“With the Olympic Games approaching, The Wall Street Journal set out to answer this parlor-game question: If Earth had to send one man to the Intergalactic Olympics, who should go?”
"The Journal sought to identify the world’s greatest athlete with an approach that, while not completely scientific, took a number of measures into account. A panel of five sports scientists and exercise physiologists was given a list drawn up by the Journal of 79 male athletes. Candidates had to be active in their sport and among the all-time best.
The panel weighed individual performance stats, along with their subjective judgments about the relative difficulty of each sport, to give an overall grade to the athletes. The judges graded athletes on speed, reflexes, stamina, and coordination, as well as power, strength and size. The finalists, they said, exhibited a wide range of athletic skill in highly competitive environments."
I agree tennis is hard, but nowhere even close to hockey. I also agree that every sport is hard in it’s own little way, but there are a few that seem harder than the rest.
And why is the ability to run so important in this list?
I call complete BS on the list, it’s fucking stupid. You can’t compare athletes sport to sport, that’s like comparing a vw to a fast car, it’s a different world.
i played tennis in hs and yes, it wasn’t the easiest thing ever. however, the physical nature of hockey makes it much more difficult IMO. i’m a hockey fan at heart, so my opinion may be biased.
it’s great that crosby made the list, but everything is opinionated. i agree with 77redneck (i think this may be the first time ever) that it’s way too hard to compare athletes from sport to sport.
