BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Games & Gameplay >

Be the best

  
 
Tabitha Tickletooth
15:58 / 15.07.06
Horses for courses. Can't do like for like. Nonetheless, I'm watching the cricket and I'm given to wonder, which sport do you think requires the greatest skill. I'm naturally flexible. I do martial arts and this flexibility gives me an edge, but doesn't necessarily make me better at what I do than others truly skillful at the art.

There are some sports, though, that I think showcase real skill - which is a term that might need some thrashing out, I should think. This thread is not designed to be about which sport is 'better' than the other, or which is your favourite. It's about which those in which you see displays of prowess, mastery of an art.

I'll begin by suggesting two sports I think show, at their best, displays of extraordinary skill: cricket and tennis.

In cricket, I would suggest that great batting is a true exhibition of skill. At speed, under differing conditions, a great batsmen shows an ability to respond to the ball and create a result that I find extraordinary. Great batsmen come in all shapes and sizes, although I'd accept that they are rarely really tall. They are required to show a real variety of shots and an ability to select the right shots, within a split second, for the delivery on offer. I am crap at cricket, so perhaps the roots of my awe are all too apparent.

In tennis I see the same need for reaction twinned with craft. You need to react to what you receive and the technique to craft a winning return.

Drawing on these two examples, I think my definition of skill (contentious, obviously) would be the ability to respond to differing conditions, under pressure of time, and bring to bear exquisite technique wihtout limits of some physical precondition (height, speed, weight). Sports which I respect but would nonetheless not consider skillful, might include athletics (a natural build/physical propensity for speed), gymnastics (see above, but with agility/flexibility) or basketball (let's face it, you've largely got to be tall at least, although I realise there will always be exceptions to the rule).

So, which sportspeople are the most skillful and how would you define skill? Or indeed how dare I even suggest that such a division should be made and would you argue that all sports exhibit equal measures of skill in their own way?
 
 
Jake, Colossus of Clout
16:53 / 15.07.06
Baseball. Baseball players also have to do this:

At speed, under differing conditions, a great batsmen shows an ability to respond to the ball and create a result that I find extraordinary. Great batsmen come in all shapes and sizes, although I'd accept that they are rarely really tall. They are required to show a real variety of shots and an ability to select the right shots, within a split second, for the delivery on offer.

And they have to do it without the advantage of a flat bat.

As Ted Williams says:

A hitter... is expected to hit a round ball with a round bat and adjust his swing in a split second to 100-mile-per-hour fastballs, back-breaking curveballs, and, occasionally, knuckleballs that mimic the flight patterns of nearsighted moths. All this, while 50,000 fans are questioning his ancestry and screaming for him to fail. ...Even the vaunted Major-Leaguer who hits at the magic .300 level... fails seven times in every ten at-bats.

Teddy Ballgame knows of what he speaks.

I have a lot to say about this, but I don't have the time right now, so I'll post more later.
 
 
Tabitha Tickletooth
17:54 / 15.07.06
Ok, but surely, the response in baseball doesn't have to differ in the same way that it does in cricket, ie you've got more or less set fielding positions. In cricket, you've got a 360 degree field of play with constantly changing field positions (and I admit to being unsure to what extent the outfield players in baseball are adjusted depending on who is hitting). In baseball, you are always aiming to hit it as hard as you can within the field of play, which is within a roughly 180 degree field or it's a foul - yes?.

And, on the round bat v bat with a side issue, surely that means there is less nuance in the way that a ball can be hit with a round bat. I would have thought, and am happy to stand corrected, that with a round bat it is more hitting it forward hard than anything else that matters.

On the one hand, you are dealing with a pitch straight from the hand - which might be faster - but on the cricket side, you are judging from the point the ball leaves the pitch which is closer and therefore requiring a faster reaction time. I believe I have also heard that a ball can actually gain speed leaving the pitch (in cricket) although they might be a fancy (not of the fondant variety).

