Help settle dispute on athleticism...

[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?