Possibly useful. From a recent Times magazine.
Possibly useful. From a recent Times magazine.
Boxing isn't a technique sport?
Gotta seriously disagree with this matrix.
For example, judo. according to the matrix, judo requires less strength than volleyball or tennis, and a slightly less VO2 output than shotput. It even has a lower V02 requirement than shooting and table tennis.
All I can say is, are they fucking crazy?
The error lies in how they tried to set this POS up. Just because an event/sport requires a large amount of technique does not preclude it needing a large V02 max or large amounts of strength.
For example, the Decathlon is listed as low strength, low VO2 max, but high technique and high pain threshold. Now, I will admit that the Decathlon does require a large amount of technique, but the individual parts of it would all be on the other end. For example, the 100 meters, the 110 hurdles, etc are all very much high strength, while the 1500 is a huge VO2 max test.
Even comparing strength and pain tolerance is bullshit. Gymnastics competitors require a huge amount of pain tolerance, perhaps not in lactic acid sense, but you try catching your spinning ass on your biceps like the men do in the parallel bars. That's some pain for your ass.
Doesnt even make sense the way the chart is set up. If anything, strength & "lung power" should be at opposite ends and technique & pain tolerance the other ends. But it still wouldnt really make sense.
Agree. In fact maybe technique should be opposite strength? Lung power opposing Pain tolerance.
Power (technique driven strength)
High resistance to boredom
Olympic lifting is highly technique driven. Speed is very important. Workouts are highly repetitious and boring.
Good issue of Time, though.
One athlete posted his workout regime (a triathlete?)
Up at 7am, 5K swim
12 mile run
40 mile bike ride. (200-240 per week).
Been doing this since 1998.
I've done the same with lower amts as a purely amateur weekend warrior:
Up at 6am
4 mile run in hills or machine work and squats at the gym
1 mile swim
10 mile bike.
Bag work and sparring
2:30 pm - report to work for evening shift.
Done 4 days per week while working 40 hrs per week. Pay off? Nothing. I just liked training.
I think I agree with Leigh most. Each element needs to stand alone. If any sort of "grid" needs to be made for visual impact, I would prefer the Japanese "pentagonal" grid, where the 5 measured elements are scored, and then shaped into an irregular pentagon.
seems accurate. table tennis requires more strength than judo or wrestling.
Well they could have strength oppose endurance, but while that would be vastly better than what is listed, it still isn't accurate in rigorous science (the relationship isn't linear, and doesn't hold in the extremes).
You could also have high technical breadth oppose low technical breadth. The combat sports would would be well and above on the high end of this spectrum in this regard followed by gymnastics and then the racquet and ball sports. Rounding up the back end would be the sports of locomotion, then finally weightlifting and archery.
If you're going to have a spectrum, make sure each end is actually related some how.
If you have strength opposite endurance, mma would be in the same place as table tennis
Well i don't agree with that, but like i said it would only be a "better" distinction, not a "good" one.
S----------------x----E -> approximate place for both MMA and ping pong on strength-endurance continuum.
My point is, some sports are more physical than others and shouldn't be compared to each other in this type of matrix
So you believe hitting a ball that weighs a fraction of an ounce requires a similar amount of strength to punching or grappling with a person of equal weight to you? Or are you saying that ping pong requires neither strength nor endurance, and so holds a similar relative placing?
Elite level weightlifting is way more painful than taekwondo.
Synchronized swimming is less technical than the average average sport just because it requires lung capacity?
Cute idea, but it all ended up stupid imo.
Football (soccer) requires more strength than diving?
Well that would mean that table tennis is not an athletic event, i should think and would probably not belong on a matrix when compared to athletic sports.
Leigh - Are you purposely missing my point? I shall explain one more time - some sports are more physical than others. Point fighting karate compared to mma, for example. But on a matrix that compares attributes, they would be in a similar place because strength, skill and endurance are roughly proportional
I understand what you are saying. Is that the way the matrix was intended? (Relative per sport rather than comparative per parameter.)
I guess you are onto something, since it says "How is your body suited to its sport."
If it were comparisons between sports (as most of these matrixes work) it would be beyond retarded.
But, if you have an idea of you personal talents and abilities on these scales - and if the matrix is correct - it could give you a hint on what sport you could have been most successful in.
(The matrix itself is still weird, though, since the endpoints have rubrics in black that aren't synonymous with what the blue rubrics say...)
Edit: Strength = sustained effort?
Shot put = long sustained effort? Wtf?
Are you purposely missing my point? I shall explain one more time - some sports are more physical than others. Point fighting karate compared to mma, for example. But on a matrix that compares attributes, they would be in a similar place because strength, skill and endurance are roughly proportional
I said strength and endurance would be a better scale, but not a good one. For some reason you argued this point, even though you apparently don't disagree. Your position is that a sport which you deem non-athletic (I.E. a sport in which neither strength nor endurance is a limiting factor by your reckoning, which is the only logical consequence of fitting in on such a scale in the same place as MMA while being "less physical") fits on such a scale in a similar place from a relative standpoint. We would either have to accept such results as a consequence to a scale flawed by a non-linear relationship, or remove non-athletic sports from the list, (i'm sure NASCAR would be right about the level of MMA too) should we decide to make a list I already said wouldn't be great.
If you wish to argue that a matrix of strength to endurance isn't better but still flawed, or that ping pong has, or doesn't have, athleticism as a limiting factor than go for it. Or you can keep talking about how some sports are more physical than others - which i don't disagree with - and act like a dick. In case of the latter i'll happily ignore you.
Oh, i'm a dick, no doubt about that. That doesn't mean i won't ignore baseless reasoning under the pretense that i'm misunderstanding your argument. The two are not mutually exclusive. We're still bros homie, no worries. Just stop being a retard.
Also, please use "irony" correctly in the future.
If it were actually irony that would mean you think i'm a really nice guy!
That combined with writing "dick" that many times, and the HOMO stock in the Leigh market just got bullish.
Time to hug this one out.
Nothing should be opposite anything. There should be a few attributes and they should be scored out of 10 (or whatever) for each sport
I think Leigh is right. Better to list attributes and score them carefully.
One thing people forget to do is train 'specificity'. You can emphasize the wrong strength, the wrong power arc, and actually decrease your elite level of fitness or performance. It's a razor's edge at the top.
This thread, like the fitness matrix, is quickly going full retard. Gentlemen, never go fully retarded.