Go Jake, convince me of the error my baseball-not-appreciating ways.
 
 
P. Horus Rhacoid
19:04 / 15.07.06
basketball (let's face it, you've largely got to be tall at least, although I realise there will always be exceptions to the rule).

I disagree with this. Sure, basketball players on average are tall, but within that framework there's no specific advantage to height. Look at two of the best players in the league from a few years ago- Shaquille O'Neil is a monster, something like 7'3" and 300 pounds. Certainly he used his physical assets to great advantage, but I'd also argue that he's tremendously skilled (aside, maybe, from free throws). At the opposite end of the spectrum you've got Allan Iverson, who is maybe 6' flat on a good day, and who for several years was neck and neck with Shaq leading the league in scoring, and also (Jake, correct me on anything I'm getting wrong here) for league MVP. 15 inches difference between them, and yet they were equally important parts of their respective teams. The point is, there is certainly a physical prerequisite to playing in the NBA but that means nothing without skill. You could maybe make an argument for certain positions being more skill-based than others- there's room for less skilled players who are phenomenal athletes (as defensive or rebounding specialists, for instance), but those players tend not to be, say, point guards. I'd argue that the skill displayed by the best point guards- your Jason Kidds, your John Stocktons (can you tell that I don't watch too much basketball anymore?)- is every bit as impressive as that displayed by athletes in other sports. The same with the best shooters- you try throwing a ball through an 18-inch wide hoop from 30 feet away while 75% of your field of view is obscured by someone's hand. It is, to say the least, difficult.

By the way, touching briefly on your example of tennis, in my opinion there is every bit as much of a requirement of athletic ability/body type as basketball; it just happens to be different, and, perhaps, less apparent at first glance. Andre Agassi had the career he did both based on skill, and based on the fact that he was a fucking phenomenal athlete.
 
 
Char Aina
19:29 / 15.07.06
smallest basketball player ever is mugsy bogues. he was also the player with the record for highest standing jump, iirc.

dude could get as high as anyone else, starting from lower down.
 
 
The Falcon
20:00 / 15.07.06
Much lower down. He was like 5'3", in a sport where Jordan at what? 6'4" looked short.
 
 
Tabitha Tickletooth
20:31 / 15.07.06
Well I did say there's always an exception to the rule, but where people are arguing for mitigation on the basis of a player who is 6' tall, I'd argue that height is still a physical prerequisite (I know toksik mentions a 5'3 player - can someone point me in the direction of a good site for basketball legends where I can look at heights to make sure I'm not talking rubbish?). I'm not suggesting for a second that basketball players are without skill, but that in determining which skills showcases sportspeople *for* their skill, basketball requires you to possess a physical attribute without which superior skill will not allow you to excel.

I'd argue that you can _learn_ all the skills of basketball, but if you are 5'1 you aren't going to set the NBA on fire. In the same way that if you learn to run but you don't possess the physical attributes of a sprinter, you're unlikely to set new 100m records (although that is going further down the physical attribute scale than the basketball). On the other hand, no matter what your height or build, there are top players today demonstrating that you can be a great cricketer or tennis player. Baseball, my jury's still out on.

Table tennis? Don't know enough about it, but maybe. I'm thinking it needs to be an oppositional sport, so maybe not golf or darts. I'm a bit surprised no has made the case for football, which I'm still thinking about.
 
 
Tabitha Tickletooth
20:40 / 15.07.06
oops - double post!

GBO: By the way, touching briefly on your example of tennis, in my opinion there is every bit as much of a requirement of athletic ability/body type as basketball; it just happens to be different, and, perhaps, less apparent at first glance. Andre Agassi got where he was both based on skill, and based on the fact that he was, in his prime, a fucking phenomenal athlete.

I'm not sure what you mean by body type here. I'm not saying that any of the sportspeople in any of the sports discussed are not phenomenal athletes. I'm slavishly enthralled by the Tour de France at the moment and I see few sports where there is greater evidence of physical and mental prowess on display. I wouldn't say, however, that I see as much skill in cycling as I do in cricket or tennis.

