Who’s the best or most well rounded athlete…

[Fahcough]

I've been reading this thread and thinking "shit, evidently I'm not athletic in the slightest" and then you post this. I genuinely think I could do all of these (on a good day), aside from the 20 ring pullups...

I didn't read all the novels but how to prove being athletic without doing things athletes do?
Can't expect people to run the fastest marathon, set a bench press record then drag a whale out the ocean in 11 minutes

 

[LZD]

Ok maybe I'm wrong specifically about the Tour De France, and I said it was a big event I just didn't know how many people really watched. According to google the event generates between 60-150 million per year. Okay, that's alot.

The Super Bowl made 30-130 million "real" money after analyzing higher claims according to one source. So I mean, is the Tour put under the same ridicule, probably not but either way it's very big. To both our points, it's obviously more "global" in interest so that explains it both ways.

The difference, and I'm just comparing to the NFL as a benchmark, is that football made 16 billion in 2019 and 12 billion in the covid 2020 world. As I said, outside of that one giant event everyone knows, maybe a few more big tours that are lesser, what is the entire sport of cycling adding up to? Obviously nothing close.

Outside of the one big event, much like swimming when the olympics hit, I guarantee there is an utter nosedive of interest and revenue gained. I think there's a few more big tours, but what is the average salary of a cyclists? 50k? 70k? 100k for the top tier? The cream of the crop superstars make 5-6 million, how many of those are there a handful? 10? Idk. But obviously you follow the money to get to the answer of popularity and whether or not a sport is niche. I'd still say swimming is clearly niche even if many people in the world swim and it gets tons of views for a month out of every 4 years.

The sport has more money and eyes than powerlifting and Rugby, sure. I'd call both of those niche as well. And it kind of suffers from the same exact thing the NFL does and you've called that niche, which is that only a section of euro countries really care about cycling and the rest of the world doesn't give a fuck.

I can agree and admit cycling makes more money and is more popular than I thought and was giving credit for. But I still think it's a rather niche, small sport that globally no one cares about really, and in the US we definitely don't give a fuck about especially post-Armstrong.

Revenue is a horrible way to analyse popularity. The NFL makes huge revenue because it's the most popular sport in the largest economy. Part of that equation is how people consume (view) the sport. Most countries BAN or severely limit advertising during sporting events.

Outside of America, NFL is incredibly niche. It's a one nation sport.

I live in Australia and have lived in Europe over a decade. No one knows NFL. The only player whose name i know is Tom Brady and I learnt it on this forum from people saying he'd be HW champ with six months training if he tried haha.

 

[No Skill Gap]

Revenue is a horrible way to analyse popularity. The NFL makes huge revenue because it's the most popular sport in the largest economy. Part of that equation is how people consume (view) the sport. Most countries BAN or severely limit advertising during sporting events.

Outside of America, NFL is incredibly niche. It's a one nation sport.

I live in Australia and have lived in Europe over a decade. No one knows NFL. The only player whose name i know is Tom Brady and I learnt it on this forum from people saying he'd be HW champ with six months training if he tried haha.

Yeah it was not the only way I was looking at things, it was one way I was analyzing the sports and athletes within them after like 50,000 words spent on it.

I totally agree that Brady wouldn't be UFC HW champ, whoever said that is a retard to begin with because the guy plays at like 220-230 lbs and isn't even that lean, he would easily make LHW. And he's an extremely odd person to single out because he's probably the least athletic example of a highly successful NFL athlete you could possibly find.

I mean, the problem here is and I never said this because someone will come in with some political bullshit, but clearly the existence of slavery in the US that led into "good" situations for that genetic pool/demographic + the emphasis and level of caring about sports = your answer.

The US cares more about sports, they have the infrastructure, there is the money incentive (hence the revenue point), and they have a mixed "melting pot" of genetics and that cluster of African genetics from slavery. I know there's probably some Woke bullshit that would try to refute this, but yeah Jamaica excels at the olympics in certain categories despite having a population of sub 3 million people, I wonder why...oh it was a slave plantation for sugar cane.

But yeah, that's obviously a factor and a touchy one. Beyond that, I mean...I agree with you to some extent but to frame it like the NFL/Football is "niche" and a "one nation sport" just seems to me like you're trying to insinuate it doesn't matter. But it does. It has the best athletes per capita, the US is one country but it has a population of ~330 million and people care about the NFL a ton per capita.

