Hal Johnson

So your interpretation trumps the interpretation of a panel of sport scietists from the US olympic committee?

:doh: This is what Ive been saying all along.

d'oh. Thanks though.

Im not gonna repeat myself again. Our frame of reference is just plain different from one another, and we'll have to leave it at that.

Word.

Ill go have my bath and warm milk now.

I can see how I might have come off as defensive. Sorry. I do get defensive about phd's though - its a hard thing to acheive and if theres ever a legit expert on something that would be it, imo. When peoplle shrug off the title, my immediate question is, okay, who is more of an expert then? And, for the record, research on attention can and usually is completely qualitative - im doing some right now on dual task reaction time. So eat it!!

Obviously your missing my point completely. You dont think there's physics involved with hitting a ball in cricket? You can write a paragraph on the biomechanics of swinging a cricket bat that would make it seem like its the most intrigueing, hardest thing in the world to do if you wanted to.

Why so defensive then? Phd's add credibility, if nothing else. Dont know why your so hung up on it.

Fixed that for you. Most of the indicators used for the rankings in that report are quantitative but a few are definitely qualitative and subjective in nature. You can't say that's a scientific proof, sorry. It's probably good science, it's probably good theory and I think you're 100% correct but its a study. A) not talking about the report, talking about exercise physiology studies done by people with Phd's tend to set the gold standard. Scientific proof/theory...what's the other option - Ad's references to unscientific articles that sensationalize core strength?

correct. I'm definitely not referring to any Espn doc. I'm referring to the norm established by exercise physiology that is supported by years and years of scientific evidence. And lets not forget where this started - AD claimed F1 racers to be far superior athletes to hockey players and tennis players and the like. Im simply stating that this debate is old, and science proves the statement is incorrect. In my opinion, there's certainly aspects of F1 racing that can be and are required to be trained for, but that's it. My analogy was that Cricket requires training too - even more than F1 - but you dont hear me making outrageous claims that it is the hardest sport in the world. Edit to add: that espn panel has people with PHd's, so it actually is fairly legit. I thought it was just gonna be Jim Caple and Bill Simmons, but it wasn't. Eit to add more:; You guys are a tough sell sometimes. The universal standard is the sport skills that are required; these are standards that all sports are linke to...some require more skills than others...pretty simple concept IMO, nothing "magic" about it. It's existance isn't due to any argument over what is the more demanding sport, but more over what needs to be trained for to become better.

Exactly. This is what I was doing with F1 and Cricket. Punk - these aren't my rankings, its the universal standard.

These super athletes you speak of, the F1 guys, they dont have to train as many aspects of performance as Cricket players do. Rather than go back and forth about it forever, I broke it down in a universally accepted way.

AD, cause I find this stuff fascinating, I gotta nerd it up. All these things can and should be trained for as an elite athlete in the sport: F1 involves: Physicall Abilities: - aerobic stamina (dynamic effort over an extended period of time) - Strength endurance (muscle contractions at intensities below max strength) * not to be confused with max strength (highest level of tension generated by a muscle or muscle group) total - 2 Motor Abilities: - dynamic balance (the ability to stabilize the body by performing muscular contractions to overcome a resistance). - coordination (performing movements in correct order) total = 2 - Tactical Abilities - Mental skills: attentional, and emotional control total = 3 overall = 7 Cricket involves: Physical: Speed max strength speed strength strength endurance flexibility = 5 Motor: Agility General balance coordination = 3 - Tactical abilities - mental skills - attentional, emotional = 3 Cricket = 11, F1 = 7 but you win in the end b/c this resonse cost me $30K ::sobbing uncontrollably::

That 1st article is interesting in that it shows the need for F1 drivers to be in shape, but it also goes way over the top and makes it seem like its the hardest sport in the world to train for. As if F1 drivers are the only athlete's who need arm strength, core strength, strong reaction time and agility. I could probably write something very similar for cricket if I had the time.

:weed:

Truth.

I agree, and just to clarify, I was talking about what the players do before the first batter of the inning steps to the plate.

Nothing as efficient as actually tossing the ball around. First and foremost, its for the pitcher though, as an injury prevention measure. And even if the fielders did warm up their arms in some other way, they'd just be standing there kicking dirt while the pitcher tossed, and that wouldn't be much fun.

Well OK, but... 1. Regarding different mounds - They're professionals and they've been pitching from different mounds their whole lives. Deal with it. 2. Injuries possible from sitting dormant - So don't sit dormant, be an athlete and keep limber for an entire game. I'll respond by referencing AD's response to Jaimoe's gripe with F1 racing. I suspect you don't know much about it. seriously though, ever tried playing catch in a dugout? Ever tried playing catch in a dugout while 9 other guys tried at the same time?

Right, but even if they know the entire team is 99%from the line, they'll still have to foul to get the ball back. I say go the football route and if team A is leading by 4 with under 24 seconds to go and has posession of the ball, the point guard can take a knee and that's the end of it

I'd love to see Norm live. Any time I catch him on a talk show its gold.

Ha, that and the GI Joe voice overs. "Pork chop sandwiches!"

Id say the warm ups on the mound help familiarize the pitcher with the environment. The game mound can have a much different feel than the BP mound, for one thing. Also, playing catch (re: fielders)warms up the tiny muscles in the arm and shoulder that are susceptable (sp?) to injury if engaged in max effort after sitting dormant for half an inning. Sounds wimpy, I know, but its true. I guess too, it gives everyone else on the field something to do while the pitcher warms up. Re: Strategic fouls at the end of a Bball game... I was thinking of this while playing pick up hockey tonight, and there's nothing really that can be done about it. If you penalized the foul more dramatically (say 4 free throws) and deterred the defending team from comitting it, the team with the ball would merely let the clock run out. Its a lose-lose situation! There is no way to stop the dumb way close basketball games end.

- less time-outs in B-ball & penalize strategic fouling to the point that it doesn't exist anymore(not sure how, but it would be great if someone could figure it out). The end of close games could and should be soooooooo much better. - it's a weird one, but if you've ever played field hockey, the rule is that you can only shoot right handed. To me, this is the stupidest rule in sports. Needs to change. Also, women's team volleyball should be on TV more.