[BearyWhite]

Originally Posted by south bender

Is this not an ignorant definition? (And am not singling out UrsaMajor, who has simply accurately explained this conventional "wisdom.")

Using this definition, one has to conclude that Magic Johnson, Larry Bird, Wes Unseld, Steve Nash, Kevin Love--to name just a few--were/are not superior athletes!...

Let's let the definition catch up with reality. I will not attempt a definition here, but suffice it to say I know a great college basketball athlete when I see one.

I think this is just semantic confusion. A "student-athlete" is a student who plays a sport. But when they describe a student athlete's athleticism, they're talking about strength, quickness, jumping ability and so on, not the skill with which they play their sport. Bird was a sublime player but not a great athlete. He had superior hand-eye coordination, smarts, competitiveness, reflexes and so on, but wasn't a great athlete. It's like when they list a football recruit's position as "athlete" -- they don't mean stellar football IQ.

Picture Jorge with all his skills, now make him faster, four inches taller, 30 pounds heavier. His challenge at the next level will be that he'll match up against that guy.

[south bender]

Originally Posted by BearyWhite

But when they describe a student athlete's athleticism, they're talking about strength, quickness, jumping ability and so on, not the skill with which they play their sport.

Athletes play sports. Some of them are seen as great by just about any knowledgeable observer (e.g., Magic Johnson, Larry Bird). These ones are definitionally great athletes.

Obviously, all who possess "strength, quickness, jumping ability" are not great athletes. And what is included in your "and so on"? Hand-eye coordination, court vision, will, endurance, skill?

My point is that one should look with skepticism at assertions that so and so is a better "athlete" than somebody else who obviously outperforms the alleged great athlete.

If what is really meant is that X is quicker/faster, jumps quicker and higher than Y, let's state that. No need to say X has more "athleticism" than Y, if Y is clearly superior at whatever sport the two play.

Lastly, since strength is to a great degree an acquired trait, what does it have to do with "athleticism" as you use it?

[BearyWhite]

Originally Posted by south bender

Athletes play sports. Some of them are seen as great by just about any knowledgeable observer (e.g., Magic Johnson, Larry Bird). These ones are definitionally great athletes.

Obviously, all who possess "strength, quickness, jumping ability" are not great athletes. And what is included in your "and so on"? Hand-eye coordination, court vision, will, endurance, skill?

My point is that one should look with skepticism at assertions that so and so is a better "athlete" than somebody else who obviously outperforms the alleged great athlete.

Right, this is why I'm saying it's a semantic difference; people use the word "athlete" to mean two different things. There's a use for a word to describe someone who is really fast, really quick and can jump really high. (You're right, strength probably isn't in this group.) Most people use the word "athlete", which has dual meaning as someone who plays a sport well. I think you're just taking issue with the dual purpose of that word. If the word for a quick-fast-jumper type was "quimpast", would you allow that Jorge was a great athlete but not a great quimpast?

[Genykologist]

Originally Posted by sbbear

when I heard them say twice that Jorge was not a great athlete, I couldn't take it anymore and switched to Roxy. (I had to delay the game about 7 seconds)

Where do you think he excels as an athlete relative to the average Pac 10 basketball player. Is he faster? A better leaper? Stronger? (that's about the only one where I might say he's above average for a guard, but in some ways I think that's an optical illusion because of how he plays).

Jorge is where he is because of his effort and his utter disregard for his own personal postgame comfort, not because he possesses exceptional athleticism.

[Genykologist]

Originally Posted by calgldnbear

But Jorge makes up for that with smarts and heart .... which would you prefer on a daily basis???

That's a different question with a different answer. Ideally you want both guys on your team and hopefully the guy with the heart inspires the guys with greater athleticism to play with more effort.

[Civil Bear]

Originally Posted by Genykologist

Where do you think he excels as an athlete relative to the average Pac 10 basketball player.

But that wasn't the reference. The average Pac10 player his size is an exceptional athlete.

[Genykologist]

Originally Posted by Civil Bear

But that wasn't the reference. The average Pac10 player his size is an exceptional athlete.

Surrre

[south bender]

Originally Posted by BearyWhite

If the word for a quick-fast-jumper type was "quimpast", would you allow that Jorge was a great athlete but not a great quimpast?

Yes. And I would take a great athlete over a quimpast any day of the week!