Who are the fittest athletes?

Joe12

Joe12

Active member
Thought this would be a fun discussion. Who you think are the most fit athletes? Seems like everywhere you turn, everyone thinks their sport is the most fit. Examples…

Powerlifter – You lift a lot of ****, you are the fittest
Bodybuilder – You look good, and lift a lot, you are the fittest
Ironman – Your endurance is through the roof, and can take a beating, you are the fittest
Crossfiter – You lift heavy, can do gymnastics, and have endurance, you are the fittest
Calisthenics – You are flexible, and lift your body weight, you are the fittest
Sports…

Let the debate begin, I mean, discussion begin :)
 
Tough one lol. When I think fit, I think ease of motion if that makes sense. So basically when you wake up everything from bending down to tie your shoes, to doing outside work, to running is all very easy. You don't struggle to perform everyday tasks. This is coming from someone who prefers the bodybuilder way of lifting to. I would rank as follows.

1. Calisthenics-I put them first based on my definition. I can see them doing everyday movement very easily as well as bodyweight movements
2. Crossfiter-Again in shape, but I put them second because I feel that someone who does calisthenics has more body control
3. Ironman-As you said their endurance is crazy, but if you challenge their upper body with some tasks they wouldn't do so hot

I cant decide whether or not to put bodybuilder over powerlifter or vice versa. Reason is depending on their size. A powerlifter pushing 300lbs may struggle with a lot of day to day movements, and their joints are going to suffer. But then again same with a heavy weight bodybuilder. Overall though bodybuilders I would say put less strain on their joints.
 
Fitness is relative to the sport and/or activity itself. Neither one is necessarily better than the other. You could argue who had the best athletes, but there's not a fitness comparison.
 
JP10 said:
Tough one lol. When I think fit, I think ease of motion if that makes sense.
Click to expand...

Great reply, I agree, it is difficult to select. I like how you ranked fitness with ease of motion, if you can lift 1000lb, but can’t preform basic movements, that's def not to fit. I also find football players extremely fit, oblivious this is player dependent. Some of those guys are flexible, fast, and strong as crap. Oh yea, almost left out gymnast!

Rodja said:
Fitness is relative to the sport and/or activity itself. Neither one is necessarily better than the other. You could argue who had the best athletes, but there's not a fitness comparison.
Click to expand...

Good point, but I don't think it’s completely relative. As mentioned above, if you can bench 1000, but cant tie your shoes, thats not really being all around fit. But... keep in mind, I look at fitness holistically, not as an isolated event. We could tweak the original question, what sport do you think turns out the most fit athletes?
 
Joe12 said:
Great reply, I agree, it is difficult to select. I like how you ranked fitness with ease of motion, if you can lift 1000lb, but can’t preform basic movements, that's def not to fit. I also find football players extremely fit, oblivious this is player dependent. Some of those guys are flexible, fast, and strong as crap. Oh yea, almost left out gymnast!



Good point, but I don't think it’s completely relative. As mentioned above, if you can bench 1000, but cant tie your shoes, thats not really being all around fit. But... keep in mind, I look at fitness holistically, not as an isolated event. We could tweak the original question, what sport do you think turns out the most fit athletes?
Click to expand...

Combat sports.
 
This is a bit out off topic, but the best way I can feel to answer the question. Depending on the athlete, and the "sport" theyre competing in is where their needs are. Now, back to my job,
I conduct agility tests for potentially new firefighters. We have an unofficial time that your physical agility test should be under. Theres too much competition if youre slower than that time. Now, If we have a candidate finish in 3:30 (min:sec) that is an incredible time. However if he is completely winded, he is of no use anymore on the " fire ground" . If we have a candidate finish in 5:00 flat, but able to go back through it again, then its a no brainer. I would much rather have a guy on my fire scene that is a bit more methodical yet consistent and able to be productive longer, than the guy who can deploy a hoseline rapidly but be out for the count.. Make sense??
 
