Which Sport Has the Fittest Athletes?

The injury rate per 1000 hours of exposure is exceptionally high. I'll find the study.

It's a contact sport with no real padding, plus they are known to exaggerate their injuries. I don't think that makes them unfit.
 
Soccer players are not fit. Not even close. Their injury rates are so damn high. They're frail.

Can we at least agree that Power Lifters are not fit
 
The injury rate per 1000 hours of exposure is exceptionally high. I'll find the study.
This study looking at roughly a five year period (1988-89 to 2003-2004) of college athletes has football at #1 injury prone. Men and women's soccer are both in the top 5 (for both practice and game related injuries). Refer to Figure 5.

It is interesting that soccer, considered a non-contact sport, has a very high rate of concussions ... which may eventually plague the sport like the NFL is currently seeing.
 
I'm not sure if I should dip in, but here goes.

My personal definition of fitness is a balance of strength and endurance. To use some of the frequently used examples in here, Olympic lifters are likely skewed towards strength, marathoners skewed towards endurance. I would view the sport with the "most fit athletes" as the sport than balances both the best. Therefore, I'd hypothesize:

-Boxers/MMA Fighters/Martial Artists
-Swimmers
-Mountain Bikers
-Skiers

Just my thoughts.

Fitness is dependent on the type of sport and what it requires physically. For the most part, trying to compare the fitness of athletes across them is kinda pointless.

"What is physical fitness or what does it mean to be physically fit? To put it in technical defined terms, fitness is a set of characteristics that people need to be able to complete physical activities. Being fit is defined by what type of activity you do, how long you do it, and at what level of intensity you are working."
 
Well of course, less injuries per 1000 hours. By this logic of calculation he is also more fit than Tiger Woods and Lebrom James.

485fd6ea94c72b82f7b90e26048e86f4.jpg
 
This study looking at roughly a five year period (1988-89 to 2003-2004) of college athletes has football at #1 injury prone. Men and women's soccer are both in the top 5 (for both practice and game related injuries). Refer to Figure 5.
There's another recent study. But I do find it a bit funny how they seperated "fall football" and "spring football" and how much higher the injury rates were out of season.

Edit: not new. From 1994. But shows soccer being much more dangerous than almost every other sport, but the study is 22 years old.
 
There's another recent study. But I do find it a bit funny how they seperated "fall football" and "spring football" and how much higher the injury rates were out of season.

Using injuries to define fitness is not a good way to compare.

Example MMA guys are very fit and they get hurt a lot because of the nature of their sport.
 
There's another recent study. But I do find it a bit funny how they seperated "fall football" and "spring football" and how much higher the injury rates were out of season.
They separated it only when recording practice injuries. It makes sense that injury rates are higher out of season, probably because of conditioning issues.
 
This study looking at roughly a five year period (1988-89 to 2003-2004) of college athletes has football at #1 injury prone. Men and women's soccer are both in the top 5 (for both practice and game related injuries). Refer to Figure 5.

So looking at that, basically the contact sports lead to more injuries than the non contact sports? That seems pretty obvious.

So yes I still think soccer players are fit.
 
Fitness is dependent on the type of sport and what it requires physically. For the most part, trying to compare the fitness of athletes across them is kinda pointless.

"What is physical fitness or what does it mean to be physically fit? To put it in technical defined terms, fitness is a set of characteristics that people need to be able to complete physical activities. Being fit is defined by what type of activity you do, how long you do it, and at what level of intensity you are working."

In my opinion, there is a certain definition of physical fitness that refers more to a general level of fitness and balance of aerobic and anaerobic ability across all major muscle groups. The sports I offered up are examples of those that I believe fit that general level of fitness best.

Think of it this way. Athletes in sports who are "generally fit" by my definition would theoretically be able to jump into another sport much easier than those in a more specialized level of fitness. For example: a swimmer would likely be able to perform moderately well at weightlifting or endurance running without much additional training. By contrast, a marathon runner likely would not be able to jump into weightlifting nearly as easily.
 
Can we at least agree that Power Lifters are not fit
Oh most definitely. Powerlifters are circus animals. Most are not fit athletes. There are exceptions, but generally, they are not fit.
 
