I have a pretty specific definition of fitness that I adhere to.
We have 10 basic physical skills:
- Cardivascular Endurance
- Strength
- Stamina
- Power
- Speed
- Flexibility
- Accuracy
- Balance
- Agility
- Coordination
I feel that if you are lacking in any one of these areas, then you cannot call yourself truly "FIT". Just being advanced in one area does not necessarily grant you access to other domains. There are plenty of examples of "specialists", who train for their specific goals, a certain sport let's say, to the exclusion of all else. They may excel then, at that particular event, but in my opinion they are not "FIT". To be fit means to be able to handle many challenges of various modality. Why? Beacuse that's the way life happens. You don't get to follow a program for what happens next. Who do I want around if I'm unconscious and the house is on fire? An olympic distance athlete...(ie: Simon)
Who would you choose? Both olympic champions. However, one in a sport dominated by the need for cardiovascular endurance, along with some stamina certainly, perhaps speed. But I'd have to hear arguments for much else. Wrestling on the other hand requires cardiovascular endurance, great amounts of strength and stamina, enormous power, agility, coordination, balance, speed, flexiblity, etc...
Get the idea?
You may be swayed by the activities you only like to do, but be assured, Karelin would fare pretty decently in a triathlon. Not that he would win, but he could compete and beat A LOT of dedicated triathletes. But I hate to imagine what would happen if Simon stepped into the ring.
So my question is this. Are you "FIT" ? Why wouldn't you want to get better at everything?
Sean White