I think Agassi is one of the tennis players that most led me to think tennis was near the top on the imaginary skill-o-meter. There is no one build/height/body shape that you *need* for tennis as Andre demonstrates ably. What you need to demonstrate is skill. To be good at any sport you need to be a superb athlete, some sports, however, are determined more by skill than by physical attribute. That's my argument, anyway.

And all that you say about basketball is true, GBO, but I'm not convinced it's topping the skill table yet.
 
 
P. Horus Rhacoid
21:42 / 15.07.06
I'm not sure what you mean by body type here. I'm not saying that any of the sportspeople in any of the sports discussed are not phenomenal athletes. I'm slavishly enthralled by the Tour de France at the moment and I see few sports where there is greater evidence of physical and mental prowess on display. I wouldn't say, however, that I see as much skill in cycling as I do in cricket or tennis.

I think Agassi is one of the tennis players that most led me to think tennis was near the top on the imaginary skill-o-meter. There is no one build/height/body shape that you *need* for tennis as Andre demonstrates ably. What you need to demonstrate is skill. To be good at any sport you need to be a superb athlete, some sports, however, are determined more by skill than by physical attribute. That's my argument, anyway.

Well, by 'body type' I was referring to the basketball prototype of 'taller than average.' Beyond that, I think the main physical (i.e., not skill-based) requirement is 'be a sick athlete.' Let's look at tennis again, though: I would argue that there are also very specific physical requirements for tennis which are simply less visible than those for basketball.

Come to think of it, how many 7 foot professional tennis players are there? My guess: none. Shaq would be a horrible tennis player because he simply isn't quick enough. With absolutely no statistics to back this up, I suspect that the variation in height in professional tennis is similar to that of professional basketball, it just occurs at shorter heights. If we're looking only at height (which seems to be your main point about basketball), I think you could argue that tennis has similarly rigid height requirements to basketball. It just so happens that the heights required to play basketball are less common and, therefore, stand out more.

Actually, a brief, entirely unscientific survey of a dozen or so top male tennis players that I can think of off the top of my head as well as a list of the ATP #1 rankings, reveals that they're almost all in the 5'10" to 6'2" range (the tallest I found, Marat Safin, is 6'4"), which suggests to me that there is a relatively small range of height which provides a necessary mix of quickness/mobility and reach. Much taller or shorter than that and I suspect you sacrifice one for the other. This range appears to be much smaller than in basketball.

I think that perhaps we're making a mistake in attempting to compare tennis to basketball as a whole. Look at any specific basketball position and I suspect that the variation in height is similar to that of tennis. I suppose, then, that there are some positions where athleticism becomes more important and so, in that sense, perhaps basketball as a whole is less reliant on skills than tennis. However, specific positions- notably point guard- I would argue exhibit every bit as much skill as tennis. By the same token, I stick by my assessment that tennis has physical prerequisites which are as rigid as basketball's.

I'd like to look more at your definition of skill, also, but I'm going to have to think about it more. I like this thread though.
 
 
P. Horus Rhacoid
22:29 / 15.07.06
Double post for clarity:

By that last comment I don't mean 'your definition of skill sucks but the thread is good' if that's what it sounds like. I'd like to examine the definition simply because I don't think I've clearly defined it for myself, not because I think it's bad.
 
 
Tabitha Tickletooth
22:38 / 15.07.06
I agree that the definition of skill could do with some more refining, but I'm going to have to stick to my guns on the basketball v tennis thing because I don't think the idea that the height ranges from one extreme to the other cover the same range but operate at different places in the range is all that relevant. Your point was:

Actually, a brief, entirely unscientific survey of a dozen or so top male tennis players that I can think of off the top of my head as well as a list of the ATP #1 rankings, reveals that they're almost all in the 5'10" to 6'2" range (the tallest I found, Marat Safin, is 6'4"), which suggests to me that there is a relatively small range of height which provides a necessary mix of quickness/mobility and reach.

