NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm going to say hitting a baseball for a hit.

The task requires strength, a good eye, good scouting, and some guessing.

I read an interesting fact in a physic book. In order to make solid contact, a batter has to time his swing to the hundredth of a second. While an ill-timed swing can lead to making contact, the most likely results in this case is a foul ball, easily fielded grounder, or an easy pop-up.

Even if a player makes solid contact, then a defender is most likely going to catch it or throw you out at 1st. While the outfield sure looks vast, most major league outfielders have amazing range. Ditto for infielders.

Hitting a baseball is made even more difficult by the pitchers. As a batter you can see anything from a 55 mph knuckleball to a 100+ mph 4 seam fastball. A good pitcher will be able to throw either a 4 seamer or 2 seamer (many throw both), a change-up with good movement and a 20 mph or more speed differential from the fastball and at least one good breaking ball (either slider, slurve, or curve). In addition to that, some pitchers can throw the totally unhittable knuckleball. There are also other variations of pitches like the fastball, only with more movement. Try hitting a 90+ mph spit fingered fastball or cut fastball.

this wide variety of pitches and speeds makes timing your swing even more difficult. It was hard enough playing high school ball where the top speed I saw was probably mid 80s. I can't imagine hitting a some of the high 90s balls with movement on them.

A batter has only a split second to figure out what pitch he is seeing, the speed it is going, and whether or not it will be in the strike zone. Much of this is guesswork based on scouting reports. You can try to read a pitcher's mannerisms and see if he is tipping his pitches, but a good pitcher is careful to do the same stuff before a pitch regardless of what he is going to throw.

Hitting a baseball is a task built on failure. If you fail 70% of the time, you are probably a good candidate for the all-star team. If you fail 75% of the time, you are still definitely fit for a MLB roster. Look at Ty Cobb. He only succeeded 36.6% of the time (.366 career BA is an MLB record).

You consider someone tossing a ball past you while you wave a little stick in its general direction to be harder than going ten rounds in a boxing ring? Really?

Everything in sports requires some sort of skill, and talent, so its hard to say what is the most difficult.
It all requires multi-tasking, decent physical condition, mental accuity, and awareness to one extent or another.
Some even require unique talents, and skills that one might have to master to even become half-way decent to master the sport.

Ultramarathons. *nod*

It takes a special kind of lunatic to run 100 miles nonstop for fun. :p

Try hitting that 100 MPH fastball with 3 or 4 guys standing in front of you blocking your view. Then shrink the baseball down to about half its size. Next add in the possibility of deflections. Now try hitting your baseball on ice skates. Welcome to the world of the hockey goalie.

Ultramarathons. *nod*

It takes a special kind of lunatic to run 100 miles nonstop for fun. :p

Most people can do it, though, if they put their mind to it. I don't think it's something you have to be born with, like height to play in the NBA, or large size for Football. I used to run between 30 and 60 miles a couple days a week, in high school and a few years beyond it, and I was all skin and bones - no real physical training necessary. :p

Curling. ;)

Try hitting that 100 MPH fastball with 3 or 4 guys standing in front of you blocking your view. Then shrink the baseball down to about half its size. Next add in the possibility of deflections. Now try hitting your baseball on ice skates. Welcome to the world of the hockey goalie.

Sure, but a hockey goalie ideally takes up about 3/4 the net with his body, which should make things a bit easier. A batter's strike zone is going to be larger than a hockey net opening, minus the size of the goalie himself. But really, goalies are guessing a lot of the time, from what I can tell, so there's that too.

Sure, but a hockey goalie ideally takes up about 3/4 the net with his body, which should make things a bit easier. A batter's strike zone is going to be larger than a hockey net opening, minus the size of the goalie himself. But really, goalies are guessing a lot of the time, from what I can tell, so there's that too.
Sure, but what happens if a batter screws up 3 times? Strike 3, you're out. Better luck next time. What happens if a goalie screws up 3 times? That's 3 goals against, and your team has a pretty big hole to climb out of.

