[Closed] What type of althete/sportsperson is the "fittest"?

Gymnast

Biathlon

Climber?

Judo - though that tends to be a lot of power and relatively short bursts. Going by Superstars though.. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Jacks

I read *somewhere* that cross country skiing was just about the hardest competative sport, stick a gun on your back & I'd say biathletes must be up there.

Climber?

Oddly, F1 drivers are incredibly fit.

runners, triathletes

MTBers. Middle aged fat ones.

If I was the same weight as Froome I'm murder him up hills, it's just the timber. Honest.

American football wide receiver or running back.

Gymnasts for body development and strength/power to weight

Cross country skiers or cyclists for endurance stuff

Weight lifters for sheer power

Boxers fighters martial artists for overall "superstar" type fitness- ie good power good stamina good muscle development etc

400m runner.

Rowers must be in contention as well.

Junkyard - that's the type of thing we had in mind.

Polevaulter

Mud wrestlers

Middle aged weekend cyclist on a Santa Cruz?

It's fittest not fattest howsyourdad1

Mountain runner for lower body at least.

Biathlon.

MX/supercross riders must be well up there too

Probably all competitive fitness/power sports are pretty much equivalent, the participants will train to optimise the particular balance of endurance/power/speed/whatever for that sport, and get very close to the limits of (current) human ability. Eg rowers produce a huge amount of power for 6 mins, sprinters for 10 secs, cyclists for an hour or more at a time. Not much point trying to claim one is "fitter" than the other, any more than you would call a mathematician "cleverer" than a historian (or vice versa).

Most top level sports that require the participants to be physically fit will produce athletes that are in the top percentage of the poulation.

As long as the sport concerned doesn't require specific areas of fitness then it is probably down to what technology and performance tools are available to define the body down to the nth degree.

And that requires pennies - lots of them, so I reckon F1 drivers are a good shout for the fittest overall sportsperson (Taking body composition and all round strength physically and mentally)

When they enter other endurance based sports they generally do quite well.

Given the choice though, I'd much prefer the body of a male gymnast over a racing driver. 😉

Boxing, by a long way.
Then, top level road cycling.

Ballet dancer.

I think it's daft to try to compare sports, or you end up with the nonsense that's triathlon or MMA.

I think to compete at any recognisable level at any sport you need to be pretty bloody good.

Female beach volleyball players all seem pretty fit

Darts or snooker player obvs

Aren't F1 drivers super fit too? Or am I making that up?

ISTR back in the 90's that motocross enduro type dudes were the fittest when measured against other sports.

The guys who do Paris Dakar on bikes must be pretty nails if you think about it - 8-9 hours per day isn't it?

Depends how you measure fitness.

Well James Tosesland smoked the others in last man standing.
WSB world champion and mentally and physically super fit.

i seem to remember that rugby players did pretty well at superstars too, but depends how fitness is measured. Daley Thompson had explosive fitness but hated the 1500 meters.

I have no idea but I watched a documentary on the cross fit world championships (had no idea there was such a thing beforehand) and they seem rather fit!

Kinda hard to define 'fittest' but for me it needs a prolonged endurance component, and both upper and lower body components.
That pretty much narrows it down to XC skiers and rugby players. The skiers get my vote.

Top squash players - there was a study a few years ago & they consistently came out near the top.

Can't remember what the basis or parameters were however.

Footballers must be up there

Got to be darts or snooker players.
They go at it for hours.

F1 drivers more so if you include mental fitness as well as physical. Operating a laptop, driving a car at high speed while under large g forces.

Oddly, F1 drivers are incredibly fit.

I went go karting once, my whole core was in tatters for a few days after from the cornering forces. 60+ laps at their speeds needs some amount of fitness.

Laird.

[img] [/img]

Sounds like you could come up with a TV show to find out.

Rugby league players
Boxers though cage fighters sorry MMA may have overtaken due to more flexibility
Crossfit folk...r froome

It's been said, but I'd say biathletes/xc skiers have to be up there: They do both endurance and sprint events, and biathletes have to include stopping to shoot, which requires concentration, breathing control etc. They also have to have strong upper bodies, as well immensely powerful legs

Quite a lot here on this:

http://www.topendsports.com/world/lists/fittest-sport/espn.htm

http://www.topendsports.com/world/lists/fittest-sport/competition-results.htm

Fighters..

