What sport/game does a joe vs pro stand the best chance?

mfin

lostboysaint wrote:

You've not watched Sumo have you?!

What's Sumo?

Wheelspinner

lostboysaint wrote:

You do realise that most pros retain a handicap for their home course and that the average on the US PGA is a fraction under +6 don't you!

Yes, and I've played a couple rounds with one at my old club who held a US tour card at the time. His mark was +5 at home. So what? He has good days and bad days just like us hackers.

I also used to play a fair bit with a Canadian bloke out here who'd tried and failed to keep his playing card on the pro circuit. He was astonishing to watch hit the ball, with an ability to hit shots I could only dream of. But, at the end of the round you add up the numbers on the card, not look at pictures of what you did, and he was not consistently good enough to make a living at it, mainly due to putting misses. I took him and another visitor one day out to a lovely coastal course one day when there was a fair old sea breeze up. On a windy day on a course he'd never seen before he still shot 2 under. The winning score in the comp that day for the members was 31 points - it was a tough day to play. He made it look soooooo easy.

There were about a dozen (amateur) guys in my club at +1 or better. Lowest at the time I played a lot was +3 and his personal best round the home track was 7 under. That PGA professional had a share of our course record at 9 under, (set by a certain Nicklaus, J in an Australian Open held at the club in the 70s.)

I'm not suggesting pros won't win 99% of the time against any decent amateur - that's why they're professional. But there's plenty of guys who on any given day can match it with them. They just won't do it every day.

First.Aspect

Subbuteo.

mouth

TimothyW wrote:

As previously posted though, it's the sort of thing where you would depend on a large luck factor in the outcome of the contest to truly get the situation of amateurs beating pros - perhaps the miracle on ice is the most well known example of this actually happening, with the american amateurs beating the soviet team of full time 'amateurs' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_on_Ice

I suppose you could argue whether the soviet team was up to the level of NHL pros at the time - certainly it was a very big upset!

No. While the Russians were barely 'amateur' - all Army officers who were seconded into the sports programme and played hockey full time, the US team was also made up of a bunch of college kids playing hockey on scholarships, and for all intents and purposes were also basically full time hockey players. I'm not saying I would have expected them to win, but Brooks took a different approach.

Were the Soviets better than the NHL? Over a few games, yes probably. They were a specialist tournament team, usually winning a set of 8 or 10 games over a short space of time. Were they to enter the NHL - at the time (and also still is) the best league in the world, they'd have never coped with the arduous travelling schedule and maintain their form playing 80+games in the season.

Many argue that Tretiak was the one of the greatest, but he'd have floundered in the Show.

napoleond

I saw a documentary where a team was assembled from rank amateurs who trained hard together and because of the team spirit they developed on the way they really did work synergistically better than the sum of their parts, winning the world championship. It was very close but they won! It was really good to see, especially as some of the team members on the pro team were particularly odious. Not sure what the documentary was called, I think it was ‘dodge the ball’ or something.

timothyw

I see what you did there....

It is a question though, presumably a good amateur team would have a better chance against a bunch of pros that have never played as a team before?

Certainly seems to happen often enough that a team brings in a new player or two and struggles to gel.

darkhairedlord

mfin wrote:

Earlier on TV saw some of the Rugby League teams arriving for whatever they are competing in. I noted the Welsh team running out kitted up. What I don't understand is a bunch of them are fat f***s, I don't mean massively fat, but plain they they have a gut on them. I assume these are best of the best too, being in a national team.

So, is it that it is simply advantageous to be fat because it means you're heavier? It must me this, because I can't believe a national team would be full of players who have no selfrecockingspect.

If it is advantageous to be fat so that you can be heavier it is no wonder that drugs in rugby are so prevalent, making it easier for them to run carrying around that lard.

American Football must be the same, because you get fat people playing that too.


I've no problem with fat people by the way, none at all, it's just odd that in some sports you can be clearly fat and still be one of the best out there. These sports simply have to be the easiest to be competitive at for non pros, particularly as they are team games and skill levels are not ridiculously high.

*Note, this wasn't just a Welsh thing, there were other teams but they were the ones I glimpsed on the TV.

