Quote Originally Posted by Lyle View Post
Quote Originally Posted by Zilla View Post
If it was all about athleticism then Tye Fields would be a champ right now. Ex NBA player, huge and studly, but he's everyone's whipping boy in a boxing ring.
...Tye Fields isn't athletic, he's just a big tall white dude. There is a difference between being able to play a sport and "being athletic".

Michael Vick is athletic but he's shit for a QB
Larry Bird was an awesome basketball player but he wasn't as athletic as most of the guys in the league.

Wlad is athletic, he moves extremely well for a big guy. He's very agile and quick for a big guy. Tye Fields is just a big dude who played college ball at freaking San Diego State!!! There's a big reason why he doesn't play in the NBA, I'm guessing he's not very athletic.........or good at basketball, which is why he would play at San Diego State.
Ain't this the truth. Michael Vick is arguably the most athletic QB in the NFL, but yet no unbiased NFL fan would rather have him over let's say Drew Brees, Tom Brady, or Peyton Manning. And Michael Vick has been playing football since he was a youngster so 1 can't use the excuse he just started playing. The truth of the matter is that Vick lacks those necessary qualities to be a great NFL qb, like accuracy, reading defenses, leadership, ability to adjust and adapt, etc.

It's just ridiculous that people seems to think just because a guy is athletic overall that this athlete can be really great in another sport if they took it up when they are young.

Of course these are the same people that with their logic they think some really athletic NFL/NBA star can be better than Wayne Gretzky, Roger Federer, Diego Maradona, Lance Armstrong, Muhammad Ali, if they took up those sports at a young age and focused on it, because those NFL/NBA stars are so athletic overall than those legends in other sports.