fukdane 2 Posted September 30, 2003 Share Posted September 30, 2003 Which are you? I'd never heard of them until I saw this (interesting but suspect) article in a magazine. Seems that: ------- MESOMORPH is: Muscular and athletic with a triangular body shape. Like boxer Lennox Lewis. If you are fit - football, rugby, hockey, cycling, bixing, mt biking, sprinting, rowing swimming. If you are unfit - cricket, goalkeeping, golf, SKIING (!!!), tennis, downhill mt biking. ------- ECTOMORPH is: Thin and generally tall - although can be shorter. Like high jumper Dalton Grant. If you are fit - basketball, volleyball, long distance running, mt biking, canoeing If you are unfit - cricket, softball, high jumping, tennis, skiing, golf ------- ENDOMORPH is: More stocky, with a rounder body shape. Like darts players. If you are fit - rugby, American football, swimming, boxing, judo If you are unfit - 10 pin bowling, bowls, cricket, darts, sailing, snooker, weightlifting, table tennis. --------------------- "60% of your sporting potential is genetically based", says Faye Downey, a physiologist for UK Athletics at Loughborough University. "You're born with a number of physical attributes that can only be changed by up to 40%. So if you're tall and thin, you won't be a rugby prop forward. And if you're short and fat you won't make a high jumper." (Duh!) So genetics is why Lennox Lewis is a boxer, Frankie Dettori is a top jockey, and why Jocky Wilson plays darts. "There are 3 different body types. Mesomorph, Ectomorph or Endomorph. Most people are a combination of mesomorph and either ecto- or endomorph." ======= Hmmmmm, Link to post Share on other sites
rach 1 Posted September 30, 2003 Share Posted September 30, 2003 God knows what I am. ...far too delicate for one of those. I like this morph best! Link to post Share on other sites
mogski 0 Posted September 30, 2003 Share Posted September 30, 2003 I thought Endomorph was the singular version of Endomorpins that exist in all living things but are some active in Jedi Knights. Link to post Share on other sites
Ocean11 0 Posted September 30, 2003 Share Posted September 30, 2003 This just confirms my doubts about PE being an appropriate subject for the academic approach. Link to post Share on other sites
badmigraine 0 Posted September 30, 2003 Share Posted September 30, 2003 In my view, PE should have been expanded to include learning about other things that you can do with your body, besides sports. There was this one girl in varsity swimming... Link to post Share on other sites
slow 0 Posted September 30, 2003 Share Posted September 30, 2003 Anyway, if you are fit and strong, very attractive for me. Link to post Share on other sites
badmigraine 0 Posted September 30, 2003 Share Posted September 30, 2003 Just thinking about PE and my old high school's Spanish teacher who also was Asst. Swimming Coach and that almost-transparent Speedo racesuit she wore and how she used to get out of the water and stand on the edge of the pool demonstrating strokes as water dripped off different exciting parts of her body as we floated helplessly in the water gaping up at her... Oh, mesomorphy Oh, mesomorhpy Oh, mesomorphy Me love you long time! Link to post Share on other sites
klingon 10 Posted September 30, 2003 Share Posted September 30, 2003 Quote: If you are unfit - SKIING If you are unfit?!? Link to post Share on other sites
damian 0 Posted September 30, 2003 Share Posted September 30, 2003 This stuff is very old. I learnt about in my year 9 high school Sports Science class, about 16 years ago. ?? What is so suspect about this?? Link to post Share on other sites
OnTheTin 0 Posted October 1, 2003 Share Posted October 1, 2003 You learn all that? In a Sports Science class? Whats one of them when they're at home?! My PE lessons were "right out on the field and get playing soccer/rugby/whatever. Link to post Share on other sites
Ocean11 0 Posted October 1, 2003 Share Posted October 1, 2003 Sports Science? Did you also look in depth at the difference in shape between a football and rugby ball? Maybe coin some new pseudo-greek terms to 'define' the differences? What's suspect about it (especially in this case) is that it brings the paraphenalia of the scientific method to a subject that is already transparent (tall people are tall - cor blimey!), and then makes it opaque (tall people are spectomorphs, except when they're partly morphodines). Then it presumes to tell people what they can and can't do, unless of course it's cricket, which it appears anybody can do if they're unfit. This suggests to me that the world would benefit from a top-level scientific commission to study what makes cricket such an all round accessible sport. The cause of all this nonsense is the age old worry of the PE teacher that his subject is not academic, and therefore he is not the equal of his colleagues in the staff room. So PE teachers used to pretend that they were actually instilling morality in their pupils. When that position became ludicrous, they put that smelly sock in the locker and put on the tracksuit of science. They also taught Geography or some other subject (badly) to prove that they weren't just a meathead. But being, on the whole, just meatheads, they didn't spot the obvious - that sport can be fun, and fun is far more valuable than morality or science. Link to post Share on other sites
Mr. Grinch 0 Posted October 1, 2003 Share Posted October 1, 2003 grinchomorph Link to post Share on other sites
damian 0 Posted October 1, 2003 Share Posted October 1, 2003 It should be noted that I did not enjoy sports science due to my general dislike of sporty stuff. Any how, Sports Science was an elective subject that I endured for 2 years and was different to our standard weekly PE class. Sports Science was 90% class room based and focused on among other things, human anatomy from a sport perspective - hence classifications of body types endo-ecto-meso blah blah. This also included stuff like red (fast twitch) and white (slow twitch) muscle fibers. Red is good for sprinting, white is good for endurance. I may have that back to front. Other matters that it attempted to teach included psychology of winning, training and competition diets, training methods, injury and recovery stuff, metabolism, coaching and instructing etc. As far as morality or science goes..... I just took the subject as it was piss easy and wanted to become a pro surfer thus thought this could help. Link to post Share on other sites
