AD

Not a legal hit, he was penalized in the game.

Or fine. Or anything.

Are they really playing the starlight?

Given the audience I'm perfectly OK with nobody agreeing with me.

Hamilton - apply downhill skiing to your paragraph earlier where you detailed why you don't think auto and horse racing are sports. Hal - "going around in circles" seems fitting given the topic

Just for the record, I love F1 for the speed, the tactics, the athletic intensity displayed, the personalities, the technology, the travel, the international flavour, the noise... It's a good mix of lots of good things. (And some bad things, like every sport.)

Yes - a 'universal standard' as you put it. What was the 'development guide' that you posted? The weird table with numbers about cricket players? That's from a textbook? I'm not sure your textbook with its decades of work is of much relevance. Racing today is much different than it was in the past. As are most things. Does it really have a chapter about modern F1 racing? That line about 'people who have dedicated their life to understanding sport and athletics' - have you tried to understand anything I've written here in defense of drivers? Or are you dismissing it out of hand because your textbook favours cricket? And no, I don't think I'm wrong. Maybe a bit too enthusiastic but I certainly know what I'm talking about here. And all you're saying is 'no, you're wrong' without backing anything up. Has anything I've written here about F1 drivers and their athletic abilities been debunked? ---list--- Exactly. This is what I was doing with F1 and Cricket. Punk - these aren't my rankings' date=' its the universal standard.[/quote']

Gravity sports (skiing, diving, luge / bobsleigh / skeleton, etc) - are these sports?

In this case yes, sure, why not. Any panel that puts softball ahead of rugby, lacrosse, water polo, x-country skiing, steer wrestling, distance cycling, racing, swimming etc has its collective head up its ass. Didn't see cricket make the list either. I gave you numbers and actual science behind the athletes - you quoted somebody's link to an ESPN article of strange figures. Great debate. (It probably goes without saying that without knowing what kind of racing they evaluated it's not much of a barometer of their analysis of F1)

It's a tough and probably innappropriate comparison for sure.

OK, I'm not sure how I feel about this method of evaluating athletes but others seem to like it so here goes. ENDURANCE: The ability to continue to perform a skill or action for long periods of time. Example: Lance Armstrong Testing sessions are sometimes over 100 laps. Race weekends are 2 1.5-hour-long practice sessions, qualifying (45 minutes if you make it to Q3), and the race (90-120 minutes). Sitting in the car with the lactic acid in legs and no stretches plus braking and the G-forces on body and neck certainly make F1 intense in this category. STRENGTH: The ability to produce force. Example: NFL linebackers. Helmet and HANS weigh 7kg. With G-forces (up to 5G) that makes your head weigh 35kg. To quote the article from before "imagine having five large fire extinguishers strapped to your head for two hours" and staying upright while doing everything else. Hands are strong on wheel, shifters, and brake diff. Arms are super strong and you're unable to stretch during a race. Legs are strong - brakes need 80kg of downward pressure to engage. 1500 times a race. Generating 4G each time. POWER: The ability to produce strength in the shortest possible time. Example: Barry Bonds. Braking example again - power to the brake quickly, precisely, and just the right amount to do what driver needs to do. SPEED: The ability to move quickly. Example: Marion Jones, Maurice Green. Hands / arms / feet are moving quickly all the time. AGILITY: The ability to change direction quickly. Example: Derek Jeter, Mia Hamm. Not sure of an example for this one. FLEXIBILITY: The ability to stretch the joints across a large range of motion. Example: Gymnasts, divers. Also not sure of example for this. NERVE: The ability to overcome fear. Example: High-board divers, race-car drivers, ski jumpers. Pretty obvious - open wheel racing at 200mph. DURABILITY: The ability to withstand physical punishment over a long period of time. Example: NBA/NHL players. Feeling every bump in the road at 200mph, up to 60 degrees in cockpit for 90-120 minutes on raceday, lactic acid build-up, different G-forces all the time, no breaks, crashes HAND-EYE COORDINATION: The ability to react quickly to sensory perception. Example: A hitter reacting to a breaking pitch; a drag racer timing acceleration to the green light. This one is pretty obvious. Steering, shifting, getting off the line at lights-out, passing, avoidance etc etc etc ANALYTIC APTITUDE: The ability to evaluate and react appropriately to strategic situations. Example: Joe Montana reading a defense; basketball point guard on a fast break. Pretty obvious too. When to apply KERS boost, drafting, passing, not passing, pit strategy, tire conservation vs shredding them. Lots more reasons. These guys are ELITE ATHLETES by any definition.

Hal You wanted science, so I pointed you to an article with actual numbers and science in it. You say the article is "sensational" but can't demonstrate how. It describes, with numbers, science and some prose, some of the athletics behind an F1 driver. Also, if you read my comments and then read your description of my comments, you'll find that you're the one sensationalizing things. And, yes there are physics in play in cricket no doubt. For a select few on the pitch, for very short spurts, when they're on the field. They're athletes yes.

I'll answer that question when I get home from work Schwa. And yes, it's harder to be an F1 driver than those other sports pros for many reasons, the easiest being that there are only 24 drivers on the grid on Sundays. Many many more opportunities to be a baseball player. There are other reasons but that one is easy. Back to work for a bit.

Take that first article I posted - what's "sensational" about it? The fact that you don't agree (with physics)?

Which branch of science is good enough for y'all? What about physics?

It's hard work. Btw, thanks for bringing up Radiohead in a sports thread, and as always, thanks for the pictures of tits. Still looking for an explanation on this one Sigh. Somebody compared Radiohead to jazz. I'm not a fan of most jazz. I really like Radiohead. Is that explanation ok? If yes, post a picture of tits.

The multiple sustained intense athletic processes they perform in the cockpit.

What's your definition of an athlete?

One who doesn't understand / is illiterate could surmise that, sure.

I'm not buying many of those analyses when it comes to F1 and I'll explain why later tonight. How's that for a teaser. Also, Kimi Raikkonen quit F1 and went to WRC at the end of 2009.

And couldn't they just avoid the hit?

Don't worry Booche, I understood your point.

no idea what you're on about there, but sweet formatting?

Agreed that the extra point in football is silly. 2-point conversions all the way. Also, how many people are on a football team? There's gotta be some limits there.

Most of the examples you use are strong and complete athletes sure, but for short bursts with small windows of stamina and concentration. There's a huge difference in running a cross-pattern, maybe catching a pass then blocking a run maybe then hitting the bench for 10 minutes in football or boxing a round until somebody gets KO'd or doing a 4 second high-jump and 90-100 minutes of extreme forces on the body in intense heat and legs under braking etc....