5
votes
How would you determine the best overall athlete in the world?
I would host a competition that measured strength, speed, agility, endurance, and intelligence. I would measure strength using some strongman and some powerlifting lifts. I would measure speed with 100 meter sprints. I would measure agility with some kind of ropes course, obstacle course, and gymnastics meet. I would measure endurance with a triathalon plus rowing (a quadrathalon?). I would measure intelligence by testing ability to memorize a bit of text in their mother language, teaching them the rules to a made-up game (Calvinball anyone?), and testing them on some trivia game with a format like Jeopardy. What would you measure, and how would you measure it?
I don't think there's actually a good answer for this. In your example, I'd score fairly well; I'm abnormally strong and have a great memory, and I'm very coordinated (though you either missed coordination, or lumped it under agility; I would say they are distinct). I wouldn't do as well in the endurance, but I can run a 5k. So while I would get good marks in many areas, and acceptable marks in some, I'm not anyone's idea of a good athlete; I'm old and out of shape.
I think the real problem lies in the fact that the makings of a great athlete aren't how any of these things work in isolation; it's how they work in conjunction with each other. Various sports need different combinations of speed, strength, agility, endurance, coordination, and mental acuity. However, I think there's already an even that attempts to capture the broadest range of athleticism, and that's the decathlon, which includes:
This is probably the best way to test individual athleticism that we have, but it somewhat misses the mental acuity aspect, especially with regards to team sports, where strategy and interconnectedness play a part.
I guess my tl;dr is that I don't think it's possible to determine the best overall athlete.
I was thinking of agility and coordination as the same thing, but I think I can see an argument for them being slightly different. I'm not sure how one would test for them separately, though. Perhaps that's because I don't see a marked difference between them.
I had looked at the decathlon, but didn't think it tested for strength the way weight lifting does. While you do get some really good overall athletes competing in that, I'm imagining an event that pulls in athletes from different sports and disciplines. The decathlon is pretty much for track and field people.
It might very well be impossible to determine the best overall athlete, but I'm thinking that's because it's impossible to say what makes one an athlete and what doesn't. How do you not include an event that tests a person's ability to kick a soccer ball? Why not include a ballroom dance event? Why not include a high altitude climbing event?
I'm really just kicking around ideas for fun, but it would be awesome to create an event that purported to find the world's greatest all around athlete every year.
You need to have some pretty beefy muscles to perform well in the following:
Agreed. It just doesn't look the same as lifting a big log over your head, or a gigantic boulder, or throwing a caber end over end (that's got to be one of the coolest competitions ever). I think I would probably want to keep the javelin throw. Who doesn't like to watch people throw spears? Same with pole vault. Pretty spectacular.
I think coordination and agility are either different, or you haven't tested for coordination particularly in what you've suggested. I'm very coordinated, but I am no gymnast, which requires agility.
Years ago, I competed in javelin, discus, and shot put. The primary requirement for all three is strength. There is a baseline coordination requirement, but once that is passed (and almost any able-bodied person can learn the techniques) the only way to improve is by increasing one's strength.
Yes, but I'd argue that track and field is the answer that you're looking for. It's the breaking down of sport into component parts, and testing those components separately. As I noted in my original comment, I think the only thing that is missing is the mental acuity part of being an athlete, which pertains to both team-mindedness and strategy.
Also, traditionally the title of "World's Greatest Athlete" is given to the winner of the decathlon at the Olympics, which is kind of an answer in and of itself.
I was unaware of this.
The more I dig into it, the more I realize that decathlon is pretty close to what I am imagining. I mean, weight lifting requires correct form in order to realize your greatest strength, so shot put, discus, and javelin are close equivalents for the purposes of testing strength.
That said, I would love to see a decathlon that also included caber tossing.
That would be awesome!
Sounds like you're trying to find the best overall physical human specimen more than anything. It'd be hard to rate athletes over one another that come from different sporting backgrounds, as their athleticism is geared toward their sport. Floyd Mayweather is a prime boxing athlete, but he wouldn't do as well swimming as someone like Michael Phelps, a (once?) prime swimming athlete, would.
Phelps is still an amazing swimmer; I wasn't surprised that he announced he'd sit out the 2020 olympics, but he probably still could have qualified (just added as a point of interest, since you were unsure).
Yeah. One of the sports sites did a poll where they pitted the greatest champions from different sports against each other. You had things like Michael Phelps against Tiger Woods. How do you compare? Theirs sports are so different. They're both the best at their sport, but how do you compare them to each other when their sports are so different?
Best overall physical human specimen is a good description of what I'm looking at. Able to lift immense weight, navigate an obstacle course in short order, and run forever.
First of all, what are you measuring?
Pure and utter domination in one particular field that stands the test of time (Usain Bolt or Michael Phelps)?
Excellence in multiple fields (Sonny Bill Williams or Jim Thorpe)?
Or are you measuring all round athleticism (American Gladiators)?
I generally think of one of the first two categories when thinking of the best athlete in the world.
The intent here is more like American Gladiators, just not quite so gaudy and flashy.
I think a reaction test of some sort would be necessary as well. But like others have said there different types of athletes. One might be good at lift, but suck in speed. Not sure how you would go about it...
I'm not sure, either. Though people here are convincing me that decathlon is pretty close to what I'm thinking of.
Well, I think I can say one thing about this subject for sure. People on Tildes just don't think this is as interesting as I do. Maybe that's why there's not a worldwide competition called The World's Best Athlete already. Oh well. Guess I'm just weird this way.