What is an A-level athlete?

[No Skill Gap]

No chance 1 in 100 males can run a sub 4.6 forty.
Not even close.

I said it wasn't completely accurate, but also I think you're counting all the couch potato, 9-5 stiffs who don't train at all. You have to think about it from a genetic potential perspective, not just the average person walking on the street getting into some compression shorts and running a 40.

Idk what the number would be, but idk I disagree with you. I would think that's roughly accurate. You really think it's that's rare someone can run a 4.6 or barely break it? Massive difference between running a 4.59 and a 4.41. Also size is important here.

That's having a class of 400-500 people, assuming 50% male/female exactly, and having only 2 to 2.5 kids in that entire HS with the ability to run a 4.6 flat. I was going more for 4.6, but sure 4.55-4.61. That doesn't seem outrageous to me. Maybe 4.7 would be more of an accurate number, and by Senior year or going into age 18-22 two of the kids can run that. "Not even close" yeah, idk seems ballpark.

Edit:

Based on some nerd reddit post a 4.6 is the equivalent of an 11.21 in the 100m. The nerds equated for everything, surface, reaction time to gun vs laser start, etc.

So yeah we can prove who's right simply by seeing how many kids from a given HS can run roughly that number. Then you have to consider not everyone is running track, better athletes might only play basketball/football, even baseball. And that these are HS kids who are only going to get faster in college once they start using steroids lmao

 

[vision1]

I said it wasn't completely accurate, but also I think you're counting all the couch potato, 9-5 stiffs who don't train at all. You have to think about it from a genetic potential perspective, not just the average person walking on the street getting into some compression shorts and running a 40.

You need to include everyone

Massive difference between running a 4.59 and a 4.41. Also size is important here.

Agreed

That's having a class of 400-500 people, assuming 50% male/female exactly, and having only 2 to 2.5 kids in that entire HS with the ability to run a 4.6 flat. I was going more for 4.6, but sure 4.55-4.61. That doesn't seem outrageous to me. Maybe 4.7 would be more of an accurate number, and by Senior year or going into age 18-22 two of the kids can run that. "Not even close" yeah, idk seems ballpark.

People tend to inflate their 40 ability with poor timing methods. 4.6 is FAST. Most participants in the NFL combines can't run a 4.6 and that's already narrowing down to crème de la crème athletes. That high school of 500 people will likely not produce a single student who ever runs sub 4.6 (in any given 4 year window).

 

[Cole train]

Being a pro in a sport that is popular (lots of people competing hence hard competition hence hard to make pros)

 

[vision1]

Edit:

Based on some nerd reddit post a 4.6 is the equivalent of an 11.21 in the 100m. The nerds equated for everything, surface, reaction time to gun vs laser start, etc.

So yeah we can prove who's right simply by seeing how many kids from a given HS can run roughly that number. Then you have to consider not everyone is running track, better athletes might only play basketball/football, even baseball. And that these are HS kids who are only going to get faster in college once they start using steroids lmao

Here's a read for you:


I don't think those numbers are comparable because of the differences in timing methods alone. Either way I don't think 1/100 can run 11.21.

I think maybe you're saying "1% of males could run 4.6 if all males dedicated and trained to run their best 40"? That would be a different analysis and really difficult to guess since very few people dedicate their time to improving their speed.

 

[No Skill Gap]

You need to include everyone



Agreed



People tend to inflate their 40 ability with poor timing methods. 4.6 is FAST. Most participants in the NFL combines can't run a 4.6 and that's already narrowing down to crème de la crème athletes. That high school of 500 people will likely not produce a single student who ever runs sub 4.6 (in any given 4 year window).

1. My point was that people are involved in athletics in HS and college ages, a lot of people just stop. Even someone who's genetically gifted enough to run a 4.5 at their peak let's say, if they just work in an office and never train or run ever...for 10 years, 15 years striaght. They aren't just going to be able to run a 4.6. But genetically they could and did.

2. 4.6 isn't that fast though, trust me I've watched combines like a fucking nerd for the past 4-5 years maybe. I follow the draft and shit. 4.6 is actually slow as fuck for a CB or WR generally. It's on the slower end for a RB. It's only fast for like TEs (even then not really), and bigger positions. Just off the top of my head there has to be at least 20+ DBs and 15+ WRs running a 4.55 or better every year, conservative number. Tons of kids who aren't even invited to the combine run good times, although Pro Day numbers are inflated.

3. Again idk, based off the reddit post I'd disagree. 4.6 equals a 11.23 roughly in the 100m. This would only be counting HS track 100m athletes specifically, clearly not the entire pool. Not every stud football player, basketball player is going to run this specific track event or do track. But it appears that running an 11.2-11.3 isn't crazy, lots of HS kids do that.

