Top 10 Hardest Things To Do In Sports [Archive] - HP Deals, Computer Coupons And Bargains

coleslaw

02-25-2003, 07:19 AM

Originally posted by modena
how about something like a whole or half court basketball shot? I think that goes beyond the context of this "Top 10 list" because it is not something that players are REQUIRED to do on a day to day basis. Using the same idea, one could say "throwing a 100 yard pass" or "scoring with a bicycle kick from center field". Sure, it's something that could probably happen, but it's not something that players are required to do. I guess the only thing that does not follow this train of though is the quad jump, which is just an extension of any spinning jump in ice skating - which is hard anyway.

faither

02-25-2003, 09:28 AM

I liked today's: returning a 130mph tennis serve...now that would be tough. Looking forward to the next four.

NuTs62

02-25-2003, 09:38 AM

Goalie?

Memo

02-25-2003, 12:18 PM

50-60 year old men can run marathons, im' gonna have to say there are harder things to do.

Merlin

02-25-2003, 12:36 PM

Originally posted by UT Memo
50-60 year old men can run marathons, im' gonna have to say there are harder things to do.

True, but how far do you think you could get? Or the average Joe for that matter? If you trained your a$$ off you could do most of those things. But that's the whole point, you'd have to train your a$$ off, just like those 60year olds.

cheapie

02-25-2003, 12:47 PM

i would have to disagree with placing running a marathon ahead of riding the tour de france. the average person can train to run a marathon within a year or two. doing the tour de france is incredibly hard even for the professionals. many of the professional riders drop out because their bodies just simply can't do it. that never happens with professional marathoners. having said that, both are very difficult. i'm running a 1/2 marathon in may and just might run the chicago marathon this fall. i will most likely never spend the better part of a month riding the tour de france route, however much fun/pain/joy that would bring me.

whitak24

02-25-2003, 01:47 PM

Originally posted by cheapbast@rd
i would have to disagree with placing running a marathon ahead of riding the tour de france. the average person can train to run a marathon within a year or two. doing the tour de france is incredibly hard even for the professionals. many of the professional riders drop out because their bodies just simply can't do it. that never happens with professional marathoners. having said that, both are very difficult. i'm running a 1/2 marathon in may and just might run the chicago marathon this fall. i will most likely never spend the better part of a month riding the tour de france route, however much fun/pain/joy that would bring me.
:stupid:

i don't think that marathons should be on the list at all. face it, practically anyone, if they will themselves hard enough and dedicate themselves to training for it, can run a marathon in some way (they may not be fast, but they can do it).

but there are a lot of things -- the tour de france, hitting anything off a major league pitcher, etc -- that the average person could never do, no matter how hard they tried or practiced.

i guess i would judge the most difficult things to do in sports to be things that the the average person, or even the average athelete, could not do. they have to be something more than that....

gear02

02-25-2003, 02:03 PM

Originally posted by whitak24

:stupid:

i don't think that marathons should be on the list at all. face it, practically anyone, if they will themselves hard enough and dedicate themselves to training for it, can run a marathon in some way (they may not be fast, but they can do it).

but there are a lot of things -- the tour de france, hitting anything off a major league pitcher, etc -- that the average person could never do, no matter how hard they tried or practiced.

i guess i would judge the most difficult things to do in sports to be things that the the average person, or even the average athelete, could not do. they have to be something more than that....

I still think that running in a marathon AND FINISHING should be in the top 10. Even if most people could do it, it's still very hard and requires a lot of training. Even most of the athletes out there (basketball, baseball, football) couldn't do it unless they trained for it.

But I agree that it shouldn't be above the tour. That's should be the hardest thing. To ride a bike 100km every day for a month is just crazy. That shows how Lance Armstrong is the best athlete out there. He won 3 (4?) in a row after beating CANCER.

gear02

02-25-2003, 02:05 PM

Originally posted by NuTs62
Goalie?

Good one. I think you couldn't put enough padding (and still be able to move and be within NHL standards) and not feel a 100MPH slapshot.

But if you're talking soccer, I'm not so sure. I guess it could be just as hard since you're expected to fly (literally) from one side of the goal to the other corner in a split second.

NuTs62

02-25-2003, 06:46 PM

Originally posted by gear02

Good one. I think you couldn't put enough padding (and still be able to move and be within NHL standards) and not feel a 100MPH slapshot.