Literally just been done 5thelephant.
Netflix - Fittest on Earth

I would have thought pro road cyclists, rowers and biathletes. Sports like tennis and football slightly different as there is rest involved in play.

Some boxers have it all and are supreme physical specimens in every sense. It's not necessarily a requirement though - you can be a world class fighter with only average stamina [relative to the elite athlete level we're talking about], if you have other strenghts to compensate.

Whereas to be the slowest guy at the TdF you still need alien levels of endurance.

Boxing, by a long way.

AFL players. they're massive and sprint around a cricket pitch for what feels like hours.

honestly, it never ends.

In terms of CV fitness, it would probably be XC skiers / biathletes as they engage more muscle groups -the highest recorded VO2 max figures have been from XC skiers.

Strength and fitness? Freeclimbers have the strength and flexibility of gymnasts but need to keep going for bit longer.

Don't Biathletes spend most of the race in oxygen debt?
Also quite frequently racing at above sea level.
Also some of those ultra marathon types are pretty fit.
And those alpine ski tour racers are up there.

Hard to compete with the TDF lot though as they are at it for weeks..

Not convinced about F1. When Mark Webber did mountain mayhem he was ok but not amazing.

I don't think you can say anyone sport

One interesting take on this that I read goes back to evolution. Training the human body to excel at feats of power/strength is not very useful in an evolutionary sense. Even a house cat could beat Bolt to 100m, never mind a sabre toothed tiger.

No, the real power of humans is in their endurance. Over 10, 20, 30 miles there's nothing else in the animal world that can keep up with a fast human. Taking that argument to its logical conclusion, the 'best human' might be an ultra marathon runner.

So my suggestion would be Kilian Jornet Burgada. Dressed in shorts and T-shirt, carrying half a litre of water, a single energy gel and an extra base layer, he ran up and down Mont Blanc in under 5 hours. Amazing endurance. There are all kinds of other crazy achievements. The best athlete (you've never heard of).

Olympic decathlete/heptathlete must be in with a shout. Good mix of abilities and a decent level of world class competition.
[img] [/img]
[img] [/img]

Over 10, 20, 30 miles there's nothing else in the animal world that can keep up with a fast human. T

Apart from the African hunting dogs

Or horses

Or....

Apart from the African hunting dogs

Or horses

Or....

Perhaps 10-30miles is wrong. Maybe the distances need to be longer E.g. 70-80 miles.

Would have thought that mental exhaustion has to contribute somewhere. Being able to concentrate and take control of your mind and body while in an exhaustive state is tough. i.e. biathletes calming their breathing to take a shot etc.

Biathletes, without a doubt. Not just in leg strength like cyclists but in arms and shoulders and cardio-vascular as well as much of their sport is at altitude.

I have no idea but I watched a documentary on the cross fit world championships (had no idea there was such a thing beforehand) and they seem rather fit!

Until you watch them do any kind of aerobic sport, and you realise how slow they are. As with any sport their fitness is optimised for that sport.

Anyway, my vote would probably go to long distance swimmers.

F1 drivers are surely just wanna be fighter pilots who are scared of heights

Motorbike racers seem to do pretty well.

Look at Guy MArtin for example and then Cal Crutchlow who regularly trains with Cav and Cav states would make a proper level of cycling etc.

The MX guys are always thought of as being exceptionally fit.

But of course it depends how we're comparing it all.

I think the fact that patently there is no answer to this question is a testament to what amazingly adaptable animals humans are. And that's before taking into account the mental faculties to be able to apply it to a myriad of circumstances.

I would have though rugby players would do pretty well - some of the modern players cover an awful lot of ground plus put in some big tackles etc. The All Blacks after 80 mins still look incredibly sharp and can turn defense into attack pretty damn quickly.

Modern F1 drivers are pretty damn fit too.

Tennis players always amaze me - Murray after five sets still looks pretty lively.

But I agree that it's hard to compare sports these days mainly because modern sports training is very specific.

On F1 drivers, Button did triathlons bur want winning so must put triathletes above them (simply speaking)

Middle aged mountain bikers.

Otherwise triathletes, the ones I know are crazy fit and have a crazy fitness level and competitive edge that filters down even to the amateur level

It was lance armstrong.
But right now it is probably a Russian

Interesting thread.

As others have said, any top athlete has optimised their training for their particular sport, often at the detriment of other abilities.