Batters also don't have to worry about facing a barrage of fastballs. Wouldn't it be nice if a goalie could step out of the crease and call timeout when he's not ready. Maybe if the pitcher could keep throwing ball after ball until the batter strikes out, then batting could be considered more difficult.

Sure, but what happens if a batter screws up 3 times? Strike 3, you're out. Better luck next time. What happens if a goalie screws up 3 times? That's 3 goals against, and your team has a pretty big hole to climb out of.

Batters also don't have to worry about facing a barrage of fastballs. Wouldn't it be nice if a goalie could step out of the crease and call timeout when he's not ready. Maybe if the pitcher could keep throwing ball after ball until the batter strikes out, then batting could be considered more difficult.

I think it's more the fact that the batter has to use a bat to hit the ball, whereas the goalie has all of his limbs and an extra-wide stick to use. Those leg-pads are also pretty wide, and the mits aren't small either.

As for the 100-mph puck, that might be possible with a good slap-shot, but most hockey games I've seen have only had a few of those. Most goals are on deflections or from close in where the speed would be less. Also, I'm sure a puck can act strangely, but probably not as strangely as a curveball or knuckleball in baseball.

I do enjoy both sports, though. :)

Methinks we'll have to agree to disagree. I'm not a terribly big fan of baseball. Funny thing happens when you live in Pittsburgh and follow the Pirates...

Baseball's got nothing on cricket :cool:

To the OP, if you think baseball is hard try cricket. It's everything you describe except the ball is smaller and much harder, thrown faster from closer allowing the batsman less time to react (indeed you basically have to start your drive before the ball's even left the bowlers hand) and the bowler is allowed to delibrately aim at the batsman's body.
People have died from being hit from fastballs in cricket.

then again, I don't think either of them deserve the title of most 'difficult action...' There's just too many instances.
Facing a tennis ball going in excess of 200km/hr needs incredible reflexes for example.

If pressed, I'd say the most difficult action ever in professional sports would be Jimmy 'the Superfly' Snuka's famed 'Superfly Splash' and 'Top rope Diving Punches'.

I'm going to say hitting a baseball for a hit.

The task requires strength, a good eye, good scouting, and some guessing.

I'm going to say keeping a proper perspective on ones own significance. Sure the other stuff all looks hard on paper, but lots of them can do things like catch balls, hit people, and run fast. Very few of them seem able to do that one thing. Hell, Lance Armstrong needs a double-strength human heart just to be "pretty nice." And that's probably because with one testicle he's less susceptible to testosterone poisoning.

To the OP, if you think baseball is hard try cricket. It's everything you describe except the ball is smaller and much harder, thrown faster from closer allowing the batsman less time to react (indeed you basically have to start your drive before the ball's even left the bowlers hand) and the bowler is allowed to delibrately aim at the batsman's body.
People have died from being hit from fastballs in cricket.


A Roy Chapman died from a beanball. It was legal once to throw one. Rules were changed and helmets were introduced.....

Players still get pretty screwed up taking one in the face......

To the OP, if you think baseball is hard try cricket. It's everything you describe except the ball is smaller and much harder, thrown faster from closer allowing the batsman less time to react (indeed you basically have to start your drive before the ball's even left the bowlers hand) and the bowler is allowed to delibrately aim at the batsman's body.
People have died from being hit from fastballs in cricket.


Some clips of nasty bouncers


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pUug4say8k0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y09xlFu3V0M

Cricket hurts :p

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZBjhTd4Z9M

I'm agreeing with IDF.

Mostly because there is nothing else in life where a 33% success rate is considered good and where 40% is considered godlike.

Staying in a boxing match involves taking a few punches or being good at ducking and moving.

Hockey goalies don't have it as hard, my cousin a hockey goalie on the Israel u18 hockey team, has a much harder time hitting a baseball than saving a slapshot.

And in cricket people are able to 95% of balls thrown to them considering the small amount of wickets on average per bowl (although I haven't seen much cricket so it's entirely possible that the batters miss a lot and the ball just doesn't hit the wicket)

Cricket? Please. I'd only watch cricket if they replaced the bats with swords, the balls with bows and arrow, and the wickets with beautiful women in bikinis.