But if you're talking soccer, I'm not so sure. I guess it could be just as hard since you're expected to fly (literally) from one side of the goal to the other corner in a split second.

i was actually referring to hockey.. so ;) being able to move so quickly... and catch the pucks... as well as avoid flinching... and having people skate right into you at however fast.. and occasionally getting knocked unconcious... then again, being a quarterback isn't too fun either... gotta concentrate on throwing the ball at the same time avoiding some 300 lb linebacker barreling down ready to tackle you and end your career. :)

xsiled2

02-25-2003, 07:19 PM

9 is lame, soccer players miss so much.

and why is #5 a chick, the 100th male tennis player whipes the floor with the best of the women.

whitak24

02-25-2003, 07:28 PM

Originally posted by xsiled2
9 is lame, soccer players miss so much.

and why is #5 a chick, the 100th male tennis player whipes the floor with the best of the women.
:hmm:

i dunno man. if i were a top male tennis player, i don't know as i would want to challenge either of the williams sisters :eek:

xsiled2

02-25-2003, 10:31 PM

i dont think they could go 5 :shrug:

modena

02-26-2003, 12:20 AM

Originally posted by xsiled2
i dont think they could go 5 :shrug:

Yea because they train for 3, so given time to train for 5 like men do, i think they could give some if not a lot of men in the top 100 a run for their money. I would say they could probably beat quite a few as well.

modena

02-26-2003, 12:22 AM

The new one: A Long Straught Tee Shot (in golf). I dont know if this one should be so high on the list. It is indeed difficult but just doesnt seem as hard as a marathon or the tour. I dont play much golf, but i can hit a fairly decent tee shot most of the time, and like I said, I hardly play.

cheapie

02-26-2003, 05:42 AM

Originally posted by DarkFury

Yup...I gotta agree with ya.

The Willams sisters can most likely beat 80% of the top 100 men pro tennis players...

no way!!! the sisters are good. but they would get smoked by most, if not all of the top male players! don't confuse the lack of a dominant male player with a lack of skill in the men's tour. the men's tour is very deep. that's why there are so many upsets. while the sisters are very dominant in the women's tour, they are only really challenged by each other.

whitak24

02-26-2003, 08:09 AM

i disagree with both cheapbastard and xsiled re: the williams sisters.

if you watch either of those girls play, they are completely dominant. they serve almost as hard as the men, and they have amazing return power. i think the gap between men's and women's tennis is virtually non-existant.

as for whether the sisters could go 5, quite frankly, i think they would take care of most of the men in 3 or 4.

eSDee

02-26-2003, 08:29 AM

Originally posted by DarkFury

Billie Jean King proved this theory back in the day when she beat Bobby Riggs in a "Battle-of-the-sexes" on September 20, 1973.

And honestly, the Williams sisters show THAT level of dominance in their game today.

To be fair, Bobby Riggs was a shotty tennis player when he got his ass kicked. But I do believe that the Williams sisters would probably be in the top 100 men players. Lots of men have the power if not sure than the sisters, however the sisters have tremendous accuracy and great strategies. They are always "breaking ankles" of their opponents.

mcs328

02-26-2003, 09:31 AM

How about hitting a bullseye in a game of Darts?
Bowling a perfect 300 game. It's uncommon more than it is rare but still tough for any professional player.

Merlin

02-26-2003, 09:49 AM

Originally posted by DarkFury

Billie Jean King proved this theory back in the day when she beat Bobby Riggs in a "Battle-of-the-sexes" on September 20, 1973.

And honestly, the Williams sisters show THAT level of dominance in their game today.

Come on guys let's be real. The 1973 event was more of a joke than anything else. For as great as the Williams sisters are (and they are indeed great) they are in no way comparable to the men's game. It is a whole diffeent level. The speed and power are just too much higher.

What are you going to try next? WNBA players hanging with Shaq?

cheapie

02-26-2003, 10:09 AM

bobby riggs was an old man when he got beat. it was a publicity stunt anyhow. as to the claim the williams sisters could beat many of the men because they are dominant against women in their league, i don't think one necessary follows the other. for example, the UConn women's NCAA basketball team is incredible. they are 13-0 this year and they rarely, if ever, lose. do you think because the UConn women show "THAT level of dominance in their game today", they would be able to beat many of the top men's teams?

i'm trying hard not to discredit the sisters. they are great. perhaps the greatest women players ever. however, i think it would be a mistake to say, without having ever seen it done, that they could beat a top male player. the reason that they are so dominant is a: they are very good b: the level of competition that they face is not nearly as deep as the men's field.

having said this, i would enjoy watching a match between a Williams and a top male tennis player. in fact, i think i would like it if they won. for the sole reason that those kind of contests would happen more often. but i honestly don't think they would win.

