posted
my brother and one of our friends were in a very heated debate the other day about which sports require intelligence from their athletes - our friend was arguing that football players are the smartest athletes around; my bro and i vehemently disagreed. my brother argued for baseball, though i'm not so sure about that. we all agreed basketball players were none to bright. we also agreed that, while T+F athletes tend to be very smart, the sport requires little to no intelligence on the part of the athlete. so i come before hatrack with this question - which sport demands the most intelligence out of its athletes?
Posts: 348 | Registered: Dec 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd say it depends on what you call a "sport." I've seen billards, chess, poker, and even golf on various espn channels Posts: 3636 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
And I say it depends on what you mean by intelligence. To me, an athlete has what I think of as embedded intelligence. They have a natural, applied sense of angles, speed, and precision. They are math in motion.
I think of Larry Bird. When I watched him play, I was in awe of his brain as much as by what his body could do. When I heard him speak, I didn't think he was all that bright.
Posts: 10890 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
hm... good point. to narrow it, since we were mostly focusing on the "big" sports, aka baseball, football, basketball, hockey, soccer, tennis, track, etc
Posts: 348 | Registered: Dec 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I tend to claim baseball, largely because the best hitters, AND the best pitchers, have largely been men who had an extremely keen analytical and psychological mind, capable of understanding to a deep level the game between pitcher and hitter, and applying situational variables rapidly to the situation they find themselves in, and making adjustments on a second to second basis based off of knowledge of their own performance for each individual event that could occur.
Ted Williams is a great example. THe man wrote a book called "The science of hitting," and thats exactly what he lays out. Barry Bonds is the same way. Scientific method as applied to sport.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
But how not Larry Bird's little backhanded passes, when he knows where and when every other player is without even looking, not the same?
Posts: 10890 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not in my mind. I think Larry Bird was extremely BASKETBALL intelligent... but I don't think it had anything to do with analytic ability, nor a keen understanding of the human mind, but rather an extraordinary kinesthetic sense and situational awareness.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, let me preface, Paul, by saying that a Red Sox fan needs to say these things about Ted Williams, I understand that, especially after last night.
But for one second, imagine a baseball game taking place at the same speed as basketball. Would Ted be able to keep up the pace?
Posts: 10890 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I know baseball is sometimes referred to as the "thinking man's sport." Does that imply that players in other sports don't think? I prefer to think they don't have as much time to think as baseball players do. They rely on their instincts (ie subconscious thought).
Posts: 107 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, but baseball and basketball require different athletic SKILLS. I do not consider the ability to run fast, or jump high, or change bodily positions rapidly, to be indicative of intelligence.
Turn that around. The greatest basketball player of all time attempted to play baseball... and failed miserably. Ted Williams would have failed miserably at basketball (although he also excelled at flying fighter jets, and fly fishing).
Baseball and basketball mostly require physical skill sets. To excel at baseball requires a keen analytic mind. I cannot say the same thing about basketball, and that was the question my brother is asking.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wait a minute. Paercival is your BROTHER? I am so out of it.
And Paul, I was thinking more of Ted playing high-speed baseball, not basketball. Could he make those hitting decisions if he had to make one hit right after the other?
Posts: 10890 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, I think he could. Though, it hardly matters. Thinking analytically is a slower process then muscle memory, which is not intelligence.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
there is actually a lot of strategy involved in tennis. I am sure that would require you to have something going on in the grey matter.
Posts: 1901 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hmm... It really depends. Baseball is the most skill dependent game out there, I think. More than anything else. Basketball is skill, intelligence, and physicality combined to various degrees... Two or one might opt out the rest. Football is the most strategic game. Memorizing all those plays and seeing what the defense is doing and having to react and having to choose when, I think that, of the big 3, is the most "intelligent."
Posts: 2258 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know about the intelligence of the players, but cricket demands the most intelligence of its spectators.
Posts: 2655 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The problem with this question is that I believe even in a sport where the "mental" game is as important as the "physical" game, that still doesn't necessitate "intelligence". Intelligence is not the same as precision, and ability to see the field(court), or be strategic(especially when the strategy is a learned do A when B, C when D, E when A and D, etc..) Sports like running or biking where i think the mental game is very important to the competition, I still wouldn't say the athletes are any more intelligent than other athletes. Or atleast they don't have to be. Maybe all that free time to just think helps them become more intelligent. Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Going back to what skillery said, I've heard that Cricket requires a decent amount of intelligence. This is why the games take so long--it takes the players a while to figure out the best thing to do. But then, I've never played cricket, so I really don't know.