FireTitan said:
This is a bit out off topic, but the best way I can feel to answer the question. Depending on the athlete, and the "sport" theyre competing in is where their needs are. Now, back to my job,
I conduct agility tests for potentially new firefighters. We have an unofficial time that your physical agility test should be under. Theres too much competition if youre slower than that time. Now, If we have a candidate finish in 3:30 (min:sec) that is an incredible time. However if he is completely winded, he is of no use anymore on the " fire ground" . If we have a candidate finish in 5:00 flat, but able to go back through it again, then its a no brainer. I would much rather have a guy on my fire scene that is a bit more methodical yet consistent and able to be productive longer, than the guy who can deploy a hoseline rapidly but be out for the count.. Make sense??
Click to expand...

Im with you, I want that guy that can keep running back into the fire and helping people out!

My original question is really unfair, I dont know if it can be answered 100%. I think we could look at what sport(s) best prepare a person as an all around athlete. Meaning, they would be the type of athlete who could most easily preform other sports, not just an isolated one. Once we nail that down, I think we could move closer towards what it means to be holistically fit.
 
JP10 said:
Tough one lol. When I think fit, I think ease of motion if that makes sense. So basically when you wake up everything from bending down to tie your shoes, to doing outside work, to running is all very easy. You don't struggle to perform everyday tasks. This is coming from someone who prefers the bodybuilder way of lifting to. I would rank as follows.

1. Calisthenics-I put them first based on my definition. I can see them doing everyday movement very easily as well as bodyweight movements
2. Crossfiter-Again in shape, but I put them second because I feel that someone who does calisthenics has more body control
3. Ironman-As you said their endurance is crazy, but if you challenge their upper body with some tasks they wouldn't do so hot

I cant decide whether or not to put bodybuilder over powerlifter or vice versa. Reason is depending on their size. A powerlifter pushing 300lbs may struggle with a lot of day to day movements, and their joints are going to suffer. But then again same with a heavy weight bodybuilder. Overall though bodybuilders I would say put less strain on their joints.
Click to expand...

In terms of general overall fitness/athleticism, I agree with this post. Since there was no focus mentioned in terms of athleticism (ie: a sport), I'll go with general overall fitness to take on the world at large.

The elite crossfit athletes might come first on my list though, depending. I see them being able to do more than people heavily into calisthenics, but it really depends on what it is they would be doing. Crossfit is intended to make you good at everything, and the elite athletes are typically at more of an elite level than calisthenics people. But I see calisthenics people might be more mobile, and weigh less, so in terms of of certain things, they might be better.
 
Joe12 said:
Im with you, I want that guy that can keep running back into the fire and helping people out!

My original question is really unfair, I dont know if it can be answered 100%. I think we could look at what sport(s) best prepare a person as an all around athlete. Meaning, they would be the type of athlete who could most easily preform other sports, not just an isolated one. Once we nail that down, I think we could move closer towards what it means to be holistically fit.
Click to expand...
Also, you have to consider if it is the sport (the training, practice, and playing) that yields the "best/fittest" athletes, or if the best athletes are attracted to given sports. Does size/height factor in here too? If two athletes are "the same" (endurance, speed, stamina, strength) but one is 5'6" and one is 6'7", would you say the taller one is fitter and/or the better athlete? You can't teach size, so taller athletic people are likely drawn to football/basketball (lots of money and popular in college, high school and even earlier). Look at Vernon Davis' combine stats:
6'3"
254lbs
4.38 40-yard
42" vertical
33 reps at 225lb bench

Then you have athletic freaks like LeBron, but it's not fair to say that playing/practicing for basketball made him the freakish athlete he is, and he could have probably been a great football player as well.
 
muscleupcrohn said:
Also, you have to consider if it is the sport (the training, practice, and playing) that yields the "best/fittest" athletes, or if the best athletes are attracted to given sports. Does size/height factor in here too? If two athletes are "the same" (endurance, speed, stamina, strength) but one is 5'6" and one is 6'7", would you say the taller one is fitter and/or the better athlete? You can't teach size, so taller athletic people are likely drawn to football/basketball (lots of money and popular in college, high school and even earlier). Look at Vernon Davis' combine stats:
6'3"
254lbs
4.38 40-yard
42" vertical
33 reps at 225lb bench

Then you have athletic freaks like LeBron, but it's not fair to say that playing/practicing for basketball made him the freakish athlete he is, and he could have probably been a great football player as well.
Click to expand...

The plot thickens! You are right, a lot of rock star athletes are genetic freaks, and its not the specific sport that "makes" them that way. Size would def play a factor in relation to sport ability, not all short guys are Spud Webb, and not all tall guys are LeBron. I bet both of those guys would be able to crossover into other sports without a problem.... Remember Bo Jackson, that dude was nutz!