Sorry, sometimes it is hard to keep the troll out of me.

Anyway, I never knew it was so hard to hit a real baseball. Well, I guess it makes sense. It took me forever to be able to hit it on Wii Sports.

To the OP, if you think baseball is hard try cricket. It's everything you describe except the ball is smaller and much harder, thrown faster from closer allowing the batsman less time to react (indeed you basically have to start your drive before the ball's even left the bowlers hand) and the bowler is allowed to delibrately aim at the batsman's body.

On the other hand, the bat is the size of a snowboard and you're allowed to defend with the pads in many circumstances. Unless the ball is pitching on the stumps, there is no requirement to play at it at all.

While I'm a cricket fan, I think the sheer number of runs an average batsman gets for their wicket, compared with the fraction of a run an average baseballer gets in their turn at the plate, shows how wrong you are. It's a batsman's game, and the real hero is the poor bugger whose figures read "4 wickets for 54 runs."

Now if the 'bowler' were allowed to throw the ball, a whole team would be lucky to make a century.

I’m going to say hitting a baseball for a hit.

The task requires strength, a good eye, good scouting, and some guessing.
Well, it’s bloody hard on the Wii.

*is failure as both jock and geek*

Sure, but what happens if a batter screws up 3 times? Strike 3, you're out. Better luck next time. What happens if a goalie screws up 3 times? That's 3 goals against, and your team has a pretty big hole to climb out of.

Batters also don't have to worry about facing a barrage of fastballs. Wouldn't it be nice if a goalie could step out of the crease and call timeout when he's not ready. Maybe if the pitcher could keep throwing ball after ball until the batter strikes out, then batting could be considered more difficult.

I'm with you, actually, in this single comparison, largely because I played goalie for a half dozen games in a college recreational floor hockey league--seriously low quality players--and I was stunned at just how difficult the game was. I never gave up fewer than 10 goals in a game, and I blocked at least 3 times that. I'm no athlete, but I was far from alone. Most games were of the 18-12 variety. I was never as shell-shocked playing baseball as I was after that experience.

Quite seriously, I think the action of bowling a lawn bowl deserves consideration.

It is not physically taxing, it doesn't require fast reflexes, so why would I say that? Quite simply because drawing the jack is the only way to win. An ordinary draw shot is the only action in the game (apart from the rarely-used drive) -- strategic placement or deliberately displacing another ball is the same thing, only not aimed at the jack. It requires the same precision of aim and control of weight.
Ability to draw the jack determines whether you win or not. Therefore it is a hard action.

Golf is similar, except that a strong chipping game can compensate for a weak driving one. The driving / chipping / putting actions are distinctly different, so success is a combination of the three actions.

Also consider gymnastics. Although there is no drastic success/failure measurement (like 'getting out') the core aim of the sport is to do things which are physically hard. Nadia Comaneci amazed the world in 1984 by performing an action no-one had ever seen done before.

Also consider gymnastics. Although there is no drastic success/failure measurement (like 'getting out') the core aim of the sport is to do things which are physically hard. Nadia Komenisch (sp?) amazed the world in 1984 by performing an action no-one had ever seen done before.
Nadia Comăneci the girl who got a perfect ten when she was 14?

Nadia Comăneci the girl who got a perfect ten when she was 14?

Yeah. It was the 1976 Olympics actually. I think the action she performed has been named after her now. It's a "kip to front salto" apparently.

I'm not actually a gymnastics fan ... I just think there must be some criterion of difficulty other than "fast reflexes."

Watching a game.

Here's another thought: snooker or pool. There really is no limit to how difficult a shot can be attempted, it's simply a question of the players self-confidence in attempting it in the face of the penalty for missing.

Here’s another thought: snooker or pool. There really is no limit to how difficult a shot can be attempted, it’s simply a question of the players self-confidence in attempting it in the face of the penalty for missing.
And snooker tables are huuuuuuuuge.

Ping-Pong. Anybody watch a game of pro ping-pong? Allot of players can hit the board from 40 feet. :eek:

Chuck Norris finds nothing difficult.