They got beat.

proto

Coopster the 1st wrote:

Rowing seems to be another sport where you can select a male or female based on their physique and they can become a top level athlete in a relatively short time period if they meet a certain criteria. I'm thinking of double Olympic gold medallist Helen Glover as the perfect example of this.

Funnily enough HElen Glover was too short to meet the selection criteria when starting out. She somehow blagged her way onto the British Rowing training programme.

pinno

Probably wasn't 'blagging'; she probably went through some fitness trials.

ben@31

darkhairedlord wrote:

OK, I've looked through the list of sports on the BBC, so I know what i'm talking about :roll: .
American Football! specifically the kicker. only plays for about 5 secs perhaps 20 times a match.
Just comes on to kick a ball, which someone else else holds on tee for them, through the posts. Anyone that has played footy at school-level should be able to do this, easy. Perhaps half a day training to get used to wearing a sofa, pyjamas and tin-hat.

I remember watching a documentary of a NFL teams pre season training. I think it was called "Hard Knocks". Anyway, what I remembered the most is the NFL teams deliberately recruit more players than the squad size limit. For example, they wont recruit just one kicker in the pre season but 3 or 4 and then have them competing against each other. Every week the NFL team has a cull until it gets down the correct squad size. Some rookies only lasted 2 weeks.
The teams will have reserve players for positions like Quarterback, but they'll hardly get any game time. Interestingly Joe Montana was way down the list to be QB for his college team and he only made it big because he would come on the pitch as a sub when his team was losing bad and he could turn the game around.

ben@31

mfin wrote:

Pross wrote:

mfin wrote:

The answer is Rugby, you take a lot of drugs like they all do, and as long as you're naturally strong and fast for a fat git you should be okay if you get fit and don't forget to take your pills and jabs.

Yep, that's why the All Blacks regularly get turned over by minor nations at the World Cup.

I wasn't suggesting a whole team of amateurs, just putting one fat drugged up joe bloggs into a pro team. Providing you were naturally strong and fast and aggressive enough you probably wouldn't need a life of training at it to function well.

Theres no way some amateur rugby players, especially the Forwards have the fitness. Even some RFU Championship teams have to walk across the pitch and slow the scrums down in the second half.
I've always thought if a rugby team had a pack of very cardio-fit forwards they would turn the ball over at a pace where the opposition teams couldn't keep up.

briantrumpet

This does remind me somewhat of conversations about which musical instrument is 'the hardest'. They do vary quite considerably as to which are easier to sound 'good' on in the earlier stages, but they are all bloody hard to get good enough on to sound/be professional at the highest levels. As with sports, there's nowhere to hide when each of your performances will be scrutinised by the public, in real time.

ben@31

voodooman wrote:

Parkrun exactly 5k. There are loads of sub 17 runners, but then compare with Mo Farah, who runs 5k splits at around 14 minutes... as marathon pace. Imagine that, 9 consecutive 14 minute 5ks. Unbelievable.

Heres a video of average joes trying Mo Farahs pace on a treadmill... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=enn3m7_rFFc

pinno

briantrumpet wrote:

This does remind me somewhat of conversations about which musical instrument is 'the hardest'. They do vary quite considerably as to which are easier to sound 'good' on in the earlier stages, but they are all bloody hard to get good enough on to sound/be professional at the highest levels. As with sports, there's nowhere to hide when each of your performances will be scrutinised by the public, in real time.

I can mix it with the best of them with a Jew's Harp.

Or a Kazoo...

pinno

voodooman wrote:

Parkrun exactly 5k. There are loads of sub 17 runners, but then compare with Mo Farah, who runs 5k splits at around 14 minutes... as marathon pace. Imagine that, 9 consecutive 14 minute 5ks. Unbelievable.

Mo: 5k indoor record - 13mins, 9.16 secs. 14.3mph. :shock:

briantrumpet

Pinno wrote:

I can mix it with the best of them with a Jew's Harp.

Your French is really good, though I'm less sure about your dress sense. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mNIdT2sdthw

pinno

briantrumpet wrote:

Pinno wrote:

I can mix it with the best of them with a Jew's Harp.