Thing is, again based on a single and possibly spurious source, 5'9" to 5'11" is around the average height for males generally so all you're saying is that tennis players are largely average height. I'd argue that by any standard, basketball players are not.

Still, that's not the only reason that I don't think basketball rates higher on the old skill-o-meter (TM under contentious patent). I cannot imagine that anyone 5'4" would have a good chance of making it to the top even if they possessed extra special shooting skills. The sheer physical dominance of the majority who are much larger and the nature of the game as it is played by really tall people undermines skill and replaces it with height advantage.

Again, this is not to suggest for a second that very skilled basketball players are not just that and rightly highly lauded, just that I think other sports operate from a playing field more specifially skill-defined and, therefore, can be said to rely more specifically on skill than others.

You're right to say that comparing sports as a whole is flawed - let's face it, the whole premise is flawed but nonetheless interesting. But it's why, for example, I singled out batting in cricket rather than bowling, which I believe has a greater physical aspect to it. Fast bowlers are tall (I know I'm going to get my arse kicked at some point for these generalisations). Spin bowlers and certain other unorthodox bowlers are just freaky. I mean, no-one *learns* how to bowl like Shane Warne, you're just born odd (obnoxious, obviously, but deeply gifted).

I'm going to have a further think and try to clarify what I mean when I say skill.
 
 
astrojax69
23:44 / 15.07.06
you're gone laugh, but i rekkun golf. seriously.

fuck it's hard to hit a still ball - much harder than a moving one, like in crikkut, baseball, etc [even though at the top level to hit one delivered by a talented player can be bloody impossible!] and then you have to select the right implement, the right sort of shot - visualisation is the key, there's lots to go wrong! - and you battle the elements and the lay of the course. and on top of that, you need a great deal of skill mentally.

otherwise, for contact-type sports, or at least more considered physical sports, i'd rekkun fusbol (soccer, etc) is pretty hard to master at the top level. harder to get a ball going where you want it with your feet/head that if you can catch and throw.

for this reason, too, i'd add aussie rules football into the mix - you can only kick or 'handball' [meaning, hold it in one hand and bang it with the other; no throwing] the ball as any other 'disposal' results in a free kick to the opposition. on top of that, you have to catch it in a melee and do it cleanly. and run? faark... tough gig.

but most people can get the idea of cricket, football, etc and have a bit of a go in a relatively short time period, but golf is a fucker. i'd vote golf.

weird, innit!
 
 
The Strobe
08:37 / 17.07.06
constantly changing field positions

Not quite. Cricket has a relatively long list of set field positions, and whilst captains will often move people around them, the basics stay the same (see this wikipedia article; the diagram highlights the "standard" positions in red). Obviously there's a vast degree of flexibility, but fielders can run, so you have to assume a large leeway around any one of them.

I think your points on bowling are misguided, Tabitha. Bowling spin is not terribly difficult; not easy, but not "un-natural". Perhaps to bowl it at a world class level, and Warne is one of the best spinners the world has seen, but still.

The big difference between cricket and baseball comes not when the ball leaves the hand, but when it hits the ground. From the hand, a similar degree of swing (ball curving through the air due to spin) is possible, though perhaps more on a cricketball due to the nature of its surface (and the fact that it is usually specifically worn on one side during the game to enable this). In cricket, though, you get the bounce. And then the ball could do anything - pile on forward from a fast bowler, dart in towards your back leg from an off-spinner, dart out to catch the edge from a leg-break.

And bowling is a strategic art, because cricket is a long-form game. As the wicket becomes more and more warn, divots and pockets open up; pound a ball into the same spot for ten overs and that spot will give you a lot more misdirection. So, as a spin bowler, you're trying to make the pitch progressively worse in order to improve the direction-change on the ball.