As somebody who is not gifted or wanting to specialise too much, I've always liked the idea of being fit and capable enough to be able to turn my hand to 'most' things.

To me, a good boxer/wrestler/MMA fighter, biathletes, some armed forces (eg. Paras, Marines, some Special Forces), some rugby players, have a good blend of useful 'fitness' aspects, physical and mental.

One idea that has been floating around is "Natural Movement" that, amongst other things, suggests natural physical abilities that all humans should aim for as the basis of health, fitness and "usefulness" or "helpfulness" in all kinds of situations.

[url= http://www.7sec.co.za/7-fitness-challenges-to-complete-are-you-strong-enough-to-be-helpful/ ]7 Fitness Challenges: Be strong to be helpful[/url]

Left field options. Strong men, skateboarders and surfers. Watched something on the Extreme channel years ago where they ran various tests on big wave riders and half pipe skaters. Even the guys that took part were surprised by how fit they were.

I quite like those 7 fitness to be helpful challenges Aristotle, but I think they are too land based. There should be some water based challenges.

I've really enjoyed getting back into running recently, despite a slight niggle (probably too much too soon due to being off my bike against my will for a bit), the natural movement aspect of it is nice, I'm definitely going to endeavour to keep it up.

Humans will beat horses over a long enough distance, particularly if the terrain is rugged and/or hilly.

Sceptical of that - there's horses, and there's horses. We only know about racehorses, the horse equivalent of a 1500m runner. There are some big stories about long distance horses in the Wild West.

The world's best cyclists might have a VO2 max of 90ml/kg, a typical horse has 180ml/kg and sled huskies have 240ml/kg.

Anyway the debate about athletes is pointless. You can't possibly compare athletes across all sports. You might as well go to the doctor's and ask what the best drug is. All the studies that try to compare them can't help but have a bias towards one thing or another.

As for American Football players - run for 10 seconds, have 5 minutes rest, repeat four times, then have 20 minutes rest. Right.

There are some big stories about long distance horses in the Wild West.

*pulls up chair*

Go on...

I would define fitness as a relative measure of how close an athlete is to their optimum performance for a specific objective. By definition it's an individual measurement and can't be used to compare one sport against another (or tell you anything about absolute performances of different athletes within the same sport).

If you optimise your training, preparation, mental performance, etc and get as close as you can to your best possible performance for a specific goal, you are fit, regardless of what sport you are competing in.

philjunior - Member
I quite like those 7 fitness to be helpful challenges Aristotle, but I think they are too land based. There should be some water based challenges.

The "Natural Movement" or [url= https://www.movnat.com/ ]MovNat[/url] does include swimming and is a more recent revival of the original [url= http://methodenaturelle.de/en/ ]"Method Naturelle"[/url], envisaged by a French Navy officer, [url= https://www.movnat.com/the-roots-of-methode-naturelle/ ]Georges Hébert[/url], who was inspired by seeing people who could not swim very well whilst trying to escape a volcano eruption.

Chris Froome, he can both ride and run quicker up a mountain than anyone else I can think of...

If you factor in all the different factors of fitness in you'll struggle to beat a top tier cross fitter or MMA fighter.

mogrim - Member
I have no idea but I watched a documentary on the cross fit world championships (had no idea there was such a thing beforehand) and they seem rather fit!
Until you watch them do any kind of aerobic sport, and you realise how slow they are. As with any sport their fitness is optimised for that sport.

Anyway, my vote would probably go to long distance swimmers.

Suggest you go and watch the documentary Mogrim.
Sprints fast enough to put them in top flight races, 6 minute mile pace on the distance stuff, 400mt up vertical stairs and back down and then forcing heavy and explosive movements on top.
Then repeating the above for several sets.
Slow is one thing they are not.

Can't compare due to huge differences.

hammyuk - Member
Suggest you go and watch the documentary Mogrim.
Sprints fast enough to put them in top flight races, 6 minute mile pace on the distance stuff, 400mt up vertical stairs and back down and then forcing heavy and explosive movements on top.
Then repeating the above for several sets.
Slow is one thing they are not.

I think I'll look this up on Netflix, sounds interesting.

"Crossfit" as a sport in its own right is an interesting concept. I tend to think of that sort of training as preparation/conditioning for other activities or normal/abnormal life.

6 minute mile pace on the distance stuff