I find football really interesting to watch because it requires great intelligence from the coach. At a far greater level than baseball or basketball, there are key decisions that must be made that usually involve great opportunity cost and difficult coordination. The quarterback also has to be pretty sharp, since he gets to call the plays and must make on the spot adjustments as necessary. So to a limited extent, the quarterback has to understand what the coach has in mind and be able to implement it in a dynamic environment.
I suppose that it's possible to be dumb and yet good at golf, but most of the best golfers in the world have a detailed knowledge of every factor that affects their game. If you don't believe me, read any one of the dozens of books written by professional golfers. They all have considerable natural ability, but they all amplify it with focused personal training and a close study of the mechanics of their swing.
Posts: 224 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not sure if it's a demand on the athlete or if it's something about the type that gets attracted to the sport, but I've always found swimmers to be (on average) a very intelligent bunch.
Posts: 609 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
baseball-- Object of the game--hit a ball thrown at you at 100mph before said projectile hits you first. Not smart way to spend the day.
football--where several 300lb men in armor have the sole objective of leaving you immobile on the ground. Very-not smart.
hockey--all your opponents have razor sharp blades on their feet and long wooden sticks at their disposal. At best they are shooting a rock hard plastic projectile across the ice at incredible speeds. Goal of the game, thump you before they can get a puck into a goal. Not smart.
basketball, soccer, tennis, track all seem to be better choices for intelligence, cause you gotta be down right stupid to try the other stuff.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
You probably didn't expect much support, kwsni, but here it is
Equestrian sports require a lot of intelligence, both in dressage and show jumping. Of course you need a good horse, but you also need to make a good strategy, to be able to change it when needed, to calculate the impact of your opponents' performance, and to respond to sudden challenges.
I'm really not claiming they are the most intelligent, but I have a hard time seeing baseball players as the brightest. It's mostly played by Americans, so it should not enter into the competion. We should be looking for performers in an international sport.
Posts: 99 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know. All I can say is that I've gotten into some quite interesting, intelligent, and deep discussions in pool halls. And I'm talking politics, religion, and philosophy here, not "Who is going to win the Super Bowl" type discussions.
Posts: 2454 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I enjoy rowing quite a bit. For me it raises the question of whether you need to be smart to be good at a sport, or whether being good at a sport makes you smarter.
I find being out on still water moving in rhythm with another person very zen-like.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I refuse to think of things like Pool and Poker as sports. If you don't get any physical benefits from playing, it's not a sport. Bowling is questionable.
What I want to know is why ESPN will play poker ALL the time, but doesn't show anything horse related but the Triple Crown. Thoroughbred racing isn't even exciting!
posted
I've seen the occasional horse event (of varying type) on ESPN or NBC or some other network. I've only ever seen biking on an actual network when it was a one hour segment once a week last year during the Tour de France on NBC. That's not coverage!
[EDIT: despite what you may think, I'm actually griping with you Becky ]
posted
Becky, I would imagine it has a lot to do with their expectations of how many people would watch a televised equestrian event as compared to how many people would watch a televised poker event.
Posts: 4534 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
you're probly right, saxy, but dammit, Horses ARE more exciting than poker! at least there's the danger of getting hurt.
Hobbes, I've only ever seen the Triple Crown on ESPN. Animal planet sometimes plays show jumping at 4 or 5 in the morning, and USA for some reason was playing the Rolex, which is Dressage, Show Jumping and Cross Country.
quote:I refuse to think of things like Pool and Poker as sports. If you don't get any physical benefits from playing, it's not a sport. Bowling is questionable
I'm not sure what you would consider a "physical benefit". However, I can tell you that for the year and a half or so that I shot pool every day, or nearly so, my arthritic knees - which make it very difficult for me to do much conventional exercise - were much more flexible and less painful than before or after that period of time. For me, that was a significant physical benefit. Unfortunately, I cannot afford to go out to shoot pool right now.
Posts: 2454 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I saw some of the Olympic coverage of the Equestrian events in 2000, like actually quite a bit of Dressage, and some three day, not much show jumping.
I will agree that Dressage requires more thinking than many sports because you are working with a horse that weighs more than a thousand pounds (assuming that is correct, the arab I ride weighs 750) not a ball.
I would say that sports where the induvidual is competing require a higher intelligence than most team sports but I could be wrong.
Posts: 5362 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
That's not coverage!![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
]