Love this dialog, keep it coming. Maybe we could look at another angle.... what do you define as successful fitness for yourself?
 
Gutterpump said:
In terms of general overall fitness/athleticism, I agree with this post. Since there was no focus mentioned in terms of athleticism (ie: a sport), I'll go with general overall fitness to take on the world at large.

The elite crossfit athletes might come first on my list though, depending. I see them being able to do more than people heavily into calisthenics, but it really depends on what it is they would be doing. Crossfit is intended to make you good at everything, and the elite athletes are typically at more of an elite level than calisthenics people. But I see calisthenics people might be more mobile, and weigh less, so in terms of of certain things, they might be better.
Click to expand...

I think a top level crossfiter wins the overall (holistic/functional) fitness test in my book. A calisthenics person who lifts, would def give them a run for their money.
 
Joe12 said:
The plot thickens! You are right, a lot of rock star athletes are genetic freaks, and its not the specific sport that "makes" them that way. Size would def play a factor in relation to sport ability, not all short guys are Spud Webb, and not all tall guys are LeBron. I bet both of those guys would be able to crossover into other sports without a problem.... Remember Bo Jackson, that dude was nutz!

Love this dialog, keep it coming. Maybe we could look at another angle.... what do you define as successful fitness for yourself?
Click to expand...
Assuming two athletes are exactly the same (same 40-time, mile time, 5k time, vertical, pull ups, bench press, flexibility, etc) wouldn't you have to give the edge to a 6'5" athlete over a 5'5" athlete? If not in terms of being "fit" but in terms of athletic ability. The foot taller athlete would perform better in just about any sport. Of course, athletic is also different than fit, as things like footwork and hand-eye coordination play a huge role in athleticism, but won't be as significant for, say, crossfit or calisthenics.
 
muscleupcrohn said:
Assuming two athletes are exactly the same (same 40-time, mile time, 5k time, vertical, pull ups, bench press, flexibility, etc) wouldn't you have to give the edge to a 6'5" athlete over a 5'5" athlete? If not in terms of being "fit" but in terms of athletic ability. The foot taller athlete would perform better in just about any sport. Of course, athletic is also different than fit, as things like footwork and hand-eye coordination play a huge role in athleticism, but won't be as significant for, say, crossfit or calisthenics.
Click to expand...

I get what you're saying. But don't you think having two athletes with the same stats and having a foot difference in height to be a little far fetched... lol
 
muscleupcrohn said:
Assuming two athletes are exactly the same (same 40-time, mile time, 5k time, vertical, pull ups, bench press, flexibility, etc) wouldn't you have to give the edge to a 6'5" athlete over a 5'5" athlete? If not in terms of being "fit" but in terms of athletic ability. The foot taller athlete would perform better in just about any sport. Of course, athletic is also different than fit, as things like footwork and hand-eye coordination play a huge role in athleticism, but won't be as significant for, say, crossfit or calisthenics.
Click to expand...

Interesting, if they were matched the same, I would say they are evenly fit.... BUT, would have to give it to the shorter guy (Im short) his legs need to move twice as fast lol.
 
Until crossfit/calisthenics is able to offer the same appeal (fame and fortune, haha), the true elite athletes will be drawn to the sports that have more to offer.

As for what sport will create/shape the most fit athletes, that's getting harder to determine as well. You have a lot more sports incorporating weight training now than compares to decades ago for example; bodybuilders and power lifters aren't the only strong people anymore. After a certain point, a skill (strength, speed, etc) isn't all that valuable in terms of being "generally fit" but can be huge for athleticism or a sport. If you run a 4.7 40, that's plenty fast to be really fit, and if you bench 225x20, that's plenty strong to be a generally fit, but neither would put you at elite athlete, freak of nature status as a running back and linebacker, respectively, and being able to run an ultra marathon wouldn't be needed to have great cardio, and wouldn't help a defensive end.
 