Your French is really good, though I'm less sure about your dress sense. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mNIdT2sdthw

He's got more hair than me.

mouth

ben@31 wrote:

darkhairedlord wrote:

OK, I've looked through the list of sports on the BBC, so I know what i'm talking about :roll: .
American Football! specifically the kicker. only plays for about 5 secs perhaps 20 times a match.
Just comes on to kick a ball, which someone else else holds on tee for them, through the posts. Anyone that has played footy at school-level should be able to do this, easy. Perhaps half a day training to get used to wearing a sofa, pyjamas and tin-hat.

I remember watching a documentary of a NFL teams pre season training. I think it was called "Hard Knocks". Anyway, what I remembered the most is the NFL teams deliberately recruit more players than the squad size limit. For example, they wont recruit just one kicker in the pre season but 3 or 4 and then have them competing against each other. Every week the NFL team has a cull until it gets down the correct squad size. Some rookies only lasted 2 weeks.
The teams will have reserve players for positions like Quarterback, but they'll hardly get any game time. Interestingly Joe Montana was way down the list to be QB for his college team and he only made it big because he would come on the pitch as a sub when his team was losing bad and he could turn the game around.

Recruiting for a training (selection) camp is a completely different prospect. The organisations will deliberately over-recruit in every position to cover for possible injuries and cut, cut, cut right until the very moment they have to submit their roster. I'm sketchy on NFL and its squad rules but in ice hockey (and specifically the NHL) they'll open camp with around 100-120 players, for maybe 23 opening night spots. Some are a shoe in, some played last year in the AHL and will go back there, some will go back to the ECHL and some (usually the lower draft picks)will go back to their 'junior' teams. Some will get called up to The Show. Others will get the 'thanks but no thanks' speech from the manager and have to look for other options. It's not unusual for players to be called up or sent down between the leagues and teams several times per year. Vegas Knights (new this year) have already used 4 starting goalies in 8 games.

Oddly, the second best goalie is usually sent to the AHL, where he'll stay fitter, seeing more minutes than riding the pine pony in the NHL.

FishFish

Fishing. Amateurs can beat the pros hands down - except the ones with trawlers. Amateurs can use dynamite and poison that the pros are banned from.

mouth

FishFish wrote:

Fishing. Amateurs can beat the pros hands down - except the ones with trawlers. Amateurs can use dynamite and poison that the pros are banned from.

So not a level playing field then? Surely they can't compete side by side in the same event under different rules?

Matthewfalle

Pinno wrote:

voodooman wrote:

Parkrun exactly 5k. There are loads of sub 17 runners, but then compare with Mo Farah, who runs 5k splits at around 14 minutes... as marathon pace. Imagine that, 9 consecutive 14 minute 5ks. Unbelievable.

Mo: 5k indoor record - 13mins, 9.16 secs. 14.3mph. :shock:

i can do better than that. Done it twice in fact.

pinno

Matthewfalle wrote:

Pinno wrote:

voodooman wrote:

Parkrun exactly 5k. There are loads of sub 17 runners, but then compare with Mo Farah, who runs 5k splits at around 14 minutes... as marathon pace. Imagine that, 9 consecutive 14 minute 5ks. Unbelievable.

Mo: 5k indoor record - 13mins, 9.16 secs. 14.3mph. :shock:

i can do better than that. Done it twice in fact.

On a bicycle.

That should kill the thread.

shockedsoshocked

I used to ride with Chris Newton when he was home, and i considered myself a fit rider who had an evening job who was practically full time. He had class in spades, and the only rider i've seen do 4 hours around the shitty lanes of North Yorkshire and not have a speck on him.

He once rode an event in which Biablocki was riding. He was off the back with another GB rider, I think Rod Ellingworth or Hayles, someone like that, and the peloton were gunning it in the crosswinds. They went past Biablocki who'd stopped for a pee. They thought they'd never see him again, until he came cruising up to them and intimated for them to jump on his wheel. They couldn't so much as hold it.

Another time he rode the Pru Tour the year O'Grady won, and reckoned O'Grady was riding with a stinking hangover most days.

