What is the hardest professional sport to win a championship in?

[Captain Iago]

Hard is defined simply by placing an athlete in it's given sport on a random team. Who would most likely be able to win a championship. Only 8 teams in the NBA in the last 30 years would make you a winner maybe (depends on when your career started during that 30 years).

Placed on a MLB roster? Loads of variety so definitely a chance. Same with the NHL and the NFL. But to become good in the NBA of winning an NBA title good? Almost impossible.

Didn't Will freaking Perdue win 4? I don't recall him being all that good at basketball.

If hard was so simple to define, why are there so many factions of how it is interpreted?

 

[cubsneedmiracle]

Hockey is the hardest sport to play.. Just to begin with..

So technically by default. Its the hardest..

Try ice skating + puck handling.. its hard as fucking hell

 

[brett05]

Hockey is the hardest sport to play.. Just to begin with..

So technically by default. Its the hardest..

Try ice skating + puck handling.. its hard as fucking hell

Yet since it is equally hard for all teams it doesn't make winning the Cup easier or Harder then winning other championships in other sports.

 

[brett05]

Didn't Will freaking Perdue win 4? I don't recall him being all that good at basketball.

If hard was so simple to define, why are there so many factions of how it is interpreted?

Who cares that Will has four. It doesn't matter how good of a player he is to determine the ability to win a championship based on difficulty.

People believe what they want to believe. It doesn't mean that the definition isn't easy to define.

 

[bobferg]

The argument that the NBA has only had 8 champions in the last 30 years also works against this debate.

 

[Captain Iago]

Who cares that Will has four. It doesn't matter how good of a player he is to determine the ability to win a championship based on difficulty.

But it does. Your argument is bang on for a lack of parity in the NBA. It fails when you extend that argument to the crux of this debate as all a team needs in the NBA to win a championship is a couple of superstars and a slew of boners to fill space and ride coattails. Will is solely one example; how hard was it for him to win four? There are plenty others.

People believe what they want to believe. It doesn't mean that the definition isn't easy to define.

A lot of words are easy to define when a context is made clear.

 

[Jntg4]

One thing said earlier by someone saying NBA was that NHL is disqualified because almost everyone makes the playoffs, but 16/30 NBA teams do to, the exact same number, percentage, and ratio.

And hockey is just the hardest, period. In the NHL you can't sign 3 players and win a championship. Because there are so many more players you have to pay than you would as an NBA team and it can't fit the salary cap.

 

[Crystallas]

Worlds Strongest Man

Everything else is piffle paffle compared to it.

 

[cubsneedmiracle]

Worlds Strongest Man

Everything else is piffle paffle compared to it.

That just gave me a great idea..

 

[brett05]

But it does. Your argument is bang on for a lack of parity in the NBA. It fails when you extend that argument to the crux of this debate as all a team needs in the NBA to win a championship is a couple of superstars and a slew of boners to fill space and ride coattails. Will is solely one example; how hard was it for him to win four? There are plenty others.



A lot of words are easy to define when a context is made clear.

Lots of teams have a couple of stars and a collection of "scrubs" yet only 8 teams have won the title proving how hard it really is to win the title. Still the only objective undisputed point is variety of champions which clearly the NBA rules

Parity, Difficulty to play is meaningless in the debate. Really there is no debate. Some people believe the earth is flat. And some believe the NHL, NFL, or MLB is harder than the NBA to win a championship

 

[Captain Iago]

Lots of teams have a couple of stars and a collection of "scrubs" yet only 8 teams have won the title proving how hard it really is to win the title. Still the only objective undisputed point is variety of champions which clearly the NBA rules

Parity, Difficulty to play is meaningless in the debate. Really there is no debate. Some people believe the earth is flat. And some believe the NHL, NFL, or MLB is harder than the NBA to win a championship

:lol: If only the world was as black and white as you make it seem.

"Only objective undisputed point" - what a bunch of cockamamie bullshit. You toss out the facts that the NBA had a first round best-of-five(instead of seven), has implemented a sissy cap compared to other sports (which is also higher than other sports), basketball is far less of a team game than other sports, and it is not as physically grueling. These are hardly meaningless points. :smh:

And comparing those who disagree with you are similar to those who believe the earth is flat? :rollseyes:

You're either not thinking hard enough or you are exceedingly obtuse to be so closed minded.

 

[brett05]

You toss out the facts that the NBA had a first round best-of-five(instead of seven)

Less games to win to claim a title would in effect make the probability of varied winners more likely, not less. However, in the NBA changing the number of games in the first round has done nothing to help more varied champions. The reason the NBA increased the first round was not only for a few extra bucks, but to give top seeds a better chance of advancing to the next round.

has implemented a sissy cap compared to other sports (which is also higher than other sports),

Implementing a cap would only increase the chances of parity, not decrease it. Teams that can spend as much as they want on whomever they want would be in the best positions to destroy parity. When everyone plays on the same spending field thanks to a cap (which by the way, I totally support in all sports), parity should increase (it does in the NFL and the NHL)

basketball is far less of a team game than other sports,

Even if this is true, how does that make it easier for any team in the NBA to win a championship and more so, easier to win then another team in another sport that is more team oriented?

and it is not as physically grueling.

