Let's say you were tired of the 9-5 and wanted to go pro-athlete. What would the easiest sport for a person that quit their 9-5 job to go pro in? I would think it would probably be rowing because there is only one motion for it, but you would have to be pretty tall to do it. I think England actually got quite a few rowers in the last olympics just by getting tall people with long limbs...
I like the rowing idea much more than the bowling idea, though bowling is a worthy idea. I am 51 (not thinking of getting into fulltime athletics, BTW) and was thinkning the same thing watching the last Olympics and came to the same conclusion. Although I am not thinking of participating myself, I am seriously thinking of putting a team together and know just the type of guys/girls I am looking for. Will let you know if I am successful, or if we win a gold. LOL.
Bobsled, if Jamacia can do it
Sorry, none of the above is a sport (IMO).
Funny thing, is that when told this, many people get defensive like you're putting it down. Which isn't the case.
In fact, I don't consider golf a sport, but it's hard as fuck.
I dunno, I think I'd consider rowing a sport. It takes skill and athleticism. Bowling, on the other hand, can be played perfectly well by fatties with bad knees.
yeah quit your job to pursue a shitty sport. got any more bright ideas, boss?
I met/knew a couple of Olympic level or close rowers when I was in England, and I have to say the athleticism that sport requires in minimal. I have met at least one guy who rowed in the Olympics, may have medalled, and I don't think he could start for a decent DIII basketball team here. Don't get me wrong, it's hard as hell, grueling, but the athleticism is very low compared to a lot of sports.
Not a sport, but you could try poker. Game of luck mostly
How does rowing a boat compare to basketball? Rowing is fucking difficult. I don't know shit about it, but watch those guys train and you'll see.
FTW......this could also lead into a career as a professional "surprise sex-athlete."
Game of luck? Hardly.
Getting good cards is dependent on luck, but playing well is entirely skill-based. There's a reason there are "top" poker players.
Certainly playing well increases your odds.
Therefor in the long run, the skilled players will win more often statistically.
HOWEVER, in the short run, the skilled players could easily lose to a less skilled player who gets above average hands aka luck.
That is why tournaments are so long, the more hands you play the better odds for the better players.
With fewer hands, luck plays a larger role than skill. When people say poker is a game of mostly luck they are making a true statement.
Statistically luck is more important, however you have no control over that, so assuming you play enough hands, everyone's luck evens out within a few deviations, and the better skilled players win out.
Its like blackjack, the house wins a draw, so the house has slightly better odds than you no matter what.
The poker pro is the "house", his advantage is small, but its there, and given enough play, it eventually must equal profit.
Well with poker, the same players consistently do well in the WSOP which shows its not all luck. But even beginners can beat pros, just not in the long run.
Winning isn't always about getting good cards though. It certainly helps, but the psychological aspect and actually knowing the percentages and using this to bet effectively play huge parts as well. I'm not even remotely a fan of poker, and I think televised poker is one of the most boring things on tv, but my one bud wins or places consistently enough when he plays local tournaments to lead me to believe that maybe his skill and experience affects the outcome more than just chance would allow.