Stefan 0 Posted October 1, 2003 Share Posted October 1, 2003 DB I have to disagree. I've got a lot of time for sports science as a subject. Again Ocean you've said everything about nothing. Straddling the fence with get outs and vague references to crappy PE teachers. Did you used to write your own 'sick notes' for PE and not want to share the showers with the other boys. For any student who is serious about progressing in their choosen field of sport. Sports science provides highly valuable awarness of diet, muscle growth, rest and recuperation not to mention physio etc..... Link to post Share on other sites
badmigraine 0 Posted October 1, 2003 Share Posted October 1, 2003 The only performance enhancer I envision using with glee is Viagra. But I am not yet ready for it. Check back in a decade. Link to post Share on other sites
IIIII 2 Posted October 1, 2003 Share Posted October 1, 2003 Well I can pass on to you lots of nice emails about that if you want badmigraine (about 20 every day actually) Link to post Share on other sites
badmigraine 0 Posted October 1, 2003 Share Posted October 1, 2003 Uh...twenty whats per day?! Link to post Share on other sites
Ocean11 0 Posted October 1, 2003 Share Posted October 1, 2003 Oh my God! Mr Matthews, you are speaking in the authentic voice of my hated Welsh sports teacher! He portioned out his time in just the same way as you do, although he never said 'I have a lot of time for fun', that's for sure, the taffy git. And his scribblings in my report card were marked with the same carelessness of speling and gramar that you show, although with plenty of that empty bombast that you have. He was the only teacher who insisted on being called 'Sir' to bolster his own self-image. He threatened to sue my parents for impugning his 'perfessional integ'ritee' when they said he had nothing to impart, but of course it was an idle threat. Since I couldn't have my revenge on him, Mr Matthews, I'll have it on you. What exactly the hell do you mean by "Straddling the fence with get outs"? At least one example please. Make it telling. And where was my reference to PE teachers "vague"? Chapter 'n verse, boyo, chapter 'n verse. Down 'n 10 now boyo, and you'll enjoy it too. Luck'y lads! You've just confirmed what I said. 'Sports Science' is for meatheads who want to put on airs. Link to post Share on other sites
jared 0 Posted October 1, 2003 Share Posted October 1, 2003 So if I want to make a living as a personal trainer, gym instructor or coach what do you recommend I study? The so called “sports science” where I will learn about types of muscle, how to build them and what diet is best for this, or would spelling practice be of more benefit. ( I realise that spelling practice may be of some benefit to me but not so I can be a coach) Link to post Share on other sites
Ocean11 0 Posted October 1, 2003 Share Posted October 1, 2003 It's a question of style. When self-apparent stuff gets dressed up in fancy terminology, and meatheads start saying 20 words where 5 will do nicely, then it gets suspect. That's all. It also gets suspect when Mr Meathead, Sir wants you to admire his academic style while he ignores your basic needs like 'what are the rules of football - nobody ever told me them.' Link to post Share on other sites
Stefan 0 Posted October 1, 2003 Share Posted October 1, 2003 Atack mi speling if u will! But I've no doubt that Michael Owen and his friends in the Premier League would be unable to recover from injury at the rate that they do, if it wasn't for the contributions sports science has made. Ocean Quote: The cause of all this nonsense is the age old worry of the PE teacher that his subject is not academic, and therefore he is not the equal of his colleagues in the staff room. I'd call this a vague generalisation, based on your insular views of how sports was in your school. Did you dislike the guys and girls in school because they where better at sports than you ? It's easy to dismiss groups of people (and their achievements) as meatheads when you feel inferior to them. As it is easy to dismiss people as 'geeks' in the same way. Link to post Share on other sites
Ocean11 0 Posted October 1, 2003 Share Posted October 1, 2003 > Did you dislike the guys and girls in school because they where better at sports than you ? I disliked most of those boys because they were pricks. And there weren't any girls at school who were better at sports than me, for shame, although I did dally with some of the leading sports girlies at my school. But you miss the point with your David Owen thing. Sure, anything that helps people recover that quickly must be the genuine article - it is meaningful, and genuine 'science' (meaning knowledge that can be applied). Contrast that with the fake science of naming, then mixing and matching body types. That's the sort of drivel that talentless meathead PE teacher types adopt as their cover. And before you go claiming get-outs again, kindly note that I haven't said that it's all bogus, just that the academic approach is not appropriate. Link to post Share on other sites
mogski 0 Posted October 1, 2003 Share Posted October 1, 2003 Not that I really care much for the discussion that is going on, but I would just liek to say that PE was my most liked subject as high school cause it was a time to see the fine bodies of all the girls in my class in more skimpy outfits than their uniforms and it was a good skite time as my PE teacher was a famous wing for the All Blacks at the time! It still feels good to skite about that even now Link to post Share on other sites
Ocean11 0 Posted October 1, 2003 Share Posted October 1, 2003 mogs, your teacher gave the lie to the old saw that those who can, do, and those who can't, teach. Unfortunately girls at our school were forced to wear the most unsightly big nylon knickers imaginable, so that even the girls with really good bods looked almost unappealing (and girls with bad bods were enough to reduce a boy to tears). Had I been a parent of a girl then, I would have withdrawn her from sports classes on compassionate grounds. Link to post Share on other sites
Mr. Grinch 0 Posted October 1, 2003 Share Posted October 1, 2003 Erm...say there, Mr. Ocean, ah...might I ask you about those bloomer girls...er...ah...that is to say... Would you recommend tying antlers on their heads and turning them into reindeer? Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts