Help settle dispute on athleticism...

[Delfuego]

I guess I wasn't clear enough. You don't see fat guys playing hockey. There's plenty of fat guys playing basketball. Hell, even at a professional level.

And delfuego...not sure what you read or what you assumed about me...but that was an interesting response.

Sorry, got carried away...

Step into a hockey locker room and you will see lots of fat naked men... You just cant tell because of the loose sweater eh? You can be fat and good at hockey, kinda like judo in that way. You just have to know how to play.

[PugnacAutMortem]

Step into a hockey locker room and you will see lots of fat naked men

Remind me to never EVER step foot in a hockey locker room.

[Delfuego]

Remind me to never EVER step foot in a hockey locker room.

Have you ever been in the cockpit of an airplane? Do you like movies about gladiators?

[Ronin13]

Zero Theory-
While I have to say that was a very well thought out and logical argument- I will state this: One an 8mi run at a 6min/mi pace, I would say that for endurance, strength and stamina both a top level hockey player and top level basketball player would be evenly matched. On a cross compatibility test (meaning they each do common exercises the other sport does) the hockey player would be able to dribble, jog, sprint, walk, and pass without issues. However, the basketball player, if we assume he is capable of skating, would probably have problems at the end of what we hockey players call "an unusually long shift." That, my friend, is where I would place the hockey player on a higher level of athletic ability. Remember, both are conditioned similarly, but most often people will use the short-shift cop out, only because they don't understand that one, 20-min period of "short" shifts at a higher level of intensity is much more exhaustive than one half of basketball play time. And I know this because I've done both, and find hockey to be quite noticeably more athletically demanding.

[Scanker19]

Hockey is for pussies that don't like Sprite.

[MarkCO]

Zero Theory-
While I have to say that was a very well thought out and logical argument- I will state this: One an 8mi run at a 6min/mi pace, I would say that for endurance, strength and stamina both a top level hockey player and top level basketball player would be evenly matched. On a cross compatibility test (meaning they each do common exercises the other sport does) the hockey player would be able to dribble, jog, sprint, walk, and pass without issues. However, the basketball player, if we assume he is capable of skating, would probably have problems at the end of what we hockey players call "an unusually long shift." That, my friend, is where I would place the hockey player on a higher level of athletic ability. Remember, both are conditioned similarly, but most often people will use the short-shift cop out, only because they don't understand that one, 20-min period of "short" shifts at a higher level of intensity is much more exhaustive than one half of basketball play time. And I know this because I've done both, and find hockey to be quite noticeably more athletically demanding.

Yeah, but realize that one test that tested athlete's from all sports from a Div 1 school concluded that Baseball was overall the hardest sport. The top athletes from other sports fared miserably at baseball while the baseball players did very well at the other sports. Add to the mix that the best baseball players skip college and go straight to minor league teams not really hitting their prime until 28 while other sports prime out at about 23 to 24. Where's my monkey wrench.

[ZERO THEORY]

However, the basketball player, if we assume he is capable of skating, would probably have problems at the end of what we hockey players call "an unusually long shift." .

You do raise an interesting point here. However, I'd venture to say that the crossover plays both ways. A basketball player might struggle during a long shift, or be rudimentary at skating and stick skills, but the hockey player's in the same boat. He may be able to dribble, pass, and shoot, but only at the fundamental level as well. Hejduk isn't going to be able to drive to the basket on NBA players any better than Chris Paul is going to be able to crash the net against NHL players.

In keeping with my original cognitive and physical combo point from my previous post, look at that D. Rose video. He's making all the calculations I mentioned, getting airborne, then completely changing course and moving the ball in a different direction mid-flight. The amount of agility, speed, and plain ol' movement involved in one shooting play of his reads like a physiological scientist's wet dream. In hockey, a little bit of stickhandling and a feint before a shot is about as multifaceted as it gets during a single scoring attempt.

[spyder]

Are you guys talking about being good at the sport, or, just playing the damn thing? I played hockey only a couple times, and it wasn't that hard... I sucked though, and, didn't do much. I was great at b-ball, and runnin the damn court got tiring fast. In my case, basketball was harder, because I was better, and was able to do more/did more. I went back and forth on the ice, tried to do as much as I could, but wasn't really a threat to anyone of the other team as much as myself. I didn't get tired while playing hockey. So, the question stands for me, are you talking about being equally good at both sports, and which one at that point takes more stamina, or "athleticism"? I say Motocross (done right).

[def90]

Athleticism... about the same. Toughness.. hockey hands down. Both take a high level of skill and talent but basketball just doesn't stand up when it comes to taking a beating on a daily basis.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk 2

[ZERO THEORY]

Are you guys talking about being good at the sport, or, just playing the damn thing? I played hockey only a couple times, and it wasn't that hard... I sucked though, and, didn't do much. I was great at b-ball, and runnin the damn court got tiring fast. In my case, basketball was harder, because I was better, and was able to do more/did more. I went back and forth on the ice, tried to do as much as I could, but wasn't really a threat to anyone of the other team as much as myself. I didn't get tired while playing hockey. So, the question stands for me, are you talking about being equally good at both sports, and which one at that point takes more stamina, or "athleticism"? I say Motocross (done right).

I am looking at what the elite in each sport do physiologically during a standard play/action. There is no objective scale for how hard it is to become proficient at something, as some people can pick up aeronautical physics in half a semester while others struggle to read the syllabus in a 101 course. This applies tenfold to natural athleticism.
So I like to judge the two based on how quick they move during play, how many calculative movements are involved in a single play, how long their musculoskeletal system can perform at its peak during play, how much sensory coordination is involved in performing, and how "smart" they have to be to calculate their next movement/action.

Athleticism... about the same. Toughness.. hockey hands down. Both take a high level of skill and talent but basketball just doesn't stand up when it comes to taking a beating on a daily basis.

But toughness has nothing to do with this discussion. If it did, Muay Thai would probably be unanimously heralded as the 'toughest' sport, with a myriad of combat sports to follow, then rugby blowing hockey out of the water. Kind of irrelevant, no?