as Serena Williams said the other day (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/tennis/news/2003/02/25/scottsdale_serena_ap/), "I wish I could play," the world's best female tennis player said Tuesday before doing a quick about-face. "No I don't," she went on. "I mean, with tennis it's like Lennox Lewis against Laila Ali, but for golf maybe it's different." "Like I said, Lennox Lewis against Laila Ali," Williams said. "She'd have no chance against Lennox Lewis, and I'd have no chance against Andre Agassi. It's just different bodies and different types. I think it would be impossible."

if Serena thinks it's impossible, how can you claim the opposite to be true?

cheapie

02-26-2003, 10:19 AM

no kidding. cuz bowling 300 isn't like hitting a home run. you have 3 chances at every bat to hit a home run. there is no way to recover in a bowling game once you have failed to roll a strike. you have to wait until the next game. and the pressure mounts with every frame.

(i was kind of hoping for a rebuttal from df to my earlier statement but....sigh...) :)

edit: oops! i posted too soon. lol.

cheapie

02-26-2003, 10:28 AM

Originally posted by DarkFury

Ahem... Andre Agassi is above the 80% mark that I spoke of before.

I didn't say that they would necessarily beat the top 20 men, but I do believe that they'd have a good shot at beating the middle to the low end of the pack (and still a good chance to beat the 25 through 50th ranked men.)

As far as the WNBA goes... no it wouldn't be a fair matchup to put them against Shaq et al... that is a TOTALLY different game than tennis... where things can be a lil more equalled out since there isn't as much of a "direct power" advantage (same thing goes for boxing...).

i guess we'll never know until they actually try it. the only reason agassi was in my post was because serena said it. i know you weren't saying that they could beat the best male players.

however, i believe that the spread in talent between the top 50 male players is far smaller than that of the female players. there are constant upsets in the male tournaments, hardly any in the female tournies.

i would love to see it though. actually, i'd love to see a match between anna k., and me, after which we would meet at the net, shake hands, embrace, start making out.....:love2:

cheapie

02-26-2003, 10:40 AM

Originally posted by DarkFury
Let's just NOT say that it is "impossible" (or else you might end up with your feelings hurt...)

i totally agree that it's possible, even likely that it would happen it they played a series of games against a top 50 opponent. :D i can also say i would absolutely watch the match if it were played! my only contention is that their average level of play may not be as good as a top 50 male player. of course, this is entirely speculation on my part and we won't know until it happens. you're right about it being power AND skill. if it was only power, it would be easier to determine the outcome of this, and any other potential matchup.

Merlin

02-26-2003, 11:10 AM

Originally posted by DarkFury

...before folks (including Merlin) jumped on me for takin' their side...

With the exception of golf on an extremely short course, I don't think any of the women's sports could hang with the men. Even if the women are "dominating" This goes for....

Tennis
Basketball
Golf (on average to longer courses)
Soccer
Baseball
Aw hell, all of them I can think of...

Women could probably be competitive in...
Ping Pong
Darts
Pop-a-shot
Shuffleboard

Don't get me wrong. Women playing sports is a great thing. However, in any real sport the physical differences put them into two different worlds.

cheapie

02-26-2003, 11:12 AM

i should probably amend my former statement to say that "everything being equal", i don't think they could win. however, if they had a very good day, or the opposite was true for their opponant, they could win. seeing that this is all theoretical, i'd hate to piss you off over something that i'm using to make the afternoon go quicker and have no real stake in.
:P

Cantacuzene

02-26-2003, 11:36 AM

The Williams sisters could be the captains of nearly any male collegiate tennis team. I think they might be able to be top 100 in the world in mens, but I don't think they could ever win a grandslam tournament.

Merlin

02-26-2003, 11:37 AM

Originally posted by DarkFury

(golf, bowling, billiards, tennis, raquetball, shooting, archery, etc...).

Yeah, I'll concede that they can be every bit as good in pure skill endeavors. That means bowling, billiards, shooting, and archery.

