If you could be a pro in any sport, which one would you choose and why?

There has been much discussion about comparisons between individuals and different sports but if you could have taken up a sport to professional level, which would it be and why?
(caveat:- F1 is an engineering competition, not a sport so is excluded)

I would of course go with golf.

I'd win the Open with the flop shot as my most used shot, I'd get to number 1 and tell everyone that it doesn't give you the same buzz as winning a major, I'd use no brain filter in interviews and say what I thought, I'd wear a Pudsey bear costume on the course with my name on it for self promotion, after playing I'd become a member of the R&A and get The Open hosted in The Falklands and then I'd come on here and answer everyone's bickering with answers that actually make a difference.

Probably tennis for me. You dont get too many lardy assed tennis players, though Henri Leconte and Mardy Fish carried a bit of timber.
I think the ladies prefer tennis players to golfers.

beach volleyball and other such exploits

Diggers, Nalbandian is a bit portly.

Yeah but he's no Shane Lowry Super.

Can you imagine him on the court Diggers, you'd never get him away from the fridge underneath the Umpires chair.

Would have chosen F1 but as that has been arbitrarily banned then I will go for golfer. It would be very close between golf, f1 and football. Although I was better at football I think I will choose golf because the game is more of a passion of mine

I do not think the lifestyle of a pro golfer would be that great due to all the travel but the status might get you on some of the best courses in the world. I think I would enjoy the chance to have knock about’s at the likes of pine valley, muirfield, crystal downs etc over playing in normal tour events. I cannot think of another way to get onto some of the more exclusive clubs.

Golf for certain and the list of reasons is pretty long.

1) You can pretty much eat and drink what you like and still be successful.
2) Someone else does the manual labour for you.
3) You're your own boss.
4) Retire when you like not when your body packs up.
5) Wear pretty much what you like.
6) Most of the time you play in warm sunny conditions.

Can't think of any other sports that those options are all available to you.

That said although it probably belongs on another thread I've always thought that as a combination of skill and fitness tennis pretty much knocks all other sports into a cocked hat.

I would say F1 has a greater combination of skill and fitness. And unless you really know f1 dont bother responding to that. Sorry to be blunt but in general people dont understand f1.

I'm waiting for S_R to pick snooker or darts so he can give up his fitness regime and let himself go

Golf would be a great option simply for the financial rewards. My other choice would be boxer (if I were any good at it), but golf may just sneak it as it doesn't involve me getting punched in the face...unless I really irritate my playing partners.

I think I'm more suited to individual sports -- I can live and die by my own choices and I don't have anyone to blame if I balls up...or to share glory with when I win!

mac

I think I'd have to agree with you on that one (sounds like I don't want to!! lol) Certainly when it comes to mental agility and speed of thought, those guys must be right up there. And their levels of fitness are as good as anyone's.

F1 guys are very fit, but I don't think they are any more fit than Tennis, Boxing and Cyclists, it's different types of fitness anyway.
I certainly don't think F1 has as much skill, they just need to have the part of their brain detached which recongises the consequences of risk.

Footballers on the other hand have a very poor level of fitness in comparison to those mentioned.

sodhat

Boxing is a form of entertainment like wrestling or dancing on ice, so how on earth can you select it in a question asked about sports?

While F1 is an engineering contest Mac and golf is just putting a wee white ball in a hole. You can argue anything is a sport or not.

I think I would go for Rugby, of all the sports I play, I am least competetive at Rugby, but love the game.

So for me Rugby

Cricket.
But would switch to golf every other autumn as my natural talent would earn me a Ryder Cup Captain's choice.

Hibbz wrote:Golf for certain and the list of reasons is pretty long.

1) You can pretty much eat and drink what you like and still be successful.
2) Someone else does the manual labour for you.
3) You're your own boss.
4) Retire when you like not when your body packs up.
5) Wear pretty much what you like.
6) Most of the time you play in warm sunny conditions.

Can't think of any other sports that those options are all available to

Darts

Would go with cricket.

Any sport that stops for meals, or when it's too dark or raining has a lot going for it. Also, as a top level player, you travel to some very nice parts of the world (West Indies, Aus, NZ, SA, Sri Lanka) and some interesting ones (India, Pakistan, Bangladesh) while it's winter back in dear old Blighty. Oh, and as a kid I was probably best at cricket and rugby (which would involve a pro career of wading through mud and trying to avoid some big brute trying to knock my head off, so definintely has more 'cons' than cricket).

Why would anyone choose boxing? Being paid to try to hit someone and avoid them hitting you in return. Doesn't appeal.

McLaren wrote:I would say F1 has a greater combination of skill and fitness. And unless you really know f1 dont bother responding to that. Sorry to be blunt but in general people dont understand f1.

I don't know F1 but still feel entitled to respond, sorry. I wouldn't argue with you about the skill and fitness levels but I would say another big factor in making it as an F1 driver is having someone willing to bankroll you as a child. Now obviously I wouldn't say Tennis is free to play and yes the English players do come from priveledged back grounds but I doubt that's the case for hundreds of East Europeans that are coming through.

