totally different. One is on a track with a singular focus, and rest beforehand. The other is on a field, in mid game, with other players, and mental load. If you don't think mental load counts, try the following experiment: Run a 40m dash. Rest. Run a 40m dash while trying to solve one of those "skill testing questions" you get in restaurant giveaways before the finish line...

As you admitted. You run faster in combine conditions, so again, the comparison is more than fair to soccer's greatest athlete in evaluating his speed vs. "fatball" players. On a side note, here's a fatball player running 90 feet in game, on loose dirt, in 3.58 seconds (Remember: Ronaldo, 3.61 seconds over 82 feet):

https://www.mlb.com/video/statcast-f...gle?t=statcast

[pad300]

I thought you were implying I was comparing Ronaldo's in game sprint speed with 40 yard or 60 yard times run on track surfaces in an ideal combine conditions, trying make Ronaldo "look bad." You run faster in an ideal conditions (no slippery grass, loose dirt, ideal start from a set position etc). So what's your point? I'm not being unfair to Ronaldo comparing his lab time with MLB players in game times. The comparison is actually more unfair to MLB players . I know it's a tough pill to swallow that soccer's all-time greatest athlete would only be a middling speedster in the MLB, but facts are facts.

Maybe I'm not getting what you're trying to write, but 34 km/h = 30.98 ft/s . 82/30.98 = 2.65 s which you're comparing to some baseball guy at the combine running a 3.62 40m dash? Your "fatball" sprint speed list, it is times from the MLB combine, right. Whereas Ronaldo's 34 km/h is from an actual world cup game...

[midnightpulp]

Maybe I'm not getting what you're trying to write, but 34 km/h = 30.98 ft/s . 82/30.98 = 2.65 s which you're comparing to some baseball guy at the combine running a 3.62 40m dash? Your "fatball" sprint speed list, it is times from the MLB combine, right. Whereas Ronaldo's 34 km/h is from an actual world cup game...

No, you're not. And for all the assumed authority you entered the thread with, it doesn't seem like you understand what you're talking about. You can't compare feet per second coverage from an 80 yard sprint to an 82 foot dash from a set position. It takes a runner about 70 yards to reach top speed, and you're using that top speed as if he ran it over the entire distance. You obviously don't fly out of the gate at your top speed. Here's Ronaldo running his 82 foot dash:

Skip to 4:00:



No, my sprint speed leaderboard is from in game baserunning averages (meaning these aren't even a player's fastest times) over 10 to 90 foot splits.

https://baseballsavant.mlb.com/running_splits

The comparison is good because when you run the bases out of the batter's box or from a stolen base/standing on base, you begin from a set position not too dissimilar when you're sprinting from a set position.

[midnightpulp]

^and in case you missed the edit, I mean 82 feet, not yards.