Scientific ranking of sports difficulty

[Kubz]

There might be a bit of an American bias in this article. But here is a somewhat scientific ranking of the most demanding sports according to ESPN.
sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/sportSkills
Boxing won and I think I might just agree.

 

[Nico92]

How soccer can be only 10th ?

Soccer requests simply all qualities in Sports : We need technique, we need physical strength, we need endurance, we need power, we need agility, we need organization, we need strategy... it's the most complete sport in the world !

For instance, I don't understand why there's a mark of only 3.63 about nerves needed in Football. Obviously the guy has never been in the middle of a stadium filled with 100,000 heated supporters !

Another remark, the only sport requesting more endurance than football is the marathon or cross country. The guys who gave the marks obviously didn't notice that in football, only three players are changed during the whole game. That means that at least 8 players in the team needs to run during 90 minutes and football terrain is very large.

And how rugby could be behind American Football ?

I totally disagree with it, I'm sorry.

 

[Daniel Khan]

I wondered about rugby's low score as well, but can see about the agility, etc. ratings.

 

[MrPresident]

Ice Hockey, Wussball, and Basketball in the top four? A bit of American bias? They might as well have used the Stars and Stripes as a background.

Originally posted by Nico92
Obviously the guy has never been in the middle of a stadium filled with 100,000 heated supporters !

Exactly. Go to Istanbul and tell me you don't need nerves of steel to play there.

Why did football get such a low score for durability. Have they never seen any bone-crunching tackles?

And there is no way in hell Pole Vault should be 27th in terms of agility.

 

[Inter4]

Endurance...I think they didn't watch, for instance, last years Barça - Juventus in the CL..(Quater-Finals)

 

[Gainy]

They might as well have used the Stars and Stripes as a background.

Not as good as what you said in the CFC friends thread though (I laughed quite a bit at that)

What does it mean by Aptitude btw?
Football should have been alot higher, in many respects, especially Strength. Bias certainly showed in that 'study'...

Although i've got no issues with boxing winning

Edit: Just looked at it again, and how did Ice Hockey, American Football,
Basketball, Tennis and Baseball/Softball all rank higher than Football??

 

[phoenix_night]

That's some list...

I have a question of my own...there's curling (sport? ), but no cricket? Err...

 

[willemvanoranje]

Originally posted by MrPresident
Ice Hockey, Wussball, and Basketball in the top four? A bit of American bias? They might as well have used the Stars and Stripes as a background.

Hear hear!

 

[Azale]

How many of you have played american football first off.

I agree with its placement, not much to say.

Baseball I dont get at all though, why so high? I definately got more exhausted playing soccer (Ill call it what I want ) and it requires more thinking and constant movement.

Basketball is basically a faster paced soccer, except on a smaller court, and you dribble the ball using your hands. Thier comparable, and both very physically demanding.

I would put Soccer right behind Basketball and move Baseball to just behind Lacrosse. Rugby would be moved higher, right above Gymnastics.

Oh, and one more thing. Cheerleading is a sport?

 

[pboily]

Originally posted by Gainy bo
Just looked at it again, and how did Ice Hockey, American Football,
Basketball, Tennis and Baseball/Softball all rank higher than Football??

I've played all of these sports (except basketball) and I do feel that they are much more difficult to play than football, although being a football goalkeeper seems damn near impossible...besides, football can not be that difficult for the very good reason that (as was pointed out in another thread) it is the most popular game in the world, and I entertain some doubts as to the human capacity to pick the difficult over the easy in most situations.

In football, you only need to concentrate on the game to play it and on being in great physical shape (but that is true of most sports save baseball, cricket, golf and fishing); you do not need to make sure some other player is not coming up to you at high speeds to pummel you (although when contact happens , the victim and the perpetrator both manage to make it look like they've just been submitted to the worst torture known to mankind... and then get up and walk away if they haven't drawn a card against the opposition...) , you do not need to send a ball through a goal that is just slightly larger than the ball, you do not need to lift three times you own weight.

However, my real complain about the rankings is that some individual sports fare so badly: swimming, long distance running and ski jumping, for instance. Come on, forget about all the categories they use to rank the sports: the only measure of difficult is "how many people can actually do it?" Nothing could make me think that ski jumping is easier than hockey or football...

 

[Gainy]

I've played all of these sports (except basketball) and I do feel that they are much more difficult to play than football

Are we talking about just playing it? Or playing it competetively?

Football is easy as hell to play, and requires no skill apart from being able to walk -- although you don't really have to do that.
However, If you want to play it competetively, then it is one of the hardest. You have to be strong, agile, skillful, intelligent, fit, confident, and co-ordianted. All of these are incredibly important in the game.

