what sport is the most technical?

I don't think we could ever agree on what sport requires the most raw athleticism. Let's see if we can get a somewhat majority opinion on what sport requires the most technical ability and can't be gotten by with athleticism alone.

My vote would go out to Major League Baseball. Yes you can be a fat slob and be a good pitcher, DH, 1B, maybe even a catcher. However you can be the best athlete on the field and not be the best player, there really isn't a position on the team you can get by on physical athleticism alone. you can be a speed demon but if you cant catch who cares, you can have a great glove but if you cant make great throws who needs you, you can be super fast but if you cant get on base what good is it. you can have a rocket arm but if you have no control what good does it do. you can be a big jacked muscle man but if you can put wood to leather youre just big waste of a roster spot. Quite possibly the most multi faceted sport mankind currently engages in.

Depends what you mean by technical.

If you mean the sport that requires the most attention to detail and perfection of every aspect simultaneously, i would have to go with gymnastics.

If by technical you mean the sport that you can succeed in without having to have major athletic talent, i would say football (soccer).

Good question,

Each player in baseball is a specialist in some aspect(s) of athletecism. Just because your shoulder is ideally suited for pitching (the most technically heavy position in baseball, i think) doesn't make your sport more technically dependant than another. It does mean that you need to require a very narrow range of athletecism (flexibility, strength, power in the shoulder), and so you can probably make due without being greatly athletic in most other ways. To presume that this makes the sport more technical, isn't quite accurate in my opinion.

On the other hand, baseball (like american football) is among the most tactically heavy of all sports.

To answer your question, i think that the sports with the greatest breadth of skill-set required for victory in an individual athlete (technique is intra-athlete, not inter-athlete) are the most technically dependant.


In the sense of the first post - chess.


Sweet another thread with no answer, and solely based on opinion. Atexaca will blow this one up with his organic logic.

In the way that the game is played and managed it is definitely the most technical sport out there. I mean you have right lefty matchups, how to position your infield if it 2 out late in the game, how to position your 1st and 3rd baseman late in the game to hug the line, knowing how to pitch to a certain batter with a certain count, batting right handed and left handed, when to take a pitcher out and who to bring in and for how many batters. setting up and turning double plays. and dont even get into the rulebook of baseball, if you really look at the "rules" of most major sports even including soccer it's not anywhere nearly as complex as baseball. i would say a very close second would be NFL football

If you classify Golf as a sport, then Golf.


Like Doug implied to say one sport is more "technical" than another sport is completely subjective. Alot of comes down to how one defines "technical".

For example alot of what Atecexa is sayng about Baseball has to do more with "tactics" then it does technique. In my opinion tactics and techniques are not the same thing.



Tactics and techniques are not the same thing.

All sports require a great deal of specificity.

I agree that it is silly to attempt to argue which sport is more technical.

Every sport has its required degree of technical proficiency.

A list of some sports I feel are very technical:

  1. Olympic Weightlifting

  2. Golf

  3. Archery

  4. Speed Skating

  5. Skateboarding


The objective of a boxing match is simple enough and the techniques are limited, but the way those techniques can be combined is amazing. The same can be said about all combat sports.

Taku said: Tactics and techniques are not the same thing.

That's exactly what I said!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

TAKU!!! Excellent that you mentioned skateboarding. I am by no means a skater although I did try for a few years (emphasis on "try"), I played baseball and football at the college level as well as playing golf and soccer throughout my youth and Skateboarding absolutely requires more technique and finesse and mastery than anything I have ever done.

1.) pro skateboarding
2.) Baseball
3.) Golf


I don't think it's subjective. Whichever sport has the greatest number of techniques to be proficient in is the one that answers the question. I just don't think there is a one answer, because when you get into sports with thousands of techniques (only some of which are required for victory) then they all start to be about the same. Combat sports come to mind. Gymnastics might also be a good example.

And as i said, baseball is a tactically heavy sport, and i agree that atacexa's examples are tactics. Todd's example about stringing techniques together is also an example of tactics.

Anyway, i'd refer people who are interested in this topic to Theory and Methodology of training which does an alright job as a primer for understanding technique and tactics, and then check out the old thread i TTT'd a little while ago (if anyone remembers the name i'd appreciate it) in which we covered the topic pretty indepth.


the decathalon would have to be up there....

Rugby- Just watched The San Diego State beat the crap out a bunch of smart kids (Harvard) in the Regionals for National Championship. Unfortuantely they have to play Cal tomorrow, who are the most technically sound team in the nation.

i can go with the tactic over technical argument

tactically speaking baseball is just insane, there are so many things that can happen and youhave to be one or more steps ahead of the game all the time. it's like chess


You said: "I don't think it's subjective. Whichever sport has the greatest number of techniques to be proficient in is the one that answers the question."

Sorry but it is subjective. The number of techniques a sport has doesn't prove or say much because of how some people count techniques. More often than not a sport which claims to have thousands of techniques, in reality, only has a few with many variations. A variation of a technique isn't necessarily a separate technique.

A technique, in the most general terms, is a movement or series of movements which follow a principle or has a specific objective. So the basis of a technique is movement. Variations of a movement/technique or even different applications of movement/technique doesn't create new movement/technique.

Consider this. In Bjj there are alot of techniques BUT you can narrow down and even classify alot of techniques into common movements. You can learn and master that common movement(s) and ultimately master the many so-called techniques and variations which derive from that movement(s).

This is what I've done. This is how I even successfully use so-called techniques which I've never learned or practiced. There is a Bjj drill video link which I posted on the Bjj forum. In this video there are drills which cover all the basic movements which all Bjj techniques are derived. Master those movements, you'll master many techniques.

Gymnast are able to do alot of things all because they have mastered, thru may years of training, basic movements and movement combinations. Gymnastic doesn't have thousands of techniques, neither does combat sports.