Using injuries to define fitness is not a good way to compare.

Example MMA guys are very fit and they get hurt a lot because of the nature of their sport.
But MMA fighters don't miss time because of injuries. I would argue that they are actually pretty durable.

My point with the injury talk, endurance doesn't mean anything if durability is also compromised. I'm not saying soccer players are not fit. Just not the most fit, because of durability.

I am also getting more and more set on there being no right answer.


Edit: dangit, I did say soccer players are not fit. That's not right. Words have meaning. They are not the fittest.
 
They separated it only when recording practice injuries. It makes sense that injury rates are higher out of season, probably because of conditioning issues.
Well, spring football is when the S&Cs send kids to the hospital with rhabdo. Like what happened in Oregon recently.
 
But MMA fighters don't miss time because of injuries. I would argue that they are actually pretty durable.

My point with the injury talk, endurance doesn't mean anything if durability is also compromised. I'm not saying soccer players are not fit. Just not the most fit, because of durability.

I am also getting more and more set on there being no right answer.

I will agree there is no right answer. I do wish I was as fit as a pro soccer player though :)
 
In my opinion, there is a certain definition of physical fitness that refers more to a general level of fitness and balance of aerobic and anaerobic ability across all major muscle groups. The sports I offered up are examples of those that I believe fit that general level of fitness best.

Think of it this way. Athletes in sports who are "generally fit" by my definition would theoretically be able to jump into another sport much easier than those in a more specialized level of fitness. For example: a swimmer would likely be able to perform moderately well at weightlifting or endurance running without much additional training. By contrast, a marathon runner likely would not be able to jump into weightlifting nearly as easily.

Good points, and with that I would almost say, although most of the 60 minutes is inactivity, that some of the NFL players are the fittest with the size, strength and speed that is needed for some of the positions especially. The training is pretty intense.
 
gotta back the surprisingly few who have gone with triathletes...

Ironman specifically beastmode fitness.
 
But MMA fighters don't miss time because of injuries. I would argue that they are actually pretty durable.

My point with the injury talk, endurance doesn't mean anything if durability is also compromised. I'm not saying soccer players are not fit. Just not the most fit, because of durability.

I am also getting more and more set on there being no right answer.

But you did say they were not fit.
And MMA fighters ABSOLUTELY miss time because of injury.

EDIT: Saw your edit.
 
Well of course, less injuries per 1000 hours. By this logic of calculation he is also more fit than Tiger Woods and Lebrom James.

485fd6ea94c72b82f7b90e26048e86f4.jpg

This still makes a lot of sense to me.
 
That picture of Daly cracks me up.
 
But you did say they were not fit.
And MMA fighters ABSOLUTELY miss time because of injury.

EDIT: Saw your edit.
You're right. I edited my post aknowledging my mistake.

I stand firmly, just because an athlete can run for a long time does not make them "fit". Weighing 155lb and being able to run a marathon is not fit, to me.
 
You're right. I edited my post aknowledging my mistake.

I stand firmly, just because an athlete can run for a long time does not make them "fit". Weighing 155lb and being able to run a marathon is not fit, to me.

Thats why there is not correct answer, that is fit to me, cardio and heart health are what makes one fit, not mascle mass
 
You're right. I edited my post aknowledging my mistake.

I stand firmly, just because an athlete can run for a long time does not make them "fit". Weighing 155lb and being able to run a marathon is not fit, to me.

Being able to run 26 miles, consecutively, is not a form of being fit?

Why can fitness not encompass more than one form?
 
Thats why there is not correct answer, that is fit to me, cardio and heart health are what makes one fit, not mascle mass
But being able to run a marathon is not an indication of a healthy heart. Heart failure is not uncommon among runners. Just like it's not uncommon among lifters.
 
Being able to run 26 miles, consecutively, is not a form of being fit?

Why can fitness not encompass more than one form?
Yeah. I'm sorry but there isn't a marathon runner I would consider more fit than Mat Fraser (CrossFitter not actor)or even Jesse Norris.
 
Back
Top