How does the physically grueling aspect make it easier or harder to win a championship in a given sport?

These are hardly meaningless points.

In the topic of which sport is hardest to win a championship it would appear to be.

And comparing those who disagree with you are similar to those who believe the earth is flat?

Was this an extreme example, certainly. However, there is no objective evidence to a flat earth and though asked, no one has supplied any objective evidence to support any of the other three sports.

You're either not thinking hard enough or you are exceedingly obtuse to be so closed minded.

One should be closed minded on the truth. I am pretty closed on this subject matter unless some sort of objective evidence can be brought forth. Unless I missed it, none has so far. Basketball is less of a team game and not as physically grueling are subjective points you are making. I look forward to something objective that supports the NHL, MLB, or NFL answer.

And just as a reminder. I am biased toward MLB.

 

[Captain Iago]

Again, the question is which sports is "hardest" and the question is subjective in nature. There isn't an objective statistic that can show one over another, including the one you think you provided. Less varied titles among teams does not equal harder to win.

Less games to win to claim a title would in effect make the probability of varied winners more likely, not less. However, in the NBA changing the number of games in the first round has done nothing to help more varied champions. The reason the NBA increased the first round was not only for a few extra bucks, but to give top seeds a better chance of advancing to the next round.

Simply, having to win fewer games in order to win a championship is easier. I am surprised you have such a tough time accepting this, especially since people are not robots. Fewer games = less strenuous = easier. We're talking about playing sports, not channel surfing. Playing sports takes a toll on bodies and minds. Therefore, the more one person has to do it, the harder it is.

Implementing a cap would only increase the chances of parity, not decrease it. Teams that can spend as much as they want on whomever they want would be in the best positions to destroy parity. When everyone plays on the same spending field thanks to a cap (which by the way, I totally support in all sports), parity should increase (it does in the NFL and the NHL)

A cap, in residual effect, ought to increase parity. However, when the range between the lowest spender, using 2009 numbers, (LAC 32mil) and the largest spender (CLE 116mil) is so vast, the residual effect of parity does not come to fruition. Also, owners have to actually have the cash in order to spend. Larger markets, generally, have the cash. Also, out of all of the majors that have a cap, it's acceptable to exceed the cap in the NBA providing it's for current players (Byrd).

The NFL has an unbalanced schedule based upon the prior year's record (none of the other sports have schedules created as such), which I think, fosters parity within the NFL more than its salary cap.

How does the physically grueling aspect make it easier or harder to win a championship in a given sport?

Again, it's human beings who play sports, not robots. Is this another example of how video games have skewed the views of life/sports?

Was this an extreme example, certainly. However, there is no objective evidence to a flat earth and though asked, no one has supplied any objective evidence to support any of the other three sports.

I recognize you haven't and I will also state I have yet to see any objective evidence that supports any of the four sports. There is no such thing.

Basketball is less of a team game and not as physically grueling are subjective points you are making.

While yes these points are subjective, they're far from wrong.

One should be closed minded on the truth. I am pretty closed on this subject matter unless some sort of objective evidence can be brought forth. Unless I missed it, none has so far... I look forward to something objective that supports the NHL, MLB, or NFL answer.

And just as a reminder. I am biased toward MLB.

I appreciate your candidness that you are biased towards MLB. I haven't voted for an answer because ultimately, I think comparing all of them are apples to oranges, and there is not one single true answer. Each of these sports requires talent and breaks (whether in the form of bounces or in officiating) in order to win a championship and there's far too many intricacies in each to do come up with a true objective answer.

The largest problem, as I see it, with your position is that truth is objective and absolute.

 

[brett05]

Again, the question is which sports is "hardest" and the question is subjective in nature. There isn't an objective statistic that can show one over another, including the one you think you provided. Less varied titles among teams does not equal harder to win.

For a moment, I thought I had totally misread the question which I often do. The question isn't what sport is the hardest. It's what championship is the hardest to win. In that case I don't know of any other objective way then number of different champions.

 

[brett05]

Simply, having to win fewer games in order to win a championship is easier. I am surprised you have such a tough time accepting this, especially since people are not robots.

No, fewer games means better chance for the lesser team to beat the better team. Any given Sunday in the NFL any team can win. If they played best of series (not that it is possible given the type of game) the better team would probably almost never lose.

Fewer games = less strenuous = easier. We're talking about playing sports, not channel surfing. Playing sports takes a toll on bodies and minds. Therefore, the more one person has to do it, the harder it is.

You (and others) keep wanting to make this a debate on what sport is harder to play. That is not the question.

A cap, in residual effect, ought to increase parity. However, when the range between the lowest spender, using 2009 numbers, (LAC 32mil) and the largest spender (CLE 116mil) is so vast, the residual effect of parity does not come to fruition. Also, owners have to actually have the cash in order to spend. Larger markets, generally, have the cash. Also, out of all of the majors that have a cap, it's acceptable to exceed the cap in the NBA providing it's for current players (Byrd).