Ping-Pong. Anybody watch a game of pro ping-pong? Allot of players can hit the board from 40 feet. :eek:

The last time I tried that game I got utterly owned by a guy twice my age.
When you're forty, that hurts :(

On the other hand, the bat is the size of a snowboard and you're allowed to defend with the pads in many circumstances. Unless the ball is pitching on the stumps, there is no requirement to play at it at all.

While I'm a cricket fan, I think the sheer number of runs an average batsman gets for their wicket, compared with the fraction of a run an average baseballer gets in their turn at the plate, shows how wrong you are. It's a batsman's game, and the real hero is the poor bugger whose figures read "4 wickets for 54 runs."

Now if the 'bowler' were allowed to throw the ball, a whole team would be lucky to make a century.


Bulllcrap is the bat the size of a snowboard. I play cricket semi-pro for Bashley [a minor counties team], and you can really tell when someone that has never played the game is talking about it.

If you think facing down a 90mph ball with maybe .5 of a second to react is easy, then you're either mentally retarded or, as Il Ruffino says, Chuck Norris.

And the idea of the game is to score runs, so even if the ball isnt going to get your stumps, it's generally a good idea to hit it....

While I'm a cricket fan, I think the sheer number of runs an average batsman gets for their wicket, compared with the fraction of a run an average baseballer gets in their turn at the plate, shows how wrong you are. It's a batsman's game, and the real hero is the poor bugger whose figures read "4 wickets for 54 runs."
you can't compare runs made. that's just asinine. You need to compare strike rates. Ricky Ponting, for example, has one of 58% for test cricket which is damn high.
Even then, we shouldn't be comparing SR, but scoring shots. Since you can score anywhere up to 6 runs (possibly more) off one ball, SR will obviously not reflect the number of balls the batsman actually scored off.
For example, Pieterson got 109 off 138 balls in the 2nd innings - a SR of 79%. However he scored off only 62 of those deliveries, making it really a SR of 45%.
And his was more a ODI. Collingwood's 1st innings century is more typical of a test innings - 111 off 209 deliveries for a 53% SR. Of those 209 balls only 50 were scored off - a 24% SR.
Cook's ton was 55 scoring shots(ss) off 196 balls faced(bf) - 28% SR.
Bell: 61 ss/ 190 bf - 32% SR.

Based on those stats, cricket's a harder game to score off than baseball.

The last time I tried that game I got utterly owned by a guy twice my age.
When you're forty, that hurts :(
Hey, imagine the ego pain when you get beaten by 9 and 10 yr olds.
Of course, their lot did invent the bloody game, so it's no doubt genetic. That's what I keep telling myself. Sometimes it nearly works.

Bulllcrap is the bat the size of a snowboard. I play cricket semi-pro for Bashley [a minor counties team], and you can really tell when someone that has never played the game is talking about it.

Perhaps I can, but can you?
I bowl. I hate batsmen, so I'm making a joke about the size of the bat.

I was going to go with "surfboard" but I thought it was overkill for a silly joke.

you can't compare runs made. that's just asinine. You need to compare strike rates. Ricky Ponting, for example, has one of 58% for test cricket which is damn high.
Even then, we shouldn't be comparing SR, but scoring shots. Since you can score anywhere up to 6 runs (possibly more) off one ball, SR will obviously not reflect the number of balls the batsman actually scored off.
For example, Pieterson got 109 off 138 balls in the 2nd innings - a SR of 79%. However he scored off only 62 of those deliveries, making it really a SR of 45%.
And his was more a ODI. Collingwood's 1st innings century is more typical of a test innings - 111 off 209 deliveries for a 53% SR. Of those 209 balls only 50 were scored off - a 24% SR.
Cook's ton was 55 scoring shots(ss) off 196 balls faced(bf) - 28% SR.
Bell: 61 ss/ 190 bf - 32% SR.

Based on those stats, cricket's a harder game to score off than baseball.

Excellent analysis.

I concede that "balls scored off per delivery" is a better measure than "runs per innings" but I think that the fact that in baseball, swinging and missing three times means you are OUT is a level of challenge you are not considering.

Did you ever play tip-and-run cricket as a kid? If you touch the ball with the bat at all, you have to run. A lot more run-outs.

Excellent analysis.

I concede that "balls scored off per delivery" is a better measure than "runs per innings" but I think that the fact that in baseball, swinging and missing three times means you are OUT is a level of challenge you are not considering.
true, very true. However in cricket every ball you face has the potential of getting you out, right from delivery #1. For a baseball player he knows that, bare minimum, the first two pitches aren't going to.

anyway, as I said I don't think either sufficient lays claim to most difficult action.
Another example: Basketballers display some mindboggling skills. And I don't mean Kobe's escapes from justice either.
I saw on TV the other week some ex-NBA player, mid-40s, long retired, now a coach or manager. From 1/2 way, one-handed underarm pitch - nothing but hoop. To prove it was no fluke, next shot was again at 1/2 way and one handed. Only this time he was sitting down with his back to the board. And yes, he nailed it.
This from a guy way past his playing days. Certainly rammed home the skills these guys develop and hone if they can keep them that long.

F1 drivers need to have incredible reflexes and stamina.

Hell, even a cricket player picking up and hurling the ball at the stumps sideon from 30, 40 metres with no hesitation - and hitting them is damn impressive.

And I'm sure there's some obscure sport out there which is so damn hard reflex-wise it makes all the rest pale into insignificance.

To claim one sport is more difficult than others is just an ego-boost on your favourite sport which you by default know more about than others so know what makes a player good or not. All sports take different skills trained over many years to be successful.

true, very true. However in cricket every ball you face has the potential of getting you out, right from delivery #1. For a baseball player he knows that, bare minimum, the first two pitches aren't going to.

Er. He 'knows that' if he deliberately doesn't swing at the first two balls. Why would he do that? With three chances, why choose to throw two away?

And look at the bat: it's less than half the width (in cross-section) of a cricket bat, and it's ROUND! The sweet spot is barely an inch wide, above that you sky the ball (probably get caught out, or if you're lucky, foul), below that it hits the ground and loses all speed (being soft) and you get run out, or worse lose one of the advanced runners.

I've only played one or two games of baseball, btw for those who question my right to an opinion. I was a kid at the time.

anyway, as I said I don't think either sufficiently lays claim to most difficult action.

Perhaps the question is meaningless. No matter how simple or safe or slow an action, how 'hard' it is is determined by the standard set by other players.

Another example: Basketballers display some mindboggling skills. And I don't mean Kobe's escapes from justice either.
I saw on TV the other week some ex-NBA player, mid-40s, long retired, now a coach or manager. From 1/2 way, one-handed underarm pitch - nothing but hoop. To prove it was no fluke, next shot was again at 1/2 way and one handed. Only this time he was sitting down with his back to the board. And yes, he nailed it.
This from a guy way past his playing days. Certainly rammed home the skills these guys develop and hone if they can keep them that long.

F1 drivers need to have incredible reflexes and stamina.

Hey, now we're talking. I have a strong intuition that the most difficult action to perfect is going to be in one of the individual sports. Perhaps it's just a personal preference (I don't play well with others) but it seems to me that all the team sports have another important factor which must exist alongside performing the action well: teamwork.
Incredible basket-shooting skills won't get you in the team if the team doesn't win with you in it. Building the team around your great skills makes a very fragile team, and if you put everyone else off their game, the team won't win even with you shooting a personal best.
On the other hand, if you're Tiger Woods you just turn up and do your best. The viewers gasp in awe rather than cheering for "their" team.
Incidentally, why are golfers all such nice people and so self-effacing? Perhaps because their most dangerous opponent is their own ego?

Hell, even a cricket player picking up and hurling the ball at the stumps sideon from 30, 40 metres with no hesitation - and hitting them is damn impressive.

And I'm sure there's some obscure sport out there which is so damn hard reflex-wise it makes all the rest pale into insignificance.

