This post could not be converted. To view the original post's thread, click here.

i think you can definitely have great athleticism and virtually no speed - some examples come to mind

Offensive Tackles that arent stiff, fat pieces of crap

Volleyball players like Karch Kiraly, hell Wilt Chamberlain (wasnt the fastest guy)

i would bet Roger Federer has little speed, and he is a great athlete

The best SGs and SFs (and point guards for that matter) in HD have great ath ratings.

This post could not be converted. To view the original post's thread, click here.

Great question, Rails. I think in basketball terms, athleticism can be reasonably simplified into speed, agility and strength. Unfortunately, HD combines agility and strength into ATH, leading to that attribute being the same, whether you're Rasheed Wallace (more agile than strong) or Shaq (more strong than agile), (although both are both relatively agile and strong). Two very different types of athleticism in RL, but very similar in HD.

Actually, I think Wilt was pretty fast:



As he did at Overbrook, Chamberlain again showcased his diverse athletic talent. He ran the 100-yard dash in 10.9 seconds, threw the shotput 56 feet, triple jumped more than 50 feet, and won the high jump in the Big Eight track and field championships three straight years.

Rails, one area you out, and which I believe Tarek had mentioned in the past, but I thought HD's term of athletisicm included strength, and can be included in the broad real life definition of athleticism.

I think of a kid like Aaron Grey at Pitt and whereever he's at now in the NBA. He was never a great "pure athlete" nor super quick, but he was a bull.

Additionally, I don't think any 1 particular sport would settle the debate over who's the best athlete. So many different sports require different aspects to compete at the top level. A athlete in Golf uses much different skills than a top tennis play, which both use different skills than a top football player, which is different than a 100 meter champion, etc...

At first blush, I agree that the top SG or SF in the NBA would be amongst the greatest athletes, but then thinking more, I wonder if a top LT in football wouldn't fall under the same lines, but add in more strength into the occasion. Both have to use a relative amount of speed to get from A to B, both need great flexability, great change of direction skills, hand-eye coordination, etc.... It would be great to see a "battle of the stars" type event that the athletes were there to truely win the prize, rather than get some TV time and have fun. Test 'em in straight line speed in a 200, some sort of jumping skill, some sort of lateral quickness, strength testing, endurance, hand-eye coordination, etc..

Quote: Originally Posted By taz21 on 10/29/2009
Rails, one area you out, and which I believe Tarek had mentioned in the past, but I thought HD's term of athletisicm included strength, and can be included in the broad real life definition of athleticism.

I think of a kid like Aaron Grey at Pitt and whereever he's at now in the NBA. He was never a great "pure athlete" nor super quick, but he was a bull.

Additionally, I don't think any 1 particular sport would settle the debate over who's the best athlete. So many different sports require different aspects to compete at the top level. A athlete in Golf uses much different skills than a top tennis play, which both use different skills than a top football player, which is different than a 100 meter champion, etc...

At first blush, I agree that the top SG or SF in the NBA would be amongst the greatest athletes, but then thinking more, I wonder if a top LT in football wouldn't fall under the same lines, but add in more strength into the occasion. Both have to use a relative amount of speed to get from A to B, both need great flexability, great change of direction skills, hand-eye coordination, etc.... It would be great to see a "battle of the stars" type event that the athletes were there to truely win the prize, rather than get some TV time and have fun. Test 'em in straight line speed in a 200, some sort of jumping skill, some sort of lateral quickness, strength testing, endurance, hand-eye coordination, etc..

Or Adrian Peterson? That kid is ungodly.

I typically think of ATH as quickness/explosiveness. In basketball I think of the skills need to cross a defender to penetrate the lane as well as the explosiveness needed to finish at the rim. I know it is a very simplistic way to think of it, but that seems to fit with how Ath would relate to basketball.

Take a guy who has great rebounding instinct but doesn't have a great deal of explosiveness to go up for the ball and put him against someone who doesn't anticipate the rebound as well but can out jump the other guy and you have a pretty good example of a Low Ath/Hi RB player vs. a Hi Ath/ Low Reb player.

yeah, Wilt wasn't just fast, he was a track star

Quote: Originally Posted By jskenner on 10/29/2009Great question, Rails. I think in basketball terms, athleticism can be reasonably simplified into speed, agility and strength. Unfortunately, HD combines agility and strength into ATH, leading to that attribute being the same, whether you're Rasheed Wallace (more agile than strong) or Shaq (more strong than agile), (although both are both relatively agile and strong). Two very different types of athleticism in RL, but very similar in HD

I think explosiveness is a big part as well.

I think of strength as really being separate from athleticism, although I know the developers have said that in HD, strength is part of athleticism.

Not to be argumentative, but in my mind, if there are 2 identical players, except one is stronger than the other, he is more athletic to me. I think this is what HD has attempted to do. But they made a mistake IMO in combining agility, explosiveness (which I agree is a key component) and strength into ATH.

Quote: Originally Posted By taz21 on 10/29/2009
Rails, one area you out, and which I believe Tarek had mentioned in the past, but I thought HD's term of athletisicm included strength, and can be included in the broad real life definition of athleticism.

I think of a kid like Aaron Grey at Pitt and whereever he's at now in the NBA. He was never a great "pure athlete" nor super quick, but he was a bull.

Additionally, I don't think any 1 particular sport would settle the debate over who's the best athlete. So many different sports require different aspects to compete at the top level. A athlete in Golf uses much different skills than a top tennis play, which both use different skills than a top football player, which is different than a 100 meter champion, etc...

At first blush, I agree that the top SG or SF in the NBA would be amongst the greatest athletes, but then thinking more, I wonder if a top LT in football wouldn't fall under the same lines, but add in more strength into the occasion. Both have to use a relative amount of speed to get from A to B, both need great flexability, great change of direction skills, hand-eye coordination, etc.... It would be great to see a "battle of the stars" type event that the athletes were there to truely win the prize, rather than get some TV time and have fun. Test 'em in straight line speed in a 200, some sort of jumping skill, some sort of lateral quickness, strength testing, endurance, hand-eye coordination, etc..

Taz, there use to be one long ago... and Hershal dominated it every time he was in it.

There wasn't any sport he couldn't do and do well.... lucky for him there wasn't a spelling bee in the event.

nice, mizzou.

js, I just think strength and athleticism are totally separate and different. There are lots of people who are really, really strong who have little-to-no athleticism.

Not to be argumentative ...

So daalter, to continue our argument, er, discussion a bit further, you would consider 2 players, the same in every attribute except strength, to be identical in athleticism?

Regardless, I think we agree that strength should be a separate rating in a perfect HD world, along with agility, quickness, speed, etc.