Therefore the number of people you'd be competing against to make it as a Tennis pro is far greater than the number of people you'd have to be better than were you to be able to choose F1. This to me means you'd need to be a fair superior (in terms of skills) human specimen to make it as a tennis pro.

Look at it this way. You could be the best horse rider in the world but unless you also happen to be less than 5' you aint gonna make it as a flat jockey. I've often wondered whether jockeys are good at riding horses or if they're short people and therefore good for riding horses if you see what I mean.

Sorry for taking this debate off topic by the way and for rambling.

SR (only you could assume such knowledge without any reason)

As I said don’t comment on f1 if you do not understand what goes into driving a car like an f1 car at those speeds. The level of skill required is just unreal. You would not even be able to take the first bend at normal driving speeds never mind f1 speeds.

And not only is there the driving element but also the race strategy element. Like golf there is a great combination of physical and intellectual ability.

leinsterbaby wrote:

Hibbz wrote:Golf for certain and the list of reasons is pretty long.

1) You can pretty much eat and drink what you like and still be successful.
2) Someone else does the manual labour for you.
3) You're your own boss.
4) Retire when you like not when your body packs up.
5) Wear pretty much what you like.
6) Most of the time you play in warm sunny conditions.

Can't think of any other sports that those options are all available to

Darts

Never seen them play darts in the sun but I guess it might be an option if there was no wind.

Mac, nor do you know anything about the levels of fitness in other sports. I never said they weren't fit, I just said they weren't any fitter than lots of other sports. It's not a pi$$ up the wall contest. I'm sure you need to be very fit to be an astronaut, but it doesn't make it a sport, so in a "sport" where your success is goverened largely by the level of ingenuity of the engineers and the bankrolling which pays them I can't take that "sport" seriously regardless of how fit and skillful those taking part are.

Golf or rugby. Both the best spectator sports in the world. Nothing else comes close. In golf the pinnacle of my career would be first Irish man to putt on the green jacket. In rugby I would take pleasure in beating the ABs.

Could I be Victoria Pendletons bike seat ?

leinsterbaby wrote:Golf or rugby. Both the best spectator sports in the world. Nothing else comes close. In golf the pinnacle of my career would be first Irish man to putt on the green jacket. In rugby I would take pleasure in beating the ABs.

Ha ha, how much borrow would you allow for when putting on the green jacket?

Rugby to me is one of the most boring games in the world to watch. Stupid rules such as ballerina lineouts, squint scrum put ins and too much homo-erotic man contact for my liking.

Hibbz wrote:

leinsterbaby wrote:

Hibbz wrote:Golf for certain and the list of reasons is pretty long.

1) You can pretty much eat and drink what you like and still be successful.
2) Someone else does the manual labour for you.
3) You're your own boss.
4) Retire when you like not when your body packs up.
5) Wear pretty much what you like.
6) Most of the time you play in warm sunny conditions.

Can't think of any other sports that those options are all available to

Darts

Never seen them play darts in the sun but I guess it might be an option if there was no wind.

You can replicate warm sunny conditions indoors. Indeed they are never required to play in a squall.

If we agree the likes of tennis and F1 require the most skill would others agree rugby requires the least of all pro sports?

super_realist wrote:Rugby to me is one of the most boring games in the world to watch. Stupid rules such as ballerina lineouts, squint scrum put ins and too much homo-erotic man contact for my liking.

I thought you would be into the homo-erotic stuff.

As for being boring to watch, it certainly isnt.

Cricket is borning to watch, so is alot of golf, rugby certainly isnt

McLaren wrote:If we agree the likes of tennis and F1 require the most skill would others agree rugby requires the least of all pro sports?

Seconded. Just an excuse for the fat kids to bully the skinny ones in school.

leinsterbaby wrote:

Hibbz wrote:

leinsterbaby wrote:

Hibbz wrote:Golf for certain and the list of reasons is pretty long.

1) You can pretty much eat and drink what you like and still be successful.
2) Someone else does the manual labour for you.
3) You're your own boss.
4) Retire when you like not when your body packs up.
5) Wear pretty much what you like.
6) Most of the time you play in warm sunny conditions.

Can't think of any other sports that those options are all available to

Darts

Never seen them play darts in the sun but I guess it might be an option if there was no wind.

You can replicate warm sunny conditions indoors. Indeed they are never required to play in a squall.

How precisely do you replicate the sun indoors? Play under one of those sunlamp things? Guess it would become a battle as to whether they'd get skin or lung cancer first!!

McLaren wrote:sodhat

Boxing is a form of entertainment like wrestling or dancing on ice, so how on earth can you select it in a question asked about sports?

sport/spôrt/
Noun: An activity involving physical exertion and skill in which an individual or team competes against another or others.

McLaren,

If you take the definition of 'sport' as that above, I think boxing fits in just fine. Certainly it has plenty of physical exertion and skill.