Joe12 said:
Interesting, if they were matched the same, I would say they are evenly fit.... BUT, would have to give it to the shorter guy (Im short) his legs need to move twice as fast lol.
Click to expand...
Lol, a hypothetical 280lb monster running a 4.5 would be much more impressive than a 180lb guy running it, haha. But the 180lb guy benching 400 is more impressive than the 280lb guy doing it. Assuming they both have the same stats (speed, endurance, strength), I'd give the edge in sports (football, basketball, etc) to the heavier/taller guy. You just don't see someone with Shaq's size running a 4.5, and you don't see someone with Durant's arms benching 400, but if they did, they'd dominate whatever sport they chose.
 
muscleupcrohn said:
Lol, a hypothetical 280lb monster running a 4.5 would be much more impressive than a 180lb guy running it, haha. But the 180lb guy benching 400 is more impressive than the 280lb guy doing it. Assuming they both have the same stats (speed, endurance, strength), I'd give the edge in sports (football, basketball, etc) to the heavier/taller guy. You just don't see someone with Shaq's size running a 4.5, and you don't see someone with Durant's arms benching 400, but if they did, they'd dominate whatever sport they chose.
Click to expand...

LOL, you got me on that one. I just had a vision of a 280 pound man running a 4.5, that would be a site!!
 
Joe12 said:
Yup, just not enough glory in crossfit yet.... And when I say glory, I mean fame and $$
Click to expand...
I don't know if there ever will be. The big money comes from fans and people paying money to watch games, buy jerseys, etc. Can you see 50,000+ people going to watch a Crossfit event? You'll get more freak athletes with time, but the rare freak athlete with freak size will likely be drawn to major sports first. Not that being 6'5" would even help with crossfit, haha.
 
At what point is a skill/stat enough to the point where, while great or even necessary for a given sport/position (speed for a WR, strength for a powerlifter), increases are no longer really relevant to determining overall "fitness." If you run a 4.7 40, will running it any faster (a 4.3) make you more "fit?" I don't know, but it would make you a hell of a lot better football player. Will increasing your bench press from 400 to 500 really mean anything in terms of "fitness?" Isn't benching 400 strong enough to do just about any activity that isn't specifically lifting weights for sport? If you can do 20 pull ups, will being able to do 30 make you much more "fit?" It will certainly help with crossfit competitions or climbing related sports/activities.

It's all about balance if we're talking about "fitness." I'd say you'd determine the most "fit" athletes by setting standards/benchmarks for various criteria (speed, strength, stamina, endurance, etc), with perhaps various points assigned for each criteria. You may want to put a cap on the points for each criteria, or at least significantly diminishing returns after a point (is running a 4.3 or benching 600lbs really necessary to being incredibly fit?), and calculate the total points, or see which sport yields athletes that meet a certain criteria for all or most of the criteria in question. That's my idea.

There's also things like footwork, reaction time, hand-eye coordination, etc, that are vital for sports/athleticism, but probably shouldn't/don't factor into being fit. Athleticism seems to have a lot more intangibles (and I'd argue a genetic influence) than "fitness" which isn't necessarily as dictated by genetic and natural potential.
 
I think Rodja is pretty close, I could throw crossfit athletes in there, but there really is no reactionary or dynamic movement to. It part of why the combine doesn't actually determine if your going to be s good football player.
 
muscleupcrohn said:
At what point is a skill/stat enough to the point where, while great or even necessary for a given sport/position (speed for a WR, strength for a powerlifter), increases are no longer really relevant to determining overall "fitness." If you run a 4.7 40, will running it any faster (a 4.3) make you more "fit?" I don't know, but it would make you a hell of a lot better football player. Will increasing your bench press from 400 to 500 really mean anything in terms of "fitness?" Isn't benching 400 strong enough to do just about any activity that isn't specifically lifting weights for sport? If you can do 20 pull ups, will being able to do 30 make you much more "fit?" It will certainly help with crossfit competitions or climbing related sports/activities.

It's all about balance if we're talking about "fitness." I'd say you'd determine the most "fit" athletes by setting standards/benchmarks for various criteria (speed, strength, stamina, endurance, etc), with perhaps various points assigned for each criteria. You may want to put a cap on the points for each criteria, or at least significantly diminishing returns after a point (is running a 4.3 or benching 600lbs really necessary to being incredibly fit?), and calculate the total points, or see which sport yields athletes that meet a certain criteria for all or most of the criteria in question. That's my idea.