That's the big difference between the two sports. It's bad enough reading a 100mph ball that's really rather heavy; it's worse reading one that's twisting and spinning in the air, and you know will not bounce where you expect it to.

I'm surprised, though, that no-one's mentioned endurance. The real skill of cricket (for example) is not in the batting, or bowling, but in the long-form war of attrition. A test match is up to five days, and most players will need to both bat and stand around in the field, or even bowl. It's usually hot, you need to conserve energy and stay focused. And whilst this is happening, the wicket is degrading and changing its nature, and the ball is becoming progressively worn - so swing bowlers come into their own late in the ball's life. Of course, the decision as to when to take the new ball is another important tactical one, and quite a subtle one.

One thing: we can discuss skill til we're blue in the teeth. Most people, especially amateurs, are well aware of the skill in their sport of choice. Conveying it to others is hell, and in general, if physical effort/endurance isn't involved, most people don't believe you.

So the other sport I could explain an awful lot about (and would, if you guys are interested) is dinghy racing, and, specifically, match-racing. Match-racing is an unusual form of sailing - 3v3, identical boats, and played as a team - and takes the vast array of tactics and skill necessary in a normal sailing race and just adds more. I mean, sailing is a remarkably skillful sport - you need to be able to hold your own in a calm and a gale, and to understand the relationship between your boat and the wind, and, if you're on a sea, the waves (which just complicate matters).

Unfortunately, most of my friends thought I was "sitting in a boat pulling on bits of string".

I was usually hanging off the edge of the boat (like the guy at the back but moreso, in this picture - still haven't quite mastered the trapeze myself), for starters. And rope is hardly string. But no-one will believe you til they've done it themselves.

Hence the endless cricket/baseball discussion that might emerge.
 
 
Jawsus-son Starship
14:09 / 17.07.06
If you're looking at greatest skill, you've got to look at something that doesn't have such a high percentile chance of winning per scoring opptunity - for example, most football matches (both American and Soccer) are based on one or two moments - i.e. a touchdown, or goal - which lead to an either win/loss situation. Sports like cricket, basketball, etc. are determined by a long string of small oppotunities, meaning that results are based on a longer set of actions that lead to greater skill being needed to achieve a victory.

However, the greatest sport in history, SlamBall, clearly requires the greatest skill set. It's fucking basketball and trampolining mushed together.
 
 
Elijah, Freelance Rabbi
17:19 / 18.07.06
I think I might need to add my vote for golf being high on the list. As was said, there are a HUGE number of variables, and no 2 shots are ever close to being alike, since at the pro level you are playing on a different course in each tournament, and the repeat courses change the layout of each hole fairly regularly. I think pro golfers are an excellent example of a skill intensive sport where there are few physical advantages to be had (flexability being very important though).

I think Lacrosse looks like it would take a fair bit of specific skill training to get good at, but I have never tried.
 
 
Jake, Colossus of Clout
00:33 / 19.07.06
Ok, but surely, the response in baseball doesn't have to differ in the same way that it does in cricket, ie you've got more or less set fielding positions. In cricket, you've got a 360 degree field of play with constantly changing field positions (and I admit to being unsure to what extent the outfield players in baseball are adjusted depending on who is hitting).

Field positions are set in that the right fielder plays in right field, but the exact position depends on the batter. There is a lot of ground to cover at each fielding position.

In baseball, you are always aiming to hit it as hard as you can within the field of play, which is within a roughly 180 degree field or it's a foul - yes?.

No. It's a 45 degree field of play that ends at the outfield fences, which are different in every park. There is also a significant amount of foul ground outside the right- and left-field lines where a fielder can make a fly out that otherwise would be a foul ball.