Yeah. I think the OP meant "Baseball" or "cricket" and was looking for a debate, actually ;)

To claim one sport is more difficult than others is just an ego-boost on your favourite sport which you by default know more about than others so know what makes a player good or not. All sports take different skills trained over many years to be successful.

And yeah to that too.

But let's not spoil the birth of a great new sport: baseket. Cricket balls, baseball bats and lippy umpires. Could be huge!

To the OP, if you think baseball is hard try cricket. It's everything you describe except the ball is smaller and much harder, thrown faster from closer allowing the batsman less time to react (indeed you basically have to start your drive before the ball's even left the bowlers hand) and the bowler is allowed to delibrately aim at the batsman's body.
People have died from being hit from fastballs in cricket.

Harmison walloped Chris Gayle in the private area yesterday.

That's always good for a giggle. :p

In England, small girls play a game that the Americans call 'baseball'
Then they grow up and stop being so silly. :p

Polo is pretty hard by the way, as is staying on your horse all the way round the course at Aintree during the Grand National.

Winning a professional bodybuilding competition without "special vitamins".

In England, small girls play a game that the Americans call 'baseball'
Then they grow up and stop being so silly. :p

Polo is pretty hard by the way, as is staying on your horse all the way round the course at Aintree during the Grand National.

You ride then?
Certainly polo looks hard, like hockey with a golf club while riding a horse.

The most difficult sport on earth isn't played professionally. It's Modern Pentathlon.

You must:

Swim 1 mile.

Run a Marathon.

Rifle Shoot.

Ride a Horse a Marathon Distance.

Fence Sabre.

Victory is determined by points earned in each stage. It was originally designed as a military training regimen (Napoleonic Era, for dispatch riders).

I do ride, but not for a while. I no longer have my own horse sadly.

(I was tempted to say something naughty in answer to the question, but I was restrained! ;) )

I do ride, but not for a while. I no longer have my own horse sadly.



Anyway, the OP's question concerned professional sports. That is, sports which people play to make money.

I rather think polo is the opposite. ;)

While I'm a cricket fan, I think the sheer number of runs an average batsman gets for their wicket, compared with the fraction of a run an average baseballer gets in their turn at the plate, shows how wrong you are. It's a batsman's game, and the real hero is the poor bugger whose figures read "4 wickets for 54 runs."


The number of runs is maninly to do with the diffrent manners of aquiring them.

I concede that "balls scored off per delivery" is a better measure than "runs per innings" but I think that the fact that in baseball, swinging and missing three times means you are OUT is a level of challenge you are not considering.


I think you have a pretty close comparison between three times and out and it being that if you miss in Cricket and it is a ball, it could hit the stumps...

The number of runs is maninly to do with the diffrent manners of aquiring them.

I have conceded that point to Demented Hamsters already. There are 1's, 2's, 3's, 4's and 6's off a single hit (or shot in cricket parlance.) Also overthrows (rare) or penalties (in one-day).

Retiring without a fallback.

I think you have a pretty close comparison between three times and out and it being that if you miss in Cricket and it is a ball, it could hit the stumps...

Ah, cricket fan. I think this whole thread is a cricket-baiting thread, posted at the wrong time. Where are the Yanks when you need them?

To be frank, I think cricket is my viewing-sport of choice for one reason only: baseball isn't on free-to-air in Australia, because Aussies don't play it much, and even if we did we wouldn't be world-class. Japan would wup us, and that just ain't patriotic.

Giving interviews when your teams lose.

The speed at which fencers have to react and make decisions has always impressed me. Speaking as someone who has experienced being kneed in the floating ribs my admiration for the toughness of Thai boxers remains extremely high.

Giving interviews when your team loses.

Yeah, that looks painful. But given the low standard expected of sportsbots in interviews, not really hard.

"Like, oh yeah, looked like we had a chance there for a while, but at the end of the day they were the better team on the night. That's the game of baseket I guess."

Chuck Norris finds nothing difficult.except for not pissing in his pants!

I'd like to the turn the batsman (cricket) v batter (baseball) argument around?

Which is harder: to bowl a good leggie or throw a curve ball?

I have a more contemporary one; getting Harmison to bowl two balls in the same place;)

In reality, I would imagine making an innings of 400* to be the most difficult feat in sport, due to the technique, fitness, temperment, and sheer stoicism, it necessitates.

Retiring without a fallback.

B
O
R
I
N
G

Winning against a superior team without cheating, in pretty much any sport.

ping-pong always amazes me...you got guys standing 30ft away from the table hammering balls onto a little section of the aforementioned...thats extremely skillful

Try hitting that 100 MPH fastball with 3 or 4 guys standing in front of you blocking your view. Then shrink the baseball down to about half its size. Next add in the possibility of deflections. Now try hitting your baseball on ice skates. Welcome to the world of the hockey goalie.

I'll vote for that, but can I take it to field hockey, the goal is huge compared to an ice hockey goal. Still a tiny wee ball and going at 100+mph.
Anyone trying to save a good Dragflick has their work cut out!!!!!

I'll vote for that, but can I take it to field hockey, the goal is huge compared to an ice hockey goal. Still a tiny wee ball and going at 100+mph.
Anyone trying to save a good Dragflick has their work cut out!!!!!

Hurling. The goal is far larger, and what you have to hit the ball with only slightly larger.

You consider someone tossing a ball past you while you wave a little stick in its general direction to be harder than going ten rounds in a boxing ring? Really?

I have boxed and played baseball.
I agree.
I can move around a ring much more successfully then I can hit a baseball.

I have sparred with a professional boxer I could at least see the beating coming.

My cousin was at one time a contender for short stop on the astros until he ruined it for himself...I can't even see the ball when he releases it disappears then I hear it hit the glove.

I am not saying hitting a baseball is the hardest, but its much more diffcult then trading blows...of course a MLB batter might say I was crazy.

I'm going to say hitting a baseball for a hit.



And I'd say taking 12 rounds on your feet in pro-boxing/Thai-boxing. And I'd be right too.

And I'd say taking 12 rounds on your feet in pro-boxing/Thai-boxing. And I'd be right too.


the original question was about skill though...anyone can stand in a ring and get a beating ;)

the original question was about skill though...anyone can stand in a ring and get a beating ;)

They might not be able to stay standing for very long....

the original question was about skill though...anyone can stand in a ring and get a beating ;)

Exactly. One does not require a huge amount of skill to be muscular, resilient, and able to swing one's limbs at the other muscular lump across from one.

Baseball's got nothing on cricket :cool:

Any sport with the highest suicide rate of all of them has to be difficult...I mean, that's really saying something.

Exactly. One does not require a huge amount of skill to be muscular, resilient, and able to swing one's limbs at the other muscular lump across from one.

I think the skill is in not getting hit yourself, isn't it?

I think the skill is in not getting hit yourself, isn't it?

That's a primal instinct one can find in a drunken lout staggering from the pub.

I should say, incidentally, I abhor boxing and what it represents.

Overtaking in Formula One. Judging by its rarity, it must be damn near impossible.

That's a primal instinct one can find in a drunken lout staggering from the pub.

I should say, incidentally, I abhor boxing and what it represents.

It being a primal instinct doesn't mean that being good at it doesn't require skill.

It being a primal instinct doesn't mean that being good at it doesn't require skill.

Yes it does. Instinct precludes the necessity for skill.

Yes it does. Instinct precludes the necessity for skill.

Not wanting to get punched in the face is primal instinct
Actually being able to avoid getting punched in the face would take skill, or luck.

I'd like to the turn the batsman (cricket) v batter (baseball) argument around?

Which is harder: to bowl a good leggie or throw a curve ball?

I'm a leggie, it's taken me 7 years to get to a decent standard.

I'm agreeing with baseball... I'm an athletic type and love to try sports out. I have played football (both soccer and US), baseball, field hocky, and for a short stint boxed in college.

Baseball and Boxing were by far the most difficult.

In boxing I won 2 of 5 matches by TKO within the 5 rounds alloted for my league, I won 1 by KO, and lost the other 2 by points. After only 5 rounds in the minor leagues I was tired for days afterward despite the fact that because of my diet and excersize regimen I had to stick to like a religion (even in the ametures) had me in the absolute best shape of my life. Boxing is a very difficult sport that is also a lifestyle.

Hitting a Baseball however is even more difficult. In little leagues and in my local sandlot league I had an average of .373 and was one of the best hitters (for all non-baseball people that means I connected about 37% of the time). In the pro leagues I probably wouldn't be able to even get a .100 rating; of course I never evern dreamed of going pro in any sport.

A Roy Chapman died from a beanball. It was legal once to throw one. Rules were changed and helmets were introduced.....

Players still get pretty screwed up taking one in the face......

Chapman wasn't even killed by a fastball. He was killed by a spit ball, which has similar characteristics to the knuckler.

Out of sports that I know decently well, I agree with the OP. Tennis, to me, always looked impossible, but I've never played it, so I don't know. Also, maybe a hole in one in golf.

I think hitting a ball in table tennis can be the most difficult in terms of reaction time, running an ultramarathon in terms of endurance and synchronized swimming is most difficult in terms of coordination.

I'm a leggie, it's taken me 7 years to get to a decent standard.

Any good at googlies?

the most difficult action in professional sports? that's easy.....whichever you are not good at. End of the third round of a fight and i'm covered in sweat...but at the end of the first minute of dribbling a football up the field, and i'm panting for breath just to survive. not because football is naturally more difficult than boxing.....but because it is more difficult for ME. There are other people that find it extremely easy.

Try hitting that 100 MPH fastball with 3 or 4 guys standing in front of you blocking your view. Then shrink the baseball down to about half its size. Next add in the possibility of deflections. Now try hitting your baseball on ice skates. Welcome to the world of the hockey goalie.

My hero.

any action involved in rally driving pretty much pwns all. maybe aerobatics has some hard moves, they've got wind speed to consider as well i suppose.

Ultramarathons. *nod*


gotta agree there. World class marathons, triathlons, iron mans etc... all require absolute peek physical fitness, which can only be achieved through years and years of training, harder then any normal olympic event, harder then ftiness training for the SAS. I can't think of anything that requires more physical exercise.

Refereeing, you've got to be following multiple things at the same time (in many sports) watch and analyse all the action and make near impossible judgements (lbw shouts for example, or strikes in baseball) in a split second, with all of the players, the managers and the fans trying to con you. And if you get it wrong once you hear about it for weeks if not longer.

The hardest score is probably a hole in one in golf.

The easiest has to be a free throw in basketball. No wind, ball is the same, distance is the same, height is the same, the rim is the same, no one to block. How in the world does a professional ever miss?

Fence Sabre.

My sport.

Any good at googlies?

I can bowl googlies....not well directed / flighted or deceptive as professionals...but enough to keep my buddies guessing when I play friendlies..:D

To Errinundera,

Professionaly bowling is much harder than professional batting....and it has been getting harder and harder...

I can do googlies, but not often.

My arsenal is basically the stock leggy, doosra, wrong un and quicker ball.

Just had a cup game and got opening batsman out in 3rd over to a ripper of a leggy. Pitched outside leg and sent leg and middle flying :P

Checkmating your opponent in Chess!!!!!

Seriously though, I think there are very hard and very different aspects to all sports, so I don't really have a specific answer, although blocking a PK in soccer/football would have to be up there.

Learning the offside rule :p

There is no skill in blocking a PK.


Just Luck.

There is no skill in blocking a PK.


Just Luck.

I thought this was about difficulty not skill level. Whoever said hole-in-one in golf, it depends on the course, but overall I'd say you were right, although a Double Eagle might be even harder depending on the par.

I thought this was about difficulty not skill level. Whoever said hole-in-one in golf, it depends on the course, but overall I'd say you were right, although a Double Eagle might be even harder depending on the par.

What about a condor:cool: condor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albatross_%28golf%29#Condor)

What about a condor:cool: condor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albatross_%28golf%29#Condor)

To be honest, I'd just never heard of a condor before, I would have just called it a triple eagle.