The gulf between me, a fit rider (4.9w/kg ftp at my best ever) and Newton was huge in my eyes, and then again up to pro tour level must be enormous. Chris was no slouch and was top of the game domestically and on the track for a good few years, so by my reckoning, the chance of an "amatuer" cyclist who's maybe a 1st cat keeping up with the pros even on a flat stage is unlikely these days once the sprint trains start ramping up to mop up the breakaway.

pinno

It shows you the steps within the professional ranks. Reminds me of Colin Sturgess when he jumped from track to road and he recalled sitting on Guido Bontempi's wheel in a Kermesse. Bontempi was pulling 56 x 11 and Colin was struggling to stay on his wheel.

Watching the documentary on Cadel Evans, he says at one point, that it was no problem to do 120 miles day after a day, it was more difficult to do that at level 3, when talking about his training schedule.

rick_chasey

ShockedSoShocked wrote:

I used to ride with Chris Newton when he was home, and i considered myself a fit rider who had an evening job who was practically full time. He had class in spades, and the only rider i've seen do 4 hours around the sh!tty lanes of North Yorkshire and not have a speck on him.

He once rode an event in which Biablocki was riding. He was off the back with another GB rider, I think Rod Ellingworth or Hayles, someone like that, and the peloton were gunning it in the crosswinds. They went past Biablocki who'd stopped for a pee. They thought they'd never see him again, until he came cruising up to them and intimated for them to jump on his wheel. They couldn't so much as hold it.

Another time he rode the Pru Tour the year O'Grady won, and reckoned O'Grady was riding with a stinking hangover most days.

The gulf between me, a fit rider (4.9w/kg ftp at my best ever) and Newton was huge in my eyes, and then again up to pro tour level must be enormous. Chris was no slouch and was top of the game domestically and on the track for a good few years, so by my reckoning, the chance of an "amatuer" cyclist who's maybe a 1st cat keeping up with the pros even on a flat stage is unlikely these days once the sprint trains start ramping up to mop up the breakaway.

Love posts like this

chris_bass

this may shed some light
http://time.com/money/4433302/2016-rio- ... -olympian/

tldr?

And the Winners Are…

There are dozens of Olympic sports, but only a few qualify as truly great candidates for buying—in money and time—your way into the games. Archery, whitewater canoeing/kayaking, equestrian, modern pentathlon, sailing, shooting, bobsleigh, curling, luge, skeleton, and ski jumping are expensive, unpopular, exclusive, and forgiving of physiology.

Pross

briantrumpet wrote:

This does remind me somewhat of conversations about which musical instrument is 'the hardest'. They do vary quite considerably as to which are easier to sound 'good' on in the earlier stages, but they are all bloody hard to get good enough on to sound/be professional at the highest levels. As with sports, there's nowhere to hide when each of your performances will be scrutinised by the public, in real time.

The answer to that is simple, voice is the most difficult instrument.

briantrumpet

Pross wrote:

briantrumpet wrote:

This does remind me somewhat of conversations about which musical instrument is 'the hardest'. They do vary quite considerably as to which are easier to sound 'good' on in the earlier stages, but they are all bloody hard to get good enough on to sound/be professional at the highest levels. As with sports, there's nowhere to hide when each of your performances will be scrutinised by the public, in real time.

The answer to that is simple, voice is the most difficult instrument.

The answer to that is simple: no it's not. Not easy either, of course.

Pross

briantrumpet wrote:

Pross wrote:

briantrumpet wrote:

This does remind me somewhat of conversations about which musical instrument is 'the hardest'. They do vary quite considerably as to which are easier to sound 'good' on in the earlier stages, but they are all bloody hard to get good enough on to sound/be professional at the highest levels. As with sports, there's nowhere to hide when each of your performances will be scrutinised by the public, in real time.

The answer to that is simple, voice is the most difficult instrument.

The answer to that is simple: no it's not. Not easy either, of course.

I forgot the but the main reason for saying that is sight reading. With other instruments, if you're a decent player and can read ahead you can pick the note but with voice you have to actually be able to pitch that note in your head. That said I could never play keyboard instruments as I just can't read two or more lines at the same time! I've also played enough brass to know a) I'm rubbish at it and b) the difficulty is getting your lip positions sorted rather that the valve combinations.

Lagrange

Mouth wrote:

FishFish wrote:

Fishing. Amateurs can beat the pros hands down - except the ones with trawlers. Amateurs can use dynamite and poison that the pros are banned from.

So not a level playing field then? Surely they can't compete side by side in the same event under different rules?

Why not?