And "hitting it as hard as you can" is not the idea. The idea is "hitting it where they ain't," to quote Wee Willie Keeler. No one has the strength and skill to hit a home run on any pitch at any given time. A hitter has to take into account how the fielders are playing him, what pitch the pitcher is likely to throw and what his team needs most from him at that moment. More often than not it'll be a sacrifice fly, bunt or soft single into shallow left, rather than swinging for the fences, which oftens ends with a strikeout or pop fly.

And, on the round bat v bat with a side issue, surely that means there is less nuance in the way that a ball can be hit with a round bat. I would have thought, and am happy to stand corrected, that with a round bat it is more hitting it forward hard than anything else that matters.

Oh, dear me, no. A flat bat has a much larger surface area to make good contact with. A baseball player can only make good contact with a very small portion of the barrel of the bat (the "sweet spot"). Hitting a ball just a centimeter off usually results in a foul ball, popup or groundout.

On the one hand, you are dealing with a pitch straight from the hand - which might be faster - but on the cricket side, you are judging from the point the ball leaves the pitch which is closer and therefore requiring a faster reaction time. I believe I have also heard that a ball can actually gain speed leaving the pitch (in cricket) although they might be a fancy (not of the fondant variety).

Sounds fanciful to me, honestly. I can't believe that the ball could be going faster after it hits the ground than it would be straight from the bowler's hand.

A baseball hitter has to deal with many different pitches from many different pitchers. Fastballs, sinkers, changeups, curveballs, splitters, cutters, knuckleballs, screwballs, eephuses, slurves, sliders, circle changes, knucklecurves, forkballs and on and on. Each with a different movement and purpose, thrown differently by each pitcher and designed to decieve. For example, a good changeup has the exact windup and delivery as a fastball, but is 5-10 mph slower, causing the batter to swing early and miss. A splitter dives down at the last second. A cutter runs in on the batter, jamming him up and often causing him to break his bat. A knuckleball is completely unpredictable. The pitch may also be thrown intentionally outside of the strike zone to induce a swinging strike.

And then there's the intimidation factor. getting hit by a 95-mph fastball is a bad thing, and it happens alot, intentionally and otherwise. Baseball hitters don't wear as much padding as cricket players (if any at all), have no facemask and face much faster offerings from the pitcher.

Go Jake, convince me of the error my baseball-not-appreciating ways.

I haven't even gotten beyond the hitter/pitcher dynamic! There's a whole world of baserunning, relief pitchers and pinch hitters to explore!

I could make a case for basketball as well. This is fun, and completely subjective.
 
 
Suedey! SHOT FOR MEAT!
00:45 / 19.07.06
So, rounders then, basically?
 
 
astrojax69
04:17 / 19.07.06
I can't believe that the ball could be going faster after it hits the ground than it would be straight from the bowler's hand.

well, perhaps not from the bowler's hand, but a canny spin bowler can effect some topspin and so make the ball skip toward the bat more quickly than the flight of it from hand into the ground might have been thus expected by the unlucky batsman.


so no more real advances on golf, then? another indicator for golf is that while millions play it, few play it on a handicap of zero, or even close. and it is pretty well inversely more difficult to reduce your handicap the lower it gets - ie getting a handicap of say 18 (one more shot per hole than the course allows) is an average regular player; getting down to 12 from there is much much more simple than getting from 12 to even just 10. each step downward into single figure handicaps is harder and harder again. each shot you reduce your round by is more and more precious and occasions are fewer and fewer.

skill? there it is then.

unless you talk polo. first, you need the skill to acquire millions of dollars and luxurious lifestyle...
 
 
The Strobe
15:41 / 19.07.06
A baseball hitter has to deal with many different pitches from many different pitchers. Fastballs, sinkers, changeups, curveballs, splitters, cutters, knuckleballs, screwballs, eephuses, slurves, sliders, circle changes, knucklecurves, forkballs and on and on. Each with a different movement and purpose, thrown differently by each pitcher and designed to decieve. For example, a good changeup has the exact windup and delivery as a fastball, but is 5-10 mph slower, causing the batter to swing early and miss. A splitter dives down at the last second. A cutter runs in on the batter, jamming him up and often causing him to break his bat. A knuckleball is completely unpredictable. The pitch may also be thrown intentionally outside of the strike zone to induce a swinging strike.

