Best Athlete

I chose football, but almost went with basketball.

I looked at which athlete could play another sport with the most ease. That's why I almost went with basketball. Going from college basketball to the NFL, playing tight end or a receiver, isn't a big stretch. But I think a lot of the basketball players lack the upper-body strength football players have, which passes my buck.

As much as I wanted to select baseball -- because they're the smartest, of course -- I don't think they'd transition as easily. Football players, I believe, are the most well-rounded athletes. Boxing is close, but I don't even see it as much of a sport as the others.

 

No love for track? Usain Bolt must not be an athlete.

 

Anyone can run that fast. All they need is someone to chase them.

 

I think the argument against track -- discounting steeplechasers and hurdlers, I suppose -- is it's mostly speed and not much coordination. Of course, it's other-worldly speed, and you need intelligence to know what your body's up to and how to run the race strategically, but it isn't quite the athletic freak show of football or basketball.
I'm not sure how much good, though, it does to figure how well one sport's athlete would transition to another. LeBron James might be able to play football, but could he hit a baseball like Lance Berkman? Could he run the marathon like even Paula Radcliffe or swim like Phelps? I don't know. Maybe with training. But the skill sets are so specialized it's hard to tell.

 

If you played 90 minutes of basketball without getting winded, you weren't playing hard enough.

 

And you will be wrong, but go for it if it makes you happy.

 

Any sprinter like Bolt, distance runner like Pre, or elite jumpers, vaulters and throwers are freakish all-world athletes.

Unlike football, basketball, baseball, hockey and all those sports, in track and (I guess swimming and cycling too) you are in a race not only against your opponents, but the clock as well.

 

Actually you're still just racing you're opponent. It doesn't matter what your time is as long as it's 1/8 of a second faster than your opponents.

 

I was thinking the same thing, Desk. Why is he wrong?

 

This argument is almost impossible to decide on. Bolt, you could argue, is a terrific athlete because of his speed. But could he move laterally? Could he jump? Could he shoot a 3-pointer or hit a slap shot?

There's something negative you could point about any given sport, which is why it's arguably much easier to pick an individual athlete. It would be hard to argue against Bo Jackson, or even LeBron. But neither one of them would make it through a marathon...and no marathon runner could run over a linebacker.

Boxing is a great pick, because their hand, feet and head quickness is amazing. But could any of them excel at anything outside of a ring? Doubt it.

Yet after all that rambling about nothing, I'll still say football, only because it's my favorite sport, and if you look at all the skills you need across the field at different positions, it covers a little bit of everything

 

See I'd argue that Lebron will never be as good as bolt at track and Bolt will never be better than Lebron at football. We could make the same case for hundreds of awesome athletes. That's why we could never logically settle this debate.

 

any of these sports can be argued by its die-hards except one: PLEASE TAKE GOLF OFF THE LIST.

PLEASE.