And that George Carlin skit was pretty damn funny.

mcs328

02-26-2003, 12:18 PM

I've only seen someone get a perfect 300 in my former bowling league. It's part skill and a lot of luck. Sometimes the pins just don't fall your way and the lane dries up after 11 rolls.

coleslaw

02-26-2003, 12:24 PM

Originally posted by mcs328
I've only seen someone get a perfect 300 in my former bowling league. It's part skill and a lot of luck. Sometimes the pins just don't fall your way and the lane dries up after 11 rolls. Bowling a 300 is becoming more and more common as the technology of bowling balls increases. I just recently bought an AMF Fire Hawk Super-C ceramic core ball with a curve rating of 19/30. It took some getting used to, but once you find your "spot" for the given lane conditions, it's quite easy to be consistent. I bowled a 247 last week and am averaging over 200 since getting the ball. :thumb:

What is really hard is bowling a 900 series. Talk about your all-time "in the zone" performances! :P

Brendan

02-26-2003, 11:14 PM

Understandably kept under wraps (for the good of women's tennis), I'm not surprised you guys don't remember this little tidbit:

Williams sisters fall in Battle of the Sexes
By Steve Wilstein, Associated Press writer
MELBOURNE, Australia -- It was the Battle of the Sexes without all the glitz, a daring bid by Serena and Venus Williams to back up their bold claim that they could beat any man ranked No. 200 or lower.
Not even close.
The sisters discovered, much to their chagrin, they're no match for the men on the ATP Tour. At least not yet.
First Serena, then Venus challenged No. 203 Karsten Braasch to a set apiece at the Australian Open on yesterday, and he beat them both. Serena fell 6-1, Venus 6-2. They played as intensely as they could, while Braasch performed with gentlemanly restraint.
"It was extremely hard," said 16-year-old Serena. "I didn't know it would be that hard. I hit shots that would have been winners on the WTA Tour, and he got to them easily."
That didn't stop her from boasting that, "this time next year I'll beat him. I have to pump some weight. ... I have to work hard to be on the men's tour."
Venus, 17, wasn't about to concede too much, either, especially since she broke Braasch once.
"I can beat men in the 300s and up," she said. "He thought we couldn't get a point. He didn't think we could play. We showed him we could."
Braasch smiled at their claims.
"Against anyone in the top 500, no chance," he said. "Because I was playing like 600 today."

This guy was a washed-up, chain-smoking, middling pro men's tennis player and he worked over the Williams sisters back-to-back. The guy smoked between games and wasn't giving his all and still stomped them. He later admitted that he took about 50% off his serve.

Granted this was 5 years ago, but keep in mind the Williams sisters were already top pros by then. They have improved immensely and probably could challenge men somewhere in the 100 and up (world ranking) range, but any higher than that would likely be a very short match (read: loss). And it does say something that they subsequently revised their boast from "any man above 200" to above 350. They obviously realize the difference between the men's game vs. the women's.

As for King-Riggs, I'm amazed anyone was surprised that a world class 29 year-old female tennis player in the prime of her career could beat a 55 year-old over-the-hill, pot-bellied ex-pro like Riggs.

Showtime

02-26-2003, 11:54 PM

Homerun = no big deal. With all the drugs and all the advanced medicine on technology that goes into training, a game without a homerun is rare. 50 a year is more than anyone bowls perfect games or hits a hole in one. No one even eagles anywhere near fifty times a year.

Hole in one is much rarer = difficult
300 game is also much harder IMO.

How about big surf contests. How many people could surf a 50 foot wave. How many would even think to try.

Power lifting? Lots of people lift but the genetics and conditioning required to set and break current records is incredible.

Cards? To have total control over the muscles in one's face and to be able to sweat or not sweat on cue........... Millions of dollars, billions of players, very few great professionals...... :P

-jel:halo:

Cantacuzene

02-27-2003, 07:25 AM

Homerun is easy? HAve you ever stood in the box when a 95 mph pitch was delivered? Have you ever had a professional 85 mph curve ball thrown at you? I can't begin to describe how difflcult it is to even make contact with a pitcher at that level of play, let alone hit a homerun. The only reason players hit the ball at all at the major league level is because they are as highly trained and well practiced as the pitchers.

I also think that a hole in one is very very difficult but the fact that anyone can get one, athlete or not troubles me about its difficulty. I've hit the green on my first shot on a par 3 before. It could just as easily went in the cup. I wouldnt have called myself a great athlete then.

Merlin

02-27-2003, 07:54 AM

I think we are getting a little off the point. Bowling a 300 is indeed a remarkable accomplishment but I think the point of the list is to highlight things that are somewhat less lucky-streak based. If bowling A strike was namd near impossible then it belongs on the list. Similiarly, a hole in one is also very luck based. Returning a 130mph serve or making solid contact on a 93mph splitter, whereas they do invlove an amount of luck, require a skill that few possess. Like previous poster have said, some have come close to the 300 game or hole in one but very few could do an Ironman or an Ididarod or kick a 35yard field goal or even get around on major league pitching. It really is amazing what it takes to do these "routine" plays.

coleslaw

02-27-2003, 08:06 AM

Originally posted by DarkFury

I remind you... "PBA lane conditions" are MUCH less forgiving than your average hometown league or amatuer tournament condition. Basically if you are more than 1 or 2 boards off of your mark... you ain't gonna strike (most likely you'd hang a 10 or end up with some messed up split).

