ESPN Sport rankings

1) I don't think this panel was per se biased against aquatic sports because look where water polo (11-T) ends up. I betcha an honest evaluation of synchronized swimming using these categories would put it even higher. However, look at the examples used in the "Key" at the bottom of the chart, and you will get a clear picture of what sports measure up for the folks who completed this list. 2) Please note all you sprinters that you are at 45, whereas we distance swimmers are at 36. Here we have it; pseudo-scientific "proof!" It must be true. 3) These charts and tables are great to start bar-stooling debates, but since people get to pick the criteria and use subjective measurements, they don't "prove" a darn thing to any standard that would survive scientific, peer-reviewed scrutiny. Matt

I think the lap swimmers on those Lipitor commercials gave us a bad rap. A fitness swimmer being portrayed by a guy who does advanced dog paddle on national television is down right wrong. I want the 65 year old phenomenon from Indy crankin' out the 100 back in a minute five out there. Back to the topic..... How about a 200 fly with the boxing gloves and ice skates on? Now that's a possible ultimate "Tale of The Tape". By the way did I see that Nerf football outranked swimming too?

Lists are interesting. Swimming suffers in it's ranking because the experts seriously under-rated the flexibility required to excel at the sport and did not include proprioception as one of the ranked skills. Having said all of that would not disagree with boxing as ranked number 1 based on the existing categories.

Originally posted by emmett Badminton, as it is played throughout Asia, is a serious kick-yer-ass sport (as opposed to the "backyard diversion" type play you are most likely to encounter here in the US). A bit like the difference between Ping Pong and Table Tennis. It is EXTREMELY physical, very fast and requires very high levels of skill. Playing it well requires easily as much in preparation (technique, conditioning and experience) as nordic skiing or swimming. There is no question that badminton at the top level is difficult. The same with table tennis. However, I have yet to see a badminton player at any level need to be carried off by medics due to exertion - something I have seen with nordic skiiers and biathletes. One of the things missing from the study is a "pain tolerance" index. Besides, the TRUE scale of comparing sports is the Fenton-Surina-Jansen Scale, A.K.A. the PPD index (Pain/Puke/Death index) Each category gets 10 points (1 min - 10 max). It measures how much you can take before your brain melts and leaks out your ears. ;) Boxing is the champ here as well. -LBJ

ESPN is ridiculous. None of any of thier rankings mean squat. They should have called this a popularity poll. EX. #1 Yes baseballs are hare to hit but come on, if bar leagers can play and compete how hard is it? I live in an area of about 300,000 and lots of beer bellied guys and gals can play ball and a lot of other sports listed b4 swimming. I'm willing to bet most could only dream of doing a 50 free in under 40secs. I know tri-athaletes that can't do this. Let's noy even get into doing low 20's and other times in swimimmig which lots of us do. SWIMMING RULES

I can't see how anyone can rank sports. Each sport is tough in its own way. That is what makes them unique. No you would never see me in a boxing ring, (I think that ranks as the stupidest sport. What do you get out of knocking each other out?) but how many people can I say will also get in the pool and swim more then even 2 laps without complaining it is too hard. I also know a lot about Equestion too (which is ranked pretty low). I personally jump judged at the three day event in Lexingtion and was totally amazed at what I saw. How many people would get up on a horse and be able to stay on as it jumps over fences around six feet high and four feet wide while going at least 25 miles per hour. I know I can't or even have the guts to do it. I just don't think there is any comparing of sports. They all have thier different degrees of skills and dificulties.

Laura, You are right. My apologies. I will refrain from using that word, ...unless it's in the 90 and over group. (The 1:07 now is really impressive!) These two must have been considered speed demons back in their early days of competition. Unless they are late bloomers.:) Speaking of age, swimmers are probably the few athletes on that list who train and compete well into their "middle age" and beyond. I don't recall ever seeing or hearing about masters anything, except maybe golf. Is that because they don't have orginizations like USMS for other sports?

Originally posted by valhallan These two must have been considered speed demons back in their early days of competition. Unless they are late bloomers.:) Yes, you could say that Yoshi had some speed when he was young: he's the 1952 Olympic 100 back champion, and a member of the International Swimming Hall of Fame! I've watched Yoshi swim for years in meets in the Great Lakes Zone, and he never fails to amaze. Plus, he's a genuinely nice man!