Talented athletes at all levels will claim that their favorite sport is superior to someone else’s.

Usually only multi-sport athletes will claim that there are strengths and weaknesses to each.

The bottom line of these arguments will usually come down to the level of athleticism required and amount of body breakdown that occurs from playing.

Tennis players will cite hand-eye coordination, quickness and lateral agility.

Soccer players will cite footwork, judgment and endurance.

Football players will cite speed, power and mental acumen.

The argument will not stop.

As a former football player, naturally I will say my sport is the hardest on the basis of the required skill set(s) requiring more athleticism.

But that argument is weak, seeing as it is the only sport I’ve played at a high level.

The amount of time commitment put in for my sport can be found just as much as in others, I’m sure.

I’ve never gotten my hands on a scouting report for a hockey game, so I can’t say that their film study is any tougher or not.

I’ve never been a strength coach, so I can’t say that the training I’ve been through is tougher than that of any other sport (though some definitely do require more than others).

I’ve never been a boxer or mixed martial artist, so I can’t say that dealing with football injuries is tougher than fighting injuries.

See where this is going?

If you don’t know, you don’t know.

Deep down I want to say that my sport is tougher in all aspects. But if I took that idea into a debate against multi-sport athletes who’ve played football and are advocating for another sport, they could make a ton of more positive points than I could.

And I’d lose.

Its all about experience and athleticism.

Being capable of playing multiple sports at a high level is a testament to one’s athletic ability.

Nike’s SPARQ system (Speed, Power, Agility, Reaction and Quickness) is one way to gauge one’s athletic ability.

In different sports (with different positions) some will undoubtedly weigh heavier in the favor of one or more performance categories.

Well-balanced athletes (usually multi-sport) will have a higher average overall.

And then there are freaks of nature (LeBron James, Patrick Willis, Robert Griffin III) who will perform high in all categories anyway.

There is only one large flaw.

Being big, strong and fast does not make you a great athlete.

Some of the strongest men in the world have performed horribly on the football field.

Many of the quickest men and women there are have proven to be terrible fighters.

And there’s always the one guy on the basketball court who can do all kinds of fancy tricks before throwing up bricks at the basket.

So what does it all come down to?

It’s just not that simple.

There is no one factor that makes one sport tougher to play than another. There are many.

Talent is first, athletic ability is second, mental acumen is third, endurance/toughness is fourth and attitude (more of a factor in team sports) is fifth.

If you can’t pitch, you can’t pitch. If you can’t perform on a balance beam, you can’t perform on a balance beam.

Many people have dreams, but few make it due to talent level. That’s the first filter.

Athletic ability increases with strength, conditioning and drilling. Without it your talent will go unpolished and you will be defeated by someone who worked harder.

Intelligence and discipline come third. All the weapons in your physical arsenal must be coordinated. You can’t just run out there and play like you’re on the playground. Film study, breakdown and further drill time reinforces that.

Endurance is simple. If you can’t last long, you’ll soon become worthless. The same goes for playing through injuries.

And lastly, attitude. If you think you’re going to lose a game, you’ve already lost. Determination goes a long way.

So which sport is superior?

Only an extremely talented and totally unbiased athlete can say, if that even exists.

Joshua Bryant can be reached at 581-2812 or [email protected].