Where as you can see Rugby, which I respect, is popular on a "multi-nation" level but has far less interest overall globally despite going against a one nation sport. Rugby players don't get paid as much and all of the top countries that care about it - England, Australia, NZ, Samoa/Pacific isles, Wales, France, Georgia, Madagascar, South Africa - only add up to about ~230-250 million people total and it's obvious that "per capita" it's not even close to the NFL in terms of who cares about it and plays it.

I think everyone knows that Soccer is the king globally in terms of popularity and volume. A massive function is that anyone can play it, poor countries and peoples can and it's just popular in euro-asia-africa the most. But the initial argument I had was that the NFL/NBA have the highest density of top athletes, nuclear athletes.

 

[No Skill Gap]

Revenue is a horrible way to analyse popularity. The NFL makes huge revenue because it's the most popular sport in the largest economy. Part of that equation is how people consume (view) the sport. Most countries BAN or severely limit advertising during sporting events.

Outside of America, NFL is incredibly niche. It's a one nation sport.

I live in Australia and have lived in Europe over a decade. No one knows NFL. The only player whose name i know is Tom Brady and I learnt it on this forum from people saying he'd be HW champ with six months training if he tried haha.

Part 2 to avoid a giant post, lol...


After autistically arguing about this, maybe I did disregard endurance too much...but I still think athleticism is something that cannot be reliably improved upon via training to the levels that strength or cardio can. If we're talking something like MMA or sport BJJ-grappling then obviously endurance-cardio and more specific traits matter a ton more. And for the record, basically no one gives a fuck about soccer in the US either so it works both ways. I probably know way more about soccer than 85-95% of US pop. Don't even follow it that much at all. And I've already been over the "junk volume" global population psuedo-fallacy aspect of this, where literally 2.7 billion+ people are in China + India and just don't even contribute much or care much about sports and athletics.

The 3rd most populated country is the US which cares a ton about sports. We can further add to this, Indonesia (4th) + Pakistan (5th) + Bangladesh (8th) + Phillipines (13th) + Vietnam (15th) = ~870-880 million people

Who basically don't give a fuck about sports, and generate very few top athletes. Bangladesh for example doesn't have a single Olympic medal ever. We all know Pacquiao and there's some weightlifters here and there, but like India and China these countries generally don't produce top athletes or care much about sports/athletics. So we're looking at a total of ~3.5 billion people who just don't contribute to athletics that much at all or care. So I just don't like the "US vs the World bro" type argument. The world isn't everyone else, there's plenty more countries that don't give a fuck about sports too or produce many top athletes (relative as well).

TLDR: Yes, the NFL is essentially a one country sport. But it's still massively popular and super relevant in that country, which happens to be the largest populated country on planet earth that actually cares about sports, and arguably the most sports-centric country on the globe too...at least up there.

Toss in the NBA as well, that was part of my initial point. NFL/NBA have the best athletes, raw athleticism. I stand by that. There's where all the best athletes in the US go, and yes that's one country but it also draws international talent mostly in the NBA. If the UFC paid as well as the average or top tier OLB/DE or star LB in the NFL or even IDL like an Aaron Donald, the HW division would look DRAMATICALLY different, let's just say that. (and to be fair, there are a lot of good to stud athletes in MLB and NHL too, so let's not just ignore that)

There wouldn't be one Francis Ngannou. There would be 50, and many better athletically, more explosive, bigger, than he is easily. But then comes you know, being good at fighting, tough, technique, and all that. So that's just one example.

 

[Phlog]

Just as an aside, American football isn't entirely an American endeavour. Mexico and Canada go hard, many countries have semi professional leagues, in Germany for example they have their own stadiums etc, it's a big deal.

Here in the UK it's amateur but we have over 70 teams.

In Australia it's program died in the 90s which is why you haven't experienced it much.

 

[vision1]

I mean, the problem here is and I never said this because someone will come in with some political bullshit, but clearly the existence of slavery in the US that led into "good" situations for that genetic pool/demographic + the emphasis and level of caring about sports = your answer.

The US cares more about sports, they have the infrastructure, there is the money incentive (hence the revenue point), and they have a mixed "melting pot" of genetics and that cluster of African genetics from slavery.

Are you saying slavery developed good athletes or that it brought Africans to America (who generally have good athletic genetics)? I will assume the latter.

Then why did you also say this?

You're counting a ton of junk volume. 1.4 billion China + 1.4 billion India + 1.2 billion African continent = ~4 billion people.

 

[ChickenBrother]

Are you saying slavery developed good athletes or that it brought Africans to America (who generally have good athletic genetics)? I will assume the latter.

Then why did you also say this?

It's an uncomfortable topic for everyone but I agree with him here.