In American Football for instace, all you need to be able to do is Run into people, and do what you're told by the coach. There are a few players who will run around and throw the egg, but largely, they do nothing.
Besides that, they stop playing every 10 - 30 seconds, and have a wee break and talk about what they are going to do next.

Baseball, all you do is swing your arm and then run. This only requires hand-eye co-ordination, and maybe a bit of speed. Power isn't that important if you get a good connection.
Besides that, after they've hit it, they either just stand around, or sit around. Not demanding.

Basketball is in all fairness quite demanding. And i've not got too many issues with it being higher than football, it should be about equal. The same goes for Ice-Hockey, although maybe less so.

Tennis? I am a keen player, and there is no chance in hell that it is more demanding/harder than Football. Just no.

It is a biased poll, and its not really something you can measure anyways. Difficulty of sport varies depending on your defenition of difficulty, and your experience playing the sport.

 

[MrPresident]

Originally posted by Gainy Bo
Baseball, all you do is swing your arm and then run. This only requires hand-eye co-ordination, and maybe a bit of speed. Power isn't that important if you get a good connection.

This is so true, especially when you compare it with cricket. In cricket a batsman has a cricket ball coming at him at usually between 80 to 90mph. He has to deal with an unpredictable bounce. Then if he hits it he has to avoid tapping it behind or hitting it in the air to one of the many fielders. After all that he has to do it again for five more balls until another bowler gets to have a go at him. If the batsman is rather good then this can continue for hours at a time. Conversely a bowler must run flat out and throw the ball with all his might six times an over for twenty overs a day. In-between that he is fielding which occasionally requires sprinting to stop a boundary and athletically plucking a ball out of mid-air with his bare hands. And no only all of that but if they're playing a test match they have to do it for five days! There is no way in hell that baseball is a harder sport to play than cricket.

Originally posted by Gainy Bo
Basketball is in all fairness quite demanding.

Netball is much more demanding and also requires far more skill.

Originally posted by pboily
you do not need to make sure some other player is not coming up to you at high speeds to pummel you

Yes, you do. Getting cut down from behind when your body isn't prepared for it is very painful. A lot of broken legs are caused that way.

Originally posted by pboily
you do not need to send a ball through a goal that is just slightly larger than the ball,

You can only use your feet though. And there is usually a rather large goalkeeper standing in your way.

 

[Marla_Singer]

Basketball and Ice Hockey are physically harder than football. However, that is compensated by the fact basketball and hockey players are switching several times during a game... they are in and then out and then in again. If Football requests such good lungs, it's because we need to play two HT of 45 minutes in a row.

About the goal being smaller in Hockey than in Football, well the putt is also smaller in Hockey than it is in Football. Moreover, the football field is also a lot wider in football than it is in hockey. If it was really so easy to score in football, the average scores wouldn't be 2-1, it would be 18-13.

Actually, the more I think about it, the more I believe ranking sports is stupid. As someone has told, you can invent the hardest game you want, if everyone sucks at it it wouldn't be harder to be the best than in any other sports. The difficulty of a sport depends on the strength of your opponents at it.

 

[pboily]

Originally posted by Gainy bo
Are we talking about just playing it? Or playing it competetively?

The only one I didn't play competitively is tennis. Of course, if by competitively you mean professionally, then I've never actually played.

Funny thing is, I was actually a much better soccer/football player than a hockey player.

 

[willemvanoranje]

we must not forget that (I think) the level at which football is being played across the atlantic is generally lower than here...

 

[pboily]

Originally posted by willemvanoranje
we must not forget that (I think) the level at which football is being played across the atlantic is generally lower than here...

At the professional level, undoubtedly. At the amateur or junior level... I am not so sure. I remember beating a squad from Lyon in a tournament (although, to be fair, they did go on to win the tournement)

 

[WildFire]

Have any of you actually played a whole hockey game?

You gotta have a respirator to not pass out.

 

[MrPresident]

Originally posted by pboily
The only one I didn't play competitively is tennis. Of course, if by competitively you mean professionally, then I've never actually played.

With football it also depends greatly on the age of the players. Speaking from experience competitive football gets much more aggression and physical as the players get older.

 

[willemvanoranje]

Originally posted by WildFire
Have any of you actually played a whole hockey game?

You gotta have a respirator to not pass out.

Yep...but you're referring to hockey on ice I guess. Here hockey is fieldhockey, and the other type is called ice-hockey.

 

[MrPresident]

Field hockey, now that's a brutal sport, especially on astro-turf.