Anonymous
Post 02/26/2014 09:44     Subject: STA Scholar-Athlete
Anonymous wrote:... The "rowers are the best athlete" post did make me chuckle, though -- when I was in college the rowers were the big guys who were too uncoordinated to play basketball or football. Maybe they're all hand-eye gods now!

I knew the crew people pretty well ... housemates with one from the varsity boat, and good friends with several others. Top rowers have lots of coordination at specialized motions. In an eight-person boat, all rowers need to be highly synchronized. All the oars need to hit the water at just the right moment, and curl with just the right movement to maximize power and reduce drag. And each rower needs to maintain that perfect form while exhausted. However, I agree with you that many of them are weak at hand-eye coordination in ball games like basketball. I suppose it's because they all spend so much time practicing the other stuff.
Anonymous
Post 02/26/2014 09:38     Subject: STA Scholar-Athlete
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Tons of competition for crew?

growing sport I guess, hopefully the poster will chime in

Yes, tons of competition at crew. The program was top-10, and at least 2-3 rowers from my time ended up at the Olympics. Those guys were pretty amazing athletes. So my impressions may be skewed in that respect. I'm sure other schools with lower ranked rowing programs had fewer top athletes in the boats. And perhaps at a top-10 lacrosse school like Duke or UVA, most of the lacrosse players might be incredible athletes, but a dropoff occurs as your get to lower ranked programs. Nevertheless, as I mentioned above, my college's lacrosse program was a strong one, ranked in the 15-20 range.



My DD, plays several sports, thought she's in shape, after her 1st crew practice last week, she couldn't walk and get out of bed. She said dad, I used muscles I didn't know I had...lol..
Anonymous
Post 02/26/2014 09:34     Subject: STA Scholar-Athlete
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Tons of competition for crew?

growing sport I guess, hopefully the poster will chime in

Yes, tons of competition at crew. The program was top-10, and at least 2-3 rowers from my time ended up at the Olympics. Those guys were pretty amazing athletes. So my impressions may be skewed in that respect. I'm sure other schools with lower ranked rowing programs had fewer top athletes in the boats. And perhaps at a top-10 lacrosse school like Duke or UVA, most of the lacrosse players might be incredible athletes, but a dropoff occurs as your get to lower ranked programs. Nevertheless, as I mentioned above, my college's lacrosse program was a strong one, ranked in the 15-20 range.
Anonymous
Post 02/26/2014 08:09     Subject: STA Scholar-Athlete
There is increased competition for crew in the sense that college crew coaches are recruiting from abroad now -- in some cases, foreign rowers (often national team members, etc. -- already in their 20s) make up a majority of the upper level rosters (e.g. the first boat).

Maybe that's what the poster meant? Because there is still not a big pool of experienced U.S. high school rowers to draw on when compared to sports like soccer, baseball, basketball and even lacrosse.

The "rowers are the best athlete" post did make me chuckle, though -- when I was in college the rowers were the big guys who were too uncoordinated to play basketball or football. Maybe they're all hand-eye gods now!
Anonymous
Post 02/25/2014 22:37     Subject: STA Scholar-Athlete
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:When I was in college, I was part of the athlete crowd, so I had a pretty good sense of who could do what (even though I'm admittedly only a pretty middling athlete myself). My experience was that the men's sports with the best overall athletes were basketball, crew, football (including not only the glory positions but also the line and the special teams units), soccer, and swimming. The men who made those teams were uniformly excellent athletes. The lacrosse, baseball, and hockey players (along with other sports like rugby) were mostly filled with middling athletes like me. Each of those non-core sports would have a handful of excellent athletes, on par with the other core sports, but those top athletes really stood out as exceptions on the non-core team.

I think a lot of this had to do with the fact that making these teams as a recruited athlete (or even as a walk-on) meant fighting thru lots of competition, so the ones who made the teams were uniformly good athletes. My theory is that the core sports (crew, football, basketball, soccer, swimming) have tons of competition, so only the very best athletes made those teams. For non-core sports, like lacrosse or hockey, there was less competition, so many of the ones who made the teams were good-not-great athletes.

Admittedly, my college had particularly strong crew, basketball, and swimming programs, so that probably skewed my perception. For example, at another college with a weak crew program, the crew team might be only middling athletes. However, my college did have strong lacrosse and hockey programs (not Duke/Princeton level, but still top 20), so I was a little surprised to discover most of the lacrosse players were not any better athletes than I am.

I'm definitely not suggesting lacrosse players are poor athletes. (I sure don't want DCUM's "lacrosse mafia" flaming me!) To be clear, for all these sports, the men who made the teams were all good athletes. But I did sense a distinct difference between the core and non-core sports. In short, even as a middling athlete, I could hang with just about anyone on the non-core teams when we played pickup games. But when players from the core sports joined our game (or the top athletes from the non-core sports), I'd get smoked unless it was a sport I was strong at.

Just my 2 cents.


Tons of competition for crew?
growing sport I guess, hopefully the poster will chime in
Anonymous
Post 02/25/2014 11:45     Subject: STA Scholar-Athlete
Anonymous wrote:When I was in college, I was part of the athlete crowd, so I had a pretty good sense of who could do what (even though I'm admittedly only a pretty middling athlete myself). My experience was that the men's sports with the best overall athletes were basketball, crew, football (including not only the glory positions but also the line and the special teams units), soccer, and swimming. The men who made those teams were uniformly excellent athletes. The lacrosse, baseball, and hockey players (along with other sports like rugby) were mostly filled with middling athletes like me. Each of those non-core sports would have a handful of excellent athletes, on par with the other core sports, but those top athletes really stood out as exceptions on the non-core team.

I think a lot of this had to do with the fact that making these teams as a recruited athlete (or even as a walk-on) meant fighting thru lots of competition, so the ones who made the teams were uniformly good athletes. My theory is that the core sports (crew, football, basketball, soccer, swimming) have tons of competition, so only the very best athletes made those teams. For non-core sports, like lacrosse or hockey, there was less competition, so many of the ones who made the teams were good-not-great athletes.

Admittedly, my college had particularly strong crew, basketball, and swimming programs, so that probably skewed my perception. For example, at another college with a weak crew program, the crew team might be only middling athletes. However, my college did have strong lacrosse and hockey programs (not Duke/Princeton level, but still top 20), so I was a little surprised to discover most of the lacrosse players were not any better athletes than I am.

I'm definitely not suggesting lacrosse players are poor athletes. (I sure don't want DCUM's "lacrosse mafia" flaming me!) To be clear, for all these sports, the men who made the teams were all good athletes. But I did sense a distinct difference between the core and non-core sports. In short, even as a middling athlete, I could hang with just about anyone on the non-core teams when we played pickup games. But when players from the core sports joined our game (or the top athletes from the non-core sports), I'd get smoked unless it was a sport I was strong at.

Just my 2 cents.


Tons of competition for crew?
Anonymous
Post 02/25/2014 11:21     Subject: Re:STA Scholar-Athlete
Anonymous wrote:
You clearly know zero about athletics. Punters today are much better athletes than they were a few years ago. It's not some skinny dude who happens to have a strong leg. These guys are often very good athletes as well.

Stick to talking about violin lessons.


You're quite right. I did not play professional sports but as a high school varsity letterman (12 in toral) in 3 sports (captain of one) and a collegiate athlete I know a little something about sports and the numerous punters I have encountered then and now. As a rule, punters do not define what we mean by athleticism.

I can not comment on the violin but I can comment on the piano.


What about you? Are you an athlete? Or are you just some fat, middle-aged guy who loves to reminisce about the glory days of high school football?