We're basically debating over nothing here, so whatever. But yeah I don't think a "4.6" forty is as crazy as you think, but yes someone running even a 4.6 is fucking athletic.

 

[vision1]

See my post above. Most participants at the combine do not run sub 4.6.

Did a quick search for 100m finals results for the province of Ontario the year that I graduated (2007).
Here are the results:
inals
1 Nick Chiarot Notre Dame S S 11.69 11.15 =
3.1=20
2 Gabriel Tesfaye Oakridge S S 11.55 11.22 =
3.1=20
3 Tremaine Harris Markham D H S 11.64 11.38 =
3.1=20
4 Ramar Hall Hillcrest H S-Ot 11.60 11.41 =
3.1 (11.406)
5 Aaron Brown Birchmount P 11.46 11.41 =
3.1 (11.407)
6 Theoren Commanda Northern 11.72 11.46 =
3.1=20
7 Arthur Nault St. Michael 11.65 11.67 =
3.1=20
8 Alistair Moona MacDonald, S 11.80 11.76 =
3.1=20

Only 1 kid in all of Ontario broke 11.21 seconds in 2007. Track in Canada isn't the same as down south where people can run year round but still ... 1 kid out of thousands and thousands and thousands and thousands.

 

[No Skill Gap]

See my post above. Most participants at the combine do not run sub 4.6.

Did a quick search for 100m finals results for the province of Ontario the year that I graduated (2007).
Here are the results:
inals
1 Nick Chiarot Notre Dame S S 11.69 11.15 =
3.1=20
2 Gabriel Tesfaye Oakridge S S 11.55 11.22 =
3.1=20
3 Tremaine Harris Markham D H S 11.64 11.38 =
3.1=20
4 Ramar Hall Hillcrest H S-Ot 11.60 11.41 =
3.1 (11.406)
5 Aaron Brown Birchmount P 11.46 11.41 =
3.1 (11.407)
6 Theoren Commanda Northern 11.72 11.46 =
3.1=20
7 Arthur Nault St. Michael 11.65 11.67 =
3.1=20
8 Alistair Moona MacDonald, S 11.80 11.76 =
3.1=20

Only 1 kid in all of Ontario broke 11.21 seconds in 2007. Track in Canada isn't the same as down south where people can run year round but still ... 1 kid out of thousands and thousands and thousands and thousands.

Well those numbers look like ass compared to the one google I did for a Colorado county (or state?), I believe 10-11 kids ran 11.3 or under out of the 16.

And again, yes 1 kid...who specifically runs 100m track and field at HS levels broke the time. I also think it's a bit unfair to only look at HS kids when the bar is a 40 yard dash, obviously your athletic prime isn't at age 14-18 for that specific feat. I understand I chose the feat and the example.

To me it's more like this, another analogy/example but a different bar set -

How many people right now out of 100 males on the street can deadlift 315 pounds? Deadlift 350-400+lbs? Bench 225?

The point is for the former, it doesn't require superb athleticism to deadlift 315 or 405 even. It probably requires some genetics for 405 and a bit more genetics to bench 225, but a lot of people could achieve that. Out of the 100 random slobs you pull off the street though? I'd guess maybe 5-10 could bench two plates, maybe 10-25 at very most could deadlift 315.

So while running in a straight line for max acceleration and speed in a 40 yard dash or a 100m sprint is much more genetically athletic based, it still requires training to get there. So the pool of a random 100 people can't necessarily be considered slobs off the street, when I initially said it I was referring to raw genetic potential. Therefore logically, not every kid is going to run 100m track, not every athletically gifted kid is even going to play football/basketball/sports necessarily.

Writing more than needed, but here's the TLDR:

imo we can't possibly be counting untrained people and workforce, older people. We have to be counting purely genetic potential. Also yes as you said, which was kind of my initial point, not everyone is sprinting and training to run a sprint fast. My entire point was based on genetics. So I stand by saying roughly 1% of males can run ~4.6 speed, and my point was the 0.1% are the fucking freaks like 4.25-4.40 speed. Obviously the percentages aren't accurate just spitballed.

 

[No Skill Gap]

See my post above. Most participants at the combine do not run sub 4.6.