Africa allegedly has more genetic diversity than any other continent. I think he's saying the Africans who arrived in the Americas and the Caribbean as slaves were primarily Sub-Saharan West African, and that that population was further selected for via harsh conditions during transport and of course slavery conditions. In the west, individuals with this background (and others) have access and incentive to play pro sports but not so in much of the developing world.

 

[vision1]

I agree but you can't make that statement and also make the statement that there are not any great athletes in Africa.

 

[No Skill Gap]

I agree but you can't make that statement and also make the statement that there are not any great athletes in Africa.

I never said that. In fact my premise and implication is quite the opposite. Not sure why you're even asking the question above when the answer is obvious...Look I got nothing against you but I don't want to have another back and forth and I think you're being a bit intellectually dishonest here unless you're genuinely asking somehow?

I mean do you seriously think the living conditions in the average African country are even remotely comparable to the US? Or even Jamaica? They're not.

 

[No Skill Gap]

Are you saying slavery developed good athletes or that it brought Africans to America (who generally have good athletic genetics)? I will assume the latter.

Then why did you also say this?

Here's an example, Cameroon where Francis Ngannou used to work in a fucking salt mine until he decided to walk through the Sahara desert allegedly, to then get on a raft to Spain to get deported to France - or some shit like that. Then get discovered by a boxing/MMA gym in France and then get discovered by the UFC and get into the US.

Point being, Cameroon is the "22nd" best country in Africa out of 53 countries on the HDI (Human Developmental Index). And it's still dogshit. I'm not saying this measurement is the absolute end all, but it kind of makes a lot of sense when you see that:

Cameroon = 0.563 (153rd in world, ~22nd in Africa)

Jamaica = 0.734 (101st in world)

http://hdr.undp.org/en/content/latest-human-development-index-ranking
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_African_countries_by_Human_Development_Index

You'd see that Jamaica would be effectively tied for 5th out of 53 African countries in development essentially. Then you dig deeper, 1st in the continent is Mauritius which doesn't really house "African" genetics at all as it's ~66% Indian.

The 2nd ranked African country is another island that is inhabited by a lot of non-African peoples I think, and has a population of less than 100,000. Seems not to give a fuck about sports, 0 olympic medals and missed an olympics by not responding to an IOC invitation lol.

3rd and 4th place in the HDI rankings of Africa would be Algeria and Tunisia, again these are countries with huge arabic demographics, I'm not sure exactly how much relevance they have to this subject.

The point being, Jamaica would effectively be the most or tied with Botswana on this index for the most developed country in all of Africa. So it's not a surprise that when the nation perhaps puts a premium on sports and winning olympic medals and tries at doing so, they excel despite a tiny population relative to other olympic juggernauts.

This is without going into any geneticist tism' speculation, which I think probably has logical basis but it's again another charged topic that woke retards will cry about. Obviously selecting for superior traits in a gene pool initially and over generations (slavery...cough) might leave better athletic populations in places like Jamaica and the US compared to the average African.

But it's not to say and I never did say, that Africa doesn't have a ton of potentially crazy athletes. I think they do. In short, they don't have the infrastructure or luxury to care about sports that much in a lot of cases and on average.

 

[vision1]

I never said that. In fact my premise and implication is quite the opposite. Not sure why you're even asking the question above when the answer is obvious...Look I got nothing against you but I don't want to have another back and forth and I think you're being a bit intellectually dishonest here unless you're genuinely asking somehow?

I mean do you seriously think the living conditions in the average African country are even remotely comparable to the US? Or even Jamaica? They're not.

I don't think I'm being or have been dishonest. Maybe I misunderstood this quote. I thought you meant junk volume = not athletic.

You're counting a ton of junk volume. 1.4 billion China + 1.4 billion India + 1.2 billion African continent = ~4 billion people.

 

[No Skill Gap]

I don't think I'm being or have been dishonest. Maybe I misunderstood this quote. I thought you meant junk volume = not athletic.

Well we're 9 pages deep now but I'm also 99% sure I used the term "junk volume" specifically to sort of debunk the whole "Soccer (/others) is the globe bro" argument against "niche virgin one country NFL".

That was my point. I think the African continent probably has a ton of athletic talent that could be great in many sports, but when they never fulfill it or amount to anything in that realm then they are indeed "junk volume" just numbers. Like China and India, that don't really provide any athletes. And I think Africa clearly provides more than China/India but for the overall 1.2 billion+ population they provide very little relative to that number.

I've already explained that the infrastructure, desire, opportunity, luxury to play sports and then progress in Africa (average) is obviously dramatically lower than the US or even Jamaica at this point (for track specifically at least)