There's also things like footwork, reaction time, hand-eye coordination, etc, that are vital for sports/athleticism, but probably shouldn't/don't factor into being fit. Athleticism seems to have a lot more intangibles (and I'd argue a genetic influence) than "fitness" which isn't necessarily as dictated by genetic and natural potential.
Click to expand...

I like the point about moving your bench from 400 to 500, and shaving time off your sprint. Even if we can achieve those goals, it doesn't automatically make us more, or even less fit. I think the turning point in all fitness is putting it into practice.... a sport, an event, a skill, everyday life etc. Then a measurement, such as your described, could determine who is at the top of their game.

On a personal note, I struggle with the idea of wanting to be big, but also functionally fit. In 2-months, I have gone from 179.5 to 194.5. While I am def stronger, and look a lot thicker, I don't actually feel as fit since the weight has slowed me down. It also had a great impact on my long distance endurance. I rode 9 miles on my bike, and thought I was going to die. At 15lb lighter, I could crush 15 miles with a faster pace, and feel fine. It's funny how you can chase after a goal of getting bigger, and end up less overall fit. Guess I need to cut down to around 185-188, lol.

Still trying to find the best weight for strength, speed, and endurance.
 
Joe12 said:
I like the point about moving your bench from 400 to 500, and shaving time off your sprint. Even if we can achieve those goals, it doesn't automatically make us more, or even less fit. I think the turning point in all fitness is putting it into practice.... a sport, an event, a skill, everyday life etc. Then a measurement, such as your described, could determine who is at the top of their game.

On a personal note, I struggle with the idea of wanting to be big, but also functionally fit. In 2-months, I have gone from 179.5 to 194.5. While I am def stronger, and look a lot thicker, I don't actually feel as fit since the weight has slowed me down. It also had a great impact on my long distance endurance. I rode 9 miles on my bike, and thought I was going to die. At 15lb lighter, I could crush 15 miles with a faster pace, and feel fine. It's funny how you can chase after a goal of getting bigger, and end up less overall fit. Guess I need to cut down to around 185-188, lol.

Still trying to find the best weight for strength, speed, and endurance.
Click to expand...
I'm still a pretty light guy (5'11" 157lbs), and I'm no monster (my best bench max is 310lbs), but I'm not as flexible as I used to be before I started lifting more seriously. I'm a black belt in Tae Kwon Do (I competed in the ISKA World Martial Arts Championships a while back). I'm definitely not so big/muscular as to have severely limited mobility or to be muscle bound, but I just haven't kept up the necessary stretching to retain very good flexibility as I got bigger and stronger. I'm going to work on improving my flexibility; I want to be able to kick above my head with ease again, which will be even better with a >2x bodyweight squat too. I haven't measured anything like 40-time or vertical since the beginning of my sophomore year in high school when I played football, haha. I want to say my vertical was high 20s to low 30s, and my 40-time was 5.0 or something, I don't really remember, haha. I'm actually not much heavier now than I was then, but I'm a hell of a lot stronger and more muscular; I'm sure if I did a bit more speed/agility/explosiveness work I could easily blow those numbers out of the water, haha.
 
There's some backwards thinking in that it's the skill itself that determines the "fitness" level. While weight, physique, frame, etc. play a role in certain skills, the true fitness of the athlete is determined by the specific skill. How did Lance Armstrong do in a marathon again? You certainly can't say that he lacks the CV capacity for it, but he didn't have the requisite skill set for it.
 
Rodja said:
There's some backwards thinking in that it's the skill itself that determines the "fitness" level. While weight, physique, frame, etc. play a role in certain skills, the true fitness of the athlete is determined by the specific skill. How did Lance Armstrong do in a marathon again? You certainly can't say that he lacks the CV capacity for it, but he didn't have the requisite skill set for it.
Click to expand...
muscleupcrohn and I were talking about this...
What athlete, or sport do you think turns out, or better yet, caters to the fittest overall athletes?
 
Joe12 said:
muscleupcrohn and I were talking about this...
What athlete, or sport do you think turns out, or better yet, caters to the fittest overall athletes?
Click to expand...

That's the thing: fitness is specific to the sport or activity. There are a myriad of skills in any activity that comprise fitness and some have more carryover than others. Even something like mobility can become a liability in the wrong context. For example, too much mobility is awful for powerlifting.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top