Did a quick search for 100m finals results for the province of Ontario the year that I graduated (2007).
Here are the results:
inals
1 Nick Chiarot Notre Dame S S 11.69 11.15 =
3.1=20
2 Gabriel Tesfaye Oakridge S S 11.55 11.22 =
3.1=20
3 Tremaine Harris Markham D H S 11.64 11.38 =
3.1=20
4 Ramar Hall Hillcrest H S-Ot 11.60 11.41 =
3.1 (11.406)
5 Aaron Brown Birchmount P 11.46 11.41 =
3.1 (11.407)
6 Theoren Commanda Northern 11.72 11.46 =
3.1=20
7 Arthur Nault St. Michael 11.65 11.67 =
3.1=20
8 Alistair Moona MacDonald, S 11.80 11.76 =
3.1=20

Only 1 kid in all of Ontario broke 11.21 seconds in 2007. Track in Canada isn't the same as down south where people can run year round but still ... 1 kid out of thousands and thousands and thousands and thousands.

Also whatever you posted above didn't show up. I still think you're dead wrong about it though, the 40 yard dash times. Trust me I watch a ton of football, I've already said the shit...but here you go:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/40-yard_dash

The average time of a WR is 4.48. CB is 4.48. RB is 4.49. FS is 4.53. SS is 4.55. OLB is 4.65, and TE is 4.70.

So obviously tons of people are running 4.6 or under. You keep saying "most" don't run under 4.6, well I mean that might be literally true but you're counting all the fat fuck OL/IDL and non-athletic QBs/K/P there, and even then I bet at least 40-50% of participants are running a 4.60 or better.

It's kind of bullshit to lump the 300+lb OL/DTs in there and the kickers/punters who don't even train/run ever lol, but even then.

Landry Jones ^ ran a 5.11 doing that lmao. So yeah I mean idk, I think not very gifted people athletically can work to run 4.8+, 4.9. 5.0-5.2 range as long as they're not crippled or obese. Tom Brady ran a 5.28, and I doubt he trained the 40 that hard. 4.6 is fast, like I said roughly top 1% as an estimate, I still stand by that...obviously just an estimate though.

 

[vision1]

I don’t really feel like arguing but here it goes haha.

We’re arguing different things here: you’re saying that 1% of people have the potential to run a 4.6. You’re saying if everyone dedicated their time/money/lives to improving their 40 time, 1% would reach 4.6s. What’s the point of making such a difficult statement to analyze? The thread is about labeling grade-A athletes. These are athletes in the world we live in. Not some imaginary world where every single person is attempting to maximize their athletic potential.

The link I posted was an analysis of the hand timing that the NFL combine uses. It shows two things: first that hand timing reduces the athletes time due to the reaction time of the timer, and second that the reaction time is not consistent between tests. On average (small sample size) 40y times are 0.16s slower than stated by the NFL. The opposite happens with 100m times that are initiated with a gun. The reaction time is ADDED to the 100m time instead of subtracted.

So let’s say you found 10 kids who ran sub 11.3s in Colorado state. Obviously that number increases as the kids reach their early 20s but still ... how many kids are born in Colorado in any given year? There’s just no way 1% of people can run a 11.21 or 4.6 or whatever you’re saying.

~3.5 billion males on this planet. No possible way 35 million will ever have the ability to run a 4.6 40y.

Your argument that many WR and CB run sub 4.6 at the combine is not helping your case. The participants of the NFL combine are already >99th percentile.

 

[aus101]

Every sport requires different physical attributes. Compare sprinting and distance running for example, it's the same activity less intense but for a longer pace and that alone changes everything. Some sports will be more skill based, others (100 metre running for example), physical. What those physical attributes (or general skills) are though will vary wildly from sport to sport. Gymnastics for example requires strength, stability and flexibility, but favours low body weights, short statures and young athletes. Rowing requires strength, but also height, reach and particularly endurance, with far older athletes (Olympic medalists in their 40s etc).

 

[TimeToTrain]

Every sport requires different physical attributes. Compare sprinting and distance running for example, it's the same activity less intense but for a longer pace and that alone changes everything. Some sports will be more skill based, others (100 metre running for example), physical. What those physical attributes (or general skills) are though will vary wildly from sport to sport. Gymnastics for example requires strength, stability and flexibility, but favours low body weights, short statures and young athletes. Rowing requires strength, but also height, reach and particularly endurance, with far older athletes (Olympic medalists in their 40s etc).

As I read based on opinions, the most common athletes mentioned as A-level athletes are Lebron James and NFL players. I think people classify A-level athletes seen from their explosiveness, strength, vertical and endurance.

GSP to me is an A-level athlete. He was explosive, strong, and had crazy endurance for carrying all that muscle for 25-minutes. He was more active than Nick Diaz, the guy who competes in triathlons and swims through Alcatraz.

BJ Penn was not an A-level athlete but it was pretty damn impressive when he jumped out of the pool without using his hands.