Also...it's not always the ball (yeah, these new resin reactive balls really do help a bunch of folks...) however the fundamentals of the game still lie in being able to control your body as well as read what the lanes are giving you, with a HEAVY dose of LUCK thrown in for flavor...

I've personally never had a 300 myself, but I did have Eleven in a row once (DAYUUM 10 PIN!!!! in the first frame... :angry: ). That would be my ultimate bowling career accomplishment... and I could retire from the game a happy person after getting a 300. :D Dang, nice score my man! I have only had 7 in a row. Color me impressed! :)

While it is true that it's not always the ball, these new balls are designed to bite more in the dry spots on the edge of the lane and to slide more in the more-oily center. Because of this, if you are off your mark to the left a bit, the ball is a bit more forgiving and will slide a bit more before breaking, allowing you to still hit the pocket. Also, if you miss right, your ball will bite more and hook back in towards the pocket as well. Sure, the lanes can be oiled to accomodate these same characteristics, but these high-tech balls are really something else! :P

whitak24

02-27-2003, 09:31 AM

yeah, 5 years ago is somewhat instructive, but in many ways, it's pretty much irrelevant. remember, 5 years ago, everyone was questioning whether the girls could develop the consistency and strategy to win consistently on the tour.

neither one of them was anywhere near as good as they are now. both have not only increased their power, but they've improved their strategy and match-playing to a point where no one one the women's tour can keep up with them.

could they keep up with a lot of the top men? i think so. obviously, some disagree with me, and i doubt we will ever have proof, but i think to dismiss their chances is to severely misjudge their talents and abilities.

coleslaw

02-27-2003, 10:12 AM

Originally posted by DarkFury
BTW... I've actually been to the Hoinke in Cincy before... Pretty "slick" house (as far as the approaches go...) Can't say that I have ever been there. Is that held at Western Bowl? Also can't say that I have ever bowled under professional oil conditions either. I frequent Madison Bowl and it's pretty much a poop hole, but hey, it's open 24 hours, the beer is cheap and as long as I have friends around, who cares? :D

http://a1432.g.akamaitech.net/7/1432/33/ae0c9d4380cf9d/images.citysearch.com/profile/5c/26/8172290p1.jpg

mcs328

02-27-2003, 11:46 AM

Todays is pole vaulting. I can't say that I've tried.

Cantacuzene

03-03-2003, 06:52 AM

#1 hitting a baseball. I called that. RESPECT.

nickel

03-03-2003, 08:31 AM

Originally posted by Merlin

There you go talking about your hole again. :P

:rolleyes:

keep your putter in your pocket :P

gwilks98

03-03-2003, 05:00 PM

I don't think anyone's fully suggested this yet, but, being a St. Louis Blues fan, I'd be terrified of having to stop an Al McInnis slapshot. 103+ mph usually breaks bones if you don't catch it right. (And he's hurt quite a few people before he vowed to keep the harder ones on the ground.)

whitak24

03-04-2003, 08:44 AM

Originally posted by Cantacuzene
#1 hitting a baseball. I called that. RESPECT.
respect given! :)

mcs328

03-06-2003, 11:56 AM

Seems to be some a few backlash responses for hitting a baseball as #1 on the live usatoday.com feedback session they're having. They forget that it's going at 95 mph. However I think the quad is difficult.

Cantacuzene

03-06-2003, 12:09 PM

Anyone who doubts hitting teh baseball is #1 has never stepped into the box against Randy Johnson. I sure havent, but I have faced some pitching at the high school level that was in the mid eighties and it was hard enough to hit. I couldnt imagine high ninties.

gear02

03-06-2003, 12:55 PM

Heck..I can't even hit a slow pitch softball...

mcs328

03-06-2003, 01:19 PM

Actually I've been traumatized ever since I was in middle school. I was running in to home plate and being a small thin kid the bigger bullies and jerks thought it would be fun to take my head off. It was close and I don't know who were they were tossing too since there wasn't a catcher to catch the ball.

I doubt anything would have happened to them if they did hit me in the head. We weren't as litigatious (sp?) back then as we were now. At most he would have been suspended for 5 days and I would have been picked on and have even more things thrown at me for taking it like a punk/cry baby.