In cricket, all this falls into swing bowling (where the ball swings, altering its curve, in the air). Swing is achieved by making sure one side of the ball is more rough than the other, hence frantic rubbing of the ball as fielders chuck it around.

Baseball gives all these funny names; cricket uses "swing" to refer to the whole church. It's obvious that you need to bowl balls that wind-up the same but behave differently. All the subtleties described in that post all apply to swing.

Except, of course, you're not just gunning for a foul strike; you're also gunning for an edge to be caught behind, or the other edge, to run the ball onto the wicket.

And whilst we could describe all the subtleties of swing bowling - the only form of pitch possible in baseball - they really do pale in comparison to spin, which is an even more refined, complex, and tricky artform.
 
 
Jake, Colossus of Clout
03:59 / 20.07.06
Swing is achieved by making sure one side of the ball is more rough than the other, hence frantic rubbing of the ball as fielders chuck it around.

You're not allowed to scuff the ball in baseball. Pitchers have had to throw their pitches with a clean ball since 1920. Doctoring the ball is big-time cheating.

Just a fact, not really much of a point...
 
 
Spaniel
09:34 / 20.07.06
This thread is great. I have nothing more of value to add.

Keep it up
 
 
William Sack
11:41 / 20.07.06
You're not allowed to scuff the ball in cricket either, just improve one side and allow the other to deteriorate naturally.

Yes, an exercise in futility, but very enjoyable nonetheless. How can you compare the art of Shane Warne with that of Bill Werbeniuk? I have a lot of hands-on experience of cricket at a fairly high standard, but little to compare it to, and therefore feel the best way to approach the subject is from the perspective of a bar-room bullshitter.

On the subject of cricket v baseball (and acknowledging that you can't really compare the skill levels meaningfully) my instinct is to say that the pitch is what really makes the difference, as Palefax says. It's no so much that the pitch deteriorates over the course of a 5 day test, though it does, but the fact that no 2 pitches are alike. Sometimes even the same pitch behaves differently in different weather conditions. There are variations in bounce, pace, spin etc. etc. and both batsmen and bowlers need to adjust their game to these changes. Whatever else a pitcher and batter need to do, this is one major thing that they don't.

Incidentally Jake, I very much enjoyed your comments about baseball, but it seems you are focussing more on the ability of a batter to deal with fastballs, curveballs, knuckleballs, clivedunnballs etc. whereas my first reaction was to marvel at the skill of the pitcher delivering this bewildering array of throws. It seems to me, in a bartalk sort of way, that pitchers are far more skilful than batters, but the handful of baseball players I have heard of have all been batters.
 
 
Jake, Colossus of Clout
16:12 / 23.07.06
Incidentally Jake, I very much enjoyed your comments about baseball, but it seems you are focussing more on the ability of a batter to deal with fastballs, curveballs, knuckleballs, clivedunnballs etc. whereas my first reaction was to marvel at the skill of the pitcher delivering this bewildering array of throws. It seems to me, in a bartalk sort of way, that pitchers are far more skilful than batters, but the handful of baseball players I have heard of have all been batters.

It's an eternal argument. I come down on the side of the hitter because the rate of success is lower for batters than it is for pitchers. The talent pool for hitters is much deeper, too. There are a lot of middle relief pitchers who really have no business in a Major League game, and pleny of talented hitters stuck on the bench or in the minors. Hitters tend to get more praise in the media, too, which in turn attracts more young people to hitting. There might be a shift with the steroid scandals, though. If I had kids, I'd rather have them looking up to Pedro Martinez, Roger Clemens or Greg Maddux than Barry Bonds, Sammy Sosa or Mark McGwire.
 
  
Add Your Reply