Anderson Silva was a technical fighter with great timing and reflexes in his prime. He was not explosive or maybe just never needed to use it based on his fighting style. Aside from that, he was able to go 25 minutes without gassing out in a few fights.

Lebron can go 48 minutes running up and down the court at a fast rate but there are factors involved that allows him to take breaks such as free throws, time outs, in bound plays after a penalty, etc.

Fighters who fight for 25 minutes are given a minute in between rounds. During each five minute round involves stand up, clinching, wrestling, being on the ground, etc. I don’t know what it’s like to be in the cage but I know grappling drains a lot of energy. Maybe their bodies are used to it and they have great breathing control and technique. To me I think those 25 minutes are harder than playing basketball for 48 minutes.

A 90-minute soccer game isn’t that bad either. Lots of times they get to walk or take slight jogs at a short distance when playing defense. There’s not much sprinting in this sport.

 

[Phlog]

Show me the chart that shows the exercises that test A level athletes and which results place you in which letter grade. Are there weight classes? Is Usain Bolt ahead of LeBron James because he's faster? What about vertical? Strength standards? There aren't any.

They're both A+ level athletes.

An A+ level athlete is one that competes at the top of their sports competition.

 

[No Skill Gap]

I don’t really feel like arguing but here it goes haha.

We’re arguing different things here: you’re saying that 1% of people have the potential to run a 4.6. You’re saying if everyone dedicated their time/money/lives to improving their 40 time, 1% would reach 4.6s. What’s the point of making such a difficult statement to analyze? The thread is about labeling grade-A athletes. These are athletes in the world we live in. Not some imaginary world where every single person is attempting to maximize their athletic potential.

The link I posted was an analysis of the hand timing that the NFL combine uses. It shows two things: first that hand timing reduces the athletes time due to the reaction time of the timer, and second that the reaction time is not consistent between tests. On average (small sample size) 40y times are 0.16s slower than stated by the NFL. The opposite happens with 100m times that are initiated with a gun. The reaction time is ADDED to the 100m time instead of subtracted.

So let’s say you found 10 kids who ran sub 11.3s in Colorado state. Obviously that number increases as the kids reach their early 20s but still ... how many kids are born in Colorado in any given year? There’s just no way 1% of people can run a 11.21 or 4.6 or whatever you’re saying.

~3.5 billion males on this planet. No possible way 35 million will ever have the ability to run a 4.6 40y.

Your argument that many WR and CB run sub 4.6 at the combine is not helping your case. The participants of the NFL combine are already >99th percentile.

Well that's exactly what I'm saying and I don't think it's difficult or absurd. That's how genetics works.

Larry Wheels could have just sat on his couch or did heroin for 10 years, atrophied away. He definitely wouldn't be able to deadlift even 500 pounds, not even 4 plates, maybe not even 3 plates for a single in that parallel universe. But his genetics are the same, his literal DNA coding, his type 2 muscle fiber %, his propensity to build skeletal muscle, etc.

So I don't think that's unfair at all. That's how it has to be. As for the combine, the nerd reddit post accounted for the reaction time. Colorado "the state" not the college lol. Here's a link, I mean we are going way too in depth now but:

https://www.maxpreps.com/leaders/track-field-spring-18/sprints,100+meter/stat-leaders.htm

There were 200 kids in Spring 2018 who ran 11.29 or less, who happened to be listed on this site, who happen to run 100m track. How many kids in HS run 100m in track nation wide? I don't know. And these kids are going to improve as they age, they don't peak at 17-18.

- As for the combine, you were the one who stated that the majority of participants don't run 4.60 or better. I simply showed that the averages for every position that isn't DL/OL/QB/K/P basically are sub 4.6. And okay, yeah most NFL participants are top 1% athletes already, but that's not where ALL the top 1% athletes go, and not every single one is top 1% either for the record.

~3.5 billion people is a fucking lot dude. I don't think it's that far off that 35 million have the genetic potential to run 4.6 forty yard dashs or better. The fundamental thing here is that you believe a 4.6 is some god-tier feat, it's not. You have to be athletic to achieve it, very athletic arguably, but it's not insane. 2-3 kids from a HS class, 1/100 male non crippled humans, yeah I don't think that's far off the mark.

How many people do you think have the genetic potential to deadlift 500 lbs? How many people DO deadlift 500 lbs right now or could right now? Obviously a different thing. And yes sprinting speed/jumping is more genetic based, but I'm curious as to your standards now. Because a 4.60 is not some god tier feat of athleticism. It's just good to very good.