I won’t correct the typo at the end even though he is my all time favorite. The NBA cap should make more parity. But really that’s a cap discussion, not a what championship is easier to win question.

The NFL has an unbalanced schedule based upon the prior year's record (none of the other sports have schedules created as such), which I think, fosters parity within the NFL more than its salary cap.

That and the cap does. Parity makes it easier to win a championship for a random team in a given sport thus the variety of NFL Champions.

Again, it's human beings who play sports, not robots. Is this another example of how video games have skewed the views of life/sports?

You haven’t attacked me personally yet, are you trying to now? I haven’t played a Video Game in years (and yes I am kinda sad about that).

I recognize you haven't and I will also state I have yet to see any objective evidence that supports any of the four sports. There is no such thing.

How is not number of different champs not evidence? I have yet to see any refuting of it.

While yes these points are subjective, they're far from wrong.

They aren’t wrong at all, just not applicable to the topic.

I appreciate your candidness that you are biased towards MLB. I haven't voted for an answer because ultimately, I think comparing all of them are apples to oranges, and there is not one single true answer. Each of these sports requires talent and breaks (whether in the form of bounces or in officiating) in order to win a championship and there's far too many intricacies in each to do come up with a true objective answer.

The largest problem, as I see it, with your position is that truth is objective and absolute.

Thanks, and yes, you might be right, we might not be able to say definitively which sport. I won’t say 100% NBA, but it’s in the 90% until someone shows me otherwise.

As for Truth. By definition it is objective and absolute otherwise it would not be Truth.

 

[Captain Iago]

For a moment, I thought I had totally misread the question which I often do. The question isn't what sport is the hardest. It's what championship is the hardest to win. In that case I don't know of any other objective way then number of different champions.

The two are mutually exclusive? How does that work?

 

[Captain Iago]

No, fewer games means better chance for the lesser team to beat the better team. Any given Sunday in the NFL any team can win. If they played best of series (not that it is possible given the type of game) the better team would probably almost never lose.



You (and others) keep wanting to make this a debate on what sport is harder to play. That is not the question.



I won’t correct the typo at the end even though he is my all time favorite. The NBA cap should make more parity. But really that’s a cap discussion, not a what championship is easier to win question.


That and the cap does. Parity makes it easier to win a championship for a random team in a given sport thus the variety of NFL Champions.


You haven’t attacked me personally yet, are you trying to now? I haven’t played a Video Game in years (and yes I am kinda sad about that).


How is not number of different champs not evidence? I have yet to see any refuting of it.


They aren’t wrong at all, just not applicable to the topic.




Thanks, and yes, you might be right, we might not be able to say definitively which sport. I won’t say 100% NBA, but it’s in the 90% until someone shows me otherwise.

As for Truth. By definition it is objective and absolute otherwise it would not be Truth.

I've switched to a different machine so forgive my lack of being able to split quotes. I'll try to make as easy to follow as I can.

Fewer games is always easier for players because players are people and it's people who win championships. This coincides with a later point that I wasn't attacking you personally - I have no reason to do so. Which sport is harder to play enters the equation because it's how the championships are won, no? Makes it relevant.

Oops. Bird. I suppose I had Byrd on the mind as I heard he was back participating in bp today. I'm not a cubs fan but damn did he take a wallop.

The NFL has parity more so based on unbalanced schedule than on cap.

You think the intricacies are insignificant to the topic and I think they are. Those intricacies that I think are significant refutes your point of varying championships. Seems as if we've reached an impasse.

To use an example used earlier by you, it was once Truth that the world was flat and dissenters were prosecuted.

 

[brett05]

On Truth. It was never true that the World was Flat. It was the opinion of science and non-biblical believers only. Just because the majority says something is true does not mean it is. Aka flat earth

I'll respond to the rest when I can get to a PC

 

[brett05]

Oops. Bird. I suppose I had Byrd on the mind as I heard he was back participating in bp today. I'm not a cubs fan but damn did he take a wallop.

I HATE the Cubs and I feel awful for Byrd too.

The NFL has parity more so based on unbalanced schedule than on cap.

I think the cap has more to do with it, but that’s a separate discussion really.

You think the intricacies are insignificant to the topic and I think they are. Those intricacies that I think are significant refutes your point of varying championships. Seems as if we've reached an impasse.

Your intricacies are subjective which is fine, but needs objectivity added to be evidence otherwise you are right, we are at an impasse.

Let me try and explain it a different way using your example of Will Perdue.
Strawman argument
A special athlete out of college named Will Perdue is a four sport jock. He can play all of them well enough to garner the very last spot on each sports team’s major roster. The athlete knows that being just barely good enough while getting him on a team’s roster really won’t give him a long career, in fact he believes he might be a one and done athlete at the pro level. He does not care if he gets physically beaten up in athletics and the money is going to be the same for him regardless of what sport he picks to play in. All he cares about is winning a championship. That’s it. He just wants the ring. Given a random placement onto any of the teams in the league he chooses, what league should be choose to give him the highest chance of winning a title as a “coat tale?”