Hibz
Interesting point about jockeys - obviously some are more talented riders than others, but you have to be a certain size to have any chance of making it.

You could make a similar point (at the opposite extreme) about some basketball players. The guys who are 7' plus don't really need to be great players, as their height makes them good FOR playing the game rather than good AT playing. By comparison, the Michael Jordan types (OK, you still need to be well over 6', so in the upper few % height wise, but not a freak) are far more talented but only marginally more effective.

Rugby isn't always boring, but it certainly has the capacity to be over for one team very quickly. I blame a poorly designed scoring system. There are too many affectations in the game which annoy me.
I also really hate that Chris Ashton and his dives. I wish someone would just hold an extended foot out with their studs up. He deserves it.

McLaren wrote:If we agree the likes of tennis and F1 require the most skill would others agree rugby requires the least of all pro sports?

All brawn and not much skill. Certain physical attributes required but hard to argue it's a skillful sport.

super_realist wrote:Rugby to me is one of the most boring games in the world to watch. Stupid rules such as ballerina lineouts, squint scrum put ins and too much homo-erotic man contact for my liking.

Im not surprised as you are one of the most boring posters I have ever come across on any forum.

Given that I've never received anything like the number of negative responses to posts in my years with 606 as you have in your two short weeks since you came along I would think all you have to do is look in the mirror.

Part of the beauty of rugby is different positions havinbg different skill sets, Id say a fly half is a skillful sportsman, needs good hands, good feet and an ability to read the game so a quick mind.
Less so for a prop through maybe....

sodhat wrote:

McLaren wrote:sodhat

Boxing is a form of entertainment like wrestling or dancing on ice, so how on earth can you select it in a question asked about sports?

sport/spôrt/
Noun: An activity involving physical exertion and skill in which an individual or team competes against another or others.

McLaren,

If you take the definition of 'sport' as that above, I think boxing fits in just fine. Certainly it has plenty of physical exertion and skill.

Yes that may well be the dictionary definition of a sport but in the case of boxing the matches are clearly fixed in the manner of a WWE fight. It is sports entertainment which is rich as the sporting element is removed. As I said boxing is not different to the x factor or indeed the naming of the blue peter cat.

Hibbz wrote:

McLaren wrote:If we agree the likes of tennis and F1 require the most skill would others agree rugby requires the least of all pro sports?

Seconded. Just an excuse for the fat kids to bully the skinny ones in school.

Nonsense there is a place for kids of all sizes on the rugby team. Fatties in the front row, skinny lads out the backs.

I take it you're a Front row?

leinsterbaby wrote:

super_realist wrote:Rugby to me is one of the most boring games in the world to watch. Stupid rules such as ballerina lineouts, squint scrum put ins and too much homo-erotic man contact for my liking.

Im not surprised as you are one of the most boring posters I have ever come across on any forum.

Feel free to leave if you don't like it here...............

Diggers

A fly half may well be skilful compared to a prop but not compared to other sports people outside rugby.

SR

I also hate Chris Ashton, he goes on my list along with Poulter, mcDowell, Gerrard and Heston, among others.

I know why you don't like Rugby now anyway, it grates on you seeing some fatties who are world class at their sport!!

Diggers wrote:Part of the beauty of rugby is different positions havinbg different skill sets, Id say a fly half is a skillful sportsman, needs good hands, good feet and an ability to read the game so a quick mind.
Less so for a prop through maybe....

Props need plenty of skills though - have to be able to drink 15 pints a night, then eat 3 helpings of vindaloo while belching, farting and singing off-colour songs (unfortunately, some also have a tendency to do this naked ). Other than this, yes all they need to do is amble round the pitch and occasionally lift or push something or knock over someone smaller than themselves.

McLaren wrote:

sodhat wrote:

McLaren wrote:sodhat

Boxing is a form of entertainment like wrestling or dancing on ice, so how on earth can you select it in a question asked about sports?

sport/spôrt/
Noun: An activity involving physical exertion and skill in which an individual or team competes against another or others.

McLaren,

If you take the definition of 'sport' as that above, I think boxing fits in just fine. Certainly it has plenty of physical exertion and skill.

Yes that may well be the dictionary definition of a sport but in the case of boxing the matches are clearly fixed in the manner of a WWE fight. It is sports entertainment which is rich as the sporting element is removed. As I said boxing is not different to the x factor or indeed the naming of the blue peter cat.

I'm not so sure about that -- in some cases it may be the case, but what sport is totally clean? Not cricket, football, snooker or F1.

If you watch a fight and actually see the athleticism and skill shown by these guys, along with the guts to stand up to the beatings they dish out to each other, I'd like to think you'd develop a healthy respect for them. A sweeping generalisation that they are all 'fixed' isn't just here.

JD, I don't see too many fatties in Pro Rugby actually.

For me football followed by golf. The vote for football would be because i was almost good enough and played at a high level. Golf was a game i always loved but could never do as well as football.

I'm actually playing in a tournament at Wembley next month, and looking forward to scoring on that hallowed pitch.