 

[vision1]

This thread is asking for a definition of an A-level athlete. This is a standard in the world we live in. The standard of what an A-level athlete is would increase if every person on the planet strove to be the greatest athlete they could be. That's why I don't think your genetic potential is relevant to this discussion.

Anyways, don't really feel like arguing. 500 lb deadlift is much easier to achieve than a 4.6 (true or by combine standards). From that link you sent me there are 143 high school students who run 11.21 or faster. Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Indiana, New Mexico, Utah, and Washington ... That's a very very very small percentage. Even accounting for top athletes going to other speed sports and more athletes peaking in their 20s. Still an incredibly low # compared to the number of births per annum in those states.

And don't forget that the fastest kids in the Unites States DO run track, especially in high school. There are some who play football + one other non-track sport, a few who play neither football nor run track, but most are in track. The fastest football players run track. The fastest kids in elementary are channeled to race at a young age. I'm sure you and all your young classmates were all tested to see who was fastest.

 

[No Skill Gap]

This thread is asking for a definition of an A-level athlete. This is a standard in the world we live in. The standard of what an A-level athlete is would increase if every person on the planet strove to be the greatest athlete they could be. That's why I don't think your genetic potential is relevant to this discussion.

Anyways, don't really feel like arguing. 500 lb deadlift is much easier to achieve than a 4.6 (true or by combine standards). From that link you sent me there are 143 high school students who run 11.21 or faster. Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Indiana, New Mexico, Utah, and Washington ... That's a very very very small percentage. Even accounting for top athletes going to other speed sports and more athletes peaking in their 20s. Still an incredibly low # compared to the number of births per annum in those states.

And don't forget that the fastest kids in the Unites States DO run track, especially in high school. There are some who play football + one other non-track sport, a few who play neither football nor run track, but most are in track. The fastest football players run track. The fastest kids in elementary are channeled to race at a young age. I'm sure you and all your young classmates were all tested to see who was fastest.

When I went to high school the most athletic kids all played football and basketball. Even Hockey and baseball, over track and field. Track is more of a nerd sport at the HS level i'd say, but sure some studs go there.

Fair enough agree to disagree, I just think the initial 0.1% is absurd and way too selective. You don't have to be in the NBA to qualify for the made up term of A-level athleticism.

Last thing I'll say, this is the visual representation of why 0.1% is a retarded number to classify a retarded term:

Active NFL players: ~1,800 + Active NBA players: ~400-500 + D1 CFB players alone: ~29,175 = ~31,400

US population age 18-34 = 76.2 million. 31,400/76,200,000 = .000413 = 0.0413%

So strictly the NBA, NFL, and D1 football comprises almost half of that 0.1% figure suggested. This doesn't include any college wrestlers/basketball/hockey, track and field, baseball, soccer, volleyball/swimming/etc. No boxers, MMA fighters, pro forms of collegiate sports, all the olympians minus NBA guys. And more importantly it doesn't include all the people with good athleticism that simply chose not to continue on with sports at a college+ level.

Idk, guess it depends where your bar is set, but I don't consider being the literal cream of the cream of the cream as the entry level for this meme term.

 

[vision1]

When I went to high school the most athletic kids all played football and basketball. Even Hockey and baseball, over track and field. Track is more of a nerd sport at the HS level i'd say, but sure some studs go there.

I agree but I do think the fastest of the fastest stick with track. If you're the fastest kid in you're school, you're probably on the track team. If you're not going to win, you'll probably stick with other sports that are cooler and more fun.

 

[dissectingaorticaneurysm]

I agree but I do think the fastest of the fastest stick with track. If you're the fastest kid in you're school, you're probably on the track team. If you're not going to win, you'll probably stick with other sports that are cooler and more fun.

Division 1 WRs CBs and RBs often were the fastest kids in their HS track team. They are steered to prioritize football if they earn a scholarship because it's more lucrative for the university. There are also less multisport athletes in Div 1 than previous eras because the stakes are so much higher now.

 

[vision1]

Division 1 WRs CBs and RBs often were the fastest kids in their HS track team. They are steered to prioritize football if they earn a scholarship because it's more lucrative for the university. There are also less multisport athletes in Div 1 than previous eras because the stakes are so much higher now.

Exactly (I was referring to the high school level, in reference to the link above showing track times in multiple states for HS students). That list probably includes the majority of the fastest kids in those states. There isn't some huge pool of athletes from other sports capable of running 11.21.

 

[Deleted member 580830]

Every sport have different mechanics. A level athlete in swimming is different than A level in basketball. You are fit to what you often do.

 

[michaelsilva]

Definition of an A-Level Athlete