I would suggest American Football because of the wide range of athletes. You have the 175 pound speedsters who can run like olympic sprinters playing wide receiver and cornerback. You have huge 340 pound defensive tackles who could lift a bus over their head and eat it. And everything in between. Running backs or linebackers are probably the best overall athletes if you’re factoring in strength - they tend to be extremely well rounded - fast as a sprinter, extremely strong, good agility, etc.
Idiots make fun of football by saying “oh it’s a bunch of fat guys running into each other” but fail to realize that those fat guys are freakishly athletic and could run circles around thinner guys who are good athletes but not elite. Even the fattest guys in the NFL only look slow compared to other freakishly fast players - they would crush you at any sort of athletic competition even if you were in the best shape of your life.
Australian TV has had a short series every year since 2009 called Australia’s Greatest Athlete with professional athletes of all types. The first two years were won by Melbourne Storm Rugby League fullback Billy Slater. Although a great League player he is relatively small so his first win was a surprise.
However League players like Slater play 2 40 minute halves of football and Slater is more involved than any other fullback in the game’s history. He is incredibly fit, very fast, surprisingly strong and has terrific balance and hand-eye coordination.
Thelatest stuff I have seen indicates that AFL players in 2010 averaged about 13km (8.1 miles) a game, even on-ballers, as they spend less time on the field. However there exertion index is far higher as they are running hard more of the time.
I was reading an article on ESPN (Here it is) that talked to sports scientists, athletes, USOC members, and they ranked the toughest sports to play and Boxing came out number one. Hockey is ranked number 2, with Football next, then basketball, and with Baseball and Soccer ranked 9 and 10 respectively.
I’m not sure that it answers what the OP was asking but it’s pretty interesting.
That reminds me that years ago former World Champion Jeff Fenech made a short lived attempt to play rugby league with Parramatta. Apparently he had been a good player as a kid. While he was with the club someone suggested that he take some of the players to the gym and workout with them. A sports show tagged along to film a segment.
Now this was a bunch of very fit professionals, although not as fit as today’s players. Fenech simply toyed with his bigger opponents, never seriously hitting them, while continually taunting them and avoiding their blows. Each player would do one round and get out exhausted but Fenech just boxed them one after another.
I was just thinking about this in relation to rugby, which I guess has a similar range of athletic types. The OP asks which sport has the greatest collection of athletes, rather than which individual has the greatest range of abilities, so we need to find a sport which covers the gamut of skills spread across a team. I think rugby and American Football are two such sports.
Are we talking the greatest collection for the entire sport over all or the greatest collection of players within that sport? I don’t the American football would have better players as a whole, but they have had some amazing individuals play in that sport. Herschel Walker, Bob Hayes, Jim Brown, Walter Payton, Antonio Gates and Jerry Rice are amazing physical specimens who could or did do amazing things in other sports.
I’m not so sure about American football players. This study suggests most NFL players are obese, but as the article points out there are doubts. Plus let’s not forget there are large gaps between action in football and a number of players (especially offensive lineman) move in very short bursts.
Yeah, BMI isn’t great under most any circumstances, but for NFL players it’s just crazy. Vernon Davis is six-three and 250, which means he has a BMI of 31.2: obese.
The toughest sport I ever competed in was wrestling. I was more wiped out by seven minutes of wrestling than starting both ways for an entire American football game.
The problem with comparisions is that players are suited for their own sports.
Most basketball players heightwise are just on the limit for being able to play outfield postions in soccer. Whilst height is an advatange in soccer, the problem is once you get over about 6’5" or so it’s starts adversley affecting several key attributes, particualrly your abilty to turn quickly. Peter Crouch is a prime example of the problems tall players face, he is actually quite skillful, but he’s also very awkward due to hsi height (6’7"). Jan Koller one of the tallest and heaviest outfield players at 6’ 7" 235 lbs was dominant in the air and could beat anyone for strength, but when the ball was on the ground was pretty unimpressive. Of course it works both ways and most soccer players are too short to play basketball.
American football players really aren’t built for stamina. You couldn’t carry that much excess weight in either fat or muscle and play soccer professionally. Again conversely most soccer players are too lightweight to play American football (though I understand there have been cases of soccer players becoming successful kickers).
I have to point out that despite the unquestionable endurance of soccer players (save the goalie) and their unmatched foot-eye coordination, their arms are principally used for balance. A sport where you can’t